Talk:Rudolf Bultmann/Archive 1

English language
"The full impact of Bultmann was not felt until the English publication of Kerygma and Mythos (in 1948)."

In 1948 the position of English in the world was nothing like it is today; in a worldwide view the English translation seems relatively trivial. Or did he mainly have anglophone followers? Renke 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about mainly, but a significant portion of his followers are certainly anglophone. His work, as well as that of his students, was highly influential upon study at Harvard Divinity School in the past half century. To my knowledge, the statement is accurate. --69.123.177.197 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazis
What did Bultmann do during the Nazi years? Did he stand against them? Rich 07:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He was member of the Confessing Church and critical towards National Socialism. He spoke out against the mistreatment of Jews, against nationalism excesses and against the dismissal of non-Aryan Christian ministers. (see: Shawn Kelley, Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship. Routledge 2002, pp. 155-156.). --Aethralis 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bultmann was a Confessing Churchman indeed, but this doesn't mean he was opposed to National Socialism in general. The CC opposed the Nazis' church politics, not the regime as such. It is true that he spoke out against the mistreatment of Jews (even today Jews lie pebbles on his grave in Marburg, Germany), but I don't know anything about Bultmann being overtly critical towards National Socialism. --84.174.206.50 15:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually he denounced Streicher and other anti-Semites who suggested that Jesus was not really Jewish. Bultmann located Jesus firmly in his 1st century Jewish context, and that alone was political enough in Nazi Germany. Whatever his own politics, most of his post-war disciples tended toward the left, e.g. Ernst Käsemann.Sjwells53 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fragment
'Rudolph Boltman argued that Jesus wasn't the Son of God; his mother wasn't a virgin; he performed no miracles whatsoever; he wasn't crucified for anyone's sins; he wasn't resurrected; finally, Jesus won't be coming back.[3]' - What to do with this odd fragment? :Why not read Bultmann, himself, instead of someone who cannot spell Bultmann's name correctly? Kazuba (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Further theological themes
Could someone with further scholarship extend the theological content of the page? Discussions of Bultmann's teachings on eschatology, hermeneutics, and faith would be especially welcome. Comparative comments concerning the relation to Karl Barth would be helpful and situate the page within further theological dialogue. Brightwind3 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brightwind, I'm doing some post-grad research which involves a bit of engagement with Bultmann and whilst I'm a bit critical of his approach to theology and the bible, I have to say I've had to adjust my opinion of the man quite a bit. I like your mention of the "pastoral passion" in his preaching - whatever his faults being unconcerned about people doesn't seem to have been one of them. I can't promise very much - most of my contributions would fall under the heading of original research, I'm afraid - but if I get a chance, I'll drop back and make a contribution or two. Regards, Muzhogg (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Heidegger reference
I don't think this quotation from the wiki page does justice to Bultmann's argument: "The same year his lecture New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message called on interpreters to replace traditional theology with the philosophy of Bultmann's colleague, Martin Heidegger, an endeavor to make accessible to a literate modern audience the reality of Jesus' teachings."

What I think is misleading or unjust is the wording "replace traditional theology." I don't think that Bultmann ever makes such an explicit call to replace New Testament theology with Heideggerean philosophy. The picture is not a call for preachers to place Being and Time on the pulpit instead of the New Testament. Rather, Bultmann wants to interpret the New Testament through a temporal understanding of faith. We can nuance this better, I think. We can retain a critical opinion of this, but I think we should balance the critical opinion with an argument that reflects what Bultmann actually says himself. Here is the most sustained reference to Heidegger in "New Testament and Mythology": "Above all, Martin Heidegger's existentialist analysis of human existence seems to be only a profane philosophical presentation of the New Testament view of who we are: beings existing historically in care for ourselves on the basis of anxiety, ever in the moment of decision between the past and the future, whether we lose ourselves in the world of what is available and of the "one," or whether we will attain our authenticity by surrendering all securities and being unreservedly free for the future. Is this not how we are also understood in the New Testament?  When critics have occasionally objected that I interpret the New Testament with the categories of Heidegger's philosophy of existence, I fear they have missed the real problem.  What ought to alarm them is that philosophy all by itself already sees what the New Testament says" -New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings Ogden, Schubert M. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. p23

I think Bultmann understands his argument in reverse of what we have on the site. That is, rather than pointing away from the Scriptures and over to Heidegger, Heidegger's philosophy points back to the New Testament. To my mind, that's quite a difference: do we portray Bultmann as a liberal higher critic concerned with the elite or do we present him as still bearing witness to a reality of faith revealed in the word of the Scriptures? I'm open to suggestions and rebuttals, but I think we should consider at least adding a contrastive statement. There can be multiple views on Bultmann. Brightwind3 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I sympathise with your point. The more I engage with Bultmann the more I find the common portrayals unsatisfactory. However, to be a bit pedantic, our task here is not to make a decision on how to portray Bultmann. Our task is encyclopedic citation of the literature. On that point, I think the best response to the questionable passage on "New Testament and Mythology" would be to replace it with citations from the essay itself. I don't have a copy ready to hand, but can soon check one out of the library. I'd be happy to oblige with a rough draft of a proposed replacement in a week or so. If anybody feels that a corrective is in order, then the best thing would be to offer critical remarks from the literature. Would this be an acceptable resolution of your concerns on this particular issue? -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course I'm happy for you to check the essay and think about how we could amend our discussion with citations. It makes sense to have multiple users consider the issue before changing the text. Thanks. Brightwind3 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are two further passages that I believe will help clarify the position on Heidegger in relation to the New Testament as given in the 1941 essay. Although Heidegger's philosophy describes human historicity in correspondence with the New Testament (see quotation above), Heidegger is, in Bultmann's view and explicitly stated in the essay, guilty of "gnostic high-handedness": "But philosophy is convinced that all that is needed to bring about the realization of our 'nature' is that it be shown to us. "As the true understanding of being, philosophy frees natural submission for its complete truth," which is to say, obviously, that philosophy frees us for true submission [Wilhelm Kamlah]. Philosophy seeks to 'expose' what is truly natural in us. Is this self-confidence on philosophy's part justified? In any case, here is its difference from the New Testament, which claims that we can in no way free ourselves from our factual fallenness in the world but are freed from it only by an act of God. And the proclamation of the New Testament is not a doctrine about our 'nature,' about our authentic existence as human beings, but rather precisely the proclamation of this liberating act of God, of the salvation occurrence that is realized in Christ." (25-26, bold emphasis added) Therefore, having first raised the possibility that a demythologized New Testament would amount to nothing different from the truth of human historicity as described in modern existentialist philosophy, Bultmann asserts a crucial difference. Philosophy claims that human knowledge leads to liberation, while the New Testament asserts the need for salvation from "our factual fallenness in the world" through a saving act of God. Turning to language from I Corinthians 1:20-25, Bultmann develops the contrast between the New Testament and philosophy: "Why have human beings in their fallenness lost the possibility in fact of realizing their authentic life? Because in their fallenness any movement is a movement of fallen human beings. Paul makes this clear by showing that and why the Jews who seek "righteousness" lose the very thing they seek--namely, because they want to be "justified" by their own works, because they want to "boast" in the presence of God. ... In the "boasting" of Jews who are faithful to the law, just as in the boasting of Gnostics who are proud of their wisdom, it becomes clear that the basic human attitude is the highhandedness that tries to bring within our own power even the submission that we know to be our authentic being, and so finally ends in self-contradiction. ... With Heidegger the sacrilege is not so apparent because he does not characterize the attitude of resolution as submission; it is clear, however, that accepting one's thrownness by resolving to die is an act of radical highhandedness. ... The New Testament addresses us on the supposition that we are highhanded through and through and that, while we can therefore very well know that we do not in fact have an authentic life, we are also powerless to lay hold of it because we are fallen through and through in our highhandedness. This means, in the language of the New Testament, that we are sinners; for this highhandedness is sin, rebellion against God." (28-29, bold emphasis added) I think Bultmann makes himself clear that he does not place Heidegger in a supplanting position over the New Testament proclamation. On the contrary, while Heidegger's existentialist philosophy describes the human condition in a light that looks back to the New Testament, Heidegger in the end holds a position of "gnostic highhandedness" that refuses to accept the full weight of human sin.  I think, going slightly off topic, that Bultmann's indictment of Heidegger is exactly just, especially considering the latter's utter refusal to admit his guilt in supporting the Nazi movement. Brightwind3 (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another quotation from nearer the end of the essay that indicates strongly that Bultmann does not "call upon preachers to replace traditional theology" with the philosophy of Martin Heidegger:
 * "Christian faith is faith in Christ because it is faith in the revealed love of God. Only those who are already loved are able to love; only those to whom trust has been given are able to trust; only those who have experienced submission are themselves able to submit.  We are freed to submit to God because God has already submitted to us. ... This, then, is the decisive point that distinguishes the New Testament from philosophy, Christian faith from "natural" self-understanding: the New Testament talks and Christian faith knows about an act of God that first makes possible our submission, our faith, our love, our authentic life." (31) I'm happy if you change the text as we have it, Muzhogg, but I do want to make it clear that I am not raising this objection without evidence.Brightwind3 (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"...an endeavor to make accessible to a literate modern audience the reality of Jesus' teachings"
I'd like to call into question the neutrality of this statement. Is this an encyclopedic reporting of Bultmann with a citation, or a thinly veiled evaluation of his approach as elitist? What is the sense of "literate"? Taken strictly for simplest meaning, "literate" would mean "having the capability to read." I don't think that's the sense of "literate" here. Bultmann, in the 1941 essay, represents his endeavor as an urgently needed approach for reaching out to ordinary (not elite) modern people: "We cannot use electric lights and radios and, in the event of illness, avail ourselves of modern medical and clinical means and at the same time believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament. And if we suppose we can do so ourselves, we must be clear that we can represent this as the attitude of Christian faith only by making the Christian proclamation unintelligible and impossible for our contemporaries" (4-5). Of course we editors can look back in judgment on Bultmann's belief in the ascension of the scientific paradigm, but that should be cited under "critical views of Bultmann," not on the reporting of the facts of what he himself said. I maintain the position that Bultmann believed the demythologizing of the Christian faith was necessary for rendering the gospel message accessible to everyone in the modern Western scientific culture, not for the "literate" elites. The reporting of Bultmann's project changes therefore, because he understood himself as proclaiming the gospel, not distorting or corrupting it for the sake of a proud intellectual elite. Brightwind3 (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'd taken "literate" to mean "scientifically literate" and hence the remark to be a quite accurate representation of what Bultmann was about. But now that you've raised it, I realize it's my familiarity with Bultmann that's causing me to overlook what is actually a rather poorly worded statement. I don't see any problem disambiguating by changing the wording to refer to a "scientifically literate" or "contemporary Western" audience. Please feel free to make any modification you think appropriate. -- Muzhogg (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I went further than a disambiguation and added a supporting statement and quotation. I hope you find that acceptable; feel free to challenge what I added.  I think I'm satisfied with the content now, except for the statement that suggests he privileged Heidegger over the New Testament(see above).  If you want, I can attempt a modification of that statement and you can offer critique.  I seem to be the one most intense about this.Brightwind3 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We could have a warm and fuzzy bout of mutual-appreciation on this. :) The reword is substantially okay - although I did tweek it a little bit (twice!) - and I largely agree re the relation between Heidegger and NT in Bultmann's thought. If I can just go back to an earlier remark, however: the comments in question refer to a specific essay of Bultmann's and not to his general approach. So until I actually get to review the article contents in light of New Testament and Mythology I won't be making any edits - even if I do have a strong suspicion which way things will eventually go. -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks v. much. I appreciate your careful approach.Brightwind3 (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh- I totally missed the irony there. Yes! warm fuzzies all 'round. :)Brightwind3 (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates of Gospels
Bultmann held that the four canonical Gospels were not written till the late second century. Does anyone know the source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Harbor100 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. But in Peter Kreeft's "Handbook of Christian Apologetics" on page 191 he mentions that Bultmann thought that the 4 Gospels were written in the late 2nd Century — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.234.36 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)