From http://fireandrose.blogspot.com/2013/11/rudolf-bultmann-readers-guide.html
Reading List for
English Speakers
There are any number of reasons to read Bultmann. Those
interested in New Testament biblical studies already know how important it is
to understand his work. I am writing primarily for those who want to understand
Bultmann as a theologian. He is
widely underappreciated by those in the theological guild, and this is no doubt
due, in part, to the influence of Barth. And yet Bultmann is a formidable
theologian in his own right, someone who deserves to be taken much more
seriously than he currently is. So for those English-speakers looking to dive
into Bultmann’s theology, consider this a step-by-step reading list.
First, though, a tip on how to read Bultmann’s essays.
Bultmann mastered a particular art of essay writing that may confuse American
readers who are used to a rather different style. One has to remember that the
majority of his essays were originally lectures, and thus they exhibit standard
marks of classical rhetoric. In particular, readers will notice that some of
his essays begin by establishing a certain rapport with a figure or text or
idea that he wishes to problematize or criticize. And so he will make statements
up front that may strike one as questionable. That is intentional on his part.
At some point later, maybe at the midpoint, and sometimes not until near the
end, Bultmann will pull a rhetorical twist that reveals his actual position.
This is most apparent in polemical or controversial writings, such as those
dealing with the natural theology or natural revelation.
Now for the list. I have arranged this in a very intentional
order to facilitate the greatest possible understanding. I have also grouped
them by theme, in the order in which they should be read.
Introduction
Two works in particular should be read and consulted
constantly and thus don’t belong in a specific place in the reading list.
Karl Barth – Rudolf
Bultmann Letters, 1922–1966. The translation of the first edition of the
Barth-Bultmann correspondence is an invaluable resource. Many important
insights into Bultmann’s own theology are revealed here. Unfortunately, this
translation is only a selection. Many of the letters are only summarized by
Bromiley in a brief paragraph, justified by him on the grounds that “many of
them contain matters of practical or academic or political interest that do not
directly advance the main argument.” Essential reading include the letters on
the following dates: Dec. 31, 1922; June 8, 1928; Feb. 5, 1930; Nov. 11–15,
1952; Dec. 24, 1952.
This World and the
Beyond: Marburg Sermons. Bultmann’s collected sermons from Marburg,
delivered between 1936 and 1950, provide one of the best entryways into his
theology. Bultmann’s entire theology serves the church’s proclamation. His
sermons show what his talk of hermeneutics actually means for the life of the
church. Most of these sermons were preached within the context of Nazi rule,
and they should be read with that sociopolitical context in mind.
Part 1: Revelation
1. “Science and Existence” (1955) in NTM. This may seem an odd place to start. This essay, originally in
GuV 3, is not well known or highly
regarded, and yet it zeroes in on the key issue underpinning his entire
theological project with admirable clarity. Here Bultmann focuses on the issue
of “objectification” (Objektivierung)
and the need for a nonobjectifying God-talk. The essay closes with one of the
single best paragraphs in his entire corpus, presenting God as one who never
stands still, who is always running ahead of us, whose futurity is
transcendence.
2. “What Does It Mean to Speak of God?” (1925) in FaU. Among Bultmann’s most famous pieces
of writing and deservedly so. It forms the perfect counterpart to “Science and
Existence” and shows that Bultmann’s entire career orients around a single
problem: How can we think and speak responsibly of God so that our God-talk is
genuinely about God? Bultmann’s
answer involves differentiating between “talk about God” (Reden über Gott)
and “talk of God” (Reden von Gott); pay very close
attention to the use of “about” and “of”! Also pay attention to the phrases
“picture of the world” and “view of the world” or “worldview.” These are
translations of Weltbild and Weltanschauung, respectively, and they
ought to be consistently translated as “world-picture” and “worldview.” The
terms must be strictly differentiated, a point that becomes very important if
one is to understand the program of demythologizing. Finally, this essay is
most famous for the oft-quoted but little understood line: “It is therefore
clear that if one wishes to speak of God, one must evidently speak of oneself” (my translation). It
is simply false to claim that Bultmann is here reducing theology to anthropology.
A little later in the essay he adds the all-important zugleich (“at the same time”): “In any case, talking of God, if it
were possible, would necessarily be talking at
the same time of ourselves” (emphasis mine). The point is the inseparability of God and the self (not the reduction of God to the self), that is, the inability to
talk of God outside of faith, outside of the relation of obedience to God. Moreover,
for Bultmann, there is no natural existence that forms a given starting-point
for theology outside of revelation, since “our existence is grounded in God and
is nonexistent outside God.” The opposition to natural theology is a point
established more clearly elsewhere, but it’s important to keep it in mind from
the beginning.
3. “The Question of Natural Revelation” (1941) in EPT. In 1940 Bultmann gave this lecture
before a group of theologians in the Confessing Church. The following year he
published it along with his programmatic essay on demythologizing, which was
given before the same group. The two essays together are a response to the
political situation of Nazi Germany. One has to keep in mind this
sociopolitical context when reading both essays. In the case of “The Question
of Natural Revelation,” the context is explicit, since he embeds within the
argument a strong criticism of those who would try to make German culture a
criterion of revelation. Bultmann walks a very fine and nuanced line in this
piece, arguing in the end that all appeals to nature and natural revelation are
false. Christianity “asserts that all
answers apart from the Christian answer are illusions,” and thus to speak of God outside of God’s revelation in
Christ is “actually sin.” He concludes: “This finally is the significance, therefore,
of the revelation in nature and history: it constantly refers us to the
revelation of the forgiving grace of God in Christ. But it is only in doing this
that it is revelation for us; and that means that, apart from Christ, it is not
revelation for us. But when we do start from Christ, the whole of the world in
nature and history can receive the illumination of revelation.” In this
lecture, Bultmann reveals himself to be a consistent and unwavering theologian
of the word of God.
4. “Theology as Science” (1941) in NTM. Having set down the foundation for understanding Bultmann
through some choice appetizers, we can now turn to the main courses. We begin
with “Theology as Science,” which I regard as the best of all Bultmann’s
essays, and certainly my personal favorite. It is actually a lecture that he
gave at the very same conference in Alpirsbach where he gave the famous
demythologizing lecture, “New Testament and Mythology.” Unfortunately, he never
published it, and it was only finally made publicly available in 1984. The
essay constitutes a brief theological encyclopedia. The term encyclopedia in
German refers to something that programmatically sets out the nature of a
particular discipline. In theology the classic example is Schleiermacher’s Brief Outline of a Field of Study. This
essay has two halves. The first summarizes his understanding of the object of
theology, viz. God. The second examines the procedure of theology, as NT
theology, systematic theology, OT theology, church history, and practical
theology. This lecture rewards multiple readings and should be read carefully.
Embedded within are many of his best insights.
5. “Liberal Theology and the Latest Theological Movement”
(1924) in FaU. Bultmann’s first essay
in GuV is also one of his most
important. In this lecture he expresses his clearest agreement with the
dialectical theology of Barth and Gogarten. The essay is a difficult read,
which is why I did not put it earlier. It contains some of his trademark ideas,
including his rejection of the quest for the historical Jesus on the basis that
historical criticism as only negatively useful for theology, given that God is
only revealed to faith in the word of God. The final section is the most
important. That’s where he delivers his axiom: “God is not a given entity.”
6. “The Significance of ‘Dialectical Theology’ for the
Scientific Study of the New Testament” (1928) in FaU. An excellent counterpart to the 1924 essay. This one is
especially important for the insight it gives into Bultmann’s understanding of
dialectical theology and of theology as such. He articulates his existential
concept of truth, in which truth is not something timeless and static, but
rather a response to the question posed by a concrete situation. Truth is an
event—the event of God’s word heard in faith. One of the earliest instances of
Bultmann’s use of the term “preunderstanding,” which he started using in the spring
of 1927.
7. “On the Question of Christology” (1927) in FaU. Bultmann’s response to Emanuel
Hirsch, and a good counterpart to “Theology as Science,” particularly with
respect to the distinction and relation between the fides quae creditur (“the faith that is believed”) and the fides qua creditur (“the faith by which
it is believed”). Provides important insight into Bultmann’s own theology.
8. What Is Theology?
(1984). If I had to recommend one book to read by Bultmann to get a sense of
his theology, it would be this one, the posthumously published edition of his
lectures on theology that he gave between 1926 and 1936. In a way, this is the
book-length version of “Theology as Science.” Some of the material can be found
elsewhere—certain passages are repeated verbatim in “On the Question of
Christology”—but much of this material is new and incredibly illuminating. I’ve
long believed that had this material been in print during Bultmann’s lifetime,
the debates about his theology would look very different today. In any case,
people ought to read this book in its entirety, but the two key chapters are
“Revelation as Historic Event” (§11) and “Faith as Historical Deed” (§14). I
also recommend the discussion of the object of theology in §§4–6 and §9.
9. “The Question of ‘Dialectic’ Theology” (1926) in The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology.
This essay will be harder for many to obtain, but it is well worth the effort.
In 1925 a dispute broke out over Erik Peterson’s criticism of dialectical
theology. Barth and Bultmann joined forces in the pages of Zwischen den Zeiten to respond to Peterson. Bultmann’s contribution
is a marvelous synthesis (or anticipation) of many of the themes addressed in
the above writings.
Part 2: Hermeneutics
10. “The Problem of Theological Exegesis” (1925), in The Beginnings of Dialectical Theology.
Now that we have a basic understanding of Bultmann’s account of God and
revelation, we can turn to look at his hermeneutics. The best place to begin is
Bultmann’s 1925 lecture on Sachkritik/Sachexegese—“material
[or content] criticism/exegesis,” terribly translated as “objective
criticism/exegesis” for reasons that cannot be explained here—which is one of
his most important statements about exegesis and hermeneutics. It’s important
to note the year that this was written. Not only is 1925 a pivotal year in the
Barth-Bultmann relationship, but it also precedes the turn to a more rigorous
existentialist hermeneutic, initially in 1927 and fully in 1934. This means
that many key concepts, such as preunderstanding, do not appear. The concept of
self-understanding appears in the form of “self-interpretation” (Selbstauslegung). This article rewards
repeated readings. I cannot help but think that the demythologizing debate
would have looked rather different had more people paid attention to this
lecture.
11. “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” (1957)
in NTM. While Bultmann was a
hermeneutical theologian from the start, he only set out to systematically clarify
his hermeneutical program in the 1950s. This involved a substantial amount of
ground-clearing, and the best example of that is his little essay on whether
presuppositionless exegesis is possible. Short answer: no. But exegesis should
still be without prejudice. We cannot
avoid presuppositions, but we can avoid dictating the outcome of the exegesis
in advance.
12. “The Problem of Hermeneutics” (1950) in NTM. A classic treatment of the topic.
Bultmann sets out the concept of preunderstanding here in more systematic
detail, though this essay read in isolation from other writings can be
misleading. It closes with one of Bultmann’s most important criticisms of
Barth, a criticism that, to my knowledge, Barth never addressed.
13. History and
Eschatology, chaps. 8 and 10. Bultmann’s Gifford Lectures are full of
wonderful historical and theological insights and deserve to be read in their
entirety. I have highlighted chapters 8 and 10 because there he summarizes his
hermeneutical position. It is important to see that Bultmann differentiates
between two aspects of historiography (p. 117): (a) the perspective of the
historian who is situated within a particular historical situation and (b) the
existential encounter with history. These two aspects correspond to Bultmann’s
key concepts: preunderstanding (Vorverständnis)
and self-understanding (Selbstverständnis).
The 1957 essay (#10 above) only focuses on the first aspect, while Bultmann is
very clear that an authentically Christian interpretation of scripture concerns
the second aspect, a point that is often misunderstood.
14. “The Task and the Problems of New Testament Theology
(the Relation between Theology and Proclamation)” (1950) in Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2
(epilogue). Every NT theology, hermeneutics, and systematic theology course
should have this essay, or at least the first section of it, assigned as
required reading. It was originally published in a 1950 Festschrift as “The
Problem of the Relation of Theology and Proclamation in the New Testament,” and
it constitutes his most important statement on the relation between theology
and scripture. As he says, “there can be no normative Christian dogmatics.”
This provides the ideal segue into demythologizing.
Part 3:
Demythologizing, or, the Question of God’s Action in History
15. “New Testament and Mythology” (1941) in NTM. We turn, finally, to the
programmatic lecture on demythologizing, the so-called Entmythologisierungsvortrag. I have put it off until now, because
it is important to see that demythologizing is nothing new; it is the consistent
outworking of basic theological convictions that he shares with Barth.
Demythologizing is simply the hermeneutical extension of dialectical theology.
This particular essay, however, is not the clearest or best expression of his
program, but it launched the discussion, so I have placed it first in this
section of the reading list. I already pointed out that Bultmann delivered this
lecture before the Confessing Church, and that he published it with his 1940
lecture on natural revelation. We must see his demythologizing program as an
attempt to oppose the contemporary political myths of Nazi Germany at their
hermeneutical root.
16. “On the Problem of Demythologizing” (1952) in NTM. This is among the most important of
all Bultmann’s writings, and it may be the single most significant thing he
wrote regarding demythologizing. In this essay one finds a synthesis of his
mature hermeneutical theology, arranged in three parts: (a) the concept of myth
and the program of demythologizing, (b) the role of existentialist philosophy,
and (c) the nature of divine action. Of these, the first and third are the most
important. In the first section Bultmann gives his most extensive clarification
of the concept of myth and defines demythologizing as a task with two aspects:
negatively, critique of the mythical world-picture (for more on Weltbild, see below); positively,
existentialist interpretation. Understanding what each of these mean is the
subject of my own research and is a topic for another day, but it is
significant how Bultmann frames his program in this essay. The third section is
important for many reasons. There we find the most extensive description of
“paradoxical identity,” one of his most important concepts. And, to cap it all
off, we have the concluding paragraph, where he declares: “In point of fact,
radical demythologizing is the parallel to the Pauline-Lutheran doctrine of
justification through faith alone without the works of the law. Or, rather, it
is the consistent application of this doctrine to the field of knowledge.” Study
this essay carefully. NB: The 1961 essay with the same name is a kind of précis
of the 1952 essay, though it has its own merits and is well worth reading on
its own.
17. Jesus Christ and
Mythology. In October and November 1951, Bultmann gave the Shaffer Lectures
at Yale Divinity School and the Cole Lectures at Vanderbilt University. These
were published in 1958 as Jesus Christ and
Mythology, whose main text is really just an expansion of the material from
the 1952 essay (or rather the 1952 essay is an abridgment of the 1951
lectures); chapters 3–5 cover the material in the 1952 essay, while chapters 1
and 2 add important historical and exegetical context for his program. This
short book—the main text is only seventy-five trade-size pages—should be read
cover to cover. One of its most important features is the way Bultmann situates
demythologizing within the rediscovery of the apocalyptic eschatology of Jesus
and the early church. Bultmann is often viewed as carrying on the legacy of
Wilhelm Herrmann. There is some truth in that, but my own work contests this on
the grounds that the most central aspect of Bultmann’s theology is the role of
eschatology: his theology, and really dialectical theology as such, is
eschatological theology. But this is precisely what Herrmann lacks, and
Bultmann repeatedly criticizes him for it. This is why Bultmann is really the
descendant of his earlier teacher and mentor, Johannes Weiss. And Jesus Christ and Mythology is
significant for the way it emphasizes the importance of Weiss to his
hermeneutical project. The last chapter on divine action also should be read
with care, since it is so central to Bultmann’s theology.
18. “The Christian Hope and the Problem of Demythologizing”
(1953), in Expository Times 65, nos.
8–9 (1954): 228–30, 276–78. This article may be hard to find, but it’s worth
the effort. In July 1953, Bultmann, Günther Bornkamm, and Friedrich Karl
Schumann gave papers on the question of Christian hope and demythologizing.
These papers and a conversation between the three of them were published
together. Bultmann’s contribution to this forum was translated for a journal. It
is especially helpful for the way it makes explicit how demythologizing has
been going on throughout the life of the church, and even in scripture itself.
19. “Theology for Freedom and Responsibility” in The Christian Century (August 27, 1958):
967–69. Another article worth the effort to find. This one extends
demythologizing into the realm of sociopolitical responsibility. According to
Bultmann, “Theology must be sharply on guard against any identification of the
Christian faith with a political program.”
Part 4: Christology
We have already touched on christological themes many times
in the above essays, but I want to close this list by tracing Bultmann’s
thinking on this most central of theological topics. I’ve ordered the list in
terms of whether the emphasis is on the “historical Jesus” or the kerygmatic
Christ, beginning with the “historical Jesus” of Jesus and the Word and ending with the magnificent account of the
kerygmatic Christ in The Gospel of John.
I put historical Jesus in scare quotes because Bultmann does not believe we
have direct access to the actual Jesus of history; what we have are the
synoptic accounts of Jesus, accounts that originated in a later Hellenistic
Christian community. That does not mean Bultmann thinks we have no knowledge
whatsoever about the Jesus of history, simply that our access is entirely
mediated through accounts shaped by later traditions and cultural conceptualities.
20. Jesus and the Word.
Bultmann’s 1926 book, titled simply Jesus
in the German, is one of his most beautiful and compelling documents. The
methodology behind the book was set out in his earlier form-critical study, History of the Synoptic Tradition. Jesus and the Word presents the message
of Jesus as we can discern it in the synoptic tradition. Bultmann presents us with
a radically eschatological Jesus, who confronts his hearers with the demand of
God’s coming future. One of the most important arguments of the book is that Jesus’
teaching of the coming reign of God does not conflict with but rather
complements Jesus’ teaching of God’s will
21. “The Significance of the Historical Jesus for the
Theology of Paul” (1929) in FaU. Bultmann’s
essay on Paul and Jesus is a classic study on the topic and highlights one of
his central theses: namely, that what Jesus expected as future, Paul confessed
as something already past and present. In this distinction lies the
differentiation between the Jewish Jesus and the Christian Paul, between the
proclamation of Jesus and the kerygma of the church.
22. “The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical
Jesus” (1960) in The Historical Jesus and
the Kerygmatic Christ: Essays on the New Quest of the Historical Jesus,
edited by Carl E. Braaten and Roy A. Harrisville (Abingdon, 1964). In the late
1950s, Bultmann was facing criticism from his former students, in particular
Ernst Käsemann, Gerhard Ebeling, Ernst Fuchs, Günther Bornkamm, and others. All
of them in one way or another were arguing for a new quest for the historical
Jesus on the grounds that Bultmann’s theology needs to show that kerygma is
historically grounded in the Jesus of history. By 1960, Bultmann had had enough
and decided to break his silence. His paper, technically titled “The Relation
of the Early Christian Christ-Message to the Historical Jesus,” was a bombshell
dropped on the new questers. It single-handedly brought the dispute to an end
and forced his former students to recast their argument in a different manner.
The essay remains one of Bultmann’s most important writings, in particular the
remarkable concluding paragraphs, where he states that “there is no faith in
Christ which would not also be faith in the church as the bearer of the
kerygma; that is, using the terminology of dogmatics, faith in the Holy Spirit.”
The final paragraph provides one of his clearest affirmations of the Christus praesens, that is to say, that
Christ is genuinely and actively present in the kerygma.
23. “The Christological Confession of the World Council of
Churches” (1951) in EPT. In 1951 Bultmann
was asked to comment on the confessional statement of the World Council of Churches.
His response is perhaps his most important writing on christology proper, i.e.,
on the theology of the kerygmatic Christ as opposed to the question of the
historical Jesus. This ranks with the very best of his articles, combining
exegetical reflection with creative and provocative theological judgments. In
section 3 he presents one of his most important questions: “Does [Christ] help
me because he is God’s Son, or is he the Son of God because he helps me?”
Bultmann sides with the latter and puts forward what we might describe in
retrospect an “actualistic ontology,” namely, that Christ is what he does. This becomes clear in the final
section, where he develops his notion of Christ as an event and not as a metaphysical
entity. Humanity and deity both are active events, not substances: “Humanity
can be interpreted as a φύσις just as little as what we call ‘deity’ may be.”
This article warrants close attention.
24. The Gospel of
John: A Commentary, esp. “The Prologue,” “The Judge,” “The Hiddenness and
Contingency of the Revelation,” “The Mystery of the Death of Jesus,” “The
Community in the World,” and “The Believers’ Future as the Eschatological
Situation.” I conclude this part of the reading list with what I consider to be
Bultmann’s greatest work. Do not listen to those who would dismiss this
commentary on the grounds that Bultmann’s source criticism is outdated, or that
his claims about Gnosticism have been falsified. None of that is relevant to
the theological significance of this
commentary, which is enormous. I believe it is the greatest piece of
theological exegesis since Barth’s Epistle
to the Romans, and indeed The Gospel
of John is to Bultmann what Epistle
to the Romans is to Barth. I cannot begin to do it justice here, but let me
give some context. The commentary was released in parts between 1937 and 1941,
when it was finally released as a single volume. That this is the same year as
his demythologizing lecture is no accident. In many respects, it is the
commentary that drives the program, not the other way around. Nor is it
accidental that Bultmann wrote this commentary in the context of Nazi Germany.
Just as Barth’s Romans is an
exegetical exorcism of the liberalism that led to the German church’s
warmongering in 1914, so too Bultmann’s Gospel
of John is an exegetical exorcism of the liberalism that led to the German
church’s racist and nationalist propaganda in 1932 and beyond. Bultmann’s
interpretation of the Jews in John as symbolic of the “unbelieving world” is
part of his attempt to undermine the anti-Semitic ideology of his day. And his
interpretation of Pilate as symbolic of the state is a thinly-veiled critique
of the Nazi state. But the primary reason to read this commentary is for
Bultmann’s profound and often beautiful theological exposition, particularly as
it pertains to the eschatological invasion of the world in Christ and the
eschatological existence of believers. Jesus is “the one who always breaks the
given to pieces, who always destroys every security, who always irrupts from
the beyond and calls into the future,” and consequently faith can never be
stabilized and petrified as an element of culture, a philosophical theory, or a
religious worldview.
Concluding Thoughts
There is so much more worth including on this list. The
entire Theology of the New Testament
should be read by anyone seriously interested in Bultmann, though I have left
it off this list because much of the key material can be gleaned from other,
shorter writings. His commentaries on the Johannine epistles and 2 Corinthians
are also full of exegetical and theological gems, but they can be hard to find
amidst the dense analysis of the Greek text. For those who wish to dive into
the deep end of the pool, however, surprising treasures await.
I have not addressed matters of translation or the issue of
Bultmann’s conceptuality, which may be foreign to most English readers. In the
future I plan to put together a brief glossary of key terms that should prove
useful to new readers. Unfortunately, much of the confusion regarding Bultmann’s
theology is due to mistranslations and concepts that carry false connotations
in English. But for those who approach with an open mind and a receptive
spirit—for those who are prepared to encounter in Bultmann a powerful witness
to the word and claim of God—the translations above should more than suffice.
No comments:
Post a Comment