The other day I decided that I should choose one theologian whose writing corpus would be my “casual” reading for 2014. Several people came to mind, but I’ve decided to familiarize myself with Rudolf Bultmann for the following reasons:
(1) It has been said that he was the “greatest,” or at least the most influential (depending on the person and their estimation of the value of his work), theologian and scholar of the twentieth century. Now, I know for many others this should be said of Karl Barth. I’m not interesting in arguing in favor of either, but I must say that I’ve seen Bultmann cited far more often than Barth by those in the field of biblical literature. Since this is more my leaning I need to be acquainted with Bultmann more than Barth.
(2) That leads to my second point: Bultmann is omnipresent in the paragraphs and footnotes of scholars to this day. You can’t escape him when you engage historical Jesus studies, early Christianity, early Judaism (often in reaction to him here), the Gospels, memory studies, etc. It would be unwise of me to try to navigate this field ignorant of one of the most influential participants (if not the most).
(3) While Barth and Bonhoeffer are beloved by Evangelicals (although I imagine that much like C.S. Lewis if they were a contemporary of modern Evangelicals they’d be shunned by most of our institutions and disbarred from the Evangelical Theological Society for compromising on inerrancy, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and a variety of other divisive topics for our day) there are few Evangelicals who appreciate Bultmann. In fact, I think it is fair to say as someone who considers myself E/evangelical, and who has studied with Evangelicals for some time now, that Bultmann is outright demonized in some circles. I feel like I ought to get to know this person for myself.
(4) More often than not when I hear people speak about Bultmann who have not read him he is presented as the enemy of Christendom. Yet when I ask myself the questions Bultmann faced I recognize that he was attempting to address some very pressing matters while preserving some semblance of Christianity in a hostile age. Personally, I don’t have much of an opinion on Bultmann because I haven’t given him a fair audience (which, for you Barthians, I admit is true of Barth to a lesser extent). That needs to change.
(5) Bultmann is a pragmatic choice. Currently, I am trying to gain my footing with German. Hopefully by late December or early January I will be able to waddle my way around a German article and maybe later in the year I’ll be able to read some larger works. If all goes well maybe I’ll be able to read a bit of Bultmann in German!
I plan on purchasing Konrad Hamman’s Rudolf Bultmann: a Biography soon (it is only $9.99 on Kindle) to give myself a bit of context for his life and writings. If there is another preferred biography let me know. Then around Christmas or in early January I’d like to begin reading. I have two questions for those who are familiar with Bultmann: (1) Where would you start? Is there a particular work that is the best? Are there a series of two or three works you’d recommend in order to begin? (2) If and when I try to read Bultmann in German where do you order these books? Is there a trustworthy seller you’d recommend?
I recommend The Theology of the New Testament. Long ago, one of my professors in Seminary (Asbury Theological Seminary, by the way) said about this book: “It contains many very good insights, and many very bad insights.” 🙂
Howdy. Glad you’re going to read some Bultmann…
IMO, just dive right in with his _Theology of the New Testament_. Baylor Press released an affordable paperback translation back in 2007, with an introduction to both that writing and Bultmann’s context by Robert Morgan that is (if memory serves) useful.
Alternatively, and perhaps a less imposing thing to start with, commence with the short, but important, collection of his essays, _New Testament and Mythology_. Reading this first may help you get through more of Bultmann since you won’t be starting in such a long work in which it would be easy to feel bogged down.
As you probably know, much talk about Bultmann (especially among American Evangelicals) emphasizes Heidegger’s “influence” on him; much Evangelical criticism (as you know) makes it sound like all of Bultmann’s work is somehow “determined” by his Heidegger “presuppositions,” etc. Though Heidegger was an important and relevant intellectual background for much of Bultmann’s work, this is massively overplayed by many people who talk about Bultmann (most of whom, in my experience, are like Francis Schaeffer when they discuss important/key intellectuals and scholars…i.e., they have never read him but are simply regurgitating what they read somewhere else about him). If I think of something brief that touches on this for Bultmann, I will let you know.
Have fun!
I would recommend reading his contribution to the volume Kerygma and Myth as an entry point. It is available for free online and provides the rationale for demythologization. Then his Theology of the New Testament.
For German works check archive.org to see what you need not spend money on! 🙂
Another perspective would be that Barth and Bultmann are equal (equally bad, equally good – no matter).
Barth and Bultmann as influential theologians, appeal to the false dichotomy of the American political spectrum, with Barth appealing to the ‘right’ and Bultmann appealing to the ‘left’, except that Barth was hardly ‘right’ even if a Calvinist, and Bultmann hardly ‘left’ even if he denied the efficacy of historical Biblical studies. Both Barth and Bultmann’s perspective can be explained by forces other than ‘left’ and ‘right’ (Bultmaan, for example, could not shake the thinking (or rather agreed with the thinking) of folks like Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher whose ethicist view of the bible diminished the need to construct propositional theology from it.
Some are disinterested in both (clearly I). Bultmann’s form-criticism (which the Jesus Seminar has used to great effect) is no less objectionable (and no less misguided) as Barth’s Calvinism.
My introduction to Bultmann was his essay in Kerygma and Myth. It was short and to the point and helped me gain and initial grasp on his methods.
@Craig, Stephen, James, and JC:
Wonderful, thank you. It looks like the essay in Kerygma and Myth is a good place to dip my toes followed by Theology of the New Testament. Also, James, thanks for pointing that out about the online German versions!
@Andrew:
Indeed, neither one is completely a saint or completely a sinner.
Brian, it’s interesting that you bring this up, because I too have been considering diving into Bultmann very soon. A couple relatively cheap copies of Jesus Christ and Mythology and Theology of the New Testament have recently fallen into my hands, and I’ve had Hammann’s biography on my Amazon wishlist for a couple months now. Here’s a link to “Kerygma and Myth” via Vernon Robbins’ page on Emory’s website.
Looking forward to maybe posting a bit more about what we’re reading over the next year!
@Joshua:
Indeed, we should make 2014 the “Year of Bultmann” and we can engage each other’s blog posts as we write them. That would be great. Thank you for the link!
Here are two places where you can find it online: http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=431
http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/BultmannNTMyth.pdf
In this corner and in that corner: eventually you might want to read Karl Barth / Rudolf Bultmann: Letters 1922-1966 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1981) [in the English version, translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley]. (To my wife’s utter stupefaction, I read it on holiday on Keffalonia in August 2001, a stupefaction only exceeded by my reading The Darkness of God: Theology after Hiroshima by Jim Garrison on Santorini – on our honeymoon in July 1982!). And there is a wonderful post by Ben Myers at F&T entitled “Barth and Bultmann: an imagined conversation” (July 12, 2006).
To outrageously mix my metaphors (with the split infinitive thrown in for good measure), for me, as a young Christian, Barth and Bultmann, though whale and elephant, were always with me cheek by jowl. The brilliant David Congdon has also found them to be like, er, salt and pepper, both condiments essential for seasoning the rich meat of theology.
@Kim, the idea that Barth and Bultmann are actually more alike than not, appears to be an emerging theme. David Congdon’s perspective appears to represent the cutting edge of a newish theme.
I am not an expert on Bultmann, but from what I understand he talks quite a bit about the influence of gnosticism in the time of the New Testament. His position is based on traditional definitions of gnosticism. The problem is that the most current information we have is that gnosticism didn’t exist until long after the New Testament was written, and might be a questionable category to begin with. I’d suggest that you read a few books on this topic in preparation of examining Bultmann’s works on the subject (“No Longer Jews” by Smith, “Pre-Christian Gnosticism by Yamauchi, “Rethinking Gnosticism” by Williams, specifically).
Doug
I’d qualify what you wrote slightly. The purported pre-Christian Gnostic redeemer myth that Bultmann, following Reitzenstein, held as influencing Christianity is actually a synthesis of sources including ones influenced by Christianity. That there may have been pre-Christian Gnosticism is, however, a real possibility, and there are sources from Nag Hammadi as well as Mandaean sources which lend at least some support for this view, although the evidence is far from clear cut. But the case against there having been pre-Christian Gnosticism is also less clear than some have claimed.
@James:
Thank you for the links!
@Kim:
I can’t imagine why your wife would be stupefied by your reading selection! 😉 Thank you for the book recommendation. I’ll make sure to add it to my list.
@Doug (& @James):
Thank you, I’ll make sure to keep this discussion about gnosticism in my mind as I read Bultmann.
Hi Brian, if you have some inklings already about Barth’s project, then I would highly recommend beginning with the Barth-Bultmann correspondence published as ‘Letters 1922–1966’ (ed. trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981), and then perhaps ‘Kerygma and Myth’. I’ve just finsihed Hamman’s biography. I highly commend that too.
Thanks Jason! I began the biography today.
Anyone able to clarify if this is Barth’s quote to Brunner or Bultmann?: “[we] are like the elephant and the whale—both God’s creatures but not always able to meet.”
Just seeing this on my Pocket app! I’d actually avoid his essay in Kerygma and Myth at all costs. It just isn’t a very good introduction to his thought, and (IMO) is Bultmann it his worst and has the least relevance for contemporary Biblical studies. Bultmann is almost exclusively known in the English speaking world for his demythologizing, but there’s better stuff out there.
I’d actually begin with his sermons, “This world and Beyond”. These get at the heart of Bultmann’s concern for theology in service of the church. Then transition to his exegetical work in Theology of the New Testament, and then to his more foundational essays in “Essays Philosophical and theological” and “Existence and Faith”.
@Todd: Thanks for the recommendations!
Hi, an excellent introduction has got to be the late John Macquarrie’s , An Existentialist Theology, a comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann. Bultmann himself praised its accuracy in describing his theological approach. In addition J.Macquarrie: The Scope of Demythologizing: Bultmann and his critics. Again written, while in close contact with Bultmann.
Like your blog
Thank you for the recommendation, David!