^{page 57 note 2} Ogden, Schubert M., Christ without Myth (New York, 1961), p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 3} Cobb, John B. Jr., ‘The Post-Bultmannian Trend’, J.B.R. 30 (1962), pp. 3–4Google Scholar. This is of course justified by Bultmann's frequent reference to paradox. See Bartsch, H. W. (ed.), Kerygma und Mythos (Hamburg, 1952), II, p. 206Google Scholar (Eng. tr. by Reginald Fuller, Kerygma and Myth (London, 1953), p. 208); Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York, 1958), p. 80; Glauben und Verstehen (Tübingen, 1933–60), II, p. 257 (Eng. tr. in Essays Philosophical and Theological by J. C. G. Greig (London, 1958), p. 286). It should be noted that the English edition, Kerygma and Myth, does not reproduce the full contents of volume I of Kerygma und Mythos but omits four essays. However, the English edition happily includes the most important part of Bultmann's last essay in volume II of Kerygma und Mythos, pp. 191–208, from which numerous citations will be made in this paper. Pagination will be given both for the German and English editions, the latter appearing in parentheses.

^{page 57 note 4} ‘Die “Botschaft vom entscheidenden Handeln Gottes in Christus” ‘, K.M. I, p. 25 (p. 13).

^{page 57 note 5} ibid., p. 25 (p. 14).

^{page 57 note 6} ibid., p. 26 (p. 15).

^{page 58 note 1} ibid., p. 31 (p. 22).

^{page 58 note 2} ibid., p. 35 (p. 27).

^{page 58 note 3} ibid., p. 39 (p. 31). ‘Woder Mensch nicht handeln kann, Gott für ihn handelt, für ihn gehandelt hat.’

^{page 58 note 4} ibid., p. 48 (p. 44).

^{page 58 note 5} Glauben und Verstehen, II, p. 75 (Essays Philosophical and Theological, p. 85).

^{page 58 note 6} G.V. II, p. 257 (Essays, p. 386).

^{page 59 note 1} K.M. II, p. 196 (p. 196). See also Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York, 1958), p. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 78.

^{page 59 note 3} K.M. I, pp. 15–21 (pp. 1–6).

^{page 59 note 4} K.M. II, pp. 207–8 (pp. 210–11); cf. also K.M. II, pp. 196–7 (p. 197).

^{page 59 note 5} G.V.I, p. 101.

^{page 60 note 1} G.V. I, p. II 7. See the important essay, ‘Welchen Sinn hat es, von Gott zu reden?’, G.V. I, pp. 26–37.

^{page 60 note 2} G.V. I, p. 28, ‘Will man von Gott reden, so muss man offenbar von sich selbst reden.’ (Italics are Bultmann's.)

^{page 60 note 3} Schubert Ogden, op. cit., p. 156.

^{page 60 note 4} See Bultmann, R., Das Verhältnis der urchrisllichen Christusbotschaft zum historischen Jesus (Heidelberg, 1961), p. 11Google Scholar, for Bultmann's latest statement about his knowledge of the ministry of Jesus.

^{page 60 note 5} Jesus (Tübingen, 1951), pp. 29, 43, 47, 181f; (Eng. tr. in Jesus and the Word (New York, 1934), pp. 30, 47, 52; 217ff); G.V. I, 174, 265, 273; Ogden, Schubert (tr.), Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann (New York, 1960) P. 195f.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} G.V. I, 265, 273; Jesus, p. 182 (pp. 218–19).

^{page 61 note 2} When Bultmann says that Jesus transcended Judaism (Das Verhaltnis, p. 8), he must mean that it was as the bearer of the Word of God. But historisch, this was contrary to all outward appearances and was therefore not an observable ‘historical’ datum.

^{page 62 note 1} Ogden is at fault in saying that Bultmann does in fact recognise continuity between Jesus and the Christ (Christ without Myth, p. 81f). This Bultmann explicitly denies. See Das Verhältnis, p. 8.

^{page 62 note 2} G.V. I, p. 292.

^{page 62 note 3} i.e. it happens to me in my historicity.

^{page 62 note 4} K.M. I, p. 43 (p. 37); II, pp. 204, 205 (pp. 206, 207).

^{page 62 note 5} K.M. I, p.43f(p.38f).

^{page 63 note 1} K.M. II, p. 206 (p. 209).

^{page 63 note 2} G.V. II, p. 257 (Essays, p. 286).

^{page 64 note 1} K.M. II, p. 198 (p. 199); Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 70.

^{page 64 note 2} G.V. I, pp. 29, 117; III, p. 15f (Eng. tr., Existence and Faith, p. 72).

^{page 64 note 3} See Jesus Christ and Mythology, pp. 63, 64, 67, 70, 73, 78.

^{page 64 note 4} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (New York, 1951), vol. I, pp. 203–211.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} ibid., vol. I, p. 335.

^{page 65 note 2} G.V. I, p. 273. ‘There is no doubt that he knew Himself to be the proclaimer of the Word’; see also p. 265.

^{page 65 note 3} G.V. I, p. 174.

^{page 65 note 4} Das Verhältnis, pp. 11, 16–17.

^{page 65 note 5} 'sein Ursprung (ist) ein geschichtliches Ereignis, durch welches das jeweilige Sprechen dieses Wortes autorisiert und legitimiert ist’ (K.M. II, p. 205 (p. 207)). ‘Its origin is an historical event, by which the speaking of this word, the preaching, is rendered authoritative and legitimate’ (Jesus Christ and Mythology, pp. 79f). ‘Die Freiheit und Willkür des Handelns Gottes dokumentiert sich darin, dass er in der Person eines konkreten geschichtlichen Menschen, Jesu von Nazareth, entscheidend für alle Welt und alle Zeit gehandelt hat’ (G.V. II, p. 75; Eng. tr., Essays, p. 85).

^{page 65 note 6} Taylor, V., The Person of Christ (New York, 1958), chapters 13 and 14.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} Jesus, p. 47 (p. 5a).

^{page 66 note 2} ibid., p. 176f (p. 211).

^{page 67 note 1} G.V. III, p. 40 (Eng. tr., Existence and Faith, p. 252f).

^{page 67 note 2} See above.

^{page 67 note 3} Jesus, p. 181 (p. 217).

^{page 67 note 4} K.M. I, p. 41 (p. 35).

^{page 67 note 5} Jesus, p. 10 (p. 7).

^{page 67 note 6} ibid., p. 14 (p. 11).

^{page 67 note 7} K.M. I, p. 134 (p. 117). He has just said that he intended his book Jesus, to be ‘an encounter with Jesus only as a phenomenon of past history’. Yet, ‘The Jesus of history is not kerygma, any more than my book was.’ Bultmann fails to explain how one can have an encounter with Jesus of the character he describes in the book, Jesus, which is nevertheless to be sharply distinguished from the encounter in the Kerygma.

^{page 68 note 1} Das Verhältnis, pp. 23, 26.