Rudolf Karl Bultmann

1. Introduction

Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976) was a German Lutheran theologian and New Testament scholar whose work reshaped 20th‑century discussions of Christian faith, history, and interpretation. He is most widely known for his program of demythologization and for developing an existential hermeneutics of the New Testament, approaches that sought to reconcile biblical proclamation with modern historical and scientific consciousness.

Working primarily at the University of Marburg, Bultmann combined rigorous historical‑critical study of early Christian texts with categories drawn from contemporary philosophy, especially the early existential analysis of Martin Heidegger. He argued that the New Testament’s mythic language—visions of a three‑storied universe, miracle stories, angelic and demonic powers—should not be read as pre‑scientific cosmology to be either naively accepted or rationalistically rejected, but as symbolic expressions of a particular understanding of human existence before God.

Within theology and biblical studies, Bultmann is often located at the intersection of Protestant liberalism, dialectical theology, and continental philosophy. His work significantly influenced debates about the historical Jesus, the nature of kerygma (Christian proclamation), and the distinction between factual Historie and theologically interpreted Geschichte. In hermeneutics and philosophy of religion, his insistence that interpretation involves the self‑understanding of the interpreter provided a crucial backdrop for later thinkers such as Hans‑Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur.

Reception of Bultmann has been sharply divided. Admirers regard him as a pivotal figure who made Christian theology intellectually responsible in a modern world; critics view his approach as sacrificing traditional beliefs or as overly dependent on one philosophical framework. Subsequent sections examine his life, intellectual formation, central ideas, methods, and the wide‑ranging debates his work continues to provoke.

2. Life and Historical Context

Bultmann’s life unfolded against major upheavals in German and European history, which shaped both the questions he posed and the reception of his ideas.

Biographical Outline

Contextual Factors

Bultmann’s early academic career coincided with the dominance of historical‑critical scholarship and the crisis of classical liberal theology exposed by World War I. The shock of the war, the instability of the Weimar Republic, and the rise of dialectical theology (Karl Barth, Emil Brunner) formed the backdrop for his growing emphasis on decision, crisis, and existential response to the gospel.

Under National Socialism, Bultmann remained at Marburg, avoided public alignment with the regime, and associated with elements of the Confessing Church, though his stance has been judged variably—some view him as quietly resistant, others as insufficiently outspoken. The devastation of World War II and the moral collapse of Germany intensified his concern with authentic existence, guilt, and new beginning.

In the postwar era West Germany’s intellectual reconstruction and internationalization gave Bultmann a global audience. His work entered broader conversations about secularization, scientific rationality, and the possibility of faith after Auschwitz and Hiroshima, situating his theology within wider debates about modernity and the meaning of religious language.

3. Intellectual Development and Influences

Bultmann’s thought developed through several identifiable phases, each shaped by specific scholarly and philosophical influences.

From Liberal Theology to Critical Historicism

During his studies at Tübingen, Berlin, and Marburg (1903–1910), Bultmann was formed by liberal Protestant theology and the historical‑critical tradition associated with Adolf von Harnack and the so‑called Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (history‑of‑religions school). Neo‑Kantian philosophy, prevalent in Marburg, reinforced a concern with epistemological limits and the subject’s role in knowledge, anticipating his later critique of “objectivist” approaches to history.

Form Criticism and the History of Tradition

In the 1920s and 1930s, Bultmann became a leading representative of form criticism (Formgeschichte), working alongside figures like Martin Dibelius. Influenced by folkloristics, history of religion, and literary studies, he focused on how oral units about Jesus circulated and were shaped within early Christian communities. This phase culminated in Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1926), where the Gospels were approached as theologically motivated proclamations rather than neutral biographies.

Encounter with Heidegger and Existential Philosophy

A decisive shift occurred through Bultmann’s personal and intellectual contact with Martin Heidegger at Marburg in the 1920s. Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit (1927) supplied categories—authenticity, decision, temporality, being‑toward‑death—that Bultmann adapted for theological purposes. He began to interpret New Testament texts as articulations of fundamental possibilities of human existence rather than as information about a supernatural realm.

Postwar Dialogues and Refinements

After 1945, Bultmann’s ideas were shaped in dialogue with colleagues and former students (e.g., Ernst Käsemann, Gerhard Ebeling, Ernst Fuchs) as well as critics such as Karl Barth and later Wolfhart Pannenberg. These exchanges prompted clarifications of his views on myth, history, and the nature of theological language, and connected his work to emerging conversations in hermeneutics and philosophy of language.

4. Major Works and Scholarly Contributions

Bultmann’s influence rests largely on a cluster of major works that span technical exegesis, systematic reflection, and programmatic essays.

Key Publications

Scholarly Contributions

In New Testament studies, Bultmann’s form‑critical work significantly influenced research on the historical Jesus and the Gospels by shifting attention from precise factual reconstruction to the theological and existential aims of the early Christian communities.

In theology, his essays and Theology of the New Testament offered a systematic interpretation of New Testament proclamation in categories accessible to modern readers, centering on themes of sin, grace, revelation, and decision.

In hermeneutics and philosophy of religion, writings gathered in Faith and Understanding and related essays formulated his influential positions on the nature of myth, the distinction between history and existentially meaningful event, and the role of the interpreter’s situation in understanding texts. These works served as primary conduits for his impact beyond biblical scholarship.

5. Core Ideas: Demythologization and Kerygma

Bultmann’s best‑known contribution is his proposal to demythologize the New Testament so that its kerygma can speak meaningfully in a modern context.

Demythologization (Entmythologisierung)

Bultmann argued that the New Testament is framed in a mythical worldview—a three‑storied cosmos populated by angels, demons, and miracle‑working powers—which modern people, shaped by science and technology, generally cannot accept literally. Demythologization, in his sense, does not mean eliminating myth but interpreting myth symbolically to uncover its existential meaning.

"

“The real question is not whether we can still believe in the New Testament mythology, but whether the kerygma of the New Testament can be translated out of that mythological framework and reinterpreted.”

— Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology”

Proponents of this program hold that myth expresses a genuine understanding of human existence—our bondage, guilt, hope, and the possibility of new life—using pre‑scientific imagery. Critics contend that such reinterpretation either dissolves concrete beliefs (e.g., bodily resurrection) or imposes a foreign philosophical scheme on the texts.

Kerygma as Existential Proclamation

The kerygma—the core proclamation that God has acted decisively in Jesus Christ—is, for Bultmann, not primarily a set of metaphysical propositions but a performative announcement that confronts the hearer with a call to decision. The significance of events like the cross and resurrection lies in how they address the individual’s existence, offering the possibility of authentic life in faith.

He distinguished between Historie (historical facts as reconstructed by critical methods) and Geschichte (events as they impinge upon and transform self‑understanding). For Bultmann, the kerygma belongs to Geschichte: its truth is realized when it awakens faith and obedience. Alternative interpretations emphasize continuity with more traditional doctrinal formulations, while others radicalize his approach by further minimizing historical claims.

6. Methodology: Form Criticism and Existential Hermeneutics

Bultmann’s methodological contributions lie in his development of form criticism and his articulation of an existential hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture.

Form Criticism (Formgeschichte)

Form criticism analyzes the literary forms (e.g., parables, miracle stories, sayings) that compose the Gospels and relates them to their presumed Sitz im Leben (life‑setting) in early Christian communities. Bultmann used this method to:

• Classify pericopes according to form and function
• Infer how preaching, catechesis, liturgy, and apologetics shaped traditions
• Estimate the relative antiquity or secondary character of specific units

Supporters see this as a rigorous historical tool that clarifies how theology and community life influenced the Jesus tradition. Critics argue it sometimes rests on speculative reconstructions and may underestimate the stability of oral tradition or the memory of eyewitnesses.

Existential Hermeneutics

Influenced by Heidegger, Bultmann maintained that understanding a text involves the interpreter’s pre‑understanding and existential situation. Interpretation is not neutral description but a process in which the interpreter is addressed and potentially transformed.

Key elements include:

• Texts disclose possibilities of existence (authentic/inauthentic, faith/unfaith)
• The interpreter always stands within a historical horizon and set of concerns
• Genuine understanding occurs when the text’s question about existence becomes the reader’s own question

"

“To understand a text is to understand oneself in a new way.”

— Paraphrase of Bultmann, Faith and Understanding

This hermeneutic has been seen as a major step toward later philosophical hermeneutics. Some critics maintain that it risks subjectivizing interpretation or subordinating textual otherness to the interpreter’s existential framework, while others see it as a necessary acknowledgment of the conditions of understanding.

7. Philosophical Relevance and Dialogue with Existentialism

Bultmann stands at a crossroads between theology and continental philosophy, particularly existentialism and early phenomenology.

Engagement with Heidegger

Bultmann’s most significant philosophical dialogue was with Martin Heidegger. He appropriated Heideggerian concepts such as Dasein, decision, authenticity, and historicity to interpret New Testament texts as descriptions of fundamental human existence before God. Whereas Heidegger bracketed theological claims, Bultmann integrated existential analysis into a theological framework centered on the kerygma.

Observers differ on whether this represents a legitimate theological retrieval of existential analysis or an inappropriate fusion of distinct discourses.

Broader Philosophical Significance

In philosophy of religion, Bultmann reframed faith as an existential stance rather than assent to metaphysical propositions, influencing later non‑foundationalist and existential accounts of belief. His demythologization program addressed the challenge of scientific rationality by proposing that religious language functions symbolically and existentially.

In hermeneutics, Bultmann’s emphasis on the interpreter’s pre‑understanding and on the transformative nature of interpretation prepared the way for Hans‑Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and Paul Ricoeur’s work on narrative and symbol. Gadamer both acknowledged this debt and criticized Bultmann for not sufficiently attending to the role of tradition and linguistic mediation beyond individual existence.

Philosophical critics have questioned whether Bultmann’s existential reinterpretation unduly narrows the range of possible meanings in religious texts or reduces communal and institutional dimensions of religion to individual decision. Others note its continuing relevance for debates about the status of myth, narrative, and religious discourse in secular societies.

8. Impact on Theology, Biblical Studies, and Hermeneutics

Bultmann’s work generated a substantial “Bultmannian school” and influenced several academic disciplines, often provoking creative developments and emphatic rejections.

Theology

Within Protestant theology, Bultmann’s demythologization program and existential interpretation spurred wide debate. Some theologians (e.g., Gerhard Ebeling, Ernst Fuchs) expanded his approach, emphasizing language, event, and understanding in theology. Others, such as Karl Barth and later Wolfhart Pannenberg, criticized his reliance on existential philosophy and defended a stronger emphasis on God’s objective acts in history.

Bultmann also influenced discussions of justification, revelation, and eschatology, encouraging theologians to frame these doctrines in terms of human existence and decision rather than primarily as metaphysical descriptions.

Biblical Studies

In New Testament scholarship, his form‑critical work became a standard point of reference in mid‑20th‑century research on the Gospels and the historical Jesus. Later scholars partially revised his conclusions:

• The so‑called “new quest” for the historical Jesus, initiated by some of his own students (e.g., Ernst Käsemann), sought more continuity between the historical Jesus and the kerygma than Bultmann had emphasized.
• Redaction criticism and narrative approaches built on his insight that evangelists are theologians but focused more on the final form of the text than on reconstructed oral traditions.

Hermeneutics and Beyond

In hermeneutics, Bultmann’s stress on pre‑understanding and existential involvement influenced later philosophers and theologians, even as they criticized or reoriented his approach. Gadamer’s Truth and Method and Ricoeur’s work on symbol and narrative both engage, implicitly or explicitly, with Bultmann’s legacy.

Beyond strictly theological circles, his ideas informed broader debates on secularization, the interpretation of myth, and the possibility of religious meaning in a scientific age. While his specific formulations are often seen as dated, many contours of later discussion—about narrative identity, the function of religious language, and the limits of historical knowledge—owe something to the questions he posed.

9. Criticisms and Controversies

Bultmann’s work has been surrounded by intense criticism from diverse quarters, often focusing on demythologization, his handling of history, and his political stance during the Nazi era.

Theological and Biblical Critiques

Conservative and confessional critics argue that demythologization undermines traditional doctrines, such as the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and miracles, by reinterpreting them as existential symbols rather than concrete acts of God. They contend that this approach risks reducing Christianity to self‑understanding without an objective divine intervention.

Some New Testament scholars dispute aspects of his form‑critical reconstruction, claiming it underestimates the reliability of traditions and the memory of eyewitnesses. The emergence of narrative criticism, social‑scientific approaches, and memory studies has provided alternative frameworks that view the Gospels as more historically anchored than Bultmann often allowed.

Philosophical and Hermeneutical Objections

Philosophers and theologians influenced by Gadamer and Ricoeur criticize Bultmann for an overly subject‑centered hermeneutic. They argue that his focus on individual existence neglects the role of tradition, language, and communal practices in shaping understanding. Some maintain that his use of Heidegger narrows the plurality of possible meanings by privileging one existential analytic.

Others, especially within analytic philosophy of religion, view his approach as evasive: by translating doctrinal claims into existential terms, it may be seen as sidestepping questions about the truth or falsity of historical and metaphysical assertions.

Historical and Political Controversies

Bultmann’s position under National Socialism has been debated. While he did not align with Nazi ideology and had connections with the Confessing Church, critics argue that he did not publicly resist as forcefully as he might have, especially given his influence and academic security. Defenders suggest that he quietly supported resistant colleagues and that his theological work implicitly opposed totalitarianism by emphasizing personal responsibility and freedom.

These controversies continue to shape how Bultmann is received: as a bold mediator between faith and modernity, as a problematic relativizer of doctrine and history, or as a complex figure whose achievements and limitations are inseparable from his historical context.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

Bultmann’s legacy is both extensive and contested, touching multiple fields and generations of thinkers.

Theological and Scholarly Legacy

In Protestant theology, he is often regarded as a central figure of mid‑20th‑century German theology, whose questions continue to frame debates on scripture, faith, and modernity. The “Bultmannian school” helped shape academic theology in Germany and beyond, even as subsequent movements—political, liberation, feminist, and narrative theologies—reacted against perceived individualism or philosophical narrowness in his work.

In biblical studies, his form‑critical methods and emphasis on the theological shaping of tradition became standard starting points, later revised by new methodologies. His distinction between Historie and Geschichte remains a reference point for discussions on the theological interpretation of historical events.

Influence on Hermeneutics and Philosophy of Religion

Bultmann’s existential hermeneutics played a transitional role between earlier theological exegesis and later philosophical hermeneutics. Gadamer, Ricoeur, and others positioned their own theories partly in response to his focus on existential decision, thereby embedding his concerns in broader philosophical discourse about understanding, tradition, and the nature of texts.

In philosophy of religion, his demythologization program remains a paradigmatic attempt to address the challenge of modern scientific consciousness. Later thinkers, both sympathetic and critical, have engaged his effort to reconceive religious language as symbolic and existential rather than as pre‑scientific cosmology.

Ongoing Significance

Bultmann’s historical significance lies less in the continued adherence to his specific positions than in the enduring relevance of the questions he posed: How can ancient religious texts be meaningful in a secular, scientifically informed world? What is the relation between historical research and faith? How should myth and symbol be understood?

His work continues to function as a major point of orientation—whether as a resource, a foil, or a challenge—for scholars and students exploring the intersections of theology, history, and philosophy in the modern era.