A literal Gospel?

Abstract

Given the conclusions of the preceding chapter, it is striking that a number of writers, as well as Ricoeur himself, have suggested that he belongs on the theological spectrum nearer to Barth than to Bultmann. One group of interpreters, however, all connected as colleagues or students with Hans Frei of Yale University, heartily dissents from this suggestion. Indeed, one could say that the Barth — Bultmann debate over theological method and hermeneutics is being rehearsed again between Hans Frei and Paul Ricoeur, but this time the field of hermeneutical battle is biblical narrative. It was Hans Frei who first suggested that Barth's theological method is best understood in terms of his reading of the Gospel narratives. Frei claims that Barth preserves the literal sense of the Gospel narratives whereas Bultmann construes the narratives as expressions of faith's self-understanding couched in myth. Frei has put forward some severe criticisms of Ricoeur's biblical hermeneutics. That Ricoeur and Frei represent the two most prominent theological approaches to biblical narrative warrants a detailed study of their agreements and disagreements. The solution to this paradoxical state of affairs — Ricoeur's claim that he is Barthian and the Yale Barthians' denial of this claim — turns on the extent to which Ricoeur's reading of the biblical narrative is determined by a philosophical or a theological hermeneutics.