CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL Menfhly

CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MeNfHLY

Rudolf Bultmann Revisited OTfO W. HEICK

The Qumran Meal and the Last Supper

JOHN E. GROH

Documentation PAUL E. LUTZ

Homiletics

Book Review

Vol. XLI May 1970 No.5

" S- j Rudolf Bultmann Revisited OlTO W. HEICK

arly in the fifties the writer asked the Schmithals' book is an objective and E late Paul Althaus of Erlangen whether for the most part uncritical review of the in his opinion World War II ushered in basic tenets of Bultmann's theology. Yet a new epoch in the history of theology, precisely for this reason it is a useful in as had been the case with the firSt World troduction to Bultmann. War. His answer was no. The emphasis According to Bultmann, the subject of in theology, he felt, had remained un theology is God, in Greek theologia,3 but changed. Seen from the vantage point of talking of God does not mean talking the mid-sixties, we know that Althaus was about God.4 God is not an object of ra wrong. Gradually through the fifties in tional inquiry. If He were, He would be terest in neoorthodoxy declined. Karl one object among many in the world of Barth no longer dominated the theological man. God is the transcendent one known scene. The name of Rudolf Bultmann be only by revelation. Revelation has two gan to claim primary attention. The his poles: the revealer and the recipient. torical problems of the New Testament Without the recipient there is no revela gained momentum. Being at first a con tion.5 Hence talk of God is at the same cern of New Testament scholars, the time talk of man. Theology and anthro proper relation between faith and history, pology are intrinsically related. "Here," Glauben und Verstehen (faith and under Schmithals says, "we come up against one standing), also became the central theme of the basic phenomena of Bultmann's of systematic theology. Rightly or theology ... which permeates all his the wrongly, the name of Bultmann has be ological thought." 6 It is his method of come the embodiment of all problems of hermeneutics, the phenomenon of the sub recent theology. In this essay we shall first examine two ject-object pattern of thought and the important publications dealing with the overcoming of it. .According to Gogarten, flurry caused by the Bultmann school, both this pattern of thought is linked with the originally published in 1966: Walter Cartesian view of reality: cogito ergo sum. Schmithals, An Introduction to the T he By means of this pattern Descartes posited ology of Rudolf Bultmann,! and Heinz an isolated subject and thus, inevitably, an Zahrnt, Die Sache mit Gott.2 pletion of the manuscript of this article, the book has been published in English: The Quest 1 Walter Schmithals, An Introduction to the 0/ God: Protestant Theology in the Twentieth Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (Minneapolis: Century, trans. R. A. Wilson (New York: Har Augsburg Publishing House, 1968), trans. John court, Brace & World, 1969) . Bowden from the German Die Theologie Ru dolf Bultmanns: eine Ein/uhrung. 3 Schmithals, p. 22. 4 Ibid., p.27. 2 Heinz Zahrnt, Die Sache mit Gott (Miin chen: R. Piper & Co., 1966) . Since the com- 5 Cf. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), The author is professor emeritus of systema III if. tic theology at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary. 6 Schmithals, p. 28. 260 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED

isolated object. Bultmann does not deny counter between God and man by the the priority of God. He is not a religious phenomenon of love. "Can I," he asks, atheist. He is reported to have said in "present love to myself as an object so March 1943: "Naturally I do not main that it becomes the object of my thought tain that God is a fictitious personification and speech? Or can I make me person of subjective states of the soul." 7 What he I love an object of an investigation into denies is the proper knowledge of God the meaning of love?" Bultmann answers apart from faith. The theologian should the question in the negative: "By making not concern himself with the mere his love an object of investigation I have put torical facts recorded in a document lest myself already outside of love. Love is no he would again fall into the trap of the datum; it is not an object." 12 Unless a subject-object mode of thinking; instead person has a V orverstandnis ("pre-under he should concentrate on the historic sig standing") of love, he cannot understand nificance that the event has for faith. Bult a text speaking of love. mann quotes both Luther and Melanch In our opinion, Bultmann confuses the thon: To know Christ is to know His possibility and validity of talk of love and benefits.s A mere rational acceptance of talk of God. Does Vorverstandnis not in the Scriptures is no faith at all. Christian volve some objective knowledge of love theology is eminently dialectical. "These or God? Did Paul put himself outside of two belong together, faith and God." 9 love when he penned 1 Corinthians 13? In Scripture "does not deal with the world the reported discussion Bultmann added: and man as they are in themselves, but "God is outside me in so far as he en constantly sees the world and man in their counters me - and that too, transforming relation to God." 10 Paul's theology is at my existence." Gollwitzer continues: "In the same time anthropology. Theology is more precise terms this sentence would not talk about God but talk from God surely have to run: I know God's being brought about by the Holy Spirit; it "is outside me only in so far as he encounters God's own talk." 11 me. In the form it is ambiguous. It could Bultmann likes to illustrate this en- also mean that God's being is identical with the event of the encounter, that is, 7 Helmut Gollwitzer, The Existence of God with the event of the Word." 13 In the as Confessed by Faith, trans. James W. Leitch (London: SCM Press, 1964), p.34. Contrary final analysis, Bultmann's approach is to this interpretation, Helmut Thielicke includes rooted in the Kantian-Ritschlian tradition Bultmann in his review of Cartesian theology mediated by his teacher Wilhelm Herr because for Bultmann everything revolves around the self. See Der evangelische Glaube: mann - in Ritschl's distinction between Grundzuge de.,. Dogmatik, I (Tiibingen: ]. c. B. religious or value judgments and theoreti Mohr, 1968), pp. 50 if. cal judgments (Seinsurteile). Contrary to 8 Schmithals, p.36. the widespread notion, Ritschl did not ex 9 Martin Luther, "Large Catechism: The First Commandment," in The Book of Con clude being from value judgment. He cord, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: meant that in religion the highest subjec- Fortress Press, 1959), p. 365. 10 Schmithals, p. 35. 12 Ibid., p. 30. 11 Ibid., p. 42. 13 Gollwitzer, p. 34. RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED 261 tive interest is included, which is not the philosophy, between the existentialist in case in science, which is purely objective, terpretation as a theological method _ .. factual. Likewise Bultmann does not want of working out the proper interpretation to deny the priority of God to man's en of biblical texts and the existentialist inter counter with God. But in his reply to his pretation as a transformation of the Bible's critics in Kerygma and Myth he adopted assertions into assertions of man's self an indecisive intermediary position. On understanding without God's revelation, the one hand he says, "That God cannot be and thus with the loss of the real object seen apart from faith does not mean that of the Bible - between a theological and he does not exist apart from it." 14 On atheistic interpretation of the Bible." 15 the other hand he stresses that the relation In Greek thought man is part of the between God and man is possible only in cosmos. He is subject to the laws, the the concrete encounter between God and forms appointed for the world. These are man. What remains transcendent in this eternal, "and man is eternal when he par experience does not belong to the en ticipates in them." Man is "a particular counter, of the general and understands the enig An act of God leaves the weft of history mas of his existence in understanding the closed and undisturbed. "He [Bultmann} conformity of the -whole to law." That stands benveen revelational theology and means man is "an object of observation like the other objects of nature." Greek 14 Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, trans. thought offers a comprehensive Weltan Reginald H. Fuller, I (London: SPCK, 1953), Sc!J,1uung. Universalia a1zte rern, Esse pre 191-211, especially pp. 200 f. Much of the 16 uncertainty is due to an "intolerable ambiguity" cedes existence. in Bultmann. "The events of revelation and Bultmann rejects this view as an evasion history are thrown into a befogging twilight and their contours disappear" (Walter Kiin of the New Testament view of authentic neth, "Bultmann's Philosophy and the Reality existence. Man realizes his existence not of Salvation," in Kerygma and History, ed. Carl in the sphere of the abstract but only in E. Braaten and Roy E. Harrisville [New York a concrete situation. According to the and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962}, p. 106). In faith an exchange takes place "that is wholly Greek understanding of existence, man without analogy in the sphere of thinking. The knows of his ideal determination and sale analogy is the encounter between human be ought to shape himself to it. According ings, the meeting of person with person. . . . When I stand opposite to God, I am face-to to the Biblical understanding of existence, face with him who unconditionally is no 'some man must realize his existence in all con thing', who in the unconditional sense is pure crete situations. "I become myself at par 'Thou'" (Emil Brunner, Truth as Encounter, [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964} , pp. ticular times in particular situations." No 114 f.). Cf. also Gollwitzer on "The Analogical universal law guides my decision. Man Character of Personal Talk of God," op. cit., knows that he is possibility, and this is all p. 183. He refers to Goethe who mockingly played off the superiority of his own supra· he knows of the future. Man runs his personal view of God against the personal view: "What boots me your aversion/ To the All and 15 Gollwitzer, p. 31. One? / The Professor is a person/ God is none." 16 Buitmann, Glauben 1lnd Verstehen, II Ibid., p. 187. (Tiibingen: ]. C. B. Mohr, 1961), 72 f. 262 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED course in the incidental, the individual, in Schmithals as "existential," existential by the sphere of historyP "existentialist." Bultmann makes a strict The student of the history of Christian distinction between them, and with this thought will recognize in this view of man distinction he expresses a fundamental the heritage of Kierkegaard on the one concern in his theology. hand and that of modern atheistic existen "Existentialist" analysis analyzes the tialism on the other. In Fear and Trem general structure of man. Man separates bling, for example, Kierkegaard expresses himself from himself, making himself an the idea that Christian ethics is not a set object of investigation. He pursues ontol of immovable rules to be applied regard ogy. He is a philosopher. He describes the less of time and circumstances. It is life different possibilities of existence but is to be lived under the lordship of Christ.IS not personally involved in his quest. Likewise Heidegger does not look for an When man decides for a concrete pos answer to authentic human existence in sibility of existence, he is engaged "ex the view of the cosmos, the universal; and istentially." Existence never occurs "ex Heidegger's llilderstanding of existence istentialistically" but always "existentially." corresponds exactly to what Bultmann re "The concrete possibilities which man puts gards as the Biblical understanding of into existential realization are ontic." This hu.'llan existence. These views have also is t~!e fund'HH.;ntal concern of theology: shaped the approach of the modern situa decision for existential, ontic existence. tional ethicists such as John A. T. Robin Philosophy is descriptive, theology is con son 19 and Joseph Fletcher.20 cerned with a personal dedsion.22 Like In this connection it is important to his teacher Wilhelm Herrmann, Bultmann understand the difference made by Bult is a "liberal Billy Graham," A wide gap mann between existentiell and existential. between Bultmann and Aulen, for whom "Other misunderstandings," Karl Batth theology is a purely descriptive endeavor, has said, "may be forgiven. This one is evident. Like any other science, Aulen never." 21 Existentiell is rendered by maintains, it has a place in the universities only as a descriptive discipline. Its exis 17 Ibid. tential concern is taken cate of by the pul 18 Cf. Otto W. Heick, History of Christian Thought, II (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, pit. Bultmann on the other hand 1966), 221. "preaches" even in the classroom of the 19 John A. T. Robinson, Christian Morais university.23 Today (London: SCM Press, 1964). We have introduced into our discussion 20 Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster the term "authentic" existence. This term Press, 1966); Moral Responsibility: Situation needs further clarification. First, authentic Ethics at Work (Philadelphia: Westminster existence implies the possibility of "in Press, 1967). Schmithals discusses Bultmann's situational approach to ethics in chapter 12, authentic" existence. pp. 273 ff. 21 Karl Barth, "Rudolf Bultmann - An At 22 Schmithals, pp. 68 f. tempt to Understand Him," trans. Reginald H. 23 Gustaf Aulen, The Faith of the Christitm Fuller in Kerygma and Myth, II (London: SCM Church (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, Press, 1962), 83-132. 1948), pp. 3 ff. RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED 263

In Heidegger's view Dasein has always past, and because he never lives authenti fallen away from itself into the "world." cally, he is cut off from the future. Man falls victim to the influence of every Corresponding to the understanding of day life "in which each man is the other sin as inauthentic existence, Bultmann ex and no one is himself." This seems to plains faith as authentic existence. Faith bring tranquility to man's existence. He is a new "self-understanding." Since man's finds security in being one of the herd, and e~istence is for death, authentic existence the tempting tranquility heightens the fall. accepts the fact that man's being is a finite "All this happens on the basis of an anx one. Being in the moment is man's au iety in which the insignificance of my thentic being. "In this sense Heidegger Dase,·.. and the nothingness of the world understands hutnan being as future and dawn upon me." 24 Thus man is alienated at the same time as an everlasting dying. from himself, from his real being. Of . . . For if a man exists existentially, he is cour~~, as a philosopher Heidegger does never finished." 28 not qualify this fallenness as godliness. He is only interested in the movement of fall Schmithals remarks that this understand ing away as a basic structure of human life. ing of human existence "is hardly con ceivable without the New Testament, but "Is not that exactly the New Testament also that it is possible without reference understanding of human life?" Bultmann to the New Testament." 29 This interpre asks. 25 He thinks that this question must tation is not based on revelation but is an be answered in the affirmative. Schmithals understanding of life that is given with remarks that Bultmann evidently attaches existence itself. Bultmann is fond of using little importance to the fact that Heideg this analysis of authenticity. Of course, he ger's philosophy is hardly conceivable is conscious that authenticity has in the without the New Testament and Luther.26 Of course, the New Testament goes fur Bible a more radical implication than in ther than Heidegger. It calls man's inau philosophy. As in Scriptute inauthenticity thenticity sin. This shows that it is inter is understood as sin, so authenticity of ex ested not "in ontological structute but in istence is a gift. It is possible only in sur antic reality, not in existentialist compre render to God as the giver of life. The hension but in the existential conduct of gift of authentic life liberates man from himself in his fallenness. The realization man." 27 Schmithals shows that Bultmann has a fine grasp of the Biblicallli'lderstand of this event the Bible calls "faith," "Con ing of sin as unbelief, not just as immoral sequently, Christian faith is by its very ity. Repudiating his origin from God, nature 'faith in', for the believer knows man is delivered into the slavery of sin. that at the very point where man can do It brings him death. He is chained to his nothing God acts - indeed has already acted on his behalf - he knows 'of an act 24 Schmithals, p.73. of God which first makes surrender , faith , 25 Ibid., p. 74. 26 Ibid., Pl? 64, 74. 28 Ibid., p. 98. 27 Ibid., p.75. 29 Ibid. 264 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED love, the authentic life of man possible: " 30 in," it is self-understanding, for we can God alone can give freedom from the grasp God's action only in a new under fallenness of the past and the present en standing of ourselves. "One does not ac slaving power of the world. Faith then is quire knowledge about the Messiah; one openness for the future. either acknowledges him or rejects him . Faith, we said, is "faith in"; it has an . . . The acknowledgment of Jesus as the object, the Christ-event. It has a historical Messiah is the material content of that basis, the saving act of God. Faith is not revelation, but that means that Paul now "piety," it is not work. The man of faith understands Jesus as the Messiah - for knows that he is chosen through the en without understanding there is no obedi counter with grace.31 Salvation consists in ence. To understand someone else as Lord restoring to man his authenticity. Faith accordingly means to have a new under is not a mysterious supernatural quality sta;'lding of oneself, as standing at the ser but a gift restoring to man his authenticity, vice of the lord and finding one's authen an event known to man existentially.32 ticity in such service." 34 As sin is bondage to the past, faith is life According to Bultmann, self-under from the future. The state of faith in standing must not be confused with self cludes a "now already" and a "not yet" consciousness. Self-consciousness means (Phil. 3: 12). Faith is an act of obedience; awarEness and afiirmation of one's self. it occurs at each particular moment. It is Self-understanding is given by encounter an act of the whole man and therefore ing another in love and trust. The former actualizes itself in everyday life. It is free is a static condition of the mind; the latter dom from sin but not freedom from sin can remain true only as a repeated re ning. The man of faith does not live in sponse to the repeated encounter with the a state of moral perfection. Yet he is free Word.35 from an idolatrous devotion to the world. In this discussion of faith Bultmann re However, detachment from the world does veals a genuine understanding of the Ref not mean asceticism, which is based on ormation doctrine of faith. Melanchthon, a dualistic world view. Instead of free for example, was very explicit in rejecting from the world, the man of faith is free the Scholastic teaching of fides historica. for the worldY3 "Scholastic faith," he said, "is nothing but As an existential trait of human exis a dead opinion." An opinion held con tence, faith is self-understanding. It is far cerning "things to be believed" is not from being a sacrificium intellectus. It is faith at all. Faith is a ready response to the not blind faith accepting the incomprehen will of God "in every vicissitude of life sible on the basis of external authority. and death." 36 The departure from the Ref- Precisely because Christian faith is "faith 34 Bultmann, Gtauben und Verstehen, I, 203. 30 Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, I, 30; 35 Schmithals, p. 124. Schmithals, p. 100. 36 Melanchthon, Loci communes, trans. C. Schmithals, p. 104. 31 1. Hill (Boston: Meador Publishing Company, 32 Ibid., p. 105. 1944), pp.178, 193. ct. Otto W. Heick,op. 33 Ibid., pp. 115 ff., 275 f. cit., I (1965), 391. RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED 265 ormation, however, is marked and wide in into heaven, and will return at the end Bultmann's view of the event of the cross of time to judge the quick and the dead. and resurrection of Jesus. The older liberals tried to remove the It will not be necessaq in detail to fol skandalon of the Gospel by eliminating low Schmithals in his discussion of this much of the material from the New Testa aspect of Bultmann's theology, for Bult ment. Bultmann wants to interpret the mann's view on these matters is well message existentially. God acted in Jesus, known and is the main stumbling block He created the kerygma. But the disciples of his whole theology. expressed the saving event in terms bor rowed from late Judaism and pagan Gnos Bultmann's view of the "saving event" ticism. Modern man can no longer accept is contained in nutshell in a paper deliv this. But if stripped of its ancient form, ered originally on June 4, 1941, Neues the Gospel can prove to be a power to Testament und Mythologie. It contained salvation even today. Historical reality is little that Bultmann had not said before. the only reality we know. Entering history, But presented in such a condensed form therefore, Jesus lived His life according it served as an eye-opener for many. Some to the structures of histoq where miracles, were shocked, others delighted. Bonhoef as reported in the New Testament, includ fer Vl!ote in 1942: ~(Bultmann let the cat ing His physical resurrection, are impos out of the bag ... the liberal cat out of the sible. Jesus rose, as it were, in the kerygma bag of the confessing church [of which when the saving event was proclaimed. Bultmann was a member], and I am glad. "For faith grows, not ftom supposed sav He dared to say what many, myself in ing facts, but from the saving event of cluded, tried to suppress without having proclamation. . . . For the saving event it overcome. He has rendered a service is no objectively established fact of the to intellectual honesty. The doctrinal past." 38 To exist in faith means to exist pharisaism of many brethren pains me. eschatologically, to be related to the fiJscha . . . But the window has also to be closed ton. that is already present. Both the re again unless the weak will catch a cold." 37 demptive history and the eschatological A brief resume of the paper will suffice. fulfillment in the Bible are submerged by The world view of the New Testament Bultmann in the present Word-event. is mythological, with the earth at its cen Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, ter and with heaven above and hell below. Pentecost, Totensonntag (the last Sunday Man is subject to God from above and to after T.rinity with its message of the Sec demons from below. The message of the ond Coming), all fall on one day, the day Gospel, too, is couched in mythological of proclamation. terms. A preexistent being appeared in Bultmann deserves credit for having history, performed miracles, suffered vi tackled anew the old problem of faith and cariously, rose from the dead, ascended history, the "ugly ditch" (Lessing) yawn ing between those two, a problem that 37 Eberhard Bethge, Diet-rich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth had consistently ignored. Bult- Thealoge - Ch-rist-Zeitge1lasse (Miinchen: Kaiser-Verlag, 1967), p. 800. 38 Schmithals, pp. 176--77. 266 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED mann does not want to dismiss Jesus as so forth. But the thing becomes dangerous a mere cipher; he attaches importance to when a theologian permits philosophy to the histo.ricity of the Man of Nazareth. be the master instead of using it as a ser But rejecting much of the Biblical story vant. In that case, philosophy will inevi of Jesus as myths, Bultmann reduces the tably adulterate the Gospel. "Is this the significance of the Gospel narratives to case with Bultmann?" Zahrnt asks.40 a mere "thatness," to the mere fact that 2. Whatever Bultmann may have Jesus was a historical person of whose gained by his existential method, has it life, however, we know next to nothing. not resulted in a narrow anthropocentric It was at this point where the disciples of view of the Gospel? In Bultmann, as in Bultmann began to revolt against their Heidegger, possibility is assigned prece teacher. Thus started the "new quest of dence over historicity (Geschichtlichkeit). the historical Jesus." Man is no longer grounded in the experi Before taking up this "new quest" we ence of history. On the contrary, the pos shall first turn to the criticism of Bult sibility for history is conditioned by the mann by Heinz Zahrnt. Zahrnt has set historicity of human existence. But the Bultmann in a wider concept of Protestant solution is not a simple "either ... or," theology. The arrangement follows the rather a dialectical "not only ... but also." Hegelian pattern of thesis, antithesis, and Man would not experience history as real synthesis: the discovery of God in the ity if it did not meet him as his own theology of Barth, the discovery of the possibility; vice versa, history would not world by Bonhoeffer, Bultmann and oth meet him as his own possibility if man ers, the synthesis of God and world in the did not experience history as his own system of Tillich. prior reality. Man's Dasei1t is always lim Zahrnt himself has defended modern ited by the historical horizon.41 theology many times. His criticism of 3. Because of the narrow personal ap Bultmann, therefore, carries greater weight proach to history, Bultmann loses sight of than perhaps that of Bultmann's avowed the comprehensive universal interest in 39 opponents. history as is typical of the Bible. The great Zahrnt registers a number of reserva Biblical drama of God is turned into an tions that deserve serious consideration. existentialistic chamber concert. In Bult 1. Bultmann seems to surrender lock, mann everything revolves around man's stock, and barrel to the philosophy of the self-understanding. The future of God is younger Heidegger. Per se, there is noth reduced to the future of man, and the ing wrong with using philosophical cate past is only a foil or model for a decision gories. All of us are doing it. Augustine to be made by the individual at present.42 used Platonic categories; Thomas Aquinas 4. This individualization of the faith used Aristotelian modes of thought; and involves a spiritualization of Christian ex-

39 Zahrnt, pp.260-325. (Zahrnt is editor 40 Ibid., pp. 312 f. of the theological section of Allgemeines Deutsches Sonntagsblatt; Hans Lilje is editor 41 Ibid., pp. 313 f. in chief.) 42 Ibid., pp. 314 f. RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED 267 istence. Is self-understanding possible mann expressed his skeptical attitude al without a proper relation to the world, ready early in his little volume Jesus and to history and society? Bultmann ignores the Word: "I do indeed think that we God's dealing with the world as a whole; can now know almost nothing concerning he ignores that man has not only a head the life and personality of Jesus." 45 Bult but also a heart and a body; he ignores mann makes a virtue of necessity. In his that besides man God has also created critical studies he is guided by the Refor animals and plants, sun and moon and mation doctrine that faith must not de stars, mountains and lakes. All these are pend on any "work," in this case on the passed by in Bultmann's theology. Just as result of Biblical research; it must rely faith concerns itself not with history but exclusively on the word proclaimed to only with historicity, so faith has to do not man. In a recension of the book on Jesus with creation but only with creatureliness. the book was called "a book on Jesus with Bultmann's modern man is an abstract, out Jesus." Zahrnt remarks that this anemic being. His theology suHers from method of separating the Jesus of history a new type of schizophrenia: no longer from the Christ of faith leads to a danger an "up there" and "below here," but man ous second self of the person of Jesus. here and nature over there. Zahrnt quotes "In the twinkling of an eye Jesus is trans Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, the emi ported from the arctic circle where his nent scientist: "A division between exis whole life is buried under ice to the equa tence and nature in such a way that exis tor where the ice of his past is melted into tence is a matter of faith, nature the object his present meaning for faith. . . . Buried of the exact sciences, is artificial; it limits by the critical method the text rises exis' the field of interest for both." 43 tentially." 46 5. Related to this abstraction is Bult 6. Last - but not least - the Christ mann's unhistorical, if not to say antihis event as a gift of God is at stake. It be torical, attitude. He is radically opposed comes "an empty paradox." It only tells to the quest of the historical Jesus. It is that God has acted but has nothing to say sufficient for Bultmann to know that Jesus about what God did. Here we encounter came into this world. This explains the a trend of late medieval nominalism, meager account of 29 pages given to the Zahrnt maintains. In an almost arbitrary study of Jesus in Bultmann's Theology of fashion God confronts man with a th .. ! the New Testament as compared with the of revelation, leaving the fact unexplained, extensive discussion of Paul, 166 pages, uninterpreted. Is this not the same posi and of John, 89 pages.44 Bultmann has tivism of revelation as in orthodox theol a special predilection for these two writers ogy except that a mere "that He came" has because, he maintains, neither one was replaced the miracle of the virgin birth, interested in the historical Jesus. Bult- of the empty tomb, and of the ascension? Zahrnt quotes Otto Kuster, who said: "We 43 Ibid., p.317. 4.4 Trans. Kendrick Grobel, Vol. I (London: 45 Trans. L. P. Smith and E. Huntress (New SCM Press, 1952); Vol. II (New York: Scrib York: Scribner's, 1934), p.8. ner's, 1955). 46 Zahrnt, p. 322; footnote 85, p. 484. 268 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED cannot accept the thesis that God could of mythology in the traditional sense, not have accepted the sacrifice of any conveni the kind of mythology which has become ent person, be it Paul or even one of the antiquated with the decay of the mythical malefactors. The cross is not the sign of world view, for the redemption of which a mere, unqualified contingence." 47 Zahrnt we have spoken is not a miraculous super adds: "Bultmann's consistent call to deci natural event, but a historical event sion and obedience reveals not so much wrought out in space and time." 50 The Jesus' call to discipleship as Heidegger's answer is significant for several reasons. call to authentic existence. This casts a First, as always, Bultmann confuses Welt shadow of gloom and melancholy over the bild (pictute of the world) with Weltan theology of Bultmann." 48 Two otherwise schauU17g (world view). But the meaning very different scholars, I(arl Jaspers and of the Gospel is independent of either the Karl Barth, agree that Bultmann's message Ptolemaic or the Copernican picture of the bears a cheerless note.49 universe, In Scripture itself God is not Bultmann maintains that his theology confined to an upper story of the cosmos is a theology of revelation. The New Tes (Ps. 139, Jer. 23:23, for example). His tament does not proclaim universal reli ascension notwithstanding, Jesus pfOmises gious truths. His aim, he says, is to set to be with His church until the end of forth the meaning of the Gospel in terms time (Matt. 28:20). Surely Bultmann modern man can understand. But are there must know about the conflict between still any traces of mythology in the de Luther and Zwingli with its climactic oc mythologizing attempt of Bultmann? currence in the same town where Bult Bultmann himself asked this question. His mann has spent the greater part of his answer is: "There certainly are for those life: how Luther rejected the ascension as who regard all language about an act of a local movement and heaven as a place God or of a decisive eschatological event "up there," how he ridiculed Zwingli for as mythological. But this is not the kind his naive spatial view of the spiritual world. Bultmann has said nothing new 47 Ibid., p. 324. in these matters. Second, there is nothing 48 Ibid., pp. 324 f. new in Bultmann's emphasis on the fact 49 Bultmann is "boring as a historian. . . . I don't know whether his views can stir a pastor. that God's revelation is "indirect," that At all event, they do not stir a man who does it cannot be established by rational in not share them out of his own faith. . . . He quiry, that it is always a matter of faith. shrouds the splendor of the Bible with an en veloping layer of dry, objective language" (Karl He is just repeating what Luther, Kierke Jaspers, Myth and Christianity [New York: gaard, and Karl Barth have been saying all 'fhe Noonday Press, 1958}, p. 54). "I don't the time. Luther's notion of Deus ab know how many of our contemporaries have been helped by Bultmann and his disciples to Jconditus and his violent protest against know the real joy of believing. I shall not ask, the "theologians of glory" surely must be but just hope for the best. Speaking for myself, known to Bultmann. In the third place, I must say I find it hard to imagine how Bult mann could inspire me to study theology, to this statement of Bultmann raises doubt preach, or even to believe" (Karl Barth, "Ru dolf Bultmann - An Attempt to Understand 50 Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, I (1964), Him," Kerygma and Myth, II [1962J, 117). 43. RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED 269 again as to his understanding of God. make an addition to the Gospel." 54 The Certainly, "redemption is wrought out in lecture of Kasemann is a vivid illustration space and time." But by whom? one may of this statement made by Harnack at the ask. Is it by one who is also contained in turn of the century. space and time? Is Bultmann's God, as the God of Tillich, the impersonal Ground THE POST-BuLTMANN AGE of Being? His concentration on the his In 1952 Ernst Kasemann, then at Got torical seems to point in that direction, tingen but now at Tiibingen, wrote: "The for if historical reality is the only reality, whole New Testament maintains that at then God too is part of the cosmos; He Easter the disciples recognized not some is just as in Ebeling the "whence" of faith strange heavenly being nor abstract dog and love, the activity that underlies man's matic statements but Jesus himself. There passivity in man's birth and death.51 is a continuous frame of reference between Finally, what is the real significance of the historical Jesus and the kerygma. Jesus? We have heard that Bultmann re A theology motivated by historical skepsis jects the idea of vicarious suffering as or by a strange dogmatic does not deserve mythological. This leaves room for Jesus its name." 55 only as our V orbild, as a pattern of the A year later, at a gathering of former Christian life (Schleiermacher) . Then students of Bultmann at Marburg, Kase Jesus is not the Christ in whom we be mann delivered a lecture, "The Problem lieve, rather the :first Christian whom we of the Historical Jesus." Challenged by are to imitate. Significantly, another stu Kasemann, a lively debate originated in dent of Bultmann, Ernst Kasemann, said which the disciples turned against their at the Church Rally at Hanover, Germany, teacher, the teacher against his followers, in 1967: "On the cross Jesus remained the latter in part against one another, and faithful and obedient to God. Nothing all of them were attacked by outsiders. else happened at Golgotha." 52 This is the Since much of this material has been made "subjective view" of the cross as held by available in English by James M. Robinson Abelard in the Middle Ages and by the and Reginald H. Fuller,5G we shall limit li3 Ritschlians in more recent times. "The ourselves to a few fundamentals. Gospel as Jesus proclaimed it, has to do Kasemann proceeds strictly methodol with the Father only and not with the ogically. The historian must assume the Son. . . . The sentence 'I am the Son of genuineness of all material in the gospels God' was not inserted in the Gospel by that is not derived from the Jewish en- Jesus himself, and to put that sentence there side by side with the others is to 54 Adolf von Harnack, What Is Christianity? trans. T. B. Saunders (New York: Harper 51 Gerhard Ebeling, The Nature of Faith, Torchbooks, 1957), pp. 144 ff. trans. Ronald Gregor Smith (Philadelphia: 55 Zahrnt, pp. 326 ff. Fortress Press, 1961), p. 82. 56 James M. Robinson, A New Quest of 52 Lutherische Monatshefte, VII (February the Historical Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1968). 1959). Reginald H. Fuller, The New Testa 53 See Gustaf Ault~n, Christus Victor (Lon ment in Current Study (New York: Scribner's, don: SCPK, 1953). 1962) . 270 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED vironment of the apostolic church. As an pretation, the Word, is more important example Kiisemann refers to the sayings than mere facts. Jesus is a witness of faith. of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: Everything in the gospels revolves around "Ye have heard that it was said . . . but faith. But Jesus did not discuss His own I say unto you." This "I say" elevates faith. He did not reveal His own God Jesus to a position unacceptable to a pious consciousness. He wanted to call others Jew. The same applies to Jesus' criticism to faith, not to faith in Himself, although of laws concerning cultic cleanliness. faith cannot be divorced from His person. Kiisemann, then, acknowledges a unique Easter revealed Jesus as the witness of ness about Jesus in what He said, in His faith. Easter did not make Jesus an "ob_ proclamation. But Jesus did more than ject" of faith. He remains the witness of teach the fatherhood of God and the infi faith and the basis of faith. To believe in nite value of man. "He offered and lived Jesus means at His word to believe in the freedom of the cl1ildren of God." God.58 Zahrnt points out that this understanding Giinther Bornkamm emphasizes the of Jesus transcends that of the older lib humble submission of Jesus on the one eralism. Jesus did not affirm a general hand and His great sense of authority as ethicoreligious truth. He brought sorlle expressed in word and deed on the other. thing new. Jesus is significant not only Contrary to Bultmann, who excluded the for what He taught but also for what He Resurrection from his book on Jesus, did. He proclaimed Himself as an act of Bornkamm includes the Easter stories not God.57 as records and cp.ronicles but as evidence According to Hans Conzelmann, Jesus of faith. By the events of Easter the one proclaimed the eschatological reign of "who proclaimed the coming of the king God, effectively engaging men already in dom of God . . . became the one pro the present world. He demands decision, claimed, the one who called to faith, be response, obedience. came the content of the faith." Record Ernst Fuchs puts emphasis on Jesus' and confession are woven into one.liIl gracious activity. He eats with publicans Although at variance at many points, and sinners. His Verhalten (conduct) is these scholars, then, hold that the apostolic neither that of a prophet nor that of a kerygma has its basis in the historical teacher of wisdom, rather that of a man Jesus. It does not remain suspended, as who dares to act in the place of God. He it were, in midair. To express the contin forgives sins. uity between the pre-Easter faith and the Gerhard Ebeling stresses faith in his 58 Ebeling, The Natu'Te of Faith and Other treatment of Jesus. Ebeling remains close Writings. See also The Problem of Historicity to Bultmann. He is not interested in bruta in the Church and Its P'Toclamation, trans. facta: what did happen? He rather poses Grover Foley (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, the question: Was ist zur Sprache gekom 1967) . 59 Gunther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, men? (What was discussed?) The inter- trans. in collaboration with others by James M. Robinson (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 07 Zahrnt, p. 328. 1960), p. 188. RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED 271 post-Easter faith, Conzelmann uses the the deity. Braun admits that the New term "indirect Christology," Ebeling calls Testament moves in these, in his opinion, it "implicit Christology," others use the inadequate modes of thought. It does ob term "Christology in a nutshell." The vari jectify God. But we can no longer visu ous concepts of Christology on the part of alize God as an object or species. Even the these scholars in turn determine their re trend in the New Testament points in a spective views of "the essence of Christi different direction. God is das Woher anity." For Kiisemann and Bornkamm, meines Umhergetriebenseins (the whence both the historical Jesus and the post of my restless existence), moving between Easter faith are the constituent factors of the two poles of lch dar! (I may) and lch Christianity. Fuchs and Ebeling on the soli (I must). The impulse to security and other hand want to eliminate everything duty reaches me not from the universe. from the faith that has no support in the Like speech, it originates in my neighbor. life of the historical Jesus. The confession Christianity is MilmemchlichkBit.61 "He that Jesus is true God and true man must who abides in love abides in God" (1 John be so intI ..Jreted that He truly lived His 4; 16). This is the testament of Jesus: "No life within the limits of historical exis one comes to the Father but by Me" (John tence. J\ . :hing supernatural should be 14:6). Here the God of metaphysics gives predicated of Him.~lO way to "my God, to the whence of my ex If Kiisemann and Bornkamm represent istence." 62 The saving facts in the New the right wing of the Bultmann school, Testament are not history in the tradi with Fuchs and Ebeling holding a center tional sense, they rather have their history position, Herbert Braun is an exponent of in theology.63 "Anthropology is the con the extreme left. The theme of the New stant, Christology the variable." The Testament is the salvation of man. In the kerygma has its origin in the historical explication of the theme it contains con tradictory statements that, Braun main 61 Braun, "Die Theologie des Neuen Testa ments," in Gesammelte Sf. dien zum Neuen tains, cannot be harmonized and that are Testament (2d ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr, 1967), unacceptable to the modern man. The pp. 325 ff., especially the concluding para graphs on pp. 340 f. See Braun, "The Problem "religious" interpretation of Jesus as Mes of a New Testament Theology," trans. Jack: siah and Kyrios is unacceptable. The con Sanders, in Journal for Theology and the cept of eternal life as an extension of the ChtJrch, ed. Robert W. Funk (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), I, 169-83. The trans mode of the present life is naIve; it is lation accepted by some writers, "fellow-man neither credible nor worthy to aspire to. hood," is ambiguous because "man" in English The view of the Law as rooted in a divine can refer to a male as distinct from the female (Mann); it can also signify a member of the will and eschatology as directed by a per human race irrespective of sexual difference sonal deity presupposes a view of God that (Mensch). The abstract noun Mitmenschlichkeit we cannot share. The sacramental teaching speaks of the quality of the latter. It describes him as sympathetically involved in the life of of the New Testament implies a material his fellowmen. It means the practice of brother istic concept of salvation and objectifies hood. 62 Ibid., p. 298. 60 Zahrnt, p. 346. 63 Ibid., p. 302. 272 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED

Jesus. He did two things: He radicalized of scholars, Zahrnt says, made their views the requirements of the Law and rejected knownye If Kierkegaard is Bultmann's the striving after merit and award. He spiritual ancestor, Pannenberg can claim proclaimed the love of God, seeking and Hegel as his theological forebear. Pannen accepting precisely the lost. This is the berg developed his view more in detail in unheard paradox in the New Testament: Grundz;lge der Christologie (1964), trans the radical demand and the radical love of lated under the title Jesus-God and Man God. "Jesus takes form (geschieht) in my (1968).67 I may and I must, and thus Jesus will take Pannenberg characterizes his movement form from time to time." 64 as a protest against the "theology of the The most extensive criticism of Bult Word" in both Barth and Bultmann. Both, mann and his school, especially of Braun, he maintains, evade the problem of faith is Helmut Gollwitzer's book The Existence and history, Barth by taking refuge in of God as Confessed by Faith, previously Obergeschichte (superhistory) or Heilsge referred to. But Braun has remained un schichte (salvation history), Bultmann in yielding. In his reply to Gollwitzer he re the kerygma, in revelation as a "word emphasizes his basic conviction: a tran event." Pannenberg turns the method of scendent God is an illusion. God does not Bultmann upside down. Not existence but "exist"; He happens (geschieht) in this history is the medium of divine revelation. life, in my existence, in my faith and love. God makes Himself known in the process of universal history. God's redemptive acts In this way, he believes, the New Testa ment can be of value even for an outright are self-evident. History consists of a suc cession of contingent events, meaningfully humanist or atheist.65 related to one another. This has its basis With the publication in 1961 of Offen in a God as Lord of all history, as the Intel barung als Geschichte by WoHhart Pan ligent Mind directing the course of the nenberg and his friends, a third generation world. No special revelatory word is nec

64 Zahrnt, p. 352. essary to interpret history. Reason is suffi 65 Herbert Braun, "Gottes Existenz und cient to know of God, for no historian meine Geschichtlichkeit im Neuen Testament. who is in his right mind can deny the Eine Antwort an Helmut Gollwitzer," in Zeit contingency of historical events. und Geschichte, ed. Erich DinkIer (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1964), pp. 399 if. Gustav Stahlin quotes Pannenberg applies these general prin Werner Wiesner: "The Word, i. e., the biblical ciples consistently to the interpretation of text, from which no one speaks to me, not God because he does not exist, not men for the New Testament. "Kahler," he says, they have long been dead, becomes a sort of "was right when he protested against the a deus ex machina, creating existence. One is tendency to drive a cleft between Jesus tempted to ask Herbert Braun, how a text can do such marvellous things? Evidently be cause the text is mythologized. The denial of 66 Zahrnt, pp. 368 f. the existence of God issues in the deification of 67 Trans. Lewis L. Wilkens and Duane A. a text written by men" ("Wie redet die Bibel Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster Press). On von Gott?" in Fuldaer Hefte, No. 17 [Berlin the former writings of Pannenberg see Daniel und Hamburg: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1967}, F. Fuller, Easter Faith and Histo-ry (Grand pp.l17f.). Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), pp. 177 if. RUDOLF BUL TMANN REVISITED 273

and the Apostolic witness." 68 Kasemann, rection is a historical event, accessible to and the others too, are right when they the inquiring historian, apart from the stress the continuity between the historical faith of the church. The Resurrection oc Jesus and the Christ of faith. But the doc curred at one moment in history. The trine of Christ must not be made the con tomb was empty on the first day of the clusion or answer to human needs. Thus week around the year A. D. 30. Pan Pannenberg also distinguishes himself nenberg quotes Althaus: the Resurrection from the neo-Lutheranism of the Erlangen kerygma "could not have maintained itself school. Nor does Barth find favor in his in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single eyes. In Barth the sonship of Jesus is pre hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not supposed. The Eternal enters into space been established as a fact for all con and time. This explains Barth's failure cerned." 72 to do justice to the earthly life of Jesus. The Resurrection speaks for itself, it needs Barth by and large swept the problems of no interpretation. The objection that Paul the historical Jesus under the carpet. Nor does not mention the empty tomb bears are we to be guided by a metaphysical little weight. Having luke as a companion principle such as the Trinity (Tillich). he must have known of it. Paul was con We must think from below, that is, ra cerned with the likeness between Christ tionally. Pannenberg calls his theology and the believers. As He is risen, so they B. "theology of reason" or of an "eschato shall rise. Yet the greatest number of logically oriented ontology." 69 The dogma bodies of believers will be completely de is to be grounded not in the kerygma, not composed at the time of the Second Com in what Jesus means for us. The starting ing. Strictly speaking, our graves will not point must be the history of Jesus Himself. be opened as it was in the case of Jesus. "Christo logy must remain prior to all ques However, all of us will rise like Jesus. The tions about his significance, to all soteri body of the resurrection will be a soma ology. Soteriology must follow from pneumatikon.73 From our own observa Christology, not vice-versa." 70 tion the following might be added: hu manly speaking, Paul had not mentioned History itself is an act of revelation.71 the institution of the lord's Supper if the Hence Pannenberg's chief concern is to occasion in Corinth had not called for it. establish the history of the Resurrection. In that case, scholars would argue that His Christology is a Resurrection Christol Paul knew nothing of the institution of ogy. Emphatically he says that the Resur- Jesus!

68 Martin Kahler, The So-Called Historical Pannenberg is fully aware of the fact Jesus and the Historic-Biblical Christ, trans. that in speaking of the Resurrection he is Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, using metaphorical language, for "the in 1964) . tended reality and the mode in which it 69 Pannenberg, Jesus- God and ?vIan, p. 12. is expressed in language are essentially 70 Ibid., p. 48. 71 Cf. Karl Barth's development of this different. The intended reality is beyond thought throughout his Romerbrief: History may be a predicate of revelation, but revelation 72 Pannenberg, p. 100. can never be a predicate of history. 73 Ibid., pp. 88 ft. 274 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED the experience of the man who lives on no synthesis of human and divine of which this side of death." 74 Man is the only we can only see the human side in the creature who knows that he must die. If historical Jesus. But rather as this man, death is the end, then all hope for a com Jesusis God ... as man in this particular ing fulfillment of life is foolish. Modern unique situation. . . ." 7B The unity of medicine has recognized that radical hope Jesus with the Father is one of complete lessness is a destructive zone. "The phe dedication to the Father's will. This unity, nomenology of hope indicates that it be confirmed by God in the Resurrection, "is longs to the essence of conscious human the medium of his essential unity with existence to hope beyond death." 75 The God and the basis of all assertions about Platonic idea of immortality of the soul is Jesus' divine Sonship." 79 In incarnational an inadequate expression of this hope. Christology the oneness of Jesus with the The dichotomy involved in this view is Father is the presupposition of His un untenable. Life after death implies the qualified dedication to God. In Pannen existence of the whole man. Though a his berg's view Jesus' obedience vindicates His torian may not share the apocalyptic hope Sonship. Pannenberg creates at times the of the Bible, the nature of a full-grown impression thiit he fiivors an adcptionistic, hlli-nanity compels him to hope beyond dynamistic view of the unity of Jesus with death, and this is precisely what the New the FathcrQ But this is evidently not vlhat Testament means when it proclaims the he intends, for he says quite clearly: "If Resurrection of Jesus.76 In the main body Jesus as a person is 'the Son of God', as of his work Pannenberg is more in dialog becomes clear retroactively from his resur with Barth than he is with Bultmann and rection, then he has always been the Son his school. He is critical of the incarna of God." 80 Again he quotes Althaus, who tional doctrine of Christ. He dismisses the writes in his Die christliche Wahrheit: concept of the virgin birth as legendary.77 "Jesus was what he is before he knew "The unity of Jesus with the Father," he about it." 81 The difference between incar says, "can be found only in the historical national Christology and Pannenberg's particularity of the man Jesus, his message, Resurrection Christology is basically a mat and his fate. This is not to say that the ter of method. In the former the Incarna basis of this unity resides in Jesus' human tion warrants the perfect obedience of ity. Of course, the incarnational doctrine Jesus, while according to the latter view is quite right in affirming that the initia the Resurrection affirms Jesus as the obedi tive in the event of the incarnation can be ent Son who always had the Father's good sought only on the side of God. However, will. we can perceive this unity only from the Zahrnt says of Pannenberg that he holds perspective of its result, from the perspec a position mediating between Barth and tive of Jesus' historical reality. Jesus is 78 Ibid., p. 323. 74 Ibid., p. 75. 79 Ibid., p. 323. 75 Ibid., p.85. 80 Ibid., p. 349. 76 Ibid., pp. 83 f. 81 Althaus, Die christliche Wahrheil, II 77 Ibid., pp. 1411f. (Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1952), 440. RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED 275

Bultmann. While Barth begins in heaven around existence, around the man of the above, in eternity, and Bultmann down present, Moltmann directs his reader to the below, with the kerygma and human ex future. In the Middle Ages, Anselm of istence, Pannenberg establishes himself Canterbury set up the principle fides qztae solidly on history. Pannenberg does what fens intellectum - credo ut intelligam Bultmann abhors; he looks behind the (faith is seeking understanding - I be kerygma in order to find a fum founda lieve that I may understand). Today, tion on which faith can build: I know Moltmann says, theology should follow the what I can believe. Zahrnt minces no principle spes quaerens intellectum words in criticizing Pannenberg. Pannen sp-ero ut intelligam (hope is seeking un berg, he says, remains stuck to the past, derstanding - I hope that I may under he has no message for the present (we stand). "Faith hopes in order to know should not overlook the fact that Zahrnt what it believes." 84 Traditionally, escha had no access to Pannenberg's book on tology is called the "doctrine of the last Christology) .82 tllings." It is more appropriate, Moltmann In our own opinion, Pannenberg's view maintains, to caU it the doctrine of the of faith is too rationalistic. He fails to first things, for "Christianity is eschatology, understand Luther's dialectical view of is hope, forward looking and forward mov revelation, the tension between revelation ing, and therefore also revolutionizing and and the hiddenness of the revealed God. transforming the present; . . . it is the He also fails to appreciate Kierkegaard's medium of Christian faith as such, the understanding of faith as a venture, as key in which everything in .it is set, the a leap. Though we don't want to dismiss glow that suffuses everything here in the lightly Althaus's and Pannenberg's em dawn of an expected new day." 85 If faith phasis on the empty tomb, the empty tomb depends on hope, then unbelief is is at best a pointer to the Resurrection grounded in hopelessless. Hopelessness (Barth); it does not prove the Resurrec can assume two different forms: it can tion. The disciples could have stolen the express itself in "presumptions" or despair. body of Jesus "as this story has been spread In the 19th century presumption is found among the Jews to this day." (Matt. at many points in German idealism, in 28: 15) 83 cluding Goethe as well as Karl Marx, Another attempt to lead theology be whereas despair was a sign of a non yond the position of Barth and Bultmann eschatological bourgeois Christianity. In is to be found in Moltmann's Theology of the middle of the 20th century the literary H ope. While Pannenberg is looking to writings of the existentialists represent the history, to events that happened in the form of apostasy from hope. "There is past, and Bultmann's thought revolves only Camus' 'thinking clearly and hope 82 Zahrnt, p.376. 83 On this problem see also Fuller and the 84 Jiirgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, literature there discussed, in particular, Frank trans. James W. Leitch from the 5th German Morison (pseudonymous for A. Ross), Who edition (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), Moved the Stone? The Evidence for the Resur- p.33. 1'ection (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1962). 85 Ibid., p. 16. 276 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED no more'" and the theologians retreat to whether God had raised Jesus from the love and Mitmenschlichkeit.86 dead, according to His promises. The The concept of God has frequently been modern controversy is concerned with the marred by Greek categories, Moltmann question whether resurrection is histori says. In this connection he does not men cally possible. The historical question of tion the ancient fathers. Instead, he ex the historicity of the Resurrection includes presses criticism of Kierkegaard and mod the questionability of the historical method ern theology in general. They speak of as such. The present historical method fol eternal life as life "in the absolute present, lows Ernst Troeltsch, who set down the in the consciousness of the presence of principle of correlation between all his God. . . . Hence man's 'present' is nothing torical processes. "The analogy of that else but the presence of God." Man steps which happens before our eyes . . . is the out of time and lives in the present. This key to criticism." 90 As it is plain, the mes is not the God of hope of whom the Bible sage of the Resurrection does not fit in speaks. Hope deals with the future. In with this concept of the historical. the Bible God comes. He is present in A scholar, therefore, may dismiss the nar promising the future.87 For the Greeks rative of the Resurrection as unhistorical. the parousia was the presence of God. In Yet this dealing with its history is theo the New Testament the parousia of Christ logically incomprehensible for faith. An signifies the advent of Christ, as our Ad other possibility is the veering off into the vent hymns proclaim. Both Barth and subjective decision of faith as in modern Bultmann failed to do justice to this Bibli existentialist theology. We are simply cal understanding of eschatology. In both asked whether we believe that God acted systems the future is stated in the paradox in the visionary experiences of the firSt ical term of the nunc aete-rnum, in the his disciples (Bultmann). But the cognitive tory of existence.ss A theology of hope, power of understanding can also be di yea, Christianity itself, stands or falls with rected towards observing what is dissimilar the reality of the resurrrection of Jesus. and individual, accidental and new, similar The Easter event is not the "Easter faith and the like, Pannenberg argues.91 But of the first disciples (Bultmann); it is the this method too leaves much to be desired; fact of the resurrection itself." 89 Since the it is too rationalistic. "If ... Christian the days of the Enlightenment the Biblical nar ology were to manifest merely a supple ratives of the Resurrection have been sub mentary interest in the individual, contin jected to historical criticism. Scholars have gent and new, then that would be only been moved by a Vorverstandlzis (pre-un an interesting variant in the historical pic derstanding) of what is historically possi ture of history as a whole, yet one that ble. In Biblical times the controversy was would be possible and conceivable also between the disciples and the Jews without a theology of the resurrection.

86 Ibid., p. 24. 90 Ibid., p. 175. 87 Ibid., pp. 28 fI. n1 Ibid., p. 178. It should be noted that 88 Ibid., p. 160. Moltmann too wrote prior to Pannenberg's 89 Ibid., p.165. Grundzuge der Christologie. RUDOLF BULTMA.l\lN REVISITED 277

"92 The raising of Christ involves not Concluding our critical review we shall the category of the accidentally new but call attention to Oscar Cullmann's recent the exceptional category of the "eschato book, Heil als Geschichte. The English logically new." This new event proves to title reads like an interpretation of the be ria novum ultimum both as against the author's fundamental understanding of the similarity in ever-recurring reality and also problem: Salvation in History.97 His main against the comparative dissimilarity of object of criticism is the Bultmann school; new possibilities emerging in history." 93 but he also declines to follow Pannenberg The Easter stories are proclamation in the and his associates. Cullmann does not form of a narrative and narrate history in identify Heilsgeschichte with universal the form of proclamation.94 The modern history. God's dealing with the world can distinction between factual truth and ex not be discerned by reason, because Heils istential truth is foreign to them. The geschichte is not a continuous unbroken reality that lies behind these reports must succession of events. Heilsgescbicbte is be of a kind that compelled proclamation selective. Its working can be known by to all peoples and a continued formation faith only. Since the decision of faith asks of a new concept of Jesus. Hence we must me to align myself with that sequence of inquire into what is before us, into the events, these events must not be demy future announced by the event of the Res thologized, dehistoricized or de-objecti 95 urrection and the coming Lord. The peo fied. 98 Cullmann is highly critical of mod ple who worship Him also present them ern hermeneutics with its rejection of the selves in weekly worldly callings. Here he subject-object mode of thought. Surely, discusses the role of the church in the he says, it is correct that exegesis without social and political realm. Zahrnt remarks presuppositions is an illusion. But to make that Moltmann sets forth certain funda this conclusion into a principle is more mental principles but fails completely to dangerous than not to observe it at all. To show how they may be realized in our interpret a love-song I must know what contemporary world. Thielicke's monu love is (V orverstandnis). A confrontation mental work in ethics, therefore, still re with the love I have experienced happens mains unparalleled in Lutheran theology.96 quite automatically. "For this a particular

92 Ibid., p. 179. See also Wolf-Dieter Marsch, ed., Diskussion 93 Ibid. uber die Theologie der Hofhzung (Miinchen: 94 Ibid., pp. 188 if. Kaiser-Verlag, 1967). 95 Ibid., pp. 304 £I. 97 Cullmann, Salvation in History, trans. S. 96 Zahlnt, Pl" 236 £I. ndmut ·.lnielicke, S. S0'.7·:;5 and ,jeters (London: SCM Press, Theologische Ethik, 3 vols. (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1967). For consideration of space we shall not 1951), edited in an English translation by Wm. include Walter Kiinneth, Theology of the Res H. Lazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, u1'rection (London: SCM Press, 1965). The 1968). Lately Moltmann has spelled out the book was first published in German in 1933. political implications of his theology in "Exis The English translation by James W. Leitch tenzgeschichte und Weltgeschichte. Auf dem is based on the German edition of 1951. Kiin Wege zu einer politischen Hermeneutik des neth has long been in the forefront of forces EvangeEums," contained in Perspektiven der opposed to the Bultmann school. Theologie (Miinchen: Kaiser-Verlag, 1968). 98 Salvation in History, p.70. 278 RUDOLF BULTMANN REVISITED effort is seldom necessary. On the con place where we must look for the unfold trary, a special effort is needed if I am not ing of its interpretation in constant con simply to ascribe my own love experiences tact with the Bible.lo3 Protestants should of a particular kind to the writer of the avoid a too narrow concept of the canon. love-song, who could have had very differ To be sure, the formation of the canon ent experiences." 99 Rather than paying so marks the conclusion of the apostolic much attention to the philosophical obser period, but it stands also at the beginning vation about subject-object relationship, of the post-Biblical period as a point of we should, Cullmann says, "take to heart departure for another stage in salvation the simple necessity that has become the history. Catholicism maintains the force perennial principle of all sound exegesis, ful notion of standing in the process of the principle not to interpret myself into unfolding, according to God's plan. On the text." 100 the other hand, it shares something of the The term Heilsgeschichte means that Protestant trend of denying the continuity God carries out His redemptive plan in by introducing an infallible office that a series of historical events.lOl It is not jeopardizes the continuity of the present a history alongside general history; rather with the past. For this very reason, the it unfolds within history and thus belongs Biblical period ought to remain in its ex to history. It belongs to history, but it is clusiveness as norm, "but, on the other not identical with it. It forms only a nar hand, the present period ought to be rec row line within history.l02 ognized in the light of this norm as the In the final part of his book, Cullmann unfolding of salvation history." 104 The discusses the relationship between salva Bible teaches us also to observe the "signs" tion history and church history. Church of our times. As members of the church, history, he says, is not simply Heilsge therefore, "we must put the newspaper schichte, and the history of dogma is not beside the Bible and, more particularly, the simply interpretation of the dogma resting Bible beside the newspaper." 105 The con on divine revelation. Yet church history temporary history of the Jews, he says, is is the place where we must look for the not without significance for the church.l06 divine unfolding of Heilsgeschichte, and Even after Christ's resurrection the call the history of Christian thought is the and election of God are irrevocable. Elec tion does not mean the limiting of salva 99 Ibid., p.67. tion to the elect "but election for the spe 100 Ibid., p. 67. Compare the critical remarks cial mission of proclaiming salvation to of Jaspers: "Without objectivization there is no consciousness. While I am awake, I arrive at the world. That is the path of all salvation clarity only when I have some object before my history - universalism as its goal, concen eyes or before my thought. But each object tration as the means of its realization." implies a subject" (Jaspers, p. 96 [note 49 above] ). See the recent book by P. H. J¢rgen Waterloo, ant. sen, Die Bedeutung des Subiekt-obiektverhalt nims fUr die Theologie (Hamburg: Ev. Verlag 103 Ibid., p. 309. Herbert Reich, 1967). 104 Ibid., p.310. 101 Cullmann, p.76. 105 Ibid., p. 304. 102 Ibid., pp. 153 if. 106 Ibid.