note

ブルトマンが面白い
249 Bultmann concluded from his elaborate analysis of the forms of the Gospel stories and teaching attributed to Jesus that Gospel material was shaped and largely created to meet the apologetic and polemical needs of the early church

Although Bultmann saw broad analogies in other forms of literature, including the stories of the miracle-worker Apollonius of Tyana, he insisted that the Gospels were a unique form of literature.

250 It goes without sayinig that for Bultmann the extraordinary character of these stories, combined with a detection of the writer's intentions, make it self evident that they have no basis in history. Bultmann's handling of the miracle stories is a long catalog consisting of brief comments on style, form, and the handlmg of the matenal He agreed with Martm Dibelrus that "it is of the very essence of the gospel to contain miracle stories. " Their purpose was to demonstrate not the character but the messianic authority or divine power of Jesus. The faith that is mentioned in the Gospels "is not a believing attitude to Jesus' preaching or to his Person in the modern sense of the word, but is a trust in the miracle worker which is his proper due."
This discrimination between different types of faith was to play an increasingly significant part in Bultmann's thought as the years went by.

253 A great deal of discussion has centered on his existentialism. But existentialism is not the only, or even the most important factor. Certainly, Bultmann acknowledged his debt to Heidegger's existentialism, whose categories he used in his analysis of the life of faith as contrasted with life apart from faith. But Bultmann never completely dissolved the gospel into existential self-awareness and openness. He retained the concept of a personal, transcendent God who reveals himself in grace, whereas Heidegger abandoned God in favor of Being. It would seem to be nearer the mark to take Bultmann's self-evaluation seriously, and see him as one who stood in the Protestant tradition of acknowledging the sovereign grace of God in his Word but who tried to combine this with radical criticism that made use of the history of religions. At the same time, his thought has a neo-Kantian substructure that pushes God to a realm beyond the objective world of time and space　in which nature is governed by natural law.

266 A study that has attracted considerable interest and endorsement is H. J. Held's "Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories. " " Held argues that Matthew's Gospel is a retelling of Mark that abbreviates Mark's account in order to emphasize the themes of christology, faith, and discipleship. Matthew's manner of narration is formal. He omits secondary people and actions, and makes conversation the center of the stories, frequently using catchword connections to express actual relationships in a self-contained pericope.
The principle that shapes his miracle stories is that faith and miracle belong together. He brings out more strongly than Mark and Luke the actual circumstances of the faith that saves. These conclusions lead Held to reject the positions of Bultmann and Dibelius. In Matthew's hands, the stories approximate more to paradigms or pronouncement stoties, designed to illustrate aspects of christology, faith, and discipleship. Following Schniewind and Schlatter, Held sees the collection of miracle stories in chapters 8 and 9 as having a christological function. He observes that Mark has two groups of miracle stories (Mark I :21-45; 4:35-5:43) and Luke three (Luke 4:31-5:26; 7:1-17; 8:22-56). Matthew, however, puts them together in a single cycle: