'Jr£IE EXEGETIC4\t M:a:rlilOD OF OSCAH CULt1>lJU"ilN " OF OSCAR CiJtLMA~rn 1l~1 EDWIN BOtD }lEAVlllN, :a.A., S.~.B. A fli!u~sis Submitted to the Facw.t!9' of Graduate Simi1i~1i :im Pa.rtial :'ulfilmen~~ of the Requirements for the Degree Master cd' Arts McMaster Universi~y May 11 1966 ~\sTER OF ARTS (1966) MC~~STER UNIVERSITY (Religion) Hamilton, Ontario. TITLE: The Exegetical ~4ethoCi. of Oscar Cullmarm AUTHOR: Edwin Boyd. Heaven, B.. A. (McMaster University) (Trinity College, Toronto) SUPERVISOR: Professor Eugene Combs NUMBER OF PAGES: iv, 143 SCOPE AND CON'l'ENTS; A critical examination of two of Oscar Cullmrum's books to determine the extent to which his exegeti.cal work is adversely affected by his theological presnpposi tions .Cullmalm IS presuppositions are :iLsolated and described. Then a critical examination reveals that the presuppositions are not inherent in the New Testament matelrial bu.t are imposed upon it. Cullmann's ttthe0logical exegelsisn is shown to be an inadequate method of biblical. interpretation. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 I. CULLMANN'S THEOLOGICAL EXEGESIS IN CONTEXT 4 1. Cullmannfs Debt to Karl Barth 5 2. Cullmann's Assessme:nt o.f the Critical Work of the 19t!:l CenturY 9 3. Cullma.nn's Rejection of the New Hermeneutic 13 4. Summary and Evaluation 21 II. TfiE THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATION OF CULLMANN'S EXJ1'GESIS 25 1. The Christian .system of Reckoning Time 26 2. The Place of Eschatology ill the New Testament 28 3. The Relatio:tlll of Bih}-ical History to General History , 36 4. Biblical History- and Theology 42 5. The Witness of the Earlie,st ConfessioN. of Faith 45 6. Summary and Preliminary Evaluation 48 III. T.iE NEW TESTAMENT ~ERMINOLOGY FOR TIME 54 1. The Basis for Comparison 55 2., James Barr's, Exegetical M'ethod 58 3. The Centrality of the Cat1egory of Time in the New Testament 61 4. Cullmann and Barr on KairlDS 63 5. Cullmannand Barr on Aion 72 6. 'Conclusions from the Exami.nation of Terminology 77 IV. Tl[E FOURTH GOSPEL AND REDEMPTIVE lUSTORY 81 1. John the Baptist and the :Baptism of ·Jesus 84 2. The Conversation with Nic10demus 88 3» The Conversation with the Samaritan Woman 91 it. The Iiealing!-1iracle at Bethesda 93 5. The Healing at the Pool of Siloam 96 6 • The Marriage at Cana 98 7. The ~1J.i.racle of the Feeding of the ~1ul titude 100 iii IV. CONT'D. 8. The Farewell Discourses 104 9. The Washing of the Disciples· Feet 105 10. '!'he Spear Thrust 108 11. The EV~lgelist's Purpose 111 (i) The Meaning of John 20:31 114 (ii) The Use of Double or Ambiguous Expressions 115 (iii) The Meaning of Usign" 117 (iv) Sa.craments or SaCI"ament? 118 (v) Date 11 Place, Authorship and Read.ership 120 (vi) Two matters of Logical Consis'tiel'lcy 123 12. Results of the Study of John's Gospel 124 V. A CRITIQUE OF CULW.ANN'S THEOLOGICAL EXEGESIS 126 :1:. The Presuppositions are illllpcsed. Upon the Material 126 2. The Presupposi tioD. of an Over-all Unity 127 3. The Presuppositions Cannot be Tested. 130 4. The Influence of Contemporary Philosophy and Theology 13.5 (i) The Influence of Co:ntemporary Philosophy 135 (ii) The Influence of Contemporary Theology 136 5. Implications of this Study for Biblical Interpretation. 139 BIBLIOGRAPHY 140 :Itv THE EXEGETICAL METHOD OF OSCAR CULLMANN This study is an e$aminatiom of Cullmann t s exegetical method in 1 Christ and ~ime altd The Gospe~ Alccordinf£ to st. JOM and Early Christian Worship.2 While Cullmann. ¢laims in his two books to deal with the New Testament data per.!! altd to let it t~speak for :itself" ,3 he doe.s in fact attempt a synthesis 'between the New Te.stament data and his own theolog- ieal presuppositions"Cullrnann's theological presuppositions concerning timea1'ld history arEir not inherent in the New Testament but are imposed upon it. In Cullmarln t s presentation the presuppositions determine the selectioll and organization of the data. To the extent that Cullmann's exegetical method includes theological presu.ppositions it fails in its objective to allow the material to tlspeak for itself". This study is important for three reasons. (1) Very little critical work has been done on Cul.lmann in the Er!g1ish-speak::i.ng world. The most important (d' Cullmann's books have been translated into English, but the translations have not been accompanied by the critical reviews which greeted their first publication in GamaR or French. The debate which has been stirl'ed up by Cullmann's work has been largely confined to 1Trans• F .V •. Filson, Thi:rd edition, London: S .. C.M., 1962. 2A· translation of Les .Sacrr·emf::lnts Dans L'Evangile Johanniques (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1951) which :forms the second part of Early 0hristian Worship (trans. A.S. Todd and J.B. Torrance, London: S.C.M. ,. 1953). 3A paraphrase 0 f what Culllnann says on Pp. xii and :!Od.x of Christ and Time. 1 2 the continent of Europe.. One striking exception is James Barr's Bib1ica~ 4 Words for Time whieh d.evotes a chapter to criticisms of Cul1mann's pre- suppositions in Christ and. Time. But there has been no corresponding attempt by an English-speaking author to determil1:e the presupposit.ions behind Cullmann's work on the Fourth GospeL (2) Cullmannfs approach to , the New Testament material is, in many respects, typical of the mOdeI'll nbiblical theology" movement. I:£'i t can 'be demonstrated thai. Cullmann's exegetical method is ad;tersely a£'fe·cted by his theological presuppositions. serious questions will then arise' concerning the validity ·of the whole ttbiblica1 theology" enterprise. It is llot the purpose of this study to draw general conclusions about the tibiblical theology" approach to the scriptures, but merely to show the particular problems which emerge from an exarni:nation of Cullmann's theo,logical exegesis. (3) The searoh for a method in biblical studies is all,~rays important, and must be constantly renewed in the ligh1; of developIll1!mts in ori tical seholarshi:p~, The most eff.ective way in which the search is renewed is by careful study of the methods which scholars have used i:p, the past. A critical study of Cull- mann's exegetical method therefore contributes to the ongoing search for is. method. As a solution to the probletns created by Cullmanr1 1l s method, this study concludes by proposing the complete separation of exegesis from theology. The proposed "descriptive exegesis" requires the same critical examinat,icn which this study ca.nrwt provide. 'l'he study is arranged in fi va cha:h")ters. In chapter I, Cullmann t s exegetical method is placed in t'he context of contemporary biblical 4.,. .::I .uonu.on: ;S •• C.M., 1962 • 3 sCholarship. Chapter II presents! Cullrnann's argument for the necessity of a theological exegesis based J!:'rimarily on the claim that theological presuppositions are inherent in t;he biblical material. In chapters III and IV the results of Cullmannt s exegetical method are compared with those of exegetes who approach th.e biblical material without theological presupposi tions. Chapter III is a: cri tical analysis of the section in phrist and Time which deals with the New Testament terminology for time. Chapter IV is an examina. tion of Cullmann t s exegetical method a.s it is applied to the Fourth Gospel. Chapters III a.n:d IV show conclusively that Cullmann.'s theolegical presuppositions are not il'l..herent in the biblical material.. Cha.pter if draws t.ogether the results of the entire study into a systematic critique or Cullmann's theological exegesise I cu::..ntl\NrnS THEOLOGICAL EXEGESIS IN CONTEXT Cullmann freely admits that he approaches his exegetical work wi th theological presupposi tiona,! By this adm:Lssion he acknowledges his debt to Karl Barth and places, himself firmly on the side of all those who, since Barth's Bpi,stle to the ROmalls of 1919. have advocated a I1theological exegesis! I ~ On this particular matter Cullmann is in agree- ment not only with Barth. but with sush diverse theological c~pinion as represented by Bultmann and the more recent advocates ot "The New 1 Hermeneuticn• All of these SCholars have reacted against the earlier Form ... critical approach to exegesis which had applied the same scien- tific ldstorical principles to the biblical material as were used to explain all other literary material, '!'he appl.ication of these principles led to a breaking GC)O of the biblical material iIlto ma.JlY uurelated strand.s of tradition, with the result that very little attent;ion was paid to the whole (either the Old. 'i'estament, the New Testament? OJ:' both together) 1The title of a book edit.ed by James H. Robinson and John B. Cobb Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964) in which the views of Gerhard Ebeling, E!'nest Fuehs, Robert Funk, Amos Wilder, aha John Dillenberger are presented. 5 because of the preoccupation with the parts.2 Cullmarmts reaction differs from the others in III number of s:i.gnificant ways. In th$ introductory section to the thir-d elii tion of ,9hrist and Time Cullmann discusses his similarities and differences with his contemporaries; and in an article anti tIed uThe Necessity and Fund,ion. of Higher Cri ticismfl3 he further 4 clarifies what he means by !!'~heological exegesis" • A discu.ssicn of the context of Gullm.:mn 11 s theological exegesis is a necessary preliminary to the delimiting of his theological presuppositions.