The subjects discussed in these essays have awakened a general and growing interest among all classes of thoughtful readers; and the publisher esteems himself fortunate in being able to collect them from inaccessible magazines, and in presenting them to the American public in a permanent and elegant form.

Two of the most brilliant German thinkers of the twentieth century were Karl Jaspers and Rudolf Bultmann. Jaspers, the philosopher, and Bultmann, the theologian, were both influenced by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger and the rise of the existentialist movement. Late in their careers they interacted on the subject of Bultmann's attempt to divest Christianity of its mythical components and make sense of it in more modern terms. This work is a compilation of articles by Jaspers (...) and Bultmann that formed a running debate originally published in various scholarly journals. The first half of the book is Jaspers' lengthy and critical analysis of Bultmann's interpretation of Christianity, in which Jaspers essentially rejects the premise that Christianity or any other religion can or should be understood without its mythical framework. Jaspers charges that Bultmann has radically misunderstood the nature of myth and that myth is an irreplaceable form of symbolic communication. In the second part, Bultmann defends his approach, suggesting that Jaspers has not really understood his intent or meaning. Contemporary people today, schooled in the scientific tradition, are likely to reject the biblical texts because of their miraculous claims and supernatural content. Bultmann insists that the scholarly, scientific study of the Bible is a legitimate way to reveal its true message, apart from all the supernatural trappings. Finally, in response, Jaspers accepts some of Bultmann's clarifications but takes him to task on the subject of justification by faith, which he feels Bultmann defines too narrowly and too exclusively. This stimulating work by two penetrating minds will give anyone interested in perennial philosophical and theological questions much to ponder. (shrink)

Rudolf Bultmann as historianThe work of Bultmann has had a rather negative reception in South Africa, partly because of the fact that little attention has been paid to his historical interpretation of the New Testament. Unfortunately his name is linked only to his use of philosophical categories in Biblical interpretation. After a few remarks about his early study years and the ideas which framed his later research, the article deals with his work as historian. First he is (...) treated as a historian of religion and then as a literary historian. An attempt is made to understand and describe his views in his contemporary context. The description is done within the framework of the academic context in which he received his training, and the scientific circle in which he performed his academic activities. In conclusion a few remarks of evaluation are made. (shrink)

Bultmann a-t-il été en partie victime d’une certaine « logique du protestantisme » ? R. Marlé a posé la question. Un théologien protestant peut être d’accord pour le fond avec la critique catholique, mais en la reprenant dans un esprit différent qui fera valoir la particula veri propre à Bultmann. On passera en revue à cet effet les quatre principaux griefs qui lui sont adressés.a) Réduction, au profit de la foi, de l’objectivité de l’historique et de celle du (...) monde. — L’objectivité à revendiquer est celle des données de la croyance, qui sont incarnées, et celle du monde comme lieu de salut. b) Survalorisation de la subjectivité de l’acte de foi au détriment de son contenu. — La particularité de l’engagement de foi dans le présent doit être maintenue, intégrée à une mémoire et à un corps de symbolismes et de références. c) Rejet de la révélation de Dieu à l’extérieur de la raison et de l’expérience historique. — Contre un refus radical à l’excès des médiations de la croyance, on maintiendra que Dieu est « pensable », sans que cela revienne à le « comprendre ». d) Insuffisance de la conception de la théologie comme simple intellectus fidei. — L’exercice théologique doit se déployer sous un horizon universel, mais aussi à un niveau socio-culturel attentif à toutes les inscriptions du religieux dans l’histoire et les mentalités.En définitive, on peut tenir le « fidéisme » du Bultmann pour l’illustration d’un « destin protestant », sans qu’il ait renié pour autant la théologie dialectique, mais pas davantage la théologie libérale, en tant que la première est une riposte articulée à la modernité et non un retour en arrière.Was Bultmann, to some extent, a victim of a certain “Protestant logic”? R. Marlé asked that question. A Protestant theologian can fundamentally agree with the Catholic position but take it in a different spirit, which would highlight the particula veri proper to Bultmann. The four principal complaints addressed to Bultmann in this matter will be reviewed.a) Reduction, in favor of the faith, of the objectivity of the historical and that of the world. — The objectivity demanded is for the tenets of belief, which are incarnate, and for a world as the place of salvation. b) Overvaluing of the subjectivity of the act of faith to the detriment of its content. — The particularity of the engagement of faith in the present must be upheld, integrated into a memory and a body of symbolisms and references. c) Rejection of the revelation of God outside reason and historical experience. — Against a radical refusal of the excess of mediations of belief, one can hold that God is “thinkable”, without being “understood”. d) Lack of the conception of theology as simple intellectus fidei. —The theological task should spread itself under a universal horizon, but also to a socio-cultural level that is attentive to all the inscriptions of the religious in history and mentalities.Finally, one can hold the “fideism” of Bultmann as an illustration of a “Protestant destiny”, without necessarily denying dialectical theology. Nor, indeed, liberal theology, in so far as the former is an articulated reply to modernity and not a return to the past. (shrink)