David Congdon has created a Reader’s Guide to the writings of Rudolf Bultmann. I am grateful because it was created, in part, as a response to my announcement that I will be reading a lot of Bultmann in 2014 (sorry, not sorry, Mark Stevens). But I am not the only person who has inquired into where to begin and how to approach Bultmann, so I’m sure many others might benefit from it (FYI: Joshua Smith).
the archives near Emmaus 
I think it is fair to view Bultmann as a godless theologian (no insult intended). In German there is a book about this theology:
“Atheistisch an Jesus glauben”.
Cheers.
Awesome! Thanks again.
@lotharson I’m curious what might cause you to make that assessment of Bultmann?
I share Joshua’s interest. I don’t imagine Bultmann would have self-described as an atheist at all. Is this a play on the word “atheism,” a way of saying he is pragmatically atheistic (or deistic), or something else?
Fanatastic guide!
I, for one, am not terribly interested in hearing more about Bultmann’s alleged atheism, unless the commenter above means to say, a bit too cleverly, only that Bultmann rejected “theism” in a technical sense. Here, “theism” would mean something like “belief in whatever god can be constructed by reason alone.” Bultmann surely did reject theism in this sense, but if that’s what the commenter has in mind, I think he or she is trying too hard to “be provocative.” (I have a pretty low tolerance for “being provocative,” so maybe it’s just me.)
On the other hand, if “theism” is meant to refer to belief in a God of any sort, then it’s demonstrably false to suggest that Bultmann is an atheist, and probably blameworthy to say as much. Unless one were either an incompetent or viciously uncharitable reader, it’s almost impossible to imagine anyone interpreting Bultmann as such. It’s plainly wrong. So I’m not interested in hearing more about the above commenter’s views, since I don’t think much of what we have already heard from him or her.
@Kevin:
You’re likely correct that @lotharson aims to go one of those directions, though I’m open to hearing him explain himself.
I think I understand your frustration, Kevin, but I also want to make sure I’m understanding whatever lotharson meant before I come to harsh conclusions. I agree that it is demonstrably false to claim that Bultmann was an atheist, but I would like lotharson to elaborate more on what he or she means by the above claim.
Also, I should readily admit that my tolerance may be driven more by my ignorance than by charity. While I hope to be charitable as much as possible I completely understand how someone more familiar with Bultmann might not be as patient. I do hope @lotharson is able to come back to explain that earlier comment.