Bultmann’s statement of Faith..
22 Feb 2012 8 Comments
in Christology, Church, Revelation, Theology Tags: Bultmann, Christ Crucified, Existential Reality In Faith
There is something profound in Bultmann’s statement: ‘That only the bare fact of Christ crucified was necessary for Christian faith.’ This is of course not just bare knowledge, but the existential reality of Christ’s Death!
Trey Medley
Feb 22, 2012 @ 09:56:38
However, in context, for Bultmann, this needn’t be a historical fact and the resurrection is superfluous. That, to me, is a problem. We nee the resurrection (maybe more than the crucifixion) and its historicity is incredibly important, or else this space and time is largely pointless.
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Feb 22, 2012 @ 10:18:45
Were talking about Rudolf himself here, “his” place of Faith, which was simply historical to the Crucifixion!
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Feb 22, 2012 @ 10:44:55
Btw, again, Bultmann is talking about “existenial” faith, faith that is beyond just a mental and even scholastic affirmation! Here the “crucifixion” itself grinds down belief to the reality of “death” itself, which we can see in St. Paul is itself a mystical reality in faith! And I think even for Bultmann, it is the ‘Death of Christ’! He who is Totally Other!
Trey Medley
Feb 22, 2012 @ 22:24:22
No for Bultmann its the kerygma concerning the death. History has absolutely nothing to do with it. In his New Testament theology he is explicit that the work of the historian has no place in either theology or personal faith. For Bultmann it is the ahistorical, existential truth of the kerygma, regardless of whether it has a correlation to historical fact. His demythologizing method, developed towards the end of his career, emphasized finding this ahistorical, existential kernel of truth amidst the myth of the biblical text. For Bultmann the present, and to a certain extent the future, are the only important tenses, the past is irrelevant and unrelated to the believer. One of the earliest critiques of Bultmann (and much of kerygmatic theology following Barth) can be found in Wolfhart Pannenberg’s essay “Kerygma and Universal History,” which is included in the first volume of Pannenberg’s *Basic Questions in Theology*. Bultmann was unapologetically ahistorical.
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Feb 23, 2012 @ 04:39:38
History for Bultmann is not anti or ahistorical, as a history removed of myth, quite simple in his mind. The past is not “irrelevant” for Bultmann, as the reality of the existential presence, and this is pressed thru the myth. But this is also the “myth” of a “scientific” exegesis, when we loose the truth of genre. But again, Bultmannn saw the great “historical” reality in the Crucifixion, alone, but a history seen in the depth of the existenial “death” of Christ!
Thanks to share!
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Feb 23, 2012 @ 05:54:16
Trey: Sorry I am on the fly, I am a hospital chaplain (semi-retired now). But I did want to respond more about Bultmann. Many years back, in my “existential” days, when I was working on my D. Phil. I was reading and thinking on Bultmann, but then I moved over to Luther (thank God), and finished my D. Phil. on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross.
I would agree somewhat about Bultmann, and his radical adjustment to his idea of history. But, my point to my wee post, was that Bultmann did place his “belief” in the history of the literal death of Christ, though of course everything for Bultmann was pressed thru the or his “existential”. And of course this was brought on by his idea of a so-called scientific exegesis which was pressed by his demythologizing.
Btw, see C.H. Dodd’s book: The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (with intro by Ernest Scott). My copy is a 1949 reprint (first ed. 1936). And mine is signed by C.H. Dodd. His work on the “biblical” and theological ‘Kerygma’ is still one of the best!
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Feb 23, 2012 @ 09:41:55
“It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work.” (Bultmann)
While Bultmann reinterpreted theological language in existential terms, he nonetheless maintained that the New Testament proclaimed a message more radical than any modern existentialism!
He was so beautifully wrong, overall! But right about the depth (existentially) of Christ-Crucified!
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Feb 23, 2012 @ 09:51:27
Bultmann, from the New World Encyclopedia…
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rudolf_Bultmann