Page History

He argues there that because, in the case of "_die Exegese_," on the one hand, "_die Textauslegung _" is not to be separated from "_die Selbstauslegung_" and because, in the case of "_die Theologie_," on the other hand,"_die Selbstauslegung des Menschen _" can take place only as "_die Auslegung der Geschichte _," "_so fallen im Grunde Theologie und Exegese oder systematische und historische Theologie zusammen_." But he goes on then immediately to qualify this by saying, "_Freilich ist in der konkreten Arbeit eine Trennung der systematischen und der historischen Aufgabe gerade deshalb no twen dignotwendig, damit die Bezogenheit beider aufeinander immer wieder neu erfahren wird_." Whereupon he says, "_Die systematische Theologie hiittehätte dann die begriffliche Explikation der Existenz des Menschen als durch Gott bestimmter zu ihrem direkten Thema zu machen, wiihrendwährend furfür die historische Theologie dies nur indirekt das Thema sein konnte, und sie direkt nur darzustellen hat, welche Auslegung des Menschen in den Texten gegeben wird, und zwar so, dass sie diese Auslegung aus der Begrifflichkeit der Vergangenheit in die Begrifflichkeit der Gegenwart bringt_" (354 \[68 f.\]).

One may well question whether Bultmann's way of making his point is really apt. "To coincide" is one thing,"to be related, each to the other," something else. Also "separation" is one thing, "distinction," something else; and the first is as out of place in a context where one is talking about mutual relatedness as it is in a context in which one is talking about coincidence or identity. But there can be little doubt, I think, that Bultmann is quite clear about the difference between the systematic theological task of explicating human existence before God and the historical theological task of interpreting "whatever interpretation of human existence is given in the texts," even when this is done in such a way as to translate the interpretation from "the conceptuality of the past" into "the conceptuality of the present." At the same time, Bultmann is clear that -- as I should put it -- historical theology necessarily _anticipates_ systematic (and practical) theology, even as systematic (as well as practical) theology necessarily _presupposes_ historical theology -- "anticipates" and "presupposes" serving to give specific direction to
2
 Bultmann's purely general and directionless "relatedness of each to the other." Historical theology anticipates systematic (and practical) theology by not merely establishing what the texts _say_, but also risking a critical interpretation of what the texts mean. (Cf. Bultmann's distinction in the same essay between "_die zeitgeschichtliche Exegese/_," which asks, "_Was ist gesagt_?" and "_die Sachexegese/_," which asks, "_Was ist gemeint_?" \[339 f. (52 f.)\].) Systematic (as well as practical) theology presupposes historical theology by not merely asking whether the witness of faith is credible to human existence, but also, and, in the first place, asking whether it is appropriate to Jesus Christ, and thus in substantial agreement with the normative witness of scripture
 and tradition.