New Test. Stud. 13, pp. 351-62 W. RORDORF THE THEOLOGY OF RUDOLF BULTMANN AND SECOND-CENTURY GNOSIS1 In the second chapter of the Prolegomena to his recent study ' Salvation as History' {Heil als Geschichte)2 Oscar Cullmann argues for the similarity of Rudolf Bultmann's theology and the gnosis of the second century. Cull- mann works out the comparison starting with both gnosticism and Bultmann's denial of the idea of salvation as history. And if, in the second century, the early church's struggle with gnosticism was really a matter of life and death, is there not, Cullmann asks, in the present theological debate something similar at stake? This thesis is a challenge to the historian. My considered opinion is that Bultmannian theology and gnosis do have something to do with each other, and I should like to try in this paper to determine the relation of the two systems of thought more closely.3 In doing so, I do not want to fail to do justice to Bultmann, by not adequately pointing out in Part I the differences between him and the gnostics of the second century.4 Bultmann himself has, of course, often expressed his opinion of gnosis in his historical-exegetical works.5 It is not too much to say that his penetrating grasp of the basic traits of gnosticism is correct. Bultmann has even the merit (cf. also Hans Jonas, Gnosis und spdtantiker Geist)6 of having steered gnostic research away from the predominant effort to set the gnostic systems only in history- of-religion categories and directed it towards the phenomenon of world- and 1 A paper read at the Cambridge meeting of S.N.T.S., on 31 August 1966. 3 Tubingen, 1965,pp. 6-10. Eng. ed. 'Salvation in History',S.CM.,NewTestamentLibrary, 1967. 3 This, of course, can be only a modest contribution to the discussion. The problems we deal with here are much too complex; they cannot be 'solved' in a few pages. I must also, unfortunately, let all that has been written on Bultmannian and Cullmannian theology in the last few years, itself afloodof literature, go by untouched. 4 Cullmann's view must not be misunderstood to mean that he compares the theology of Bultmann as such with the theology of the gnostics of the second century, and then rejects them both. Cullmann sees the affinity of Bultmann and the gnostics only in their common rejection of the salvation-as- history theology. Cullmann could, therefore, put more emphasis on the differences between the two, although it is not important to him in the context of this treatment. 6 Cf. for example (according to the date of appearance): art.'yivuCTKU, yvcoais. ..', in Th.W.B. 1, 688-719; Das Evangeltum des Johannes (Meyer-Komm.) 10.—14. Aufl. (1941—56); Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen (Zurich, 1949), especially pp. 181 ff., 193 ff.; Theologie des Neuen Testa- ments, 5. Aufl. (1965), § 15, pp. 162-83; further: Glauben und Verstehen, 11 (1965*), 129 ff., 203 ff.; iv (1965), 78 ff. • 1, 1. Aufl. (1934), FRLANTN.F. 33. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 09:26:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850001835X 352 W. RORDORF self-understanding manifested in them. Even if opinion on various individual issues has to be revised (e.g. on Mandaeism); even if our knowledge of Egyptian gnosis has been considerably enlarged since the findings of Nag Hammadi; even if the question about the origin of gnosticism has been re- considered recently again,1 Jonas' and Bultmann's grasp of the essence of gnosis will certainly remain valid. As a matter of fact, with gnosticism an understanding of existence new to the antique world emerged.2 The Jew and Greek had felt at home in their world, in their clan: gnostic man discovered his essential other- worldliness, his strangeness in the world and a loneliness to go with it. Gnostic man felt himself enslaved to 'powers' and so reached out for salvation, which was granted him in 'gnosis' as a message from the 'upper world' which yet simultaneously welled up out of his innermost self. Bultmann emphasizes that as soon as early Christianity settled on hellenistic soil there had to be a confrontation between Christianity and the gnostic 'Zeitgeist'; and there was. In that confrontation the inner affinity, and also the difference, between gnosis and Christianity showed up. This early meet- ing explains why gnostic terminology and mythological ideas were not only adopted by the heretical Christian gnosis (afterwards excommunicated), but also by the main stream of the church tradition. Gnostic terminology and mythological ideas were even assimilated by various New Testament writers (especially Paul and John), not, however, without their reinterpretation from the viewpoint of the Christian faith. I need not mention particulars of this assimilation and reinterpretation, for Bultmann has done this in his writings in a cautious, perceptive, practically incontrovertible way. In spite of this, has Bultmann now become a heretical gnostic in his own work as an exegete of the New Testament? I really do not believe, on the basis of what has been said up to now, that this reproach is justified. In the main parts of his theology Bultmann's ideas diverge fundamentally from those of the heretical gnosis of the second century. For example, his concep- tion of God is far removed from the dualistic conception of the heretical gnostics. God is, for Bultmann, at one and the same time the demanding one, the judge, andthe gracious one, never the one without the other. In his Christo- logy, in contrast to the heretical gnosis, Bultmann emphasizes the historical 'that' {dafi) of the revelation in Jesus; the cross (a skandalon for every heretical gnostic!) even takes the central place within the Bultmannian doctrine of salvation—it is the cross of Christ which reveals to man his 1 Here I have in mind the arguments of R. M. Grant, G. Quispel; cf. also E. Haenchen, G. Kretschmar. 2 The question need not trouble us now how far this, in a more radical way, expresses a 'Weltgefiihl' analogous to the one that broke into the open with hellenistic 'religious' philosophy and mystery religion piety and really built itself up further in hellenistic, even Palestinian, Judaism. When one has gone so far discovering these relationships, it is a temptation to find political and social causes for this spiritual change in late antiquity; and modern parallels seem to suggest themselves easily. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 09:26:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850001835X THE THEOLOGY OF RUDOLF BULTMANN 353 sin, his 'boasting', his 'want-to-do-it-himself', and which sets him before the decision For-or-Against God.1 And finally, the anthropology of Bultmann is differentiated from the nature-bound fate dualism of the heretical gnosis by his presenting an ethical, person-bound decision dualism, which, when it comes to ethics, does not let the newly won freedom degenerate into asceticism or libertinism but keeps that freedom dialectically bound to the claim of love (faithful to the Pauline formula d>s ur| which Bultmann likes). This genuine New Testament paradox—' as well as'—seems to me to be maintained in all the points mentioned (others could be given); and this paradox affirmed sets Bultmann's thought apart from the heretical gnosis. We could press further and ask whether the fact that Bultmann deals with modern existentialist philosophy has turned him into a latter-day gnostic 'heretic'. Here too, a premature judgement is out of place. All theology is time-bound: this fact becomes obvious to the historian again and again. Theology is served, willingly or unwillingly, by the language of its time and milieu, together with the age's structures of thinking and contents of imagina- tion. This adaptation from one's age includes critically argued adaptation, but one's being influenced (while influencing too) cannot be escaped. The very dispute between church and gnosis in the second century is a model example of such mutual attraction and repulsion: not only the (originally ethnic) gnosis was steadily influenced by Christianity when it made contact, but also church doctrine (originally rooted in Jewish thinking) opened itself up more and more to the influence of gnostic ideas. (This could be proved not only from the Alexandrians Clement and Origen but also from Irenaeus.) And so it has continued through the centuries. Why should not modern theology engage in dialogue with its 'contemporaries', with existentialist philosophy, without hiding it? If already the New Testament writers saw in the gnostic understanding of existence a genuine pre-understanding of Christian faith, which they thankfully used in order to make the kerygma of the crucified Christ comprehensible to their gnostic contemporaries, why should we Christians not deal today with the analysis of being that is found in the ex- istentialist philosophy which has created a pre-understanding for the Christian world and Christian self-understanding (and so is related to gnosis despite all the differences2)? Seeking and finding a modern 'point of contact' for 1 With such an emphasis on the Cross one can hardly regard Bultmann's disinterest in the 'historical Jesus' as a hidden docetism (cf. e.g. Bultmann's writing 'Die Bedeutung des geschicht- lichen Jesus fur die Theologie des Paulus', Glauben und Verstehen, 1 (19646), 188-213; Das Verhdltnis des urchristlichen Christuskerygmas zum historischen Jesus (Heidelberg, 19623).