‘Is the historical Jesus important to Bultmann?’
Bultmann’s Christology in ‘Jesus and the Word,’ is defined by his process of de-mythologisation of the New
Testament, and focus on the eschatological events concerning Christ, in which the historical Jesus plays no
useful role. From the start of this work, he establishes his disinterest in the historical person and
personality of Christ. This is not at all a complete rejection of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, as some have
attempted to argue, but an understanding that the Gospels lack historicity, and therefore must be
interpreted to draw out the vital kerygma of the New Testament. Overall, therefore, Bultmann’s Christology
leaves the historical Jesus to one side, to better understand the teachings of Jesus as presented as myths in
the Gospels.
Bultmann’s disinterest in the historical Jesus, and ideas on myth (which will be discussed in greater detail
later) first appear in his 1941 essay ‘New Testament and Mythology.’ Bultmann presented this essay as he
feared the Confessing Church of Germany was slowly slipping into orthodoxy,1 holding outdated ideas on
the nature of the historical Jesus and the importance of myth. Bultmann argues that the New Testament is
full of supernatural and mythological phenomena, as a result of its first century context. For example, the
Gospels present a world in which the Earth is a place of supernatural action, sandwiched between heaven
and hell.2 Additionally, historical events in the Gospels are ambiguous, and Bultmann argues that they
cannot be used as reasonable historical evidence regarding the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore,
the mythology conflicts with current scientific understandings of cause and effect, which do not uphold the
idea of miracles. As such, the mythology presented in the New Testament is both scientifically false and
theologically inappropriate.3 Bultmann therefore presents the idea of de-mythologisation, which can both
be faithful to Christian tradition, and reflect the modern issues which conflict with the New Testament. 4
Overall, this essay is one of Bultmann’s earliest presentations of his idea on de-mythologisation, and his
disinterest in the historical Jesus.
This issue with the historical figure of Jesus is further developed in Bultmann’s later works. Bultmann
argues that the quest of the historical Jesus in the Gospels was both methodologically impossible, and
theologically unnecessary.5 There are multiple reasons for this. For example, the mix of myth and history in
the New Testament makes the figure of Jesus a confusing mesh of contradictory layers. The New Testament
presents the Christ occurrence as mythical in nature,6 yet at the same time the Son of God is the historical
person of Jesus of Nazareth. His ‘destiny’7 is shown to be both spiritual and human in nature. Bultmann
recognises that this is very problematic, since the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the Son of God are two
different categories. One represents that which can be understood through historical study of the Bible,
whereas the other is theological and spiritual in nature, which has been developed into the church’s
‘kerygma’ (proclamation), over time. As such, Bultmann argues that this mix of historical and mythological
1
Fergusson, David. Bultmann. Chapman: London, 1992. Pg107.
2
Ibid., pg108.
3
Ibid., pg108.
4
Ibid., pg108.
5
Baird, William. The Quest of the Christ of Faith: Reflections on the Bultmann Era. Word Books: Texas.
1977. Pg74.
6
Bultmann, Rudolf, and Ogden, Schubert M. New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings.
Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1989. Pg32.
7
Ibid., pg32.
, creates too many issues,8 and therefore the historical Jesus must be left to the side when pursuing a
theological understanding of Jesus.
A further reason for Bultmann’s disinterest in the historical Jesus stems from the historical inaccuracies of
the Gospel tradition, and the basis of Christian faith. Contemporaries of Bultmann revived the ‘quest for the
historical Jesus,’ through the emergence of form criticism, which aimed to examine the oral tradition of the
Gospels for that which can be best explained as going back to Jesus himself, historically. 9 Bultmann found
this problematic, arguing that whilst you could positively describe Jesus of Nazareth, the nature of the
Gospels made it impossible to create a biography of this figure. 10 Over time, the historical Jesus as
presented in scripture has been altered and edited to fit with the church’s current agenda, and even the
completely original texts were written in certain contexts which show evidence of their time. Bultmann also
found issue with the goal of the quest of the historical Jesus and form criticism. The basis of Christian faith
is in the Christ of faith and Son of God, as opposed to the Jesus of history. As such, any examination into
Jesus of Nazareth to find the Jesus of faith is problematic, since Christian faith has never been grounded in
historical investigation into Jesus’ life.11 Furthermore, the importance of Christ is based in his resurrection,
and similar eschatological events, and therefore any events in the life of Jesus prior to this is of little
importance.12 Bultmann’s interest in the eschatological words of Christ as a basis for faith, and the
presentations of these events by John and Paul (which will be addressed later) demonstrate his disinterest
in the historical Jesus. Overall, the nature of the Gospels and Christian faith renders the ‘quest for the
historical Jesus’ both impossible and useless, and therefore Bultmann focuses his enquiry on the
theological Son of God.
A key indicator of Bultmann’s lack of interest in the historical Jesus stems from his focus as being in the
teachings of Christ. Bultmann does not wish to focus his attention on the personality of Jesus, which
historical enquiries into Jesus of Nazareth often intend to uncover, as Jesus’ purpose can only be found in
his teachings.13 Indeed, people are usually more interested in the work of key figures such as Plato and
Napoleon, as opposed to their personalities.14 Additionally, as argued above, Christian faith does not stem
from the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus of Nazareth is not necessarily one and the same with
the Christ of faith. In understanding Christian kerygma, it is therefore important to examine the Christ of
faith, as opposed to the personality of the historical Christ. There are further problems with examining the
historical Jesus. Bultmann argues that little of the personality and life of Jesus can be known through
history.15 Since it was not the basis of Christian faith, there are only a few thin early Christian sources on
this, which are often made legendary through attempts to connect them to the Christ of faith. 16 As a result
of historical interests in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, over the works of the Christ of faith, the
historical Jesus lacks importance for Bultmann.
8
Bultmann and Ogden. New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings. Pg32.
9
Baird, William. The Quest of the Christ of Faith: Reflections on the Bultmann Era. Word Books: Texas.
1977. Pg88.
10
Tatum, W. Barnes. In Quest of Jesus: A Guidebook. London: SCM, 1983. Pg74.
11
Ibid., pg73.
12
Fergusson. Bultmann. Pg78.
13
Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. Translated by Smith, Louise P. and Huntress, Erminie. Scribner:
New York. 1958. Pg10.
14
McKnight, Scot., and Dunn, James. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 2005. Pg53.
15
Ibid., pg52.
16
Ibid., pg52.
Bultmann’s Christology in ‘Jesus and the Word,’ is defined by his process of de-mythologisation of the New
Testament, and focus on the eschatological events concerning Christ, in which the historical Jesus plays no
useful role. From the start of this work, he establishes his disinterest in the historical person and
personality of Christ. This is not at all a complete rejection of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, as some have
attempted to argue, but an understanding that the Gospels lack historicity, and therefore must be
interpreted to draw out the vital kerygma of the New Testament. Overall, therefore, Bultmann’s Christology
leaves the historical Jesus to one side, to better understand the teachings of Jesus as presented as myths in
the Gospels.
Bultmann’s disinterest in the historical Jesus, and ideas on myth (which will be discussed in greater detail
later) first appear in his 1941 essay ‘New Testament and Mythology.’ Bultmann presented this essay as he
feared the Confessing Church of Germany was slowly slipping into orthodoxy,1 holding outdated ideas on
the nature of the historical Jesus and the importance of myth. Bultmann argues that the New Testament is
full of supernatural and mythological phenomena, as a result of its first century context. For example, the
Gospels present a world in which the Earth is a place of supernatural action, sandwiched between heaven
and hell.2 Additionally, historical events in the Gospels are ambiguous, and Bultmann argues that they
cannot be used as reasonable historical evidence regarding the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore,
the mythology conflicts with current scientific understandings of cause and effect, which do not uphold the
idea of miracles. As such, the mythology presented in the New Testament is both scientifically false and
theologically inappropriate.3 Bultmann therefore presents the idea of de-mythologisation, which can both
be faithful to Christian tradition, and reflect the modern issues which conflict with the New Testament. 4
Overall, this essay is one of Bultmann’s earliest presentations of his idea on de-mythologisation, and his
disinterest in the historical Jesus.
This issue with the historical figure of Jesus is further developed in Bultmann’s later works. Bultmann
argues that the quest of the historical Jesus in the Gospels was both methodologically impossible, and
theologically unnecessary.5 There are multiple reasons for this. For example, the mix of myth and history in
the New Testament makes the figure of Jesus a confusing mesh of contradictory layers. The New Testament
presents the Christ occurrence as mythical in nature,6 yet at the same time the Son of God is the historical
person of Jesus of Nazareth. His ‘destiny’7 is shown to be both spiritual and human in nature. Bultmann
recognises that this is very problematic, since the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the Son of God are two
different categories. One represents that which can be understood through historical study of the Bible,
whereas the other is theological and spiritual in nature, which has been developed into the church’s
‘kerygma’ (proclamation), over time. As such, Bultmann argues that this mix of historical and mythological
1
Fergusson, David. Bultmann. Chapman: London, 1992. Pg107.
2
Ibid., pg108.
3
Ibid., pg108.
4
Ibid., pg108.
5
Baird, William. The Quest of the Christ of Faith: Reflections on the Bultmann Era. Word Books: Texas.
1977. Pg74.
6
Bultmann, Rudolf, and Ogden, Schubert M. New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings.
Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1989. Pg32.
7
Ibid., pg32.
, creates too many issues,8 and therefore the historical Jesus must be left to the side when pursuing a
theological understanding of Jesus.
A further reason for Bultmann’s disinterest in the historical Jesus stems from the historical inaccuracies of
the Gospel tradition, and the basis of Christian faith. Contemporaries of Bultmann revived the ‘quest for the
historical Jesus,’ through the emergence of form criticism, which aimed to examine the oral tradition of the
Gospels for that which can be best explained as going back to Jesus himself, historically. 9 Bultmann found
this problematic, arguing that whilst you could positively describe Jesus of Nazareth, the nature of the
Gospels made it impossible to create a biography of this figure. 10 Over time, the historical Jesus as
presented in scripture has been altered and edited to fit with the church’s current agenda, and even the
completely original texts were written in certain contexts which show evidence of their time. Bultmann also
found issue with the goal of the quest of the historical Jesus and form criticism. The basis of Christian faith
is in the Christ of faith and Son of God, as opposed to the Jesus of history. As such, any examination into
Jesus of Nazareth to find the Jesus of faith is problematic, since Christian faith has never been grounded in
historical investigation into Jesus’ life.11 Furthermore, the importance of Christ is based in his resurrection,
and similar eschatological events, and therefore any events in the life of Jesus prior to this is of little
importance.12 Bultmann’s interest in the eschatological words of Christ as a basis for faith, and the
presentations of these events by John and Paul (which will be addressed later) demonstrate his disinterest
in the historical Jesus. Overall, the nature of the Gospels and Christian faith renders the ‘quest for the
historical Jesus’ both impossible and useless, and therefore Bultmann focuses his enquiry on the
theological Son of God.
A key indicator of Bultmann’s lack of interest in the historical Jesus stems from his focus as being in the
teachings of Christ. Bultmann does not wish to focus his attention on the personality of Jesus, which
historical enquiries into Jesus of Nazareth often intend to uncover, as Jesus’ purpose can only be found in
his teachings.13 Indeed, people are usually more interested in the work of key figures such as Plato and
Napoleon, as opposed to their personalities.14 Additionally, as argued above, Christian faith does not stem
from the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus of Nazareth is not necessarily one and the same with
the Christ of faith. In understanding Christian kerygma, it is therefore important to examine the Christ of
faith, as opposed to the personality of the historical Christ. There are further problems with examining the
historical Jesus. Bultmann argues that little of the personality and life of Jesus can be known through
history.15 Since it was not the basis of Christian faith, there are only a few thin early Christian sources on
this, which are often made legendary through attempts to connect them to the Christ of faith. 16 As a result
of historical interests in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, over the works of the Christ of faith, the
historical Jesus lacks importance for Bultmann.
8
Bultmann and Ogden. New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings. Pg32.
9
Baird, William. The Quest of the Christ of Faith: Reflections on the Bultmann Era. Word Books: Texas.
1977. Pg88.
10
Tatum, W. Barnes. In Quest of Jesus: A Guidebook. London: SCM, 1983. Pg74.
11
Ibid., pg73.
12
Fergusson. Bultmann. Pg78.
13
Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. Translated by Smith, Louise P. and Huntress, Erminie. Scribner:
New York. 1958. Pg10.
14
McKnight, Scot., and Dunn, James. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 2005. Pg53.
15
Ibid., pg52.
16
Ibid., pg52.
