Method Of Exegesis Research Articles

Bultmann's Moral Theology: Analysis and Appraisal

RUDOLF BULTMANN is famous for his bold method of exegesis known as demythologizing. But his daring interpretation of the New Testament is not merely an exercise in scholarship; he is motivated by pastoral concern. The gospel of Christ, Bultman believes, no longer governs men's lives, even imperfectly. It is not intellectually acceptable to men today, because it is framed in a picture of the world no longer valid for men conditioned by science, technology, and their present understanding of their own natures. If the gospel is to be a guide for human existence today, its fundamental message must be disengaged from its ancient mythological setting. The message must be demythologized, interpreted in a way understandable by and acceptable to twentieth-century men. In his exegesis, therefore, Bultmann is seeking a viable guide for human existence. We can say he is seeking a moral theology, although this term has connotations he probably would not approve. Study of Bultmann's thought, consequently, is incomplete without some evaluation of the moral theology which emerges from his interpretation of the New Testament. In general, the moral theology which Bultmann draws out of the New Testament follows the tendencies of all modern efforts to renew Christian morality. It opposes legalism, formalism, and complacency, and stresses personal responsibility and action in the present moment of history in response to the needs of men. Bultmann's moral program follows these tendencies, not only because any thinker reflects the preoccupations of his age, but also because Bultmann's thought has contributed to this tendency in our time. This essay will begin with the goal of Christian life as Bultmann sees it. This first step will require a look into the nature of man as Bultmann conceives it. These ideas will lead to certain characteristics which he assigns to Christian existence followed by the principal acts by which Christian existence is realized. Evaluations of Bultmann's ideas will be inserted at convenient junctures.

Stephen Langton and the Four Senses of Scripture

THE curiously fanciful allegory and morality stand for conceptions which have no modern equivalent. They prove a hindrance to our enjoyment of certain types of mediaeval literature; we tend to pass them over as annoying trifles. Yet considerations that to us seem irrelevant have been a cause of infinite painstaking to the authors. If we would understand their thought, we can scarcely neglect what they held to be of fundamental importance, a reflection which leads us to a study of mediaeval exegesis. The multiple interpretation, its technique, and its value to those who used it, are just beginning to be discussed. In a recent number Mr H. Caplan describes the theory of the Four Senses.1 He traces the distinction from early times and explains how it was understood in the middle ages. Cassian gave a clear definition;2 he divided the exposition of Scripture into two classes, literal or historical, and spiritual; the latter includes three senses, allegorical, moral or tropological, and anagogical. Guibert of Nogent, in a treatise on preaching,3 gave a practical illustration from the four senses of the word Jerusalem. We meet with the same example everywhere in the Twelfth Century; I have no proof that Guibert was the originator. Historically, Jerusalem is an earthly city, allegorically she signifies the Church, tropologically the faithful soul, anagogically the Celestial City. History relates the course of events, allegory interprets one event as significant of another, tropology deals with morals, anagogy leads us to contemplation of things above. This method of exegesis became very common, as Mr Caplan shows. He suggests that the multiplication of senses led to confusion and mentions cases of over-refinement upon the four.