By Schubert Ogden
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: "\[i\]f 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.). Wiki Markup
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 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
|
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 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 -- "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.).unmigrated-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 Gott, sondern weil er Gott ereignete, nannte man ihn den Christus, den Menschensohn, den Gottessohn_." Also 104: "_Nicht weil Jesus der Messias war, ereignete er Gott; sondern weil er Gott 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 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
|
18 January 2008