{"title":"与身为圣经神学家的布尔特曼相遇","authors":"Richard M. Blaylock","doi":"10.1163/18712207-12341453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn this paper, I seek to provide insight into Rudolf Bultmann’s work by engaging with it through the lenses of biblical theology. To do so, I first describe the presuppositions behind Bultmann’s approach to biblical theology by discussing three polarities crucial to his thinking: (1) mythology versus science, (2) Historie versus Geschichte, and (3) objective knowledge versus revelation. I then explore Bultmann’s exegetical methods under three headings: (1) historical-critical methods, (2) demythologizing, and (3) existentialist interpretation. Lastly, I locate Bultmann within the field of biblical theology by concluding that he was a theologian who (1) rejected the unity of the Scriptures in favor of their diversity, (2) bridged the gap between history and theology through prioritizing Geschichte over Historie, (3) included extra-canonical materials within the scope of biblical theology, and (4) viewed the kerygma as normative in an existentialist fashion.","PeriodicalId":40398,"journal":{"name":"Horizons in Biblical Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Encountering Bultmann as a Biblical Theologian\",\"authors\":\"Richard M. Blaylock\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18712207-12341453\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn this paper, I seek to provide insight into Rudolf Bultmann’s work by engaging with it through the lenses of biblical theology. To do so, I first describe the presuppositions behind Bultmann’s approach to biblical theology by discussing three polarities crucial to his thinking: (1) mythology versus science, (2) Historie versus Geschichte, and (3) objective knowledge versus revelation. I then explore Bultmann’s exegetical methods under three headings: (1) historical-critical methods, (2) demythologizing, and (3) existentialist interpretation. Lastly, I locate Bultmann within the field of biblical theology by concluding that he was a theologian who (1) rejected the unity of the Scriptures in favor of their diversity, (2) bridged the gap between history and theology through prioritizing Geschichte over Historie, (3) included extra-canonical materials within the scope of biblical theology, and (4) viewed the kerygma as normative in an existentialist fashion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Horizons in Biblical Theology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Horizons in Biblical Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18712207-12341453\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Horizons in Biblical Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18712207-12341453","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, I seek to provide insight into Rudolf Bultmann’s work by engaging with it through the lenses of biblical theology. To do so, I first describe the presuppositions behind Bultmann’s approach to biblical theology by discussing three polarities crucial to his thinking: (1) mythology versus science, (2) Historie versus Geschichte, and (3) objective knowledge versus revelation. I then explore Bultmann’s exegetical methods under three headings: (1) historical-critical methods, (2) demythologizing, and (3) existentialist interpretation. Lastly, I locate Bultmann within the field of biblical theology by concluding that he was a theologian who (1) rejected the unity of the Scriptures in favor of their diversity, (2) bridged the gap between history and theology through prioritizing Geschichte over Historie, (3) included extra-canonical materials within the scope of biblical theology, and (4) viewed the kerygma as normative in an existentialist fashion.