tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post5831483271696765384..comments2024-01-09T12:59:32.666+01:00Comments on Narrative and Ontology: Barth and Bultmann on Romans: Who's the better exegete?Phil Sumpterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-12118271171806670732008-08-27T18:55:00.000+02:002008-08-27T18:55:00.000+02:00Azk, welcome to my blog! I couldn't have put it be...Azk, welcome to my blog! I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-75617498596130709302008-08-27T18:23:00.000+02:002008-08-27T18:23:00.000+02:00Agree almost entirely with your post. The minor p...Agree almost entirely with your post. The minor point you raise was that shouldn't good exegesis underlie good theology, and thus, according to such reasoning, Bultmann's theology should be better than Barth's since Bultmann was clearly the better exegete. Part of being an exegete is understanding what sort of book the Bible is and in this regard I think Barth has the upper hand on Bultmann. Bultmann's apriori cosmology leads him into form criticism and demythogizing. Barth's apriori cosmology leads him to try to hear God speak.azkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05217345260031933540noreply@blogger.com