This could have been a very important book. Rudolf Bultmann, a theologian whom many in the English-speaking world even now associate mainly with his ‘radical’ ideas about demythologising, is here portrayed in his early development: his childhood in north-western Germany, his theological study under a variety of theological and philosophical figures, his early exposure to Marburg neo-Kantianism and to the theology of Wilhelm Herrmann, his rise through the ranks of the German university and his early interaction with dialectical theology and the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Bultmann is introduced as a budding theologian aspiring to bridge the gulf between modern scholarship and the laity, an aim he initially intended to pursue through the ministry and, later, through his academic work. Dennison in his book seeks to transcend the boundaries of the history of ideas and includes details of political, economic and social developments. This of course is not without methodological difficulty, especially when these strands are tied together. Dennison generally is too fond of inferences. He frequently speculates about the relevance this or that fact would have had for Bultmann's personality without being able to give substantial evidence for his claims. Yet the crucial problem with his book is its abundance of factual mistakes, some of them rather baffling. In the opening pages the reader is introduced to Bultmann's native territory of Oldenburg, which, Dennison writes, was annexed by Prussia following its alliance with Austria in the war of 1866 (p. 7). Consequently, he reasons, its citizens were reserved towards Prussia and the Prussian-dominated Reich. Time after time, Bultmann's attitudes are explained by his origin in an ‘annexed province’ of Prussia or even of Germany (pp. 14, 16, 40, 45, 60). In reality, Oldenburg had been, in 1866, one of Prussia's allies and had therefore maintained its independent status as a grand duchy until 1918. It is difficult to see how such a mistake, which would have been corrected by cross-checking with any historical reference work, could have been so consistently overlooked in the production of this book. Other formulations show, at least, a worrying degree of sloppiness. Schleiermacher is repeatedly said to have ‘understood God as the self-conscious feeling of absolute dependence’ (pp. 1, 17, 91); Ritschlianism is caricatured as ‘social’ or ‘socio-ethical’ gospel (pp. 38–9, 47, 51). Kerygma, it appears, is equated by Dennison with the act, rather than the contents, of preaching (for example pp. 3, 91) although this does not explain Bultmann's ‘message of the kerygma’ (p. 102). Given that most of Dennison's readers will be unfamiliar with the arcane German university system of the early twentieth century, references to Bultmann's being in ‘graduate school’ (p. 65) or, slightly later, in a ‘position as a lecturer (Privatdozent)’ (pp. 70, 73) are also unfortunate. This could have been a very useful book indeed. As it is, it should be used only with caution.