^{page 351 note 2} Tübingen, 1965, pp. 6–10.Google Scholar Eng. ed. ‘Salvation in History’, S.C.M., NewTestament Library, 1967.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 3} This, of course, can be only a modest contribution to the discussion. The problems we deal with here are much too complex; they cannot be ‘solved’ in a few pages. I must also, unfortunately, let all that has been written on Bultmannian and Cullmannian theology in the last few years, itself a flood of literature, go by untouched.

^{page 351 note 4} Cullmann's view must not be misunderstood to mean that he compares the theology of Bultmann as such with the theology of the gnostics of the second century, and then rejects them both. Cullmann sees the affinity of Bultmann and the gnostics only in their common rejection of the salvation-ashistory theology. Cullmann could, therefore, put more emphasis on the differences between the two, although it is not important to him in the context of this treatment.

^{page 351 note 5} Cf. for example (according to the date of appearance): art. ‘γινώσκω, γνῶσις in Th. W.B. 1, 688–719Google Scholar; Das Evangelium des Johannes (Meyer-Komm.) 10.–14. Aufl. (1941–1956Google Scholar); Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen (Zürich, 1949), especially pp. 181 ff., 193 ff.Google Scholar; Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 5. Aufl. (1965Google Scholar), § 15, pp. 162–83; further: Glauben and Verstehen, 11 (1965 ⁴), 129 ff., 203 ff.Google Scholar; IV ( 1965), 78 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 6} 1, 1. Aufl. ( 1934), FRLANT N.F. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 1} Here I have in mind the arguments of R. M. Grant, G. Quispel; cf. also E. Haenchen, G. Kretschmar.

^{page 352 note 2} The question need not trouble us now how far this, in a more radical way, expresses a ‘Weltgefuhl’ analogous to the one that broke into the open with hellenistic ‘religious’ philosophy and mystery religion piety and really built itself up further in hellenistic, even Palestinian, Judaism. When one has gone so far discovering these relationships, it is a temptation to find political and social causes for this spiritual change in late antiquity; and modern parallels seem to suggest themselves easily.

^{page 353 note 1} With such an emphasis on the Cross one can hardly regard Bultmann's disinterest in the ‘historical Jesus’ as a hidden docetism cf. e.g. Bultmann's, writing ‘Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus für die Theologie des Paulus’, Glauben und Verstehen, i (1964 ⁵), 188–213Google Scholar; Das Verhältnis des urchristlichen Christuskerygmas zum historischen Jesus (Heidelberg, 1962 ³Google Scholar). The New Testament itself tends to let the ‘historical Jesus’ appear more as a ‘cosmic person’. Nevertheless it must be said that Bultmann's Christology shrinks into the message of the Cross. (Cf. e.g. ‘Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments’, Glauben und Verstehen, 1 (1964 ⁶), 245–67.Google Scholar) On this cf. the critique of Barth, Karl, Rudolf Bultmann. Ein Versuch, ihn zu verstehen, 1952 Theologische Studien, 34Google Scholar.

^{page 353 note 2} This is why the phenomenological investigation of Gnosis by H. Jonas has proved so fertile, although he sometimes has heideggerianized gnosis. (The expression ‘verheideggert’ is found in Schoeps, H. J., Urgemeinde—Judenchristentum—Gnosis (Tübingen, 1956), p. 35Google Scholar; he refers mostly, however, to the first half-volume of the second part of Jonas' book, 1954.)

^{page 354 note 1} I think even Karl Barth would not react so severely against this position as he did in the forties!

^{page 354 note 2} Cf. ‘Das Problem der natürlichen Theologie’, Glauben und Verstehen, I, 294–312Google Scholar; ‘Die Frage der natürlichen Offenbarung', ‘Anknüpfung und Widerspruch', ‘Das Problem der Hermeneutik', Glauben and Verstehen, 11, 79–104, 117–32, 211–35Google Scholar; ‘Der Begriff der Offenbarung im Neuen Testament’, ‘Wissenschaft and Existenz’, ‘Ist voraussetzungslose Exegese möglich?’, Glauben and Verstehen, 111, 1–34, 107–21Google Scholar, 142–50. Cf. also Glauben and Verstehen, IV, 162 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 3} This reproach appears again and again: cf. already Barth, , op. cit. (p. 335Google Scholar, n. I above). Also the critique produced by Pannenberg, W. (‘Hermeneutik and Universalgeschichte’, Z.Th.K. Lx (1963), 90 ff.Google Scholar) against the hermeneutics of Bultmann follows this direction (cf. also Cullmann, O., Heil als Geschichte, pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar) and does not seem to me to be substantiated enough, although he points out (legitimately) a certain narrowness in Bultmann's hermeneutic questioning. (We shall encounter it in the course of our investigation.)

^{page 355 note 1} This one-sidedness of Bultmann's theology seems to me, I might mention, the only point of comparison between Bultmann and the teaching of Marcion. The one-sidedness is, however, quite differently caused on both sides. But in both cases, the danger of heresy can be shown, a danger which is caused by this one-sidedness.

^{page 355 note 2} In the following I rely (except for the writings mentioned on p. I, n. 4) predominantly on Bultmann's pronouncements in the four volumes Glauben and Verstehen (1964Google Scholar ', 1965b, 1965', 1965), subsequently quoted as 1, 11, In, iv with the relative page number. Not every single statement, however, will be documented. Cf. also Geschichte and Eschatologie (Tubingen, 1958Google Scholar). 8 Cf. 1, 313 if. (also 268 ff.); n, 162 ff (cf. 105 ff.); in, 91 if. On the critique: Scheid, J. E., in Kerygma and Myths, v, Erg.bd. 2, pp. 115 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 3} Cf. 1, 313 ff. (also 268 ff.); II, 162 ff (cf. 105 ff.); in, 91 ff. On the critique: J. E. Scheid, in Kerygma und Mythos, v, Erg.bd. 2, pp. 115 ff.

^{page 355 note 4} For this Bultmann says: ‘in einem inneren Widerspruch’ (‘with an internal contradiction’); cf II, 183.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 5} Heil alt Geschichte, pp. 104 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 1} Only the Barnabas letter, to my knowledge, throughout the whole of the early church presents a contradictory interpretation. There are certain allusions, however, also in the Kerygma Petrou and in the letter to Diognetus.

^{page 356 note 2} A proof of how little we can achieve if we try to pin him down to rigid patterns! This shows he cannot be put in the same line as Marcion. It is, however, interesting to see that even some branches of the heretical gnosis of the second century, e.g. the Valentinian gnosis in its special form of Ptolemaic teaching, have achieved a similarly positive or at least tolerant interpretation of the Old Testament.

^{page 356 note 3} Cf. at least the related writings of Glauben and Verstehen; it is only slightly different in in, 133 ff.Google Scholar; tv, 88 f. Cf. ‘Adam und Christus nach Rm 5’, Z.N.W. L (1959), 145 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 4} Cf. also Gal. iv. 22 ff., Rom, . i. 2Google Scholar and the row of witnesses in Heb. xi. It is clear to me that I should have to go into individual exegesis of the relative New Testament passages ino rder to substantiate better my (rather generalized) statements (as in other cases!). These substantiations must be made some other time. I just point out the following investigations: (I) Ad Rom. v: Brandenburger, E., Adam and Christus. Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Rom. 5, 15–21Google Scholar (r. Kor. 15) = Wissenschaftl. Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament, 7, 1962 (on this cf. what seems to me the justified critique of Jungel, E., in Z.Th.K. Lx (1963), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar; Jüngel makes clear the function of the law between Adam and Christ. I would, however, not confront ‘salvation history’ and ‘Word history’ so directly as Jungel does; ‘salvation history’ comes, at least in the sense of Cullmann's terms, factually close to ‘Word history’). (2) Ad Rom. iv: Wilckens, U., ‘Die Rechtfertigung Abrahams nach Römer 4’, in: Studien zur Theologie der alttestamenilichen Überlieferung (1961), pp. III ff.Google Scholar (cf. also Goppelt, , in Th.L.Z. LXXXIX (1964), cols. 321 ff.Google Scholar). In a not so convincing challenge to this, cf. Klein, G., ‘Rdm. 4 and die Idee der Heilsgeschichte', Evang. Theol. XXIII (1963), 424 if.Google Scholar Cf. now N.T.S. XIII (1966), 31 ff.; 43 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 1} That Cullman's ‘progressivity’ is not a ‘cut-and-dried salvation pattern’ in the sense of a linear and previously determined development has been so clearly shown in his new book that it cannot be misunderstood. I am purposely avoiding, in this context, going into the question of whether and how far Jesus sees himself in the line of Old Testament salvation history (e.g. in the consciousness of being the suffering servant of God), but I am personally convinced that also from this point of view a positive integration of the Old Testament is justified.

^{page 357 note 2} Cf. 1, 1 ff., 65 ff., 85 ff., 153 ff.; II, 1 if., 133 ff., III, 35 ff., 131 ff.

^{page 358 note 1} Bultmann comes very close to the Cullmannian view of the ‘interim period’ in tn, 35 ff.

^{page 358 note 2} With a strong qualification a concession is made to humanism: III, 61 ff.; cf. II, 133 ff., 274 ff.; also IV, 42 ff.

^{page 358 note 3} Besides Heil als Geschichte cf. especially Konigsherrschaft Christi and Kirche und Neuen Testament (1950 ³) (Theologische Studien, xGoogle Scholar) and Der Stoat im Neuen Testament (Tubingen, 1961 ³Google Scholar).

^{page 358 note 4} Cullmann gives expression to this with his parable of the Victory Day (which implies the idea of judgement).

^{page 358 note 5} It must be said that Bultmann puts the emphasis very much on the individual and not on the church. Hence the misunderstanding in Marie, R., Bultmann et l'interpretation du Nouveau Testament (1956Google Scholar) (cf. with this ln, 178 ff.).

^{page 358 note 6} But also in loving action: what Bultmann says about this (in III, 122 ff. Cf. also IV, 113 ff.) is truly great.

^{page 358 note 7} Bultmann says, however, that history is swallowed up by eschatology (III, 99 ff.). But he has to admit that several passages in Paul, e.g. Rom, . ix–xiGoogle Scholar, cause difficulties for this interpretation.

^{page 359 note 1} On this argument: here too Cullmann wi11 be right if he bases the ‘prolongation of time’ not so much on the negative aspect of the Parousia delay but on positive new happenings.

^{page 359 note 2} Cf. Heil als Geschichte, pp. 268 ff.Google Scholar —Cullmann underlines exactly as Bultmann does the eschatological character of the Christian present as a whole. And Bultmann himself admits that (I) the ‘Lucan’ development had to come, and (2) in this development the eschatological dialectic was still kept, although in a transformed shape (cf in, 131 ff.). Cf. also Geschichte und Eschatologie (French edition, 1959, pp. 44 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 3} In so far as ‘early catholicism’ is concerned, cf. e.g. Käsemann, E., ‘Paulus und der Frühkatholizismus', Z.Th.K. Lx (1963), 75 ff.Google Scholar As to the relation to the world, cf. Cullmann, , Der Staat im Neuen Testament (p. 358Google Scholar, n. 3). But it has to be admitted that active participation of Christians in the life of the state and in the development of culture before Constantine cannot be shown. In spite of this, there was an openness towards the problems of the world already before Constantine, starting, for example, with the apologists and the Alexandrian theologians.

^{page 359 note 4} If I say ‘unhistorical’, I have to defend myself against a misunderstanding: since Bultmann has made the very ‘historicity of existence’ a Leitsatz of exegesis, ‘unhistorical’ in the sense used here is therefore to be understood as a denial of progression of the salvation history in the eschatological time since Christ's coming.

^{page 359 note 5} Cf. 1, 38 ff.; 134 ff.; III, 15 ff.; Iv, 141 ff. Barth, K. thought quite similarly in Die Auferstehung der Toten (1924Google Scholar); he does not, or hardly ever, criticize Bultmann on this point in his study of 1952.

^{page 360 note 1} Of course he can prove that this gnostic, cosmic-individual view is adopted in the New Testament, besides the historical-apocalyptic view. But it is his intention to demythologize this view too.

^{page 360 note 2} E.g. also for A. Schweitzer and C. H. Dodd as well as their pupils the futuristic eschatology is no longer acceptable.

^{page 360 note 3} Cf. e.g. IV, 100; 143 f. The same doubt extends also to a whole row of other ‘mythical’ expressions of the New Testament. This is shown by Bultmann in his manifesto in Offenbarung und Heilsgeschehen (1941Google Scholar), which has become famous. (Cf. Kerygma and Mythos, i, 15 ff.Google Scholar; II, 179 ff.; and the whole discussion which has come about as a result of this, those for and those against Bultmann.)

^{page 360 note 4} Cf. Heil als Geschichte, pp. 147if.Google Scholar (The Cullmannian ‘already—but not yet’ is in its sense the exact contrary of the Bultmannian ‘no more—not yet’.)

^{page 361 note 1} Thus far Bultmann would agree, but he would say ‘has come’ in a final and ultimate sense.

^{page 361 note 2} Cf. p. 359, n. 4.

^{page 362 note 1} This fact calls for a ‘catholicity’ of the hermeneutical method, as it has been developed in the Montreal-Rapport (1963) of the North-American section of the Faith and Order Department of the WCC on the subject ‘Christ and the Church’.

^{page 362 note 2} If I were to formulate it schematically (and I realize how schematical it is), Cullmann seems to represent in thrust especially the Old Testament judaistic-apocalyptic direction, which flowed from its source as a large stream into early Christianity, whereas Bultmann represents rather the hellenistic-gnostic direction which has come out of the meeting of Christianity with Gentile and Jewish gnosis.