Rudolf Bultmann

other respects dated, it nevertheless

it afresh in every generation:

recalls

th

church

tant

the

agenda

that

confmnts

to interpret its

turf: theologically is crucially impor-

hermeneutical

for

an

riptures in ways that communicate its

sc

gospel message.
The

to

task of interpreting

religious

But

community.

it

Scrip

cannot provide

everything

the

community

needs. Freed from its unrealistic expectations of replacing systematic theology, it Can
be developed in new ways. The most interesting'questlon, m rethlnlgmgl Bultmanns

heritage two generations on, is whether this might be developed

OOSCning its

attachment to the historical paradigm which guidedhis New Testament SCholarship.

The

notion

of interpretation

belongs

more

Within

literary

than

historical

frame of reference. Historical methods are normally directh toward reconsuucd0n_

Bultmann combined his theological interpretation with the historical paradigm Which
still

dominates

biblical

scholarship

by

appealing

to

an

existentialist

theory

of

history that saw the historians task as grasping a texts understanding of human
existence.
the

He also engaged in the more usual historical task of trying to reconstruct

development

of early

Christianity.

Even

his

interpretations

of Paul

and

John

involve ordinary historical scholarship.

But here his main interest was in the existen-

tial

history

and

scholarship

has

interpretation

Recent

New

in

which

Testament

theology

coincided.

abandoned

Bultmanns

theological

syn-

thesis, taking from him only history of traditions and history of religions research.
But theologians who value

existential interpretation have

their own

agenda.

If Bult-

manns interpretations of Paul and John are read as literary criticism, i.e., as brilliant
modern

interpretations

torians
The
to

loss

of interest

theological

make

less

of classical

in

texts,

philosophy

interpreter who

strong

claim

to

they

and

survive

the

modern

biblical his-

theology.

identities

reflect

can

the

with

the

authors

literary

critic

intentions.

can

But

also

here

afford

Christian

theologians would be unwise to follow, since they must (on account of the given
revelation

fundament)

maintain

strong

continuity with

the

classic

expressions of

Christianity. They require some continuity of meaning, and this is best preserved by

maintaining the importance of authorial intention.

shared

interpretations

of their

achieved if authorial intention

communitys

is

preserved

They also look for agreed or

normative

as

an

ideal

texts

and

these

norm

or

critical

can

best be

control for

rejecting arbitrary and implausible interpretations. Accepting a literary paradigm for

New Testament

total

textual

This

to

respect

be

need

not

indeterminacy

when working
have

studies

for

authorial

i.e.,

in

particular

interpretative

intention,

as literary critics,

schooled

involve

so

far

theological

linguistic

and

as

literary

it

can

be

known,

of the

methods.

But

the

texts

theological

approach, which is

meanings

in

that of all the

new

age.

That

great theological

is

to

means

that even

New Testament still

they Will

introduce whatever philosophical and theological perspectives are

late

that advocates

anarchy.

interpreters

historical

theory

be

free

to

needed to articu-

preserve

Bultmanns

interpreters, without being

committed to a conceptuality which seems inadequate to the theological and ethical

tasks
and

confronting
Heidegger

concern

and

84

with

society.

by

a later generation.
Freud

human

and

existence

Bloch,
to

When

Kierkegaard is

Bultmanns

include

more

supplemented by Marx,

framework

positive

will

allow

relationship

to

theology,s
real

history