Now and again I like to mention the- as I’ve elsewhere described it- indispensable EBR. Here’s another example of the justification of that claim, from Otto Merk’s entry on Bultmann (from volume 4)-
There is a surprising continuity in Bultmann’s thought even beyond the period of “dialectic theology.” This is demonstrated by the fact that the basic pattern of his theology is already present in his 1930 article on Paul and is then fully developed in his later writings. Bultmann implicitly situates his historical-critical methodology within a broader hermeneutical and theological framework. Reconstruction and interpretation are integrated. Exegesis no doubt takes precedence, but reflecting on it in a systematic and theoretical way proves fruitful for interaction with philosophy and maintains the encyclopedic unity of theology (Bultmann 1984c). Notably, Bultmann and M. Heidegger, independent of one another, thought along similar lines. Heidegger taught in Marburg from 1923–28. The intellectual exchange during this time was enriching for both sides and gave more depth to Bultmann’s hermeneutics, but did not radically change his consistant way of thinking. Though primarily following the results of the “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule” in all matters concerning early Judaism, there is also consistency in Bultmann’s steady disapproval of any form of antisemitism.
The essay contains much more that is equally useful. The Encyclopedia is such a valuable resource.