Who was Rudolf Bultmann?

Early Life and Academic Foundation

Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976) was a German theologian and New Testament scholar whose work significantly impacted 20th-century biblical studies. Born in Wiefelstede, Germany, Bultmann studied theology at Tübingen, Berlin, and Marburg, where he later became a professor. His early encounters with higher criticism and existential philosophy helped shape his approach to biblical interpretation, combining historical-critical analysis of Scripture with existentialist concepts.

Key Writings and Theological Emphasis

Bultmann’s major contributions include works such as “History of the Synoptic Tradition” (Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition) and “Jesus Christ and Mythology.” One of his most influential ideas was the concept of “demythologizing” the New Testament. In this approach, he sought to interpret the biblical text, especially the miraculous elements and supernatural claims, through the lens of existential philosophy. He believed that ancient cultural “mythological” views (including angels, demons, and miraculous events) needed to be reinterpreted in a modern context.

Bultmann was heavily influenced by existential philosophy, particularly the thought of Martin Heidegger. His theology focused on the New Testament’s call to personal decision and faith rather than on the events themselves, placing emphasis on the individual’s response to the kerygma (the proclamation of the gospel) rather than on the historical underpinnings of the text.

Demythologizing and Its Implications

Bultmann’s “demythologizing” has been controversial for its perceived tendency to downplay or reinterpret supernatural events and miracles. Those who followed his line of thought considered it a necessary refinement for a modern audience. However, a large portion of the global Christian community has pushed back, viewing these events as integral to the biblical record.

Scripture itself presents miracles as definitive marks of divine intervention:

“For I am the LORD your Healer” (Exodus 15:26).

Passages like this affirm an active, miracle-working God. By seeking to reinterpret such references, opponents of Bultmann’s viewpoint suggest that his approach potentially undermines the factual dimension of biblical history.

Interaction with Historical-Critical Method

Bultmann’s usage of the historical-critical method was extensive. He analyzed sources, form, and redaction within the biblical texts to discern layers of tradition, authorship, and cultural background. Proponents of historical criticism appreciate his meticulous scholarship and recognition that Scripture was written in particular cultural contexts. Critics, however, question whether such methods, if not guided by a recognition of divine inspiration, risk overshadowing the text’s supernatural claims.

In contrast, continuous archaeological and manuscript discoveries—such as portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early Christian papyri—have reinforced the view that the biblical record is historically consistent. Indeed, these findings repeatedly confirm that the New Testament writers accurately conveyed Jesus’s life, his miraculous works, and his resurrection. As recorded in John 20:31:

“But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.”

This explicit statement of purpose anchors the necessity of trusting in the historic reliability of the text.

Influence on New Testament Studies

Bultmann’s lectures and writings shaped generations of students in German theological faculties. His focus on individual faith-experience influenced neo-orthodox and existential strands of theology, prompting vigorous discussion about faith’s existential dimensions. His approach continues to appear in dialogues about hermeneutics, the nature of revelation, and the role of historical events in theological doctrines.

Controversies and Criticisms

1. Supernatural Elements: Bultmann’s decision to set aside or reinterpret supernatural elements remains a major point of contention. Many conservative scholars argue that the miracles, including the resurrection, are foundational for understanding the identity of Jesus and the reliability of Scripture (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).

2. Doctrine of Inspiration: Critics highlight that “demythologizing” may diminish the coherent message of the Bible, which underscores the divine authority of Scripture: “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).

3. Existential Focus: By framing faith almost exclusively in existential terms, Bultmann potentially shifts emphasis away from the historical facts central to Christian proclamation—namely, a literal death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Comparisons with Other Biblical Interpretations

Other theological directions emphasize the unity of Scripture and the literal significance of historical events. In parallel, archaeological data—such as inscriptions referencing figures named in the New Testament, and geological evidence of the regions in which Jesus ministered—adds weight to a reading of Scripture that integrates both historical fact and spiritual truth. For instance, discovering the “Pilate Stone” in Caesarea in 1961 provided further evidence of Pontius Pilate’s historical governorship, consistent with the Gospel accounts.

While Bultmann did not deny the crucifixion as a historical reality, he saw the resurrection primarily in existential terms. In contrast, many scholars highlight detailed manuscript evidence from early Christian witnesses (including papyri P52, P66, and P75) that indicate the early communities regarded the resurrection of Jesus as a literal event. This view is reinforced by seminal passages like Luke 24:6–7:

“He is not here; He has risen! Remember how He told you while He was still in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and on the third day be raised again.’”

Lasting Legacy

Despite disagreement on key doctrinal areas, Bultmann’s work forced theologians to grapple more intentionally with the cultural and philosophical contexts of biblical texts. His emphasis on personal decision in the act of belief encouraged meaningful discussion about the role of faith. Still, his denial of the necessity of historical underpinnings in Christianity’s central events has provoked continuous debate.

Most contemporary scholars who hold to a literal, supernatural reading of Scripture see the biblical accounts—including miracles and the resurrection—as historically reliable and theologically essential. Scientific findings in fields like intelligent design and archaeology—when evaluated fairly—do not contradict but often illuminate the biblical text. Moreover, manifold manuscript discoveries continue to attest to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts, challenging overly skeptical methodologies that question the fundamental events described in Scripture.

Conclusion

Rudolf Bultmann’s scholarly impact is undeniable. He stirred conversations about faith, history, and philosophy by advocating a demythologized reading of the New Testament. Although his existential reinterpretations garnered a following, they have also been continuously critiqued for their departure from a straightforward understanding of Scripture’s supernatural claims.

His legacy remains evident in modern discussions on hermeneutics, particularly in the relationship between faith and historical fact. For many, the high view of Scripture inspired by verses such as John 17:17, “Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth,” offers a decidedly different approach, affirming that God’s Word can be meaningfully and credibly understood through its historical context, textual evidence, and the clear revelation it provides of the risen Christ.