From: David W. Odell-Scott (dodellsc@kent.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 02 1998 - 22:45:34 EST
The issue of whether Bultmann and/or Heidegger "force" their anthropology on
to Paul is problematic for a number of reasons. I am skeptical enought to
wonder how we could know the difference between the "real" Pauline meaning
of texts and our translation/interpretation of such texts. Another point
might be to note that Heidegger and many of his interpretors would contend
that Heidegger was not doing an "anthropology." And of course you can not
equate Bultmann's categories with Heidegger's. Heidegger often argued that
he was not an existentialist, which doesn't stop us from making such an
assessment. But on another point, you might be interested to know that
early in his career Heidegger considered himself something of a student of
the letters of Paul. In the 1919/20 Winter term at Marburg, (Bultmann,
Tillich and Otto were faculty as well) Heidegger taught a course titled
"Phenomenology of Religion," in which he engaged in an extensive exegesis of
Ephesians. I'll not address the question of the authorship of the epistle,
but it is clear that Heidegger was interested in and some would argue
influenced (at least in Being and Time) by some aspects of Paul's writings.
David W. Odell-Scott
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Coordinator of Religious Studies
Philosophy Department
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio 44242-0001
Voice (330) 672-2315
FAX (330) 672-4867
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:08 EDT