Kerygma and Myth 1

Rudolf Bultmann, 'New Testament and Mythology', in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. by Hans-Werner Bartsch, trans. by Reginald H. Fuller, (London: S.P.C.K.,1972). pp. 1-16.

An online version here.

Part I. The Task of Demythologizing the New Testament Proclamation.

A. The Problem

1. The Mythical View of the World and the Mythical Event of Redemption

Bultmann describes what he takes to be the 'view of the world' of the New Testament writers. This he takes to be three storied; a layer cake of hell, earth and heaven. The Spirit world, making forays from above and below, as it were, are intimately related to the unfolding of events in the middle layer. Miracles, possession, and a grand climax to history at which the dead will rise.

Bultmann then turns to the 'event of redemption' in the Christian faith and claims that these events come to us only in the world view described above. Christ is a pre-existent being who comes to earth to bring to climax the end of world history. He is resurrected, as a presage of the resurrection of his followers, and that the power of death is defeated and the sin of Adam forgiven. Life is lived now by his followers in the age of the Spirit, where believers are both incorporated by this Spirit into God's family and empowered for acts of service.

2. The Mythological View of the World Obsolete

This world view is obsolete. Why? Bultmann argues that we can trace the development of this view and that this development did not stop at the end of the New Testament period. [Actually, it could well be argued that the world view persisted for a very long time at least in Christendom because of the prominence of Christendom.] Bultmann then asks whether when Christianity is promulgated whether we expect believers to take on board this mythological world view, or can the Gospel be stripped of what is now obsolete, potentially being reclothed in todays culture. Is there a truth here which can exist independently of its mythological setting?

Bultmann is open to the possibility that "truths which a shallow enlightenment had failed to perceive are later rediscovered in ancient myths", but we cannot simply resurrect an old world view as a whole if in doing so we overturn our present scientific world view.

What Bultmann finds unacceptable in the 'mythological' is a mixture of things. On the one side there is disbelief in a 'local' heaven and hell, physically situated above and below; on the other side there is the conviction that natural causation explains our fate and not the spirits, good or evil. Also mentioned is the nonoccurrence of Christ's parousia the timing of which is hardly a key New Testament doctrine except insofar as it cannot be predicted. Famously, "It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles." (p.5)

Modern man understands himself as a unity. Spirit and soul can only be descriptive terms of what finds natural explanation. "Biological man cannot see how a supernatural entity like the spirit can penetrate within the close texture of his natural powers and set to work within him." (p.6)

Death as the punishment for sin is a further 'absurd' idea. Death cannot be related to sin, as, with Kant, guilt is personal and cannot be given to another: "Human beings are subject to death even before they have committed any sin. And to attribute human mortality to the fall of Adam is sheer nonsense, for guilt implies personal responsibility, and the idea of original sin as an inherited infection is sub-ethical, irrational, and absurd." (p.7)

Sacrificial and forensic views of the atonement receive equally short-shrift. Even Christ's passion is explained as not all that serious, given that he knew he would rise again in three days. (p.8) The Resurrection is also treated as incomprehensible for the biologist (who thinks death is natural and to be expected) and the idealist (who although he would like to live again can find no relation between Christ's resurrection and his own life).

B. The Task Before Us

1. Not Selection or Subtraction

One cannot pick and choose what to remove. What point is there in refusing to believe in Baptism for the dead or the dangerous consequences of unworthy reception of Holy Communion, but then to 'cling to the belief that physical eating and drinking can have a spiritual effect'. (p.9) What exactly Bultmann is criticising here could do with some elucidation. Judging from what has gone before, his criticism might be expected to be that we can know any spiritual reality, given our physical nature, or that the spiritual - whatever that might be - can affect us.

2. The Nature of Myth

This is where it begins to get interesting! Bultmann follows the understanding of myth popularised by the history of religion school. Myth here is used to express the ground and limits of humanity's existence by using this worldly language in analogy. It is a conviction that meaning and purpose for us comes from beyond our experience. Given this, Bultmann argues, we can happily dispense with the imagery so long as we retain our faith in a 'transcendent power which controls the world and man'. Myth is therefore not to be interpreted cosmologically but anthrologically.

3. The New Testament Itself

Here follows a hodgepodge of supposed contradictions between mythological concepts which 'invite this kind of criticism'. So, the kenosis of the pre-existent Son is incompatible with the miracle narratives as proof of his messianic claims. The doctrine of Creation is incompatible with the concept of the 'rulers of this world' (1 Cor. 2:6). The law understood as given by God contradicts the idea that it comes from angels (Gal. 3:19) (?!). Bultmann's principle unease is between Paul's ideas of the cosmic determination of our life and his ideas of ethical imperative.

4. Previous Attempts at Demythologizing

Bultmann next surveys the liberal agenda for interpreting the New Testament, from the earlier attempt to isolate a rational religion for which the New Testament served as an exemplum to the history of religion school which at least warmed towards the idea of a worshipping community. Bultmann's criticism of both is that "the New Testament speaks of an event through which God has wrought man's redemption." (p.14) This is the Kerygma and the necessary following question is whether this, described in mythological terms though it maybe in the New Testament, can be interpreted apart from mythology without losing it's distinctive and salvific character.

5. An Existentialist Interpretation the Only Solution

The mythology of the New Testament is deemed to dualist. Whether the dualism comes from Jewish apocalyptic or Gnostic redemption myths, both speak of a helpless humanity in need of divine intervention. Bultmann takes this language to be in essence anthropological and therefore believes than an existentialist interpretation may prove suitable in helping us to understand the referent of the language in concepts which modern man can understand.

****

Criticism.

Bultmann weighs everything according to whether a contemporary world view will accept them. He argues that a world view is given and cannot be voluntarily changed (which rather defeats the purpose of the essay) and that therefore it is incumbent on Christians to present a face which is acceptable. Several things an be said here.

Firstly, world-views can be changed. They can be questioned. They can be wrong, narrow-minded, philosophically unsubtle. It may well be the case that culture needs to have its eyes opened, in order to accept Christian faith. We should not be closed to this idea.

Granted this though, Bultmann's complaint about the language of the New Testament is still a challenge. There is a constant tension in my own experience between what needs to molded in my own understanding and what the content of the Christian faith is. No Christian faith simply accepts the words of the New Testament at face value. We do think we know things that Paul did not and this affects the way we read him and appropriate his teachings. What I am saying is that two changes are going on; my own world view must be prepared to change when challenged by the Gospel and my own understanding of the referents of the language of the New Testament will also change according to the questions which my mind set in its own culture puts to it.

Thirdly, Bultmann is at times grossly simplistic of his reading of 'mythological' language. His criticism of a 'white robed' future for humanity is surely unfair. No doubt some took this as a precise description of the future Christian life, but everyone? This last point of course begs the question. What is the referent of this language? Bultmann simply dismisses it. What else can be done?

It seems ironic at this point that Bultmann wishes to preserve a Kerygma of divine redemption but will not accept mythological intervention in this world. The question, which I guess will become clearer as we go on, is what conception we can have of divine redemption which does not involve intervention?

To be continued ...