Influences on Bultmann's Mind

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

26 August 2009


The source for this writing is the book by Anthony Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980). In the eyes of Thiselton, Bultmann is not a major problem and he defended him whenever he could. Here he will not be defended.

The reason is self-explanatory. Listen to Bultmann speaking:

"I often have the impression that my conservative New Testament colleagues feel very uncomfortable, for I see them perpetually engaged in salvage operations. I calmly let the fire burn, for I see that what is consumed is only the faithful portraits of Life-of-Jesus theology, and that means nothing other than 'Christ after the flesh' . . . But the 'Christ after the flesh' is no concern of ours. How things looked in the heart of Jesus I do not know and do not want to know" (R. Bultmann, Faith and Understanding I [London: SCM, 1969], 132).

Because of his hermeneutics of suspicion, Bultmann caused concern among his colleagues. He was determined to be a rebel and to stay one. He rejected faith-portrayals of Jesus [of course with a hermeneutics of affirmation which he rejected].


We need to emphasize that Bultmann rejected miracles (R. Bultmann said "the idea of miracle . . .  must be abandoned" in Bultmann [1969]: 249, in German page 216).


He rejected the Second Advent (R. Bultmann said "we can no longer look for the return of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven, or hope that the faithful will meet him in the air" in Bultmann, Kerugma und Myth I [London, 1964]: 4). 


He rejected a Judgement of God and read the statement "He has fixed a day on which he [man's decision daily] will judge the world" (R. Bultmann, This World and Beyond. Marburg Sermons [London: Lutterworth, 1960], 21).


He rejected the pre-existence of Christ and said "And as for the pre-existence of Christ . . . this is not only irrational but utterly meaningless" (R. Bultmann, Kerugma und Myth I [London: 1964]: 8).


He raised contradictory questions about the incarnation and pre-existence of Jesus when he said "He emptied himself . . . being made in the likeness of man" (Phil. 2:7) contradicts the portrait of Jesus of Nazareth as "a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders" (Acts 2:22) (R. Bultmann, Kerugma und Myth I [London: 1964]: 34).


Bultmann rejected the Atonement when he said "What a primitive mythology it is that a divine being should become incarnate, and atone for the sins of men through his own blood!" (R. Bultmann, Kerugma und Myth I [London: 1964]: 7-8).


Bultmann rejected the Resurrection when he said "The resurrection cannot be a miraculous proof capable of demonstration" (R. Bultmann, Kerugma und Myth I [London: 1964]: 38-39 and in the German 47-48).


Thus, one can go back to his first statement about the concern of his conservative colleagues and get a better picture of the scenario. Therefore, this writer will not defend Bultmann.


Now let us look at sources or building blocks or scew engineers to the mind of Bultmann:


1. His theological teachers during his student years 1903-1912 (Thiselton 1980: 206):

a. Hermann Gunkel

b. Adolf Harnack

c. Adolf Jülicher

d. Johannes Weiss

e. Wilhelm Hermann


2. His dialogue with philosophers like Martin Heidegger while they were colleagues at Marburg 1923-1928 (Thiselton 1980: 206).


3. The influence of dialectical theology, especially through Karl Barth, Gogarten and Thurneysen between 1920-1927 (Thiselton 1980: 206).


4. The influence of liberalism of Adolf Harnack, his teacher (Thiselton 1980: 206).


4.a. When Bultmann wrote an essay on Liberalism in 1924 "Liberal Theology and the Latest Theological Movement" he applauded the trend because of "freedom and veracity . . . the earnest search for radical truth" (R. Bultmann, Faith and Understanding I [London: SCM, 1969]: 29-30. Notice the radical streak in his appeal to "radical truth". It was the time of the Beatles, mini-skirts, bubblegum, long hair.


4.b. Reflecting on freedom and veracity and the earnest search for radical truth in Seventh Day Adventist Theology.

There are voices around the globe and in different continents, although in the minority, that constantly harp on these sentiments of Bultmann, even in 2009. They pride themselves with their liberal outlook and see themselves as martyrs of freedom of thought, veracity and earnest searchers of radical truth.


4.c. Bultmann uplifted G. Krüger as a role-model for he suggested that the task of theology is to imperil souls.

Said Bultmann, “We can nover forget our debt of gratitude to G. Krüger for that often cited article of his on `unchurchly theology'. For he saw the task of theology to be to imperil souls, to lead men into doubt, to shatter all naïve credulity. Here we felt, was the atmosphere of truth in which alone we could breathe" (R. Bultmann, Faith and Understanding I [London: SCM, 1969]: 30).


5. Bultmann was influenced by his teacher Wilhelm Hermann (1846-1922).

Hermann was influenced by Marx, Darwin and Nietzsche (see Thiselton 1980: 207). Therefore, Hermann suggested that Christian faith could not just assent to Christian doctrine since science and technological advance has made Christian faith more difficult in a modern world.

Hermann and also Bultmann felt that doctrine was insufficient to supply a person with faith. They also felt that not objective truth in the past but a subjective ongoing process in the present can make a person a Christian.

van wyk notes:

Hermann and Bultmann touched here on something that is important: not the past over the present or the present over the past is important, they are both necessary in Seventh Day Adventist theology. It is the Christ for us that is just as important as the Christ in us. Christ died for us in 31 CE but He stands in for us until now as Advocate in Heaven and this is an ongoing process. Hermann and Bultmann are unable to properly understand this aspect since traditional theology has Christ only working at the cross in 31 CE and as advocate (if they do) in a priestly capacity. However, in Adventist theology in 1844 Christ switched His ministry by completing one phase and entering another, that of the Highpriestly role. So, yes, the present is important but so is the past.


6. Hermann gave Bultmann his existentialist philosophy.

Bultmann said "Through Wilhelm Hermann the problem of history and historicality (Geschictlichkeit) became significant for me. Thereby I was prepared beforehand for my relation to existentialist philosophy" (R. Bultmann in a letter of 11 March 1964 cited by M. Beintker, Die Gottesfrage in der Theologie Wilhelm Hermanns [Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1976], 182 footnote 51).


7. The role of Neo-Kantianism in Bultmann's thinking.

Kantian thinking explained that objects are the end or stated goal of thought. This object is the thing in thought. However, through neo-kantian thinkers like Hermann Cohen (1842-1918) and Paul Natorp (1834-1924) Hermann von Helmholtz, Heinrich Hertz and Ludwig Boltzmann it was further developed by saying that objects are not given, consciousness forms them. They are not, they are becoming. The are not static they are fluid. Thinking is thus objectifying (neo-kantian) rather than an object (Kant) (see Thisleton 1980: 210-211). To know is to objectify in accordance with the principle of law (R. A. Johnson, The Origins of Demythologizing. Philosophy and Historiography in the Theology of Rudolph Bultmann [Leiden: Brill, 1974], 49-50).

Bultmann used kantian jargon to reject a wrong view of how we can know God:

The existence of God is not "a general truth with its place in a system of cognitions (Erkenntnissen), universal truths (allgemeinen Wahrheiten) in a self-supporting system . . . For God would be objectively given (Da wäre Gott eine Gegebenheit) and knowledge of that given object would be accessible to us and could be achieved at will" (Bultmann, Faith and Understanding I [London: SCM, 1969], 60 and in the German 32). He also said later in the same book, "The work of God cannot be seen as a universal process, as an activity which we can observe (as we observe the workings of laws of nature) apart from our own existence" (Bultmann 1969: 59). In reality Bultmann wants to bring in subjectivity of our own existence as the only way to know God. He wants to remove God from objectivity and places God as a becoming in the anthropology of the human. "Apart from our own existence" is just that. He is also neo-kantian since he said that to believe in the cross of Christ "does not mean to concern ourselves . . . with an objective event (ein objektiv anschaubares Ereignis) . . .but rather to make the cross of Christ our own, to undergo crucifixion with him" (R. Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology" in H.-W. Bartsch (ed.) Kerugma and Myth I, [1964]: 36 and in the German 46). 

van wyk notes:

Bultmann is not correct that we cannot preceive him as an object outside our own existence. Yes, we cannot escape our existence and become a spectator of it. But we can by audience of other existences and in that sense we can observe objects, including humans, including the incarnated Jesus Christ in 31 CE on the cross. God revealed Himself and chose human mediums and constituents to do it. There is no need to cut God out of the human picture as Bultmann is doing. Pantheism it is not and to place God beyond the subjective is necessary but the Holy Spirit speaks subjectively to each one in the heart encouraging the person to step forward for Christ, the object of our faith, who was a human being and was observed by many. God is not limited by philosophers and their systems. Secondly, Bultmann is wrong that we undergo crucifixion with him. His crucifixion is sufficient for us, we do not have to experience the same. It is objectively available to all by mere acceptance. The Holy Spirit will subjectively play a part as a soft voice on our conscience to encourage us to accept it, but the crucifixion remains outside our existence and in the existence of Jesus Christ.

William Hermann, the teacher of Bultmann, was a neo-kantian and he delimted religion from the realm of pure reason, or science, and moral experience. These scholars tried to talk about the God out there outside of our existence. Hermann said "The Christian can commune with God only when he desire what is good . . .But . . .simply to desire the good cannot of itself be counted communion with God" (W. Hermann, The Communion of the Christian with God Described on the Basis of Luther's Statements [London: SCM, 1972]: 298). In essence there is nothing wrong with this statement of Hermann. One has to make a choice for God and submit your will to Him to commune with Him because He does not force Himself from the outside onto our existence. Subjectively, as the Holy Spirit He will delicately plead to us to submit our will but will not force or coerce us to do so. This is the beauty of God. Just to desire good things or the good, is a good step but cannot be equated as communion with God. Bultmann was uneasy with Hermann on this thinking. Bultmann, Barth and Gogarten said: "There is no direct knowledge of God. God is not a given entity" (R. Bultmann, Faith and Understanding I: 33 and in the German page 6).

van wyk notes:

Again one has to be very careful here. Liberalism is trying to cut God out of doctrine or any object of the thought. The Bible teaches us that God became man, they touched him and He chose to reveal Himself through human means. Direct knowledge of God is captuled within the Bible. It is the revelation of God framed by prophets and writers and edited by the Holy Spirit. In this way, one cannot agree with the statement of Barth, Bultmann and Gogarten. This is a liberal stance and agreed by Bultmann to be so "Barth and Gogarten state the conclusions which are actually inherent in liberal theology" (Bultmann, Faith and Understanding I, 45). As noble as their attempt is to put God beyond the immediate, the wrong they are that there were times in history that He became part of the immediate, prophets revelations, theophanies, incarnation etc.

God allowed doctrines and descriptions to represent aspects of Him that He identifies with and protect as true pictures of Him. Seventh Day Adventists cannot agree with Barthian Calvinists or Barthian protestants that doctrines cannot contain God. Of course God is beyond doctrines but doctrines was the means He chose in His revelation to man to represent Himself or open small windows in His character and personality.


8. The role of radical Lutheranism on Bultmann's thought

The Luther that Bultmann was following or accepting was the radical Lutheranism that replaced the moderate Lutherism of his father, who was a pastor. "Security can be found only by abandoning all security" (R. Bultmann, "Bultmann Replies to his Critics" in Kerugma and Myth I: 210-211). Contrary to his father's view Bultmann accepted a critical view of doctrines, just like Barth and Gogarten and said "faith must not aspire to an objective basis in dogma or in history on pain of losing its character as faith" (R. Bultmann, Faith and Understanding I: 15). In a way, contrary to Bultmann, the teacher of Bultmann, William Hermann, understood the role of dogma in faith: "We start, [in faith that is] indeed, from the records, but we do not grasp the fact they bring us until the enrichment of our own inner life makes us aware that we have touched the Living One...The picture of the personality becomes visible to us" (W. Hermann, The Communion of the Christian with God 74). This does not make Hermann automatically the truth and Bultmann the error. Hermann may also have mixed statements of truth and error. This statement of Hermann is however in accordance with the understanding of Seventh Day Adventists. The doctrine has a role to play.

Hermann also had errors in his doctrine and faith understanding:

"Luther knew a kind of faith which a man himself begets by bringing himself to assent to doctrines of some sort. Luther calls such a faith worthless, because it gives us nothing. The same holds good of acceptance of narratives of sacred scripture as true. This also is to Luther a natural work without grace; even Turks and heathens may accomplish it" (Hermann, Communion, 215). "The true faith of which we speak cannot be made by our thoughts, but is purely a work of God in us" (Hermann, Communion, 216).

van wyk notes:

Whether Luther really said it or Hermann thought he said it, the assent of doctrines is the first step. It works on our thoughts and describing a personality Jesus Christ or God to us, we assent to it and that appeal is the faith that is kindled in our heart on which we make our free decision to follow or not. In a way, this statement of Hermann stands in opposition to that of his on page 74 cited supra.


9. The role of his colleague Heidegger on his thought between 1923-1927.

M. Heidegger made a distinction between Vorhandenheit and Existenz, between inauthentic and authentic and between Historie and Geschichte. Heidegger had a great role to play on Bultmann.


10. The role of history of religions school on his thought.

Bultmann endorsed the ideas of Hermann Gunkel, Harnack, Johannes Weiss and Wilhelm Bousset. This school of thought tried to create a great gulf between what the Bible meant and what it means. The past and the present was separated.


11. The role of William Wrede and Albert Schweitzer Von Reimarus zu Wrede on Bultmann.

Bultmann was also influenced by the concepts of Wrede and Schweitzer and Martin Kähler and K. L. Schmidt. Wrede published his Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien in 1901. Schweizer's book appeared in 1906 and tried to discredit any attempt to write a history of Jesus. Schweizer was influenced by other liberals or hermeneutics of suspicion scholars like Renan and D. F. Strauss. As a result Bultmann denied the historical Jesus:

"We can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary, and other sources about Jesus do not exist" (R. Bultmann, Jesus [Tübingen: Mohr, 1926, 3rd edition 1951]: 13 and 14 [English edition]).

van wyk notes:

Ellen White's evaluations of Jesus in Desire of Ages will be considered wrong by Bultmann: "Any evaluation of the personality of Jesus is wrong and must be wrong, for it would be only a 'knowing after the flesh'" (R. Bultmann, Faith and Understanding I, 239).

K. L. Schmidt published his book in 1919 which claim that the original gospel was only small isolated units that were interwoven later in one whole. The two poles of Bultmann's work on The History of the Synoptic Tradition which was written as early as 1916 and 1920 and Martin Heidegger only arrived in 1923 at Marburg. Thus, these other influences worked on Bultmann in his writing of this book.

The one pole is Kerugma and the other is myth.


12. Finally, Bultmann claim that to talk about God is sin.

Satan does not want people to witness about or for God. So how did he stop pastors from preaching about God? Bultmann became willingly an instrument for that thought. He claimed in his essay of 1925, while being a colleague of Heidegger that to talk about God is sin (R. Bultmann, "What does it mean to talk about God?" 55 in English and 28 in German). He claims that "God's action with man through his Word has no point of contact" Essays Philosophical and Theological [London: SCM, 1955]). When human inquire about happiness then the question about ourselves becomes the question of God, he wrote, and they are identical (R. Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, [London: 1960]: 53). One cannot miss the cancelation of the Word of God, doctrines and Revelation by the Bible in these statements of Bultmann, and finally we must conclude that he arrived at a Buddhistic statement about life. His epistemology is finally Buddhistic. Groping in oneself one knows God and that result is identical with what life is all about and what God is intended to be.


Satan used instruments in the Lutheran church and other churches to deconstruct the truth of the Bible and replace it with humanism a humanism that compares with Buddhism ideology.


End item