Bultmann essays philosophical and theological,
All New Testament scholars found themselves Bultmann essays philosophical and theological dialogue with him, and among theologians his position became the point of departure for major developments in both Germany and the United States.
The essay constitutes a brief theological encyclopedia. This means that only believers know Jesus was raised from the dead. Revelation is not available to us through human effort or human reason.
Later in his career, Bultmann would repudiate the personalistic, existential elements of his hermeneutical theory in favor of a more scientific, existentialist methodology. A few of them are translated elsewhere, such as in Existence and Faith.
None of that is relevant to the theological significance of this commentary, which is enormous. Thus, Bultmann did not see demythologization as something one might choose to do in order to preach to scientific Westerners, but rather as an opportunity to reflect on the nature of faith itself.
So the Word of God is not a superimposed interpretation on the facts of biblical history; rather, the function of the Word is to report what God has really done in history.
Bultmann described this move as follows. One of its most important features is the way Bultmann situates demythologizing within the rediscovery of the apocalyptic eschatology of Jesus and the early church.
The remarkable similarities between these stories led Bultmann to conclude that Christianity was itself "a remarkable product of syncretism" Bultmann Stanley Goodman and A.
In particular, readers will notice that some of his essays begin by establishing a certain rapport with a figure or text or idea that he wishes to problematize or criticize. I cannot begin to do it justice here, but let me give some context.
This is not to say that faith is a substitute for knowledge. Bobbs-Merrill, First, Bultmann judged mythological as the prevalent world-view of the first Christians. But when we do start from Christ, the whole of the world in nature and history can receive the illumination of revelation.
Some of the most important ones are in the last two volumes of Glauben und Verstehen. In spite of Barth's brilliant exposition of Christian theology and largely orthodox defense of it, his dualism of faith and critical history softened and weakened the historical core of biblical revelation.
This short book—the main text is only seventy-five trade-size pages—should be read cover to cover. This is why Barth says that revelation is not a concern of critical history. Thus, just like we relate to people, we must relate to a text in a way that acknowledges its claim upon us, its claim to inform our existence and say something new.
We cannot avoid presuppositions, but we can avoid dictating the outcome of the exegesis in advance.