Page History

...

But now there is not one answer in these two contexts to the question about the ground or basis of existentialist interpretation; there are two. According to the one, this ground is an existential "decision" out of which such an interpretation arises. True, Bultmann is careful to explain – -- in both contexts – -- that the decision required need not be a positive decision for Christian faith, as distinct from a negative decision against it. But in either case, the ground of interpretation is an existential decision. According to the other answer, however, the ground or basis of existentialist interpretation is not a decision at all, either positive or negative, but rather openness for a "question," the question about human existence, and for the answer to this question given in the text to be interpreted.

So far as I'm able to see, Bultmann never reconciles these two, very different (if also closely related) answers to the question as to the ground or basis of an existentialist interpretation of history that goes beyond the limits of historical-critical method, strictly and properly so-called. But there's no doubt that the answers are different – -- and that the difference they make is important.

...