Other Bultmannian scholars soon joined Käsemann in a modest critique of skeptical approaches that attempted to eliminate any historical basis in early Christianity. At the same time, scholars like Günther Bornkamm also continued certain other Bultmannian emphases: a rejection of the Nineteenth Century quest for the historical Jesus, and the assertion that faith does not depend on historical
14 Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” in Kerygmaand Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. by Hans Werner Bartsch (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), pp. 3–8 for example.
15 Ibid., pp. 9–16; Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology(New York: Scribner’s, 1958), pp. 16–18.
16 Barth and Bultmann had a famous disagreement over the reason for Paul’s citation of the resurrection appearances in 1 Cor. 15:3ff. Bultmann’s conclusion that Paul’s chief purpose was to present proof for Jesus’ resurrection (even though Bultmann thought that such was misguided) is important for our purposes. A brief synopsis of Bultmann’s response is found in his Theology of the New Testament, transl. by Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribners, 1951), vol. I, p. 295. Barth registered his complaints against Bultmann on several occasions. One interesting claim is that, apart from the problems that he perceived in Bultmann’s program of demythologization, Barth thought that Bultmann’s agenda was a return to the old Liberal emphasis (How I Changed My Mind, p. 68), a claim that Bultmann vehemently denied. We will return to a critique of Bultmann’s views in Chapters 3–4.
17 Käsemann’s essay is included in Essays on New Testament Themes, transl. by W.J. Montague (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1964), pp. 15–47.
scholarship. Nevertheless, a substantial amount could be known about the life of Jesus.^18
Citing the influence of Käsemann, Bornkamm, and others, James Robinson rejected the old quest, while calling for a new approach to the historical Jesus. In agreement with others that faith was not dependent on historical research, he still
asserted that the Christian kerygma(the core teachings) required an historical basis:
This emphasis in the kerygmaupon the historicity of Jesus is existentially
indispensable, precisely because the kerygma. . . proclaims the meaningfulness of life ‘in the flesh’.
It is this concern of the kerygmafor the historicity of Jesus which necessitates a new quest.^19
The “New Quest” for the historical Jesus scholars, as they came to be called, popularized a test for historical authenticity in the life of Jesus. Often termed the “criterion of dissimilarity,” this test dictates that we can only know that material in Jesus’ life is authentic if it is not derived either from primitive Christian teachings or from Judaism. When Gospel material originates from neither of these sources, one can be reasonably sure that the material is historical.^20
However, the resulting application of the criterion of dissimilarity yields significantly less material than the methodology employed by the old quest. One major criticism is that this test would allow Jesus to share neither Jewish nor Christian beliefs, which is ludicrous in that he was raised in the former milieu and is the chief inspiration for the latter. Thus this approach fails to extricate itself from the historical skepticism that it is critiquing.
Further, the question is whether additional data can be justified, and on what grounds. Other scholars went much further in their critique of those who would severely curtail the search for history in the life of Jesus, which was the dominant trend until at least the middle of this century. Sometimes conclusions seemed more sympathetic to the stance of traditional Christianity, especially in arguing for some of the supernatural elements contained in the Gospels.
