Is it not therefore inherently unsuitable as a vehicle for
the Biblical kerygma?
Not exact matches
Therefore it was also natural that the
kerygma as we find it in the New Testament should not only be couched in
biblical terms but also that these terms require for their proper understanding an awareness of the whole Old Testament witness and record.
In fact, the task of the philosopher appears to me here to be distinguished from that of the theologian, in the following manner:
biblical theology has the function of developing the
kerygma according to its own conceptual system; it has the duty of criticizing preaching, both by confronting it with its origin and by reorganizing it in a meaningful framework, in a discourse of its own kind, corresponding to the internal coherence of the
kerygma itself.
More especially, it has to do with the enterprise known as «de-mythologization», in relation to what the father of that enterprise calls existenzialinterpretation of the
biblical material and most importantly of the material that has to do with the
kerygma or the Christian gospel to which faith is a response.
But then, having reduced the fullness of
biblical discourse to bare
kerygma Bultmann feels no need to ask how the actual language of the Bible functions as a vehicle of meaning.