Page History

...

(2a) _translating_ understanding in the sense of understanding identical with translating the question of decision addressed to both the interpreter and \-\- through the interpreter \-\- her or his hearers; and (2b) _believing_ understanding in the sense of a believing yes instead of an unbelieving no to the question of decision (Letter to Karl Barth \[11-15 November 1952\], _Karl Barth-Rudolf Bultmann Briefwechsel_: 173 f.);

...

That these five distinctions are very closely related is obvious. In fact, it's arguable that they are only verbally different ways of making one and the same distinction. Supporting this argument is the further, clearly parallel distinction Bultmann makes in connection with some of them between "methodical," "scientific," or "existentialist" interpretation, on the one hand, and "the work (or gift) of the Holy Spirit," on the other. Thus he says, in connection with 1a/1b, that the possibility of the Bible's becoming a word addressed to me personally that gives me existence is "a possibility that I cannot presuppose and reckon with as a principle of methodical interpretation. That it is ever actualized is – -- in traditional terminology – -- the work of the Holy Spirit." And he makes the same point in connection with 2a/2b by saying that "believing," as distinct from "translating," understanding is "donum Spiritus Sancti," and with 3a/3b by saying that the only thing he can strive for methodically as an interpreter is existentialist interpretation, because the Divinus Spiritus works existential understanding, which can only be received"as the gift of the Holy Spirit."

...