Abstract:
The views of Karl Barth and the 'Heilsgeschichte'-tradition on the one
hand, and those of Rudolf Bultmann and the 'Formkritik'-tradition on the
other hand, do not differ so much on the method of objective historical
research. The real differences start to appear on the hermeneutical
front, where facts and events referred to in the Scriptures are evaluated
and explained. The 'Heilsgeschichte' -tradition is consistent in maintaining
an objective point of departure, whilst Bultmann and the 'Formkritik'-
tradition, influenced by existentialist philosophy, reveals a subjective
approach. For Bultmann the kerygma cannot be verified historically
but only subjectively or existentially. For Barth the kerygma cannot be
separated from its true basis of historical events, in and through the person
of Jesus Christ. These two different approaches have enormous consequences
for the question of the existence of God.
