Page History

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 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.