Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Wiki Markup
I once criticized Bultmann's statement that "the cross is not the salvation-event because it is the cross of Christ, it is the cross of Christ because it is the salvation-event" (cf. _NTM_: 39). My reasoning: "\[i\]fitf it is through the cross that salvation actually takes place, then _in some sense_ it must be equally legitimate to say it is the cross of Christ because it saves and it saves because it is the cross of Christ. When Bultmann simply denies this, he so expresses himself as to raise a legitimate question whether he does justice to the 'objective' reference of the Christian faith" (_CwM_: 148 f.).

Although I would still defend my criticism -especially given the concession that introduced my reasoning: "To be sure, the first half of the assertion does not need to be understood in the mistaken manner of myth or of most of Bultmann's critics on the 'right"' -I also allow that I could and should have done a better job at catching what Bultmann means and does not mean by what he says. In this connection, I've come to think : that the following passage from Jesus: 180 indicates what he means more clearly.

Panel

There

...

can

...

be

...

no

...

question

...

that

...

Jesus

...

did

...

not

...

refer

...

to

...

anything

...

generally

...

perceivable

...

wherein

...

one

...

could

...

become

...

certain

...

of

...

God's

...

forgiveness.

...

He

...

simply

...

proclaimed

...

it.

...

The

...

event

...

of

...

forgiveness

...

is

...

nothing

...

other

...

than

...

his

...

word

...

as

...

it

...

confronts

...

the

...

hearer.

...

For

...

the

...

truth

...

of

...

this

...

word

...

he

...

offers

...

no

...

guarantees

...

whatever,

...

either

...

in

...

his

...

miracles,

...

whose

...

significance

...

is

...

not

...

to

...

verify

...

his

...

word – on the contrary,

...

he

...

expressly

...

rejects

...

any

...

legitimation

...

by

...

miracles

...

(Mk

...

8:11

...

f.)

...

or

...

in

...

his

...

personal

...

qualities,

...

which

...

in

...

any

...

event

...

seem

...

rather

...

to

...

have

...

offended

...

his

...

contemporaries

...

than

...

to

...

have

...

recommended

...

him

...

to

...

them. . . .

...

Nor

...

is

...

anything

...

said

...

about

...

his

...

metaphysical

...

being,

...

either

...

in

...

his

...

own

...

words

...

as

...

they

...

have

...

come

...

down

...

to

...

us

...

or

...

in

...

the

...

report

...

of

...

the

...

earliest

...

community.

...

To

...

be

...

sure,

...

the

...

earliest

...

community

...

did

...

hold

...

him

...

to

...

be

...

the

...

Messiah.

...

But

...

in

...

doing

...

so,

...

it

...

did

...

not

...

ascribe

...

to

...

him

...

some

...

special

...

metaphysical

...

being

...

that

...

gave

...

his

...

words

...

authority,

...

but,

...

rather,

...

confessed

...

thereby,

...

on

...

the

...

authority

...

of

...

his

...

words,

...

that

...

God

...

had

...

made

...

him

...

the

...

King

...

of

...

the

...

community.

This passage seems to me to be as much a substantial parallel to Bultmann's statement as what he says in other places --such as, for example, GV
2: 252:

Panel

Wiki Markup
The decisive question now is whether and to what extent the \[christological\] titles intend to say something about the nature of Jesus, describing him, so to speak, objectifyingly in his being-in-himself, or whether and to what extent they speak of him in his significance for human beings, for

...

 faith. Do they -- as I can also formulate it -- speak of his 

...

φνσις, or do they speak of the _Christus pro me_? To what extent is a christological assertion about him at the same time an assertion about me? Does he help me because he is the Son of God, or is he the Son of God because he helps me?

In any case, the first passage makes as clear as the second that Bultmann in no way intends to deny the "objectivity" of christological assertions in the sense -- the only sense -- in which I should wish to affirm it. All he wants to deny is that there is anything objective, in the usual empirical, pseudo-empirical (i.e., mythological or "metaphysical") senses of the term embraced by his terms "objectifying," "objectifyingly," and so on. But, then, this leaves open the possibility that christo logical christological assertions are indeed "objective" (or '''objective'''\!) in the sense that they can be interpreted and explicated in terms of a science -an "ontological," as distinct from an "ontic," science \-\- science – "that is nothing other than the clear and methodical development of the understanding of existence that is given with existence itself," and therefore "talks about existence without objectifying it into being within the world" (NTM: 101, 102 ff.).

Wiki Markup

My guess is that much the same interpretation would apply to Marxsen's similar statements, although he is hardly as philosophically sophisticated as Bultmann. Cf., e.g., _NTBK_: 95: "_Nicht weil \[Jesus\] der Christus war, ereignete er GattGott, sondern weil er GattGott ereignete, nannte man ihn den Christus, den Menschensohn, den Gottessohn_." Also 104: "_Nicht weil Jesus der Messias war, ereignete er GattGott; sondern weil er GattGott ereignete, wurde er der Messias genannt._"

29 January 2007

The following statements of John Knox in The Early Church and the Coming Great Church obviously parallel those of Bultmann and Marxsen discussed in Notebooks, 29 January 2007. They also help to confirm the plausibility of the interpretation argued for there.

Panel

The

...

situation

...

in

...

the

...

early

...

church

...

was

...

not

...

that

...

the

...

event

...

was

...

regarded

...

as

...

the

...

eschatological

...

event

...

because

...

Jesus

...

was

...

believed

...

to

...

be

...

the

...

Christ,

...

but

...

rather

...

that

...

Jesus

...

was

...

called

...

Christ

...

because

...

he

...

had

...

been

...

the

...

decisive

...

center

...

of

...

what

...

was

...

empirically

...

realized

...

to

...

be

...

the

...

eschatological

...

event.

...

The

...

very

...

first

...

Christian

...

theological

...

question

...

(essentially

...

christological)

...

was,

...

'What

...

has

...

God

...

done'?'

...

(70).

...

Panel

He

...

is

...

'Savior,'

...

because

...

the

...

event

...

has

...

proved

...

to

...

be

...

in

...

fact

...

the

...

saving

...

event

...

and

...

the

...

community

...

the

...

saving

...

community.

...

All

...

the

...

earliest

...

names

...

of

...

Jesus

...

are

...

functional

...

names;

...

they

...

are

...

ascriptions

...

to

...

him,

...

as

...

source

...

or

...

mediator,

...

of

...

the

...

values

...

that

...

have

...

been

...

empirically

...

received

...

in

...

consequence

...

of

...

the

...

event

...

and

...

in

...

the

...

actual

...

life

...

of

...

the

...

community.

...

They

...

say

...

only

...

in

...

various

...

other

...

ways

...

that

...

Jesus

...

was

...

Christ

...

and

...

Lord

...

(73).

...

Panel

Wiki Markup
There is no convincing evidence that \[Jesus\] was called 'God' in the first century, and indisputable evidence that he was not generally called by that name;

...

 but it

...

 is clear that he was thought of as being related to God as no other man could be. But again this belief in the divinity of Jesus rested on the experience of the divine in the life of the community and on the recognition of the divine significance of the event. The position was not that the earliest Christians believed that the event and the community were divine because they also believed that Jesus was divine; but rather he was seen to be divine because of the way in which he was related to an event and a community whose divine significance was a matter of intimate and indubitable conviction. Must Jesus not have been divine to have been the center of so divine an event? (73 

...

f.).

18 January 2008