What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions?
Bultmann School of Biblical New Directions?
183 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1965
3 people want to read
About the author
Robert W. Funk
60 books11 followersRobert Walter Funk (July 18, 1926 – September 3, 2005), was an American biblical scholar, founder of the controversial Jesus Seminar and the non-profit Westar Institute in Santa Rosa, California. Funk, an academic, sought to promote research and education on what he called biblical literacy. His approach to hermeneutics was historical-critical, with a strongly sceptical view of orthodox Christian belief, particularly concerning historical Jesus. He and his peers described Jesus' parables as containing shocking messages that contradicted established religious attitudes.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 30, 2024
A TRANSLATION OF ESSAYS FROM A PROMINENT GERMAN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
This 1965 book is Volume One of the “Journal for Theology and the Church,” which translated and reprinted [in book format, rather than as a traditional ‘journal’ format] essays from the German ‘Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche’ [ZThK].’ Editor Robert Funk notes, “Early numbers of the Journal will… be devoted largely to what has been going on in the pages of ZTHK between 1950 and the present. Other issues are: Translating Theology Into the Modern Age, Distinctive Protestant and Catholic Themes Reconsidered, History and Hermeneutic, and God and Christ: Existence and Province.
The introductory essay by James Robinson explains, “[This Journal] proposes to recognize this relevance of the ZThK to our scene by presenting its most significant essays in English dress. Initially the JThC will incorporate landmarks from as far back as 1950, but the board of the JThC will have access to forthcoming essays of the ZThK prior to their publication in German and thus will be able to choose, translate and publish the most important ones in English within a year of their appearance in German… The time lag between the publication in one language and the translation into the other has in the past been so great that the debate in the one language had for better or worse been terminated before the theological community dependent upon the other language had entered the discussion.” (Pg. 2)
The essay by Martin Noth [author of The History of Israel] notes, “well-known facts force us to a conclusion that, after Israel had existed for a long time without a king and a god-King ideology, the events leading to the formation of the state as well as the living resemblance of these events, and furthermore the actual history of kingship, did not provide very favorable conditions for an acceptance of the ancient Near Eastern ideology even at a later time. It is therefore not surprising that the Old Testament tradition in the general indicates the ‘secular’ character of kingship even in places where it does not take an explicitly negative attitude toward it; and the bearers of this office are regarded as men who stand under the obligation of obedience toward their God.” (Pg. 38)
A fascinating essay by Ernst Haenchen, “‘We’ in Acts the Itinerary,” begins with the statement, “For a long time the occurrence of ‘we’ in Acts has given people occasion for thought. It first appears in chapter 16. Previously, the stories of the earliest period in Jerusalem… were related. Then at 15:36 the story of a secondary missionary journey begins. In this narrative ‘we’ suddenly appears in 16:10 but then disappears again in 16:17. Only after several years in the narrative have elapsed does the word recur in 20:5, and it continues in use until 21:18… Again, after several years have passed, it reappears finally in 27:1 and continues through 28:16. We are not told who it is that speaks in this ‘we.’ Ordinarily, it means ‘Paul and his companions,’ including the narrator. But it has been observed that before the las occurrence of ‘we’ in chapters 16 and 21 it ceases to be linked with Paul. In 16:17 and 21:18 it refers only to his traveling companions. In sum, ‘we’ occurs only in the description of Paul’s trips. Although it appears each time without preparation, its disappearance is prepared for by literary means. How can one explain this special use of ‘we’?” (Pg. 65)
He points out, “Herewith [in 16:10] we have arrived at the first passage in which Acts reports in ‘we’ style about the Pauline journeys. The ‘we’ is not restricted, however, only to 16:10, but it also depicts the beginning of the mission in Macedonia, or, to be more precise, in Philippi. At first glance, to be sure, one might think that we were reading verbatim the notes of one who had taken part in this journey, and people have preferred to hold on to this impression unchanged. Yet if one looks at the text more closely, it becomes clear: in spite of ‘we,’ it is not a case here of an itinerary simply being transcribed.” (Pg. 83)
He continues, “The fact that at the beginning of the narrative about the slave girl Luke drops the ‘we’ raises the question why Luke precisely at this point no longer wishes to emphasize the authority of the eyewitnessing, or uses the notes of an eyewitness or the reports of what such a one remembered does not explain the dropping out of the ‘we’ in the middle of the narrative… why is the ‘we’ missing in other parts of the depiction of the journey which show Luke to be just as well informed as in this section? We have already found a partial answer: The beginning of Paul’s own mission is just as critical a moment at the beginning of the gentile mission by Peter. The fact that this decision is brought about by a vision given by God to Paul receives, so to speak, it documentation by means of ‘we.’ But… the ‘we’ form can be used only sporadically and only in those places where no special action or speech by Paul is recorded… We will see later that the following instances in which ‘we’ appears and disappears also follow this rule exactly: as soon as the spotlight of interest is directed on Paul, ‘we’ is omitted.” (Pg. 85)
He observes, “In chapter 20… the ‘we’ reappears, but under very odd circumstances. Luke’s account of Paul’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, Hellas, then back to Macedonia, and on to Troas is, first of all, characterized by a puzzling vagueness… It thus appears as it v. 5 would prove that some unnamed person from Philippi is speaking in ‘we,’ which begins again here.” (Pg. 88-89)
He continues, “[In 20:7] ‘we’ appears in the introduction to a miracle story. But once again, Paul is the center of attention; this ‘we’ disappears until after v. 12. An indication of how unsuccessful the interweaving of ‘we’ has been from a literary standpoint is the statement that ‘they’… not ‘we,’ rejoiced at the fortunate outcome of the accident which befell Eutychus… [In 21:1] Luke tried for the first time to connect ‘we’ with an insertion of his own in the account for the trip; in 21:12,14 he has been more successful… What do we learn from the account of the so-called third missionary journey? … Luke by no means repeated an itinerary verbatim but that he revised the account of a source… such sea voyages contain no special adventures by Paul. Yet where Paul comes to the fore, ‘we’ stops immediately.” (Pg. 90-91)
He summarizes, “even sections which appear to be taken over verbatim from an itinerary have in reality been revised and thoroughly reshaped by the author of Acts… we have attempted to explain why Luke uses the ‘we’ so sparingly… At one place (chapter 16) it serves to insure historically a crucial moment in Paul’s mission; in other places it makes the reader feel himself directly connected with Paul’s life… Since, however, Luke… does not connect ‘we’ with the depiction of Paul’s acting and speaking and since Paul is the real center of attention in the second half of Acts, ‘we’ according to the second meaning could be used only in sections which did not report any special deeds of Paul. If Luke had connected ‘we’ by literary means with the story of Paul, then this would not have been a story of Paul but a novel about Paul. But Luke, despite his considerable ability as a narrator, is not a novelist but a historian.” (Pg. 98-99)
Herbert Braun states in his essay, “I am still unable … to regard Mark 14 and parallels even partially as an authentic report of the Last Supper. I consider rather that the tradition about the LAST Supper, together with the words of institution, is of Hellenistic origin…Qumran would show that the eschatological meal is no more a sacrament than the regular meal of the daily breaking of bread in Acts is a sacrament. Here also that which is really sacramental begins with the Hellenistic community… A massive, sacramental doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is unorganically inserted into the Fourth Gospel. There thus follows upon the unsacramental attitude of the Jewish Christian beginning a more or less marked sacramentalizing on the soil of Hellenistic Christianity… Thus, alongside the Jewish calendar of festivals still used in Acts, there comes in … the first day of the week, which is influenced by Hellenistic oriental religion. The New Testament does not have a uniform doctrine of sacrament and cult.” (Pg. 173-174)
These essays will be of interest to serious students of contemporary theology.
This 1965 book is Volume One of the “Journal for Theology and the Church,” which translated and reprinted [in book format, rather than as a traditional ‘journal’ format] essays from the German ‘Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche’ [ZThK].’ Editor Robert Funk notes, “Early numbers of the Journal will… be devoted largely to what has been going on in the pages of ZTHK between 1950 and the present. Other issues are: Translating Theology Into the Modern Age, Distinctive Protestant and Catholic Themes Reconsidered, History and Hermeneutic, and God and Christ: Existence and Province.
The introductory essay by James Robinson explains, “[This Journal] proposes to recognize this relevance of the ZThK to our scene by presenting its most significant essays in English dress. Initially the JThC will incorporate landmarks from as far back as 1950, but the board of the JThC will have access to forthcoming essays of the ZThK prior to their publication in German and thus will be able to choose, translate and publish the most important ones in English within a year of their appearance in German… The time lag between the publication in one language and the translation into the other has in the past been so great that the debate in the one language had for better or worse been terminated before the theological community dependent upon the other language had entered the discussion.” (Pg. 2)
The essay by Martin Noth [author of The History of Israel] notes, “well-known facts force us to a conclusion that, after Israel had existed for a long time without a king and a god-King ideology, the events leading to the formation of the state as well as the living resemblance of these events, and furthermore the actual history of kingship, did not provide very favorable conditions for an acceptance of the ancient Near Eastern ideology even at a later time. It is therefore not surprising that the Old Testament tradition in the general indicates the ‘secular’ character of kingship even in places where it does not take an explicitly negative attitude toward it; and the bearers of this office are regarded as men who stand under the obligation of obedience toward their God.” (Pg. 38)
A fascinating essay by Ernst Haenchen, “‘We’ in Acts the Itinerary,” begins with the statement, “For a long time the occurrence of ‘we’ in Acts has given people occasion for thought. It first appears in chapter 16. Previously, the stories of the earliest period in Jerusalem… were related. Then at 15:36 the story of a secondary missionary journey begins. In this narrative ‘we’ suddenly appears in 16:10 but then disappears again in 16:17. Only after several years in the narrative have elapsed does the word recur in 20:5, and it continues in use until 21:18… Again, after several years have passed, it reappears finally in 27:1 and continues through 28:16. We are not told who it is that speaks in this ‘we.’ Ordinarily, it means ‘Paul and his companions,’ including the narrator. But it has been observed that before the las occurrence of ‘we’ in chapters 16 and 21 it ceases to be linked with Paul. In 16:17 and 21:18 it refers only to his traveling companions. In sum, ‘we’ occurs only in the description of Paul’s trips. Although it appears each time without preparation, its disappearance is prepared for by literary means. How can one explain this special use of ‘we’?” (Pg. 65)
He points out, “Herewith [in 16:10] we have arrived at the first passage in which Acts reports in ‘we’ style about the Pauline journeys. The ‘we’ is not restricted, however, only to 16:10, but it also depicts the beginning of the mission in Macedonia, or, to be more precise, in Philippi. At first glance, to be sure, one might think that we were reading verbatim the notes of one who had taken part in this journey, and people have preferred to hold on to this impression unchanged. Yet if one looks at the text more closely, it becomes clear: in spite of ‘we,’ it is not a case here of an itinerary simply being transcribed.” (Pg. 83)
He continues, “The fact that at the beginning of the narrative about the slave girl Luke drops the ‘we’ raises the question why Luke precisely at this point no longer wishes to emphasize the authority of the eyewitnessing, or uses the notes of an eyewitness or the reports of what such a one remembered does not explain the dropping out of the ‘we’ in the middle of the narrative… why is the ‘we’ missing in other parts of the depiction of the journey which show Luke to be just as well informed as in this section? We have already found a partial answer: The beginning of Paul’s own mission is just as critical a moment at the beginning of the gentile mission by Peter. The fact that this decision is brought about by a vision given by God to Paul receives, so to speak, it documentation by means of ‘we.’ But… the ‘we’ form can be used only sporadically and only in those places where no special action or speech by Paul is recorded… We will see later that the following instances in which ‘we’ appears and disappears also follow this rule exactly: as soon as the spotlight of interest is directed on Paul, ‘we’ is omitted.” (Pg. 85)
He observes, “In chapter 20… the ‘we’ reappears, but under very odd circumstances. Luke’s account of Paul’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, Hellas, then back to Macedonia, and on to Troas is, first of all, characterized by a puzzling vagueness… It thus appears as it v. 5 would prove that some unnamed person from Philippi is speaking in ‘we,’ which begins again here.” (Pg. 88-89)
He continues, “[In 20:7] ‘we’ appears in the introduction to a miracle story. But once again, Paul is the center of attention; this ‘we’ disappears until after v. 12. An indication of how unsuccessful the interweaving of ‘we’ has been from a literary standpoint is the statement that ‘they’… not ‘we,’ rejoiced at the fortunate outcome of the accident which befell Eutychus… [In 21:1] Luke tried for the first time to connect ‘we’ with an insertion of his own in the account for the trip; in 21:12,14 he has been more successful… What do we learn from the account of the so-called third missionary journey? … Luke by no means repeated an itinerary verbatim but that he revised the account of a source… such sea voyages contain no special adventures by Paul. Yet where Paul comes to the fore, ‘we’ stops immediately.” (Pg. 90-91)
He summarizes, “even sections which appear to be taken over verbatim from an itinerary have in reality been revised and thoroughly reshaped by the author of Acts… we have attempted to explain why Luke uses the ‘we’ so sparingly… At one place (chapter 16) it serves to insure historically a crucial moment in Paul’s mission; in other places it makes the reader feel himself directly connected with Paul’s life… Since, however, Luke… does not connect ‘we’ with the depiction of Paul’s acting and speaking and since Paul is the real center of attention in the second half of Acts, ‘we’ according to the second meaning could be used only in sections which did not report any special deeds of Paul. If Luke had connected ‘we’ by literary means with the story of Paul, then this would not have been a story of Paul but a novel about Paul. But Luke, despite his considerable ability as a narrator, is not a novelist but a historian.” (Pg. 98-99)
Herbert Braun states in his essay, “I am still unable … to regard Mark 14 and parallels even partially as an authentic report of the Last Supper. I consider rather that the tradition about the LAST Supper, together with the words of institution, is of Hellenistic origin…Qumran would show that the eschatological meal is no more a sacrament than the regular meal of the daily breaking of bread in Acts is a sacrament. Here also that which is really sacramental begins with the Hellenistic community… A massive, sacramental doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is unorganically inserted into the Fourth Gospel. There thus follows upon the unsacramental attitude of the Jewish Christian beginning a more or less marked sacramentalizing on the soil of Hellenistic Christianity… Thus, alongside the Jewish calendar of festivals still used in Acts, there comes in … the first day of the week, which is influenced by Hellenistic oriental religion. The New Testament does not have a uniform doctrine of sacrament and cult.” (Pg. 173-174)
These essays will be of interest to serious students of contemporary theology.
Displaying 1 of 1 review