Kerygma and Myth 7: Friedrich K Schumann, 'Can the Event of Jesus Christ be Demythologized?'

Friedrich K Schumann, 'Can the Event of Jesus Christ be Demythologized?', in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. by Hans-Werner Bartsch, trans. by Reginald H. Fuller, (London: S.P.C.K., 1972). pp. 175-190.

An online version here.

[An essay in sympathy with Bultmann's concerns.]

[On Bultmann's treatment of the mythology of death, sin and vicarious atonement ...]

'Obviously, this involves a serious reduction of the substance of the gospel, and it is not surprising that Bultmann’s essay has been widely regarded as a recrudescence of rationalistic liberalism and a further stage in the complete dissolution of the gospel. But this is certainly not Bultmann’s intention. He has no desire to erect some modern view of the world as the norm to which the gospel must conform. On the contrary, he seeks to liberate the whole meaning of the gospel and to make it intelligible to modern man in all its fullness. That is why he deems it imperative to release the permanent truth of the gospel from its framework in an obsolete world view -- in short, to "demythologize" it.' (p. 176)

[His conclusion however is that we are not at liberty to 'throw out' the biblical language of mythology because it is not merely a formal consideration - it contains content inherently in its form. He gives the example of our understanding of God as Father (p. 190). He notices that Bultmann himself switches between an interpretive and a dismissive understanding of myth.]

[The beginning of the essay addresses whether the event of Christ must also be understood as myth.]

'What Bultmann means is that the difference between the mythological language of the New Testament and ecclesiastical dogma on the one hand and his own interpretation on the other is that the former presents us with a "miraculous, supernatural event", whereas the right interpretation is one which suggests "an historical event wrought out in time and space". Whatever we make of this distinction, one thing is certain: the idea of a single historical event in time and space as the judgment pronounced by God over the historical process in time and space and the radical transformation of its whole constitution is inconceivable for those who accept the modern world view, and it would be impossible to make such a notion intelligible in the terms of such a view. So even Bultmann admits that this idea must be accepted as the paradox of the New Testament proclamation -- i.e. the paradox "that the eschatological emissary of God is a concrete figure of a particular historical past, and that his eschatological activity was wrought out in a human fate, and that therefore it is an event whose eschatological character does not admit of a secular proof". (p. 182)

[The above displays one understanding of myth:]

'"Mythology" in his sense of the word is precisely an attempt to furnish a "secular proof" of the eschatological significance of an event of past history by the use of objective imagery. So in the last analysis "demythologizing" is for him identical with the demonstration of the authentically paradoxical character of the gospel.' (p. 182)

[Here follows a comment by Schumann on the second (actually the initial one in Bultmann's essay) understanding of myth:]

'If however we accept Bultmann’s initial definition of mythology as that which is incompatible with the modern world view and its closed system of cause and effect, the very idea of such a paradox would seem to be incurably mythological, and the whole endeavor of "demythologizing" would seem, at any rate on this assumption, a questionable procedure.' (p. 182-3)

[The first above is probably Bultmann's considered position, and so:]

'"The transcendence of God is not as in myth reduced to immanence. Instead, we have the paradox of a transcendent God present and active in history: ‘The Word became flesh’."' (p. 183 / 44)