My excoriation of Christianity Today’s miserable Hengel obituary prompted one reader to ask if I might recommend a good, English, introduction to Bultmann and his thought. My answer, Roger A. Johnson’s Rudolf Bultmann: Interpreting Faith for the Modern Era in the ‘Making of Modern Theology’ series.
The strong point of this volume is that it includes essays by Bultmann and a fine essay by the editor introducing the thought of Bultmann.
I must add, too, that it’s nice to see interest in Bultmann since we sit on the cusp of the 125th anniversary of his birth (on 20 August). Of course, more about that later.
So, if you would rather learn what Bultmann says for himself, and not what the Fundamentalists and his other many detractors say about him, pick up the volume mentioned above and dive in to the mind of the greatest New Testament exegete of the 20th century.
Posted by Mark Stevens on 07/16/2009 at 07:50
I sympathise with you Jim – The same thing happens with Barth – people read what other people say about Barth and never go to the source. On the anniversary of his Birthday I might dedicate a post or two to him!
MAYBE!
Posted by Murf on 07/16/2009 at 08:00
Bultmann: “It is impossible to use electrical light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.”
A rather small God, Bultmann has I think.
Posted by Jim on 07/16/2009 at 09:13
it wasn’t a small God bultmann had. but it is a small bultmann you’ve constructed.
Posted by James F. McGrath on 07/16/2009 at 08:32
One can read Jesus and the Word and Kerygma and Myth online.
Posted by John Lyons on 07/16/2009 at 10:26
Dear Murf,
Try a larger quotation:
“It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles. We may think we can manage it in our own lives, but to expect others to do so is to make the Christian faith unintelligible and unacceptable to the modern world.”
(‘The New Testament and Mythology’ In Bartsch (ed.) Kerygma and Myth I [London 1953] p 5).
The key to Bultmann is in many ways the last part of this paragraph! He wanted the Gospel to impact modern people – demons and stuff, to his mind, made the true offense of the gospel unintelligible.
Posted by Mhac Jananpin on 07/16/2009 at 18:41
But isn’t the gospel truly a stumbling block to the Jews and considered madness by the Greeks?
If that was Bultmann’s aim, then is it fair to equate him to Rick Warren who wanted the gospel to impact postmodern people?
[Dr. West, please don't send me to eternal damnation for making such a correlation.
]
Posted by Jim on 07/16/2009 at 19:08
i sit here stunned and speechless… i dont know whether to beat you or pray for you. maybe both.
Posted by John Lyons on 07/17/2009 at 06:04
Bultmann thought, rightly, that most moderns don’t get as far as encountering the stumbling block/madness of the gospel. They just see its ancient clothes and think it nonsense already. Demythologising was supposed to strip away the peripheral ideas that blocked people’s access to the gospel (or better, allowed the gospel better access to people!), thus letting the message/kerygma be heard and accepted/rejected.
Bultmann v Rick Warren, mmm. The question is always whether or not what these characters do frees or diminishes the gospel (whatever that is). Bultmann was accused of selling out to Existentialist Philosophy and Rick Warren is accused of selling out to Post-modern consumerism. I am sure neither thought/think they are guilty. Better ask a purist like Jim though why one is better than the other, not as an exegete, but rather as a cultural/counter-cultural translator of the gospel.