Christianity

Theme 1: Religious figures and sacred texts

Booklet 7 1 E

The early church (in Acts of the Apostles):I. Its message and format: the kerygmata as presented by C. H. Dodd, with reference

to Acts 2:14-39; 3:12-26. II. The challenges to the kerygmata (with reference to the historical value of the

speeches in Acts and the work of Rudolf Bultmann). III. The adapting of the Christian message to suit the

audience.

Introduction to Acts of the Apostles

The Acts of the Apostles is the earliest account we have of the spread of Christianity during the first century CE; (the equally important Pauline epistles are earlier, but are not historical accounts). There is a general consensus that the book was written by Luke, the author of the third gospel, probably before CE 70, no more than some forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Its Prologue (1:1-14) is addressed, as is Luke’s Gospel, to someone called Theophilus, and connects with the last chapter of the gospel, which ends with Jesus blessing the disciples as he ascended into heaven (compare Luke 24:50-52 with Acts 1:8-9).

Acts 1:1 to 6:7 is an account of the Christian community that came into being in Jerusalem following the events of the first Christian Pentecost, which are described in 2:1-13. The word Pentecost is the Greek word for ‘fifty’. The Jewish festival of Pentecost was held on the fiftieth day after Passover. For Christians, it has a special significance as the birthday of the Christian church. In Luke 24:49, Jesus instructs the disciples to stay in Jerusalem ‘until you have been clothed with power from on high’. At Pentecost, the power of the Holy Spirit descends upon them, and the Christian church is born.

I. Its message and format: the kerygmata as presented by C. H. Dodd, with reference to Acts 2:14-39; 3:12-26.

Kerygma is a Greek word which means "proclamation, announcement, preaching." Kerygmata being the plural form of kerygma. The kerygma is the preaching of the message of Christianity This was distinct from the teaching which focused on moral and ethical instruction.

During the mid-twentieth century, when the literary genre of the NT gospels was under debate, scholars like C. H. Dodd and Rudolf Bultmann suggested that the gospels were of a genre unique in the ancient world. They called this genre kerygma and described it as a later development of preaching, having taken a literary form.

1

‘The New Testament writers draw a clear distinction between preaching and teaching. The distinction is

preserved alike in Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, and must be considered characteristic of early

Christian usage in general. Teaching (didaskein) is in a large majority of cases ethical instruction.2 . . .

Preaching, on the other hand, is the public proclamation of Christianity to the non-Christian world. The

verb keryssein properly means "to proclaim." . . . Much of our preaching in Church at the present day

would not have been recognized by the early Christians as kerygma. It is teaching, or exhortation

(paraklesis), or it is what they called homilia, that is, the more or less informal discussion of various

aspects of Christian life and thought, addressed to a congregation already established in the faith.

A main theme of the kerygmata of the early church was the belief that Jesus fulfilled the promises of

the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) through his life, works, death, and resurrection.

The aim of the kerygma was to proclaim the key facts of the gospel to those who had never heard them

before. It followed a particular pattern:

• Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled; the Messianic Age has come.

• This has happened through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

• He was born of the house of David, and died for the salvation of humankind.

• He was buried, but resurrected on the third day, according to the Scriptures.

• He ascended to heaven and sits on the right hand of God.

• He will come again to be mankind’s Judge and Saviour.

• Therefore, all are called to repent and be baptized in his name.

2

What is the pattern of the kerygma?

Acts 2:14-39 (NIV) Peter Addresses the Crowd

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17 “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.19 I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[a]

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[b] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him:

“‘I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest in hope,27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay.28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[c]

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand

3

Notes and explanations

16. Joel – Old Testament prophet – the disciples were fulfilling this prophecy

17-18. Promising experiences of God

22. There is also an emphasis on Jesus as miracle worker – for example, Peter draws attention to Jesus’ “miracles and wonders and signs”

15. This was after the arrival of the Holy Spirit – the disciples were speaking in tongues

Notes

25. Focus on prophecy - Jesus fulfilled the promises of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’[d]

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Footnotes:

1. Acts 2:21 Joel 2:28-322. Acts 2:23 Or of those not having the law (that is, Gentiles)3. Acts 2:28 Psalm 16:8-11 (see Septuagint) 4. Acts 2:35 Psalm 110:1

4

What is the central preaching/kerygma found in Acts 2:14-39?

God had shown them, through the signs and wonders that Jesus did among them, that he was the Messiah. E.g.

Nevertheless, they were responsible for his crucifixion and death. How?

However, God had raised him from the dead, as prophesied in Psalm 16:10.

David, the reputed author of the psalms, had died; the resurrection of Jesus proves that he is greater than David. Why is this significant?

The apostles are witnesses to the resurrection, for they had seen the risen Jesus.

All this proves that God has made this Jesus whom the Jews crucified both Lord and Messiah.

Acts 3:12-26 (NIV) (following the healing by Peter and John of the lame man at the Temple’s Beautiful Gate. The crowd follows the apostles to Solomon’s Portico. Peter seizes the chance to preach.)

12 When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Fellow Israelites, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16 By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.

17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’[a]

24 “Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. 25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’[b] 26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

Footnotes:

1. Acts 3:23 Deut. 18:15,18,192. Acts 3:25 Gen. 22:18; 26:4

5

Notes and explanations – What is the Kerygma?

Peter makes the following points:

• The healing was not accomplished through the apostles’ own power; this was God glorifying his servant, Jesus, whom the Jews had rejected and killed.• God had raised him from the dead, and the apostles were witnesses to this.• It is through faith in Jesus’ name that the lame man was healed.• The Jews acted in ignorance, but God had indicated through his prophets that the Messiah would suffer, and this had been fulfilled.• The Jews were the prophets’ descendants, inheritors of God’s promise to Abraham that his children would be blessed.

II. The challenges to the kerygmata (with reference to the historical value of the speeches in Acts and the work of Rudolf Bultmann).

Are the sermons in Acts authentic/ have historical value? The Book of Acts contains eight speeches given by Peter and nine given by Paul. Some commentators have suggested that these speeches were never made by the apostles, but that they are the inventions of Luke, the author of Acts and therefore would have limited historical value.

The following points support this suggestion:• Luke was writing at a time when it was common practice among historians to compose speeches and attribute them to others. Very often they used such speeches to air their own views, with little respect for the alleged speakers or the circumstances in which the speeches were allegedly made.• The speeches do not match their narrative contexts, e.g. in Acts 21:27-30 Paul is accused by some Jews of bringing a Gentile into the Temple. He responds (Acts 22:1-21) not by trying to prove his innocence, but with a speech describing his biographical background and his conversion.• The speeches make Peter and Paul sound too similar. In fact, all the missionary speeches in Acts have a uniform structure:(i) a direct address to the listeners;(ii) a call for attention;(iii) a quotation from scripture;(iv) a proclamation of the life of Jesus;(v) a scriptural proof of his messiahship;(vi) a call to repentance.• The supposed audience would not have understood some elements in the speeches, e.g. in Acts 26:10, Paul calls Christians ‘the saints’. This is perfectly understandable to the reader but would have been unintelligible to Agrippa, who was the supposed listener. This shows that the intended audience for the speeches in Acts were not the persons mentioned in the narrative but the reader of the book.

In summary - Luke may here and there have made use of transmitted material, he composed these speeches himself, and that they have no historical core or content, but must be regarded as literary products similar to those in Greek historical writing

6

How can we challenge to the kerygmata of Acts?

The following points defend the historical accuracy and value of the speeches:

• We have evidence that Luke accompanied Paul on some of his missionary journeys, and that he was with him when he made his speeches in Athens (Acts 17); Ephesus (Acts 20), and Jerusalem (Acts 22), and when he defended himself before Agrippa (Acts 24-25). Since Luke was a close companion of Paul, it is quite possible that he had first-hand knowledge of Paul’s speeches.• The speeches make extensive allusion to the Old Testament Scriptures, which does not reflect Luke's usual literary style.• The speeches are only summaries (see Acts 2:40, ‘and he testified with many other arguments’), but those made by both Peter and Paul use similar words and show similar ideas to those in their epistles; e.g. Peter’s speeches(i) In Acts 2:23 Peter speaks of ‘the definite plan and foreknowledge of God’. I Peter 1:2 contains the phrase ‘destined by God’. (KJV has ‘according to the foreknowledge of God’; Greek prognosis = ‘foreknowledge’).(ii) Acts 3:6 quotes Peter as saying: ‘I have no silver or gold’. In I Peter 1:18, we have the phrase: ‘not with perishable things like silver or gold’.(iii) In Acts 10:42, Peter speaks of Jesus, ‘the one ordained by God asjudge of the living and the dead’. In 1 Peter 4:5 he writes of ‘him who stands ready to judge the livingand the dead’. Paul’s speeches(i) In Acts 13:39, when preaching in Antioch, Paul states, ‘by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses’. This doctrine of justification is common in all his epistles.(ii) Acts 20:19 quotes Paul as saying that he has served the Lord ‘with all humility’.In Ephesians 4:2 he begs the Ephesians to live ‘with all humility’.(iii) In Acts 20:24(a), Paul wishes: ‘if only I may finish my course’ . In 2 Timothy 4:7, he writes ‘ I have finished the race’. The NRSV translates the same Greek word, dromos, as ‘course’ in Acts and ‘race’ in 2 Timothy.(iv) In Acts 20:24 (b), he makes a further wish: to finish ‘the ministry that I received from the Lord’.In Colossians 4:17 he writes: ‘See that you complete the task that you have received in the Lord.’ The NRSV translates the same Greek word, diakonia, as ‘ministry’ in Acts and ‘task’ in Colossians

7

How can we defend the kerygmata (with reference to the historical value of the speeches in Acts).

Bultmann’s challenge to the kerygmata (with reference to the historical value of the speeches in Acts).

Rudolf Bultmann is one of the most influential theologians and biblical scholars of the twentieth century. He is perhaps best remembered for his call to demythologize the New Testament so that the Christian Gospel might be separated from its mythological trappings. Yet, a simple summary of demythologization often fails to appreciate Bultmann’s positive intent. Bultmann’s project is best seen as plotting out a middle course between nineteenth-century German theological liberalism and Karl Barth’s subsequent critique of that movement. Bultmann wanted, with Barth, to proclaim the saving act of God in Christ, yet without providing unnecessary stumbling blocks to the modern listener. (based on an article by Josh Reeves, 2005)

For Bultmann, the “real content” (sache) of the gospel proclamation about Jesus is closely bound to the pre-scientific cosmologies of the ancient Jewish and Greek world. For instance, Jesus is said to have ascended into heaven because it was thought to sit, literally, above the earth. Bultmann argues that the modern Christian cannot be expected to take this mythical world seriously, and so “there is nothing to do but to demythologize it” (Bultmann 1984, 9).

Demythologizing was not a new idea in German theological scholarship. Protestant liberals in nineteenth-century Germany had offered a similar critique, yet in Bultmann’s opinion they had failed. In attempting to purge the New Testament of outdated thinking, they had eliminated the kerygma, a Greek word which Bultmann identifies with “the message of God’s decisive act in Christ” (Bultmann 1984, 12). For Adolf Harnack and other German liberals, the significance of Jesus lay only in his moral teachings. Following Karl Barth, Bultmann argued that “[t]he New Testament talks about an event through which God has brought about our salvation. It does not proclaim Jesus primarily as a teacher…” (Bultmann 1984, 13).

Despite Bultmann’s acceptance of Barth’s critique of liberalism, he was certainly not a Barthian. He could not follow Barth’s strict acceptance of the biblical text, myth and all. Barth himself addressed their differences in the preface to the third edition of his Epistle to the Romans:

[Bultmann] asks me to think and write WITH Paul, to follow him into the vast unfamiliarity of his Jewish, Popular-Christian, Hellenistic conceptions; and then suddenly, when the whole becomes too hopelessly bizarre, I am to turn round and write ‘critically’ ABOUT him and against him—as though, when all is strange, this or that is to be regarded as especially outrageous (Barth 1933, 18).

But Bultmann was not simply asking Barth to challenge Paul; he took for granted that such challenging is unavoidable. How can persons living in a modern scientific society accept a mythical world picture as true? Furthermore, while Barth’s approach might be faithful to the letter of the text, for Bultmann it was not faithful to the kerygma, to which the text is supposed to bear witness. Faith that accepts the worldview of the New Testament (or even the modern worldview of science) “has not grasped the hiddenness and transcendence of divine action and…seeks God’s act in the sphere of what is worldly” (Bultmann 1984, 122). Thus, Bultmann did not see demythologization as something one might choose to do in

8

Why did Bultmann believe the Bible should be demythologised? Read the whole page

order to preach to scientific Westerners, but rather as an opportunity to reflect on the nature of faith itself.

The Method of Demythologization

Having examined Bultmann’s case for the need to demythologize, let us see how he actually goes about doing it. It is important to understand that demythologizing is not simply “updating” the cosmology of the New Testament so that it might align with modern physics. Bultmann is not interested in how any particular scientific theory relates to the New Testament, but rather in what science tells him about the world, namely, that supernatural powers cannot interrupt the laws of cause and effect. From this perspective, any reference to supernatural acts has mistakenly objectified the transcendent into the immanent (Bultmann 1984, 99). If one is to understand the “true intention of the myth,” one will have to translate the biblical accounts into language that reveals how human existence is “grounded in and limited by a transcendent, unworldly power” but that does not violate our scientific worldview.

In order for Bultmann to accurately translate the mythical language of the Bible, he must rely heavily on a philosophy that deals “scientifically” with human existence rather than with natural science (Bultmann 1969, 324). Bultmann says, “What is involved here, is not only the criticism that proceeds from the world picture of natural science, but also—and even more so—the criticism that grows out of our self-understanding as modern persons” (Bultmann 1984, 5). Because Bultmann thinks that we cannot say that God acts in the physical world without mistakenly “objectifying” God (that is, treating God like any other human object), the interpretive task is to question what the text is saying about human existence. Theology, for Bultmann, is intimately tied to anthropology. On this point he follows his teacher, Wilhelm Herrmann, for whom it was not possible to “say of God how he is in himself but only what he does to us” (Bultmann 1984, 99).

For Bultmann, the philosophy that best understands human existence is the existentialism of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. Or rather, “…Heidegger’s existentialist analysis of human existence seems to be only a profane philosophical presentation of the New Testament view of who we are…” (Bultmann 1984, 23). Bultmann rejects the charge that he is translating the kerygma into an alien philosophical framework, for Heidegger’s philosophy “all by itself” has discovered the New Testament message about the human condition. In Bultmann’s presentation of Heidegger’s philosophy, humans are “ever in the moment of decision between the past and future,” which we can accept responsibility for and live out “authentically” or “lose ourselves” to the variety of outside pressures that try to deny our freedom (Bultmann 1984, 23). For Bultmann the Christian gospel is that God has liberated humanity from “our factual fallenness in the world” so that we can live authentically as human beings (Bultmann 1984, 26).

Consider a few examples of demythologization. Bultmann rejects any supernatural account of Adam’s original sin, and instead locates sin in the human refusal to accept the gift of authentic existence (Bultmann 1984, 29). Likewise, living life “according to the Spirit” does not refer to any supernatural influence, but describes “a genuine human life” that lives out “of what is invisible and non disposable and, therefore, surrender[s] all self-contrived security” (Bultmann 1984, 17). The judgment of God to which Scripture refers, “is not a cosmic event that is still to happen but is the fact that Jesus has come into the world and issued the call to faith” (Bultmann 1984, 19). And the significance of Jesus is not to be found in his supposed placating of a wrathful God but in the fact that through him “our authentic life becomes a possibility in fact for us only when we are freed from ourselves” (Bultmann 1984, 30). Bultmann recognizes that not all of the New Testament can be translated in this way (Bultmann himself focuses mostly on John and Paul), but he thinks this is a necessary sacrifice if the kerygmatic message is to be clarified.

9

To many, this theological method seems strange. Does such radical historical criticism not cut one off from the object of the church’s proclamation, Jesus Christ? Does not Bultmann think that history, and in particular the historical Jesus, is important to Christianity? Bultmann’s answer is clearly, “No.” He argues that the historical Jesus is of limited value; we can only say that Jesus was a historical person who died on the cross. Even this can be dangerous, for historical thinking can mislead one into presuming “that this historical presentation is the knowledge which reveals the object of faith” (Bultmann 1984, 122). For Bultmann, the Jesus of history is mute. Any attempt to base Christianity on him must fail.

Why then does Bultmann find the Christian kerygma so compelling? How does one come to believe in the cross as the event of salvation? Bultmann argues, “Here there seems to be only one answer: because it is proclaimed as such, because it is proclaimed together with the resurrection. Christ the crucified and risen encounters us in the word of proclamation, and nowhere else. And faith in this word is the true faith of Easter” (Bultmann 1984, 39). God does not reveal himself in the documents of history which are limited by their historical context; instead the Word of God is to be identified with what meets us in the proclamation of Jesus Christ. Thus, there is something inherently mysterious in the Word of God, for there is no way to “objectify” it by putting it human language, even if that language is found in Scripture. Christian theologians can “abandon absolutely the search for the proof of the Word of proclamation, either external proof or proof within ourselves (in ‘experiences’)” (Bultmann 1969, 138).

Here the radical nature of Bultmann’s theological program becomes clear. Bultmann’s critics wanted him to answer “how I rescue myself from the situation created by my critical radicalism; how much I can still save from the fire… (Bultmann 1969, 132).” He responds by saying that the Word of God is not something that human effort can save. “I calmly let the fire burn, for I see that what is consumed is only the fanciful portraits of Life-of-Jesus theology, and that means nothing other than ‘Christ after the flesh’” (Bultmann 1969, 132). Like a good Lutheran theologian, Bultmann argues that just as human effort cannot justify one’s self before God, human effort cannot secure the basis for our belief in God.

 

10

Write your own summary of Bultmann’s challenge to the kerygmata (with reference to the historical value of the speeches in Acts).

Evaluation

What should one make of Bultmann’s theological proposal? Positively, it must be said that he deals directly with the problem of faith in the modern era. He was able to combine a thoroughly naturalistic account of the world with the accounts of the Christian Gospel that witness to the “Living God” who actively calls men and women through Jesus to a redeemed life. But the enduring problem for modern theology generally is that these accounts do not fit neatly together, which makes Bultmann an easy target for criticism.

Biblicists find his radical criticism of the New Testament excessive. While it might be admitted that history itself cannot prove faith, this does not mean history is irrelevant. If the early Christians, as Bultmann repeatedly claimed, drew heavily on the Gnostic redeemer myths (a view which many New Testament scholars today discount), why should we think Jesus’ life was different from that of any other human being? What if the post-Easter church has so radically altered the message of the Christ of faith, that it bears no resemblance to the Christ of history? Would this not cast doubt upon the entire New Testament message, a message that is explicitly rooted in historical events? Thus, it seems that Bultmann’s method lets Christianity off the historical hook. Doubts about the New Testament’s history cannot but lead to doubts about the New Testament’s message. Moreover, what would prevent people of other religions from making the claim that God authenticates their historically dubious claims?

A similar criticism has been offered by Protestant liberals. Why demythologize all of the New Testament, only to stop arbitrarily at the claim that Jesus is in some way uniquely used by God? Is this not also a supernatural claim that can be translated, without remainder, into anthropological terms? Trying to escape this question by appealing mysteriously to the Word of God in proclamation seems simply to be a fideistic move, in that it asserts what cannot possibly be disproven.

Questions also arise regarding Bultmann’s account of science. While it is apparent that a scientistic viewpoint denies the possibility of supernatural intervention, it is not clear that any particular scientific theory does so. Indeed, this is a highly debated topic in the contemporary science-and-religion literature. Much of this literature argues that a non-interventionist account of divine action is possible, if one is so theologically inclined. Thus, many theologians would question whether Bultmann has conceded too much to a mechanistic, scientific worldview.

But even if one opts with Bultmann for a purely naturalistic account of the world, he was clearly overly optimistic to think that there could be a “scientific understanding of human existence” (Bultmann 1969, 324). The complexities of human life raise insuperable problems for any explanations of human “existence” or even personality, which is why academic psychology has increasingly moved to more biologically-based paradigms such as cognitive science. As a result, it seems doubtful that there could ever be an adequate translation of Christian scripture into anthropological terms. While Bultmann had hoped to anchor the Christian gospel in a secure existentialist framework, in fact this framework secured its irrelevance as soon as Heidegger’s philosophy became dated. The failure of Bultmann’s theological program partly explains the emphasis on narrative among recent theologians, for they assert that New Testament accounts cannot be reduced to more basic philosophical, theological or anthropological propositions. (based on an article by Josh Reeves, 2005)

BibliographyBarth, K. (1933). The Epistle to the Romans. New York, Oxford University Press.

Bultmann, R. (1969). Faith and Understanding. Philadelphia, Fortress Press.11

Support for Bultmann Bultmann’s challenge to the kerygmata

Opposition to Bultmann

He deals with the problem of faith in the modern era

If he doubts the New Testament history he should also doubt the New Testament ________

Bultmann does not demythologise the whole Bible – he leaves in the idea that . . .

Science

12

III. The adapting of the Christian message to suit the audience. To add next year

13

AO2

The extent to which the kerygmata (within the areas of Acts studied) are of any value for Christians today.

The kerygmata (within the areas of Acts studied) has value for Christians today.

The kerygmata (within the areas of Acts studied) has no value for Christians today.

Has value as is the inspired word of God – Timothy ‘God breathed’

Value – God can break the laws of nature – omnipotent

Can work today

Demythologising the Bible makes it acceptable to modern Christians

Not historically accurate e

Not compatible with science – Jesus’ miracles e.g.

Not compatible with contemporary society

A demythologised Bible is worthless

Conclusion

Value for believers . . .

Based on interpretation . . .

14

Whether the speeches in Acts have any historical value.

The speeches in Acts have historical value. The speeches in Acts do not have historical value.Bultmann

Conclusion

15

16