THE PARADOX OF BULTMANN’S HISTORICAL JESUS FOR FAITH: A QUESTION OF HISTORY Bernard Booth Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postgraduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MA in Religious Studies Classics and Religious Studies Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa © Bernard Booth, Ottawa, Canada, 2013 Abstract Rudolf Bultmann created an individualist theology of existentialism to replace the ethical-moral theology of the liberal tradition. The impact of Bultmann‟s theology, which privileged post-Easter church kerygma over the historical Jesus, is the core of the problem and is situated in Bultmann‟s existentialist view of history, derived from Martin Heidegger‟s Being and Time. His theology derived additional, important support from the findings of Hans Jonas‟ dissertation on Gnosticism. Bultmann divided history into two components, positivist history (Historie), and individualised history (Geschichte). The study examines strengths and weaknesses in Bultmann‟s historical epistemology, with respect to conflict between the historical Jesus and the post-Easter kerygmatic faith of the disciples, the social and cultural spin-offs of alienation and anti-Judaism, and the resulting conflict with former students and foreign scholars. The conclusion is that Bultmann was so opposed to liberal historiography that he was willing to construct a theology of individual existence, devoid of social responsibility to the world at large, and replete with inconsistency regarding continuity between the historical Jesus and the kerygma. Nevertheless, Bultmann is credited with awakening the need to examine the authenticity of the gospels and New Testament message in a new light. 2 Acknowledgements I wish to express my thanks to Professor Pierluigi Piovanelli for introducing me to the early Christian literature, and particularly, to the debates surrounding the historical Jesus. I have been fortunate to have had classical and religious studies at St. Bede‟s College, Manchester, U.K., which have provided a foundation for understanding the debates about Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. A special word of appreciation is due to Louise, my wife, for her helpful and patient support. I owe a special debt of thanks to Professor Theodore de Bruyn for his course entitled, “The Virgin Cult,” where I was introduced to Paul‟s “Christ as the Second Adam,” which has proved relevant to Rudolf Bultmann‟s understanding of the kerygmatic Christ from a Pauline perspective. I would like to add that I feel I have benefited greatly from the demands of the department for exactitude and precision in its students. 3 Table of Contents Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 7 Research Focus 14 Discussion 20 Sources 24 Methodology 29 Description of the Model 29 Applying the Model 30 Social and Cultural Parameters of the Model 32 Scope of the Study 33 Extrapolation 36 Hypothesis 41 Chapter Outlines 46 Chapter 2: Background to Bultmann 49 The Liberal Legacy 51 The Sceptics 58 Eschatology 66 Chapter 3: Bultmann‟s Hermeneutics 73 Need for Demythologising 76 E. Troeltsch 79 4 K. Barth 86 Dialectical Theology and Bultmann 92 M. Heidegger 95 Judaism and Inauthenticity 102 The Fourth Gospel 103 F. C. Baur 111 Paul 116 Heidegger‟s Influence 120 Chapter 4: Dissent in Germany 124 Bultmann‟s Anti-Judaism 126 Jesus and Anti-Judaism 128 New Testament and Mythology 132 H. Jonas 138 Legitimating the Historical Jesus: The Former Schüler 148 K. Jaspers 152 F. Buri 159 S. Ogden 161 E. Käsemann 163 G. Bornkamm 168 H. Conzelmann 172 G. Ebeling 178 E. Fuchs 182 Chapter 5: Anglo-American Dissent 188 5 C. H. Dodd 191 The Parables of Jesus 198 R. H. Fuller 204 V. Taylor 206 D. E. Nineham 208 T. W. Manson 209 American Influences 220 A. N. Wilder 221 F. C. Grant 225 J. Knox 225 Cultural Relevance and Historical Relativism 226 Epilogue: Hermeneutics and History 232 Implications of Bultmann‟s Existentialism 234 The Debates: Germany 236 The Debates: England 240 The Debates: America 241 Conclusion 242 Bibliography 246 6 Chapter 1 Introduction to the Study Rudolf Bultmann was born in Wiefelstede, northern Germany, on 30 July, 1884. The German countryside would be in the full bloom of mid-summer and this might explain the tremendous affection which he felt for the German countryside and its farming people and his preference for the cloistered campus of Marburg, where he lectured until his retirement in about 1950. He had his feet firmly planted in theological soil, since his father was a Lutheran minister, while he himself was an admirer of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Schleiermacher‟s hermeneutics are important for understanding why Bultmann broke away from the liberal tradition because he was the first theologian to argue that the basis of theology lay not in philosophy, but rather within the sensory experience of the individual‟s belief system and Bultmann‟s existentialist theology echoes the sensory- experiential hermeneutics of Schleiermacher. It took Bultmann from around 1904 until the 1920s to crystalise his ideas about the nature of the divine, and the role that the christological Jesus played in the encounter with the divine. But it was form critical research which convinced him that the liberal search for an authentic Jesus based on the gospels would not yield the objective historical results desired. Consequently, he broke with the liberal historical tradition and embarked on a mission to develop a theology while devoid of dogma and orthodoxy it would be relevant to the German believer.1 The 1 See references to letters from Bultmann to his friend Fischer in which he expresses his views that the church needs to become more modern in “Bultmann‟s Papers: Antje Bultmann Lemke,” in Bultmann: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Edward C. Hobbs; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 3-12. See also William D. 7 results of form criticism established Bultmann as a leader in German theology. It raised important, new questions for the historical interpretation of the gospels and the role of faith, and ultimately, the role of history as an epistemological means of establishing whether the historical Jesus had a significant place in the kerygmatic faith of the post- Easter followers of Jesus. Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) and Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) are located on opposite poles of the theological spectrum. Yet, in several respects, they are similar. Harnack is an important influence on Bultmann because he was at the pinnacle of his fame in the early 1900s, when Bultmann was a young student. Harnack had published the History of Dogma (several volumes) in 1888 and he followed this with What Is Christianity?, in 1900. Bultmann followed Harnack in the 1920s with History of the Synoptic Tradition and Jesus and the Word.2 Both were reformers. The History of Dogma threatened church authority to the extent that Harnack was punished by the evangelical church leaders who tried, but failed, to deny him a university appointment. Dennison, The Young Bultmann: Context for His Understanding of God, 1884-1925 (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 48-62. Dennison explains the theological contribution of Schleiermacher to Bultmann‟s thinking and provides a stepping stone to understanding how Bultmann made the transition from his love of the German countryside to a position whereby he recognised that it was a culturally constructed artefact, which must be made to take second place to his search for a theology, which placed God uppermost and beyond cultural meanings. Dennison explains the neo-Kantian foundation of Bultmann‟s evolution and shows how it can be traced to Hegel and Schleiermacher. 2 Harnack and Bultmann shared the distinction of leading the theological field in a controversial way. Both fought against church orthodoxy, but that is where the similarity ends because Bultmann‟s two books decried the uses of history for understanding the gospels, whereas Harnack promoted the idea that history was essential for faith in the gospels. Harnack supported research into the historical Jesus, whereas Bultmann, after 1925, when he had begun to formulate his existential theology, rejected cultural history as positivist, cultural, objective and even sinful, if it was used to treat the divine as a phenomenon. 8 Harnack‟s liberal thinking shone in his argument that the gospel needed to be freed from dogmatic ecclesiasticism where it had become embodied in the cultic practices of the church. He argued that the Reformation begun by Martin Luther must continue in its work to free the gospels from dogma, and he protested that the Reformation had not gone far enough in this respect, since many catholic remnants were still evident in the reformed churches of Calvinism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, which reflected an intellectual servitude, incompatible with the message of Jesus in the gospels. The core of Harnack‟s argument is that the dogmatic method must be replaced by the historical method. The historical method incorporates change, he argued. Christianity is not to be viewed as a permanent, unchanging, phenomenon because early Christianity changed as it progressed, and for this reason, we need to be aware of how cultural components have changed the interpretation of the gospels. The gospels need to be studied from the way they were interpreted throughout history, but Bultmann did not agree. One of his criticisms of the historical method was that it was too subjective and subject to change, while Harnack argued the opposite, citing change as central to understanding theology, and thereby defending the use of history for the opposite reason to Bultmann. Harnack supported the traditional liberal view of history in its acceptance of change, while Bultmann was looking for a permanent view of theology. His goal would direct him to an abstract Hegelian theology without outside cultural influences where Bultmann would be well and truly outside the liberal fold.