The Recent Debate on the "New Quest JAMES M

Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch

Year: 1962

The recent debate on the “New Quest”

Robinson, James M

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/xxx.3.198

Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-154109 Journal Article Published Version

Originally published at: Robinson, James M (1962). The recent debate on the “New Quest”. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, XXX(3):198-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/xxx.3.198 Part One of a Symposium on the "New Quest of the Historical Jesus" The Recent Debate on the "New Quest JAMES M. ROBINSON

HAVE been asked to analyze the de- purpose of calling forth an American discus- velopment of the new quest of the his- sion of a new trend in German theology at I torical Jesus since 1959, to bring up to a time when the German discussion was still date the presentation in my book, A New in a formative stage, and with the result that Quest of the Historical Jesus.1 Since at the the discussion could become a two-way af- time of the second impression of that book fair. The very fact that the National Associ- in 1961 it was not possible even to include ation of Biblical Instructors is presenting a the additional material found in the German symposium on this topic in 1961, only seven edition of I960,2 such an up-dating of the years after the publication of Ernst Kase- material is highly necessary. The quantity mann's programmatic essay,8 whereas the of literature which has appeared since 1959 NABI symposium on demythologizing in exceeds considerably what had appeared 1957 came sixteen years after Rudolf Bult- prior to that date. And, although much of mann's proposal of 1941, is symptomatic of this added material has been repetitious and the increasing synchronization of the two the- has hardly advanced the debate, some sig- ological traditions which should be an attain- nificant developments have taken place. able objective in our day.4 A series of sym- They have their focus in the emergence of posia to be published by Harper & Brothers an opposition which had hardly become vis- under the title. New Frontiers in Theology: ible by 1959. Discussions Among German and American TJieologians, is to appear beginning in 1963 I with volumes entitled The Later Heidegger and Theology and The New Hermeneutics.6 In spite of various inadequacies in my We may express the hope that future NABI publication of 1959, it has served its major symposia will help this series achieve its purpose. JAMES M. ROBINSON is Professor of The- The extent to which the new quest of the ology and New Testament at the Southern Cal- historical Jesus has become a two-way con- ifornia School of Theology at Claremont He re- ceived the D.Theol. summa cum laude from the versation is indicated by the fact that Rudolf University of Basel, under Karl Barth. He has also Bultmann's reply to his students before the 6 studied under Rudolf Bultmann, Oscar Cullmann, Heidelberg Academy of Sciences not only Walter Eichrodt, and Emil Brunner. Dr. Robinson included critiques of my book and of his is serving this Summer as Guest Professor at the German students, but also was able to ap- University of Zurich. He is author of A New peal for support to letters from Edwin M. Quest of the Historical Jesus, now appearing in German and French editions, and is engaged as Good of Stanford University and Van A. co-editor of New Frontiers in Theology: Discus- Harvey of Southern Methodist University, sions Among German and American Theologians and to a review by R. H. Fuller of Seabury- and of Theologische Forschung: Wissenschajtlicht Western Theological Seminary. Accord- Beitrage sur kirchlich-evangclischen Lehre. The ingly, one of the significant new aspects of present contribution is based on a paper delivered the discussion with which we can appropri- at the National Meeting of the National Associa- tion of Biblical Instructors held at Concordia Sem- ately begin is the American participation inary, St. Louis, Missouri, December 29-30, 1961. and the particular role it plays. 198 THE RECENT DEBATE ON THE "NEW QUEST" 199

Since the original quest of the historical epic of salvation—the technical term is Jesus never really ended in America, we Heilsgeschichte—which comprise the one sense very acutely that the basic Problematik and only important chapter of all cosmic his- of the new quest is whether it can be any- tory."9 By thus presenting Form-criticism thing other than a revival of the old quest as maintaining the obviously absurd position with all its weaknesses, i.e., whether it can that we can know nothing of Jesus, the orig- be genuinely post-Bultmannian in retaining inal questers seek to eliminate their critics Bultmann's valid criticisms of the old quest. and to continue their quest as if nothing had To be sure, the very persistence of the orig- happened. It is no surprise that in such a inal quest at the grass roots means that the situation a young and vigorous Bultmannian new one can count on a grass-roots recep- systematician, Schubert M. Ogden, should tivity. Indeed, one may expect a blurring of take a first look at the new quest and com- the distinction between the original quest plain, "But it still remains a fair question and the new one—a setback I sought to whether the extent of the alleged 'newness' avoid by devoting the first half of my book may not depend entirely too much upon see- to a presentation of Bultmann's valid arguing it against the background of a highly ment that the original quest was historically over-simplified and even false impression of impossible and theologically illegitimate. Of Bultmann's own position."10 When Ogden course, it is also possible that one will then comments in a footnote that "this ques- change with the changing times. Thus, Er- tion is even raised, though no doubt unin- nest Cadman Colwell, speaking before this tentionally, by Robinson himself," I would Association in 1959 on prospects for New merely respond that I quite intentionally Testament scholarship during the next fifty questioned the caricature of Bultmann's po- years, was able to refer to the new quest as sition and even went to the trouble of col- typical of the research of the future, not lecting a long footnote of quotations from simply because he as a student of Shirley Bultmann to disprove the caricature. How- Jackson Case was convinced that Christian- ever, in spite of all that we can do, the cari- ity must build upon the historical Jesus, but cature persists as a foil for the continuing also because he believed that the socio-his- quest of the "compelling personality" and torical method of Case must be replaced or "unflinching bravery" of Jesus.11 at least supplemented by the new methods It is as just one more instance of this he had found exemplified in Powicke and well-known tradition that the talk of a new Bloch and which are usually associated with quest of the historical Jesus strikes many the names of Dilthey and Collingwood.7 ears. The younger generation, for whom The Problematik involved in this un- that well-known tradition is anathema, are broken continuity with the original quest, therefore tempted to react to the new quest which is for better or worse the American by rejecting it out of hand. Paul W. Meyer Sits im Leben of the new quest, becomes puts the matter bluntly: "In form, this [new quite visible in a very recent American life quest] parallels perfectly the older liberal of Jesus, Morton Scott Enslin's The Prophet understanding of faith as the reproduction, jrom Nazareth.8 In this volume, Form-criti- in my religious experience, of Jesus' feeling cism and its kerygmatic theology are brushed of Sonship in relation to God—and it is like aside with the standard caricature: "In the other totally dependent on historical fa- place of the historical Jesus, whom they as- miliarity with Jesus' person. We seem to sume it is impossible to discover, and thus have here a complete capitulation to the for whom further search is an unwarranted heirs of Schweitzer."12 And, significantly waste of time, they set the figure of the enough, Meyer alludes to Walter Bell Den- Eternal Christ and his part in the all-central ny's The Career and Significance of Jesus 200 JAMES M. ROBINSON

(1934) as "an extreme example"—as if to that 'the Word became flesh and dwelt say, bad company corrupts good manners. among us.' "w But anyone who expects such Hence, if any advocate of the new quest is a statement as this last from a historian sim- to make his point in the present situation, ply does not understand the limits set on the he must go to great pains to argue that the historian's trade. And, indeed, Macquarrie's new quest does not "parallel perfectly" the contention is more reminiscent of the posi- old. The new quest does not attempt to dis- tivistic program of Ethelbert Stauffer, cover how Jesus felt, for the records tell us roundly rejected by all involved in the new not how he felt but what his significance quest, than of the new quest itself. To be was. Jesus' understanding of existence was sure, Macquarrie states his "minimal core" not his stream of consciousness, but the unin language much like that of the new quest: derstanding of existence which emerged in "Simply that there was someone who once history from his words and deeds. It is this, exhibited in history the possibility of exist- not his personality or the alleged specifics ence which the kerygma proclaims."15 He of his biography, which is his historic per- apparently means by this that the reality son. Neither is faith to be regarded as the proclaimed by the kerygma is to be proven imitating reproduction of a human stance. historically to have taken place in the case of Faith is a response to God, to the same es- Jesus. But again, this reality is God's eschat- chatological act of God which the kerygma ological, saving action, and, as such, it sim- proclaims as one with the event of Jesus. ply cannot be proven historically. This act of Faith is not totally dependent on liistorieal God is faith's "fact" and that is why no familiarity with Jesus' person, for that es- "minimal core" of this kind of "factuality" chatological act of God is proclaimed in the can ever be provided by the historian. To be kerygma. Indeed, it is as a result of faith in sure, Bultmann rightly identifies the gospel the kerygma—which itself points to Jesus as consisting for Paul in the having-hap- as the locus of God's action—that the fides penedness of the eschatological event once quaerens intellectum as theological reflection and for all, and it is that message which is enters upon the new quest Hence, the new directed to me as the proclamation that it is quest need not and should not be "a com- happening in my life. But this does not plete capitulation to the heirs of Schweitzer" ; and, in fact, I conclude my review-article of mean that the gospel is to be proved in the The Prophet from Nazareth with the state- one case and believed in the other, but ment, "The critical reader of this book is rather that I believe it to have happened compelled to become a Bultmannian."18 once and for all when I believe that it hap- pens now to me. This is the way the Chris- This Problematik of the new quest's situ- tian understands his existence. But to prove ation within the context of the old is present that this understanding of existence emerges within systematic theology as well as in the from the historical Jesus is not to prove that New Testament aspect of the debate. Thus, such an understanding is true, i.e., it does John Macquarrie welcomes the new quest as not prove that God has acted or does act. support for his insistence that the historian Nor can the desire for a "minimal core" of should provide the kerygma with an "em- proven security be the motive for inquiring pirical anchor," a "minimal core of factual- after Jesus' understanding of existence. The ity." What Macquarrie has in mind is sug- real motive lies within the context of fides gested by his criticism that a demythologizing quaerens intellectum, of theology reflecting interpretation of the stilling of the storm upon its faith; it does not lie outside faith denies "any objective reference in the story," in a realm that supposedly furnishes a i.e., denies "that Christ had in fact stilled a proven access into faith. Hence, Carl Mi- storm on the lake." Over against this, Mac- chalson is correct in his criticism of Mac- quarrie affirms, "the minimal assertion is THE RECENT DEBATE ON THE "NEW QUEST" 201

quarrie: "This positivistic drive leads Mac- Conzelmann withdrew from the new quest quarrie to misinterpret the purpose of the by arguing that although one was free to current revival of the 'question of the his- inquire as to the historical Jesus the matter torical Jesus."1* was irrelevant to Christian faith.20 The emergence of critical reservations II concerning the new quest is not confined to such more-sensed-than-fully-documented The most significant thing that has taken feathers in the wind. For Bultmann's reply place in the discussion within German cir- to his own students, first expressed in per- cles since 1959 is not the endless flood of sonal correspondence, was made public in publications. (These are often more impres- an address before the Heidelberg Academy sive in quantity than quality; the 710-page of Sciences on July 25, 1959 and was pub- symposium, Der historische Jesus und der lished in December, I960.21 kerygmatische Christus, published in East Berlin, is a most glaring instance.17) Of Bultmann begins his reply by distinguish- primary significance instead is the emer- ing the question of the historical continuity gence of an opposition in Germany, parallel- between Jesus and the kerygma from the ing that in the United States and emerging question of their material relation to each for much the same reason. For previously other. With respect to the question of his- the surprise caused by a Bultmannian pro- torical continuity, first, he points out that posing a new quest was only equalled by the his position does not deny a historical con- way in which the new quest at first swept tinuity. Such continuity is affirmed in his everything before it. The "hefty debate" very insistence upon the "dass" rather than originally predicted by Kasemann has only the "was," his insistence that the kerygma, now begun to emerge—although not quite while not interested in historical information as he expected. For he probably did not an- about Jesus, was centrally concerned to af- ticipate that he would himself be pushed firm that the heavenly Lord was one with Jesus of Nazareth. Were there no Jesus more and more toward the opposition by the 22 way in which his main competitor for the there would have been no kerygma. Sec- mantle of leadership in Bultmannian circles, ondly, Bultmann investigates current at- Ernst Fuchs, would be combining the new tempts to demonstrate a material relation quest with a revival of nineteenth-century that goes beyond this "dass." Some have theology.18 Kasemann himself has most re- sought to do this by arguing that the ke- cently identified the fanatical apocalypticism rygma includes a picture of the historical emerging from the Easter experience—not Jesus and his work. But Bultmann points from any imminent expectation in Jesus' out that kerygmatic traditions prior to the eschatology—as the "matrix of Christian gospels do not contain such a picture. theology."19 Hence, Heilsgeschichte, rather Hence, the debate boils down to whether the than the new quest, seems a better way to gospels, as one form of the kerygma, can be express the primitive Christian concern for regarded as a kerygmatic tradition which history. included a picture of the historical Jesus. In a somewhat parallel way Hans Conzel- Bultmann first argues the point, which by mann, as long as he was at Zurich with Ger- now is hardly contested, that the gospels do hard Ebeling, was willing to share in the not have the kind and amount of historical new quest, merely warning against potential information needed for a biography. To be dangers in the position of Fuchs and Eb- sure, some historical information can be eling. But when he went to Gottingen, inferred from the Synoptics, information where an unbroken continuity with the orig- which Bultmann summarizes. He senses, inal quest is—in the person of Joachim Jere- however, that the great difficulty in working mias—most ably represented in Germany, out a picture of the historical Jesus is that 202 JAMES M. ROBINSON one cannot know how Jesus faced his death. question of how Jesus felt in his final twenty- The predictions of the passion are vaticinia four hours, it is methodologically sound to ex eventu, and the psychological argument avoid the cul de sac. • by Fuchs emphasizing the impact of John Bultmann's basic objection to the appeal the Baptist's death is not convincing, since to the Synoptics is that it involves a "per- Jesus did not understand himself as being version" of the actual situation with regard at one with John. Furthermore, while we do to those sources. "The combination of his- not really know much about Jesus' last torical report and kerygmatic christology in twenty-four hours, we must reckon with the the synoptics is not intended to legitimize possibility that he was convinced that he the kerygma of Christ by means of history, was to be killed for the wrong reason, and but the other way around, to legitimize so- hence that he looked ahead to his coming to-speak the history of Jesus as messianic, death as a meaningless failure. by putting it in the light of the kerygmatic 26 Now, worthwhile though such information christology." Bultmann appeals in this connection to Hans Conzelmann's presenta- about Jesus' death might be to someone 26 writing a biography or a personality sketch, tion of the messianic secret. Now the view Jesus' relation to his death is theologically of the messianic secret originally held by relevant at only one point: When the ke- Wrede and Bultmann does support Bult- rygma speaks of Jesus giving up his life and mann's present position: Unmessianic sto- accepting his death, is this talk about Jesus ries became acceptable only with the help of Nazareth or, despite the use of his name, of the excuse that Jesus kept his messiah- talk not about him but about, e.g., a non- ship secret; i.e., the historical Jesus was ac- historical death-resurrection myth? If the ceptable only when he no longer posed a former, it is not a matter of how he did or did threat to Christology, but had been brought not interpret what was going on in his final indirectly into conformity with Christology. twenty-four hours; it is not a matter of his But Bultmann has not revised his use of the psychological processes, his stream of con- messianic secret in the light of the fact that sciousness, at any given time. It is a matter Conzelmann's view of the messianic secret is of the emergence from Jesus of Nazareth explicitly a reversal of the traditional inter- of an understanding of existence consisting pretation of Wrede and Bultmann. Prior to in the renunciation of the present evil eon in Mark, the oral tradition had already become order to live instead out of the inbreaking messianic or Christological. Mark's work kingdom of God as expressed, e.g., in the consists in superimposing upon this Chris- saying that he who loses his life saves it, tological tradition his own paradoxical un- and he who saves his life loses it. Bultmann derstanding of the kerygma, explicated in refers to my "avoiding" the problem of our terms of the secretness of the messiahship. ignorance of how Jesus felt on Good Friday Thus, two kerygmatizing phases are in- through taking recourse in the acceptance volved. The congregation made use of the of death as pervasively emerging as Jesus' Jesus-tradition to present its Christology. understanding of existence.28 As a matter of But this Christology seemed inadequately fact my point is one Bultmann himself once kerygmatic to Mark. So, rather than return- made, in asserting that Paul's understanding ing to the Pauline alternative of proclaiming of existence is implicit in Jesus' thought.24 only the cross, Mark accepted the principle I am merely arguing that it is the implicit- that the Jesus-tradition must itself present ness of the kerygma in Jesus' understanding the true kerygma. Accordingly, he corrected of existence that is required by the ke- the Jesus-tradition to bring it into line with rygma's reference to Jesus, if that reference the true kerygma, thereby producing the is in fact a fitting one. Since this problem Gattung "gospel." If thus the Jesus-tradition can be met without recourse to the insoluble was corrected by the kerygma, that tradition THE RECENT DEBATE ON THE "NEW QUEST" 203 was already of such theological relevance Second Corinthians is directed.29 This new that the question of whether it conformed heresy, rather than anathematizing Jesus, to the kerygma was crucial not only for it preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4), but also for the kerygma.28* and on the basis of this position the evange- This emergence of the Jesus-tradition lists claim to be in a particular way "Christ's" into the light of history in Mark had a back- (II Cor. 10:7). If one may infer from their ground in primitive Christian debate, to view of a superior apostle their view of which recent research has drawn our atten- Jesus' superiority, the latter view seems to tion. Since Bultmann has taught us that be- have consisted in regarding Jesus as an im- lieving the kerygma involves committing pressive, power-wielding, miracle-working ourselves to a specific understanding of ex- 0iio>s avqp. In this new heresy much the same istence, we are now in a position to correlate understanding of existence is advanced as debates about Christian existence with Chris- had previously been advocated in Corinth tological developments, and out of this com- by appeal to union with the heavenly Lord, bination to reconstruct meaningful segments except that now the appeal is made to a of primitive Christian history previously Jesus-tradition. The way that this invasion only vaguely sensed. There emerged in by a Jesus-tradition into the Pauline congre- Paul's Corinthian congregation, as can be gation threatens to sweep everything before inferred from First Corinthians, a proto- it is reflected by the violence of Paul's "tear- gnostic perception of existence, according to ful letter" (II Cor. 10-13) and by the ex- which the baptized are already in glory and treme anxiety he expresses over how the thus are beyond historical existence with all 27 mission of Titus to Corinth with that letter its temptations and suffering. According will turn out (II Cor. 2:12-13; 7:6ff.). It to this view, one is united with the resur- is in this situation that Paul makes his dra- rected Lord, not with the earthly Jesus; matic statement against knowing Christ ac- indeed, Jesus can even be anathematized (I 28 cording to the flesh (II Cor. 5 :16), a state- Cor. 12:3). Paul's letter insists upon the ment to which Bultmann so often appeals. cross-"side" of the kerygma as the position In sharp contrast to such a fleshly under- where the Christian in this life is to be standing of Jesus and its resultant under- located, i.e. he insists that the kerygma standing of existence as a whole, Paul pre- proclaims the understanding of existence in- sents in Second Corinthians as in First volved in taking up one's cross. Our resur- Corinthians the understanding of existence rection must wait its turn, which is not which he identifies in the kerygma. yet but at the end. The power of the resurrection is in this life paradoxical, i.e., it is If by a supreme effort, yet merely by use revealed by our suffering, since that power of the kerygma and without recourse to a is the power to persist and endure in temp- Jesus-tradition, Paul thus succeeded in re- tation and suffering. So Paul argues in asserting his authority in Corinth against terms of the cross, rather than in terms of the "superlative apostles," this solution was the historical Jesus, although he does repu- to prove increasingly difficult to maintain, diate the anathematizing of Jesus. as the Jesus-tradition continued to circulate. If First Corinthians succeeded in its ob- Hence, by the time of Mark, what had been jective, Paul's procedure in this case is an possible for Paul was no longer possible, instance of Bultmann's oft-repeated appeal and Mark had to meet the 0«os

church. But the use of the same word, ke- ' Lest one project this graph into the past in rygma, both for the church's act of preaching terms of a concept of straight-line progress, and in a way that discredits the past, it should be noted and for the content of the Easter message of that Shirley Jackson Case's The Historicity of cross and resurrection obscures the fact that Jesus appeared in 1912, analyzing a German debate the problem of Jesus' message as against which, though begun somewhat earlier, at least that of the modern preacher is no different had been brought to its peak by Drews's Die from the problem of primitive Christianity's Christusmythe of 1909 and the latter's debate with message as against that of the modern von Soden before the Monistenbund of Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 1910 (cf. pp. 39f., note 2 in Case's presenta- preacher. A historian's reconstruction, for tion). example, of the pre-Pauline Hellenistic or •Edited by James M. Robinson and John B. Palestinian kerygma is just as non-keryg- Cobb, Jr. matic as is the historian's reconstruction 'Das Verhdltnis der ttrchristlichen Christusbot- of Jesus. Yet since the rise of historical- schaft sum historischen Jesus, presented July 25, critical method, the historical kerygma has 1959, published in the Sitsungsberichte der Heidel- been a legitimate and necessary subject of berger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philoso- inquiry—not to replace the minister's phisch-historische Klasse, Jg. 1960, 3. Abh., 27 pp. ' "New Testament Scholarship in Prospect," preaching, but to improve it. The denial of The Journal of Bible and Religion, XXVIII, 2 the relevance of the historical study of (April, 1960), 199-203, espec 2021 Jesus can be separated only in, an arbitrary •New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. See the re- way from a denial of the relevance of his- view-article by Jamet M. Robinson, "The Prophet torical-critical and existentialist exegesis of from Nazareth," The Journal of Bible and Religion, the New Testament text. Just as one can XXX, 1 (Jan., 1962), 46-8. say that historical-critical and existentialist * The Prophet from Nasareth, p. 5. interpretation of the New Testament is not "In the introduction to a collection of Bult- mann's shorter writings published as Existence and of the esse of preaching, but belongs to the Faith, ed. Ogden, New York: Meridian Books, bene esse of preaching, so one can say that 1960, p. 12. Cf., similarly, Ogden, Christ without in our situation the historical study of Jesus Myth, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961, p. 81. is not of the esse of preaching, but belongs "Enslin, The Prophet from Nasareth, pp. 212, to its bene esse. Thus, the basic refutation of 214f. u Bultmann's position on the relevance of the "The Problem of the Messianic Self-Conscious- historical Jesus is that if carried to its ulti- ness of Jesus," Novum Testamentum, IV (I960), 133. mate consequence it would prove too much. " Robinson, op. cit., p. 48. It would bring to an end the scholarly study 14 John Macquarrie, The Scope of Demythologix- of the Bible and theological scholarship in ing: Bultmann and His Critics, New York: Harper general as having any function for the church. & Brothers, 1960, pp. 18, 19, 91 ff., 245ft. At stake ultimately is the relevance of bib- u Ibid., p. 93. lical and theological scholarship for the "In his review, "A Misunderstanding of Bult- church, a point which is by no means always mann," Interpretation, XV, 4 (Oct., 1961), 491-96, conceded by the church but upon which we espec 494. 11 Ed. Helmut Ristow and Karl Matthiae, Berlin: at least should be of one mind. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960. Its contributors are K. Adam, P. Althaus, E. Barnikol, G. Born- kamm, H. Braun, E. Brunner, R. Bultmann, F. NOTES AND REFERENCES Buri, M. Burrows, H. Conzelmann, O. Cullmann, 1Naperville, 111.: Allenson; London: SCM N. A. Dahl, J. Danielou, G. Delling, H. Diem, Press, 1959. E. Fascher, J. de Fraine, E. Fuchs, H. Gollwitzer, * Kerygma und historischer Jesus, Zurich: L. Goppelt, W. Grundmann, O. Haendler, E. Zwingli Verlag, 1960. Heitsch, I. Henderson, R. Hermann, J. L. Hro- ' "Das Problem des historischen Jesus," Zeit- madka, J. Jeremias, H. Jursch, K. Karner, W. G. schrift fur Theologie und Kirche, LI (1954), Kummel, J. LdpoWt, R. Marie, W. Michaelis, O. 125-53. Michel, W. Nagel, B. Reicke, H. Riesenfeld, 208 JAMES M. ROBINSON

B. Rigaux, R. Schnackenburg, J. Schneider, H. J. Johannes Schreiber, "Die Christologie des Markus- Schoeps, E. Schott, H. Schumann, E. Schweizer, evangeliums", ZThK, LVIII (1961), 154-83. E. Stauffer, H. Urner, K. Weiss, and M. Werner. "To be sure, the Synoptics do not use an objec- Several of the essays are reprints of earlier publica- tive, historical Jesus-tradition, but rather the Jesus- tions. tradition current in the church of their day. Yet, u Cf. Fuchs's collected essays on the topic, Zur once we recognize that our historical reconstruc- Frage nach dem historischen Jesus, Tubingen: Mohr, tions are themselves historically conditioned by our Collected Papers II, 1960. Cf. also his subsequent own situation, the actual distinction between our essays, "Muss man an Jesus glauben, wenn man an historical-critical reconstruction of Jesus and the Gott glauben will?," Zeitschrift fur Theologie und kerygmatized Jesus-tradition of the Synoptics is Kirche, LVIII (1961), 45-67, and "Das Neue relativized. (Indeed, the heroic courage and im- Testament und das hermeneutische Problem," ibid., pressive personality of Jesus proclaimed in the current lives of Jesus are materially not too different 198-226. from the divine-man Christology of the oral tradi- ""Die Anfange christlicher Theologie," ZThK, tion.) Bultmann tacitly recognizes this when he LVII (1960), 162-185. Cf. the critical replies by builds his argument upon the fact that Paul only Gerhard Ebeling, "Der Grund christlicher Theo- rarely cites sayings of the Lord and that John does logie," ZThK, LVIII (1961), 227-244, and Ernst not operate like the Synoptics—points which be- Fuchs, "Ober die Atrfgabe einer christlichen Theo- come relevant only if Bultmann assumes that the logie," ibid., 245-267. rare Pauline citations and the Synoptic Gospels " This is the substance of Conzelmann's inaugural tend to be on the historical-Jesus side of the de- address at Gottingen, which he does not plan to bate. publish, since its delivery coincided with the pub- " Das Verhaltnis . . ., p. 13, note 24. lication of Bultmann's address which Conzelmann " Ibid., pp. 15-7. regards as stating adequately his own position. Cf. "Ibid., p. 18. also Conzelmann's essay "Jesus von Nazareth und " Ibid., pp. 18-20. der Glaube an den Auferstandenen," in Der his- " Cf. "Das Zeitverstandnis Jesu," a lecture course torische Jesus und der kerygmatiscke Christus, ed. of 1959-60, published in Zur Frage nach dem his- Ristow and Matthiae, pp. 188-199. torischen Jesus, pp. 304-76. In Kerygma und his- 21 Das Verhdltnis der urchristlichen Christus- torischer Jesus (p. 160), I attempt to achieve this botschaft. . . . goal in the presentation of my own position by re- -Ibid., p. 8. placing the term "self-understanding" with "under- 'Ibid., p. 11, note ia standing of existence," which is in turn defined in ** Glauben und Verstehen, Tubingen: Mohr, 1933, terms of Jesus' eschatological "understanding of Vol. I, pp. 196ff. the present" In his essay, "Das Neue Testament ZThK, " Das Verhaltnis . . ., p. 13. und das hermeneutische Problem," LVIII (1961), 198-226, which he considers an indirect " "Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen reply to Bultmann's criticism, Fuchs presents Jesus' Tradition," ZThK, LIV (1957), 293-95. message in terms of such an "understanding of *** Cf. the similar but independent argument by time." Gerhard Ebeling, Theologie und Verkundigung. "* Cf. Ebeling's detailed reply to Bultmann, The- Em Gesprach mit \Rudolf Bultmann, Vol. I of ologie und Verkundigung. Ein Gesprach mit Rudolf Hermeneutische Untersuchungen stur Theologie, Bultmann, Vol. I of the series Hermeneutische 1962, Appendix 7, "Die Frage nach dem theolo- Untersuchungen tur Theologie, esp. chap. 3, "Ke- gischen Motiv der Evangelienbildung," pp. 125-127. rygma und historischer Jesus," which not only in * Cf. the summary by Heinrich Schlier, Evan- its title but also in its argument has much in com- gelische Theologie, XI (1948/49), 462-73. mon with my position with regard to Bultmann. " Cf. Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth, Unfortunately this work appeared too late (end Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1956, pp. of April, 1962) to be included in the present paper 45ff.; also Dieter Georgi's review of this work, other than in such a note as this added at the time Verkundigung und Forschung, Theol. Jahresbe- of proofreading. richt (1958/59), 1960, p. 91. "Das Verhaltnis . . ., pp. 19-21. "Cf. the unpublished Heidelberg dissertation of "Ibid., pp. 21-2. Dieter Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus in 2 Kor. 2, "Ibid., pp. 22; 23, note 72. 14-7, 4 und 10-13. 'Ibid., p. 27. " This thesis has been carried out in detail by " Ibid., p. 17.