An Introduction to the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann WALTER SCHMITHATS SCM PRESS LTD‘Trasalated by John Bowden from the German % Die Thole Rolf Bultmenns, Hine Vnfhring J.C.B. Moh [Paul Sebel, Tubingen Suan ition, 1967 ‘To the parish of Reumland ‘with grtafel memories 03334 007194 Firat pubibed 2958 by SCM Pre Led ‘56 Blosnbary Steet London WC (© SCM Press Led 2568, Pineda Gres Brita by Westen Printing Series Ee ‘Bristol2 Theology as Talk of God BuLraann writes: “The subject of theology is God eae. ‘where he puts it ‘Ta his stution he thelogan has now, in ‘ur view, th imposible ask oftsking of Gd. Whatever cae vould be talk of?" These sentences clery expres he tank of theology. They do not say anything surprising oF unvaual. ‘The concept ‘theology’, ‘hee’ fa Gres, simply means “Goda, and f would obvinunly Be acacen te fll i sich was not of God ‘theslgy, ‘The concept occurs in ‘arious forms in Gresk philosophy after the ime of Pat in {his vent of talk of Go the god, or the divine. The Churc ‘manfred it at fet hesitating But after the Contatine era without hesitation, w Christian tlk of God, which now emerged victorious over pagan theology athe te theslogy God is thus the subject ofall theology, and to this extent, of Christian theology too. As Bulsmann fa doing thology, iis auite cea that he 00, want to tall of Gods ‘Whatever ee ‘ould het of? ‘But Bultmann fel that fis not unimportant to sts the fact that theology mean tlk of God for in is view Christin theslogy has aot always kept cfs abject, and thus hes led itaelf into abwurdity Bultmann's charge aginst liberal theo: logy, for example, shat ‘thas not desi with God, but with sat! "Thin ita grave charge. Bue if Uberal theslogy seek Theology as Talk of God God's salvation realized in and through human personalities, and the formation of personaly is presented to man as task that he can fulfil, chen the charge i evidently not unjustified. ‘Such eiticism makes it clea chat Buleman is concerned that God should be thought ofa the only meaningful subject of ll, theological work. in that case of course, the theologian who wants to do theology as ‘theolga, thats as ‘God-all, i faced with the inevitable question how one can thea speak of God, indesd how one can speak of im at all Bltasna wed this question in 1925 a9 the tile for significant and much-read article: “What Sense Does it Make to Talk of God?’ In the light of this formulation, we may remember tat in the words quoted atthe beginning of this chapter Bultmann calls theoiogy’s task of talking of God an ‘impossible’ one, and therfore atk: In what way i this tok “mmposible"? How far ait enjoined on us finan impowible tank? And finally, how far doe ie make sense, even though it is imposible?” Fist of all, it must be pointed out that Bultmann often wees ‘biblical expresions to talk about an inappropriate concep of God. “Gad is nota datum’, that i, not an object, ‘which we ean recognize in more or less the sume way ss other objects." The ‘question of the appropratenes (adequacy) of our knowledge of God, which has at times occupied theology a great deal, is thus tobe rejected completely; for in any case i imagines God as an object, ‘of which direct knowledge is ponble.* But ‘whatever the form in which such knowledge may be asserted, ‘iteould sil not take us to Gad, who can never be something siven, something remaining steady, as it wer, for the obser~ vee" Anyone who imagines God at an object which i directly scceasible to human understanding or tothe human hear, is still moving in the context ofthe Greek view of Go, fr which npp36 8. Nib, peo Nib. 3