Monthly Archives: January 2012

Bultmannia: Mythology and History

In this post, I will continue with the theme of my previous post, defining Bultmann’s “mythology.”  Although, I will do it from my perspective.  So to be clear, this is my defense of Bultmann’s Mythology, and not his.  If you want his, read this.

First, we’ll look at the (modern) problem of calling the NT framework mythological.  In other words, if it’s mythological, does that mean it’s not historical? And second, we’ll look at what’s behind historical questions.  One thing I did not mention in the previous post is why Bultmann takes this approach.  Against both the historical scholars and “literalists” of his day, Bultmann resisted.  Somewhere between their aims, Bultmann believed there was a core meaning to Scripture.  By neutralizing the frameworks of the Bible’s origins and of its interpreters, Bultmann used existential philosophy to locate this core.  We will discuss and critique this core in a later post, but I wanted to be clear why Bultmann juxtaposes the mythological with the scientific: to get to the core of the Scriptures.

In the last post, we used the example of Jesus walking on water, let’s stay with it.  Did the historical Jesus really walk on water, using his own or YHWH’s supernatural powers?  There is natural anxiety for the Christian in asking this question.  There are scholars who say it is unlikely, and there are scholars who defend the historocity of this event.  But this argument is not helpful for understanding the story in its context, nor for our lives.  History, at least in the way modern readers think of it, is part of the scientific framework of the modern Western reader.  We want to know the sequence and the details, so that we can have assurances in the accuracy of the information we use.  We want accurate data so we can make an informed guess at causality.  Did Jesus walk on water?  If so, then we can assume he did so by the power of YHWH.

But the flip-side is that there was a different conceptual framework for ancient people in ancient cultures.  Some diseases were thought to have come from evil forces.  Gods and heros walked on water.  Jesus was not unique in this act.  What Jesus actually did, and how the interpreter’s conceptualized it at that was very likely different than how we conceptualize it now.  Even for me, it is difficult to describe what the ‘mythological’ worldview looked like, because I am caught in my scientific conceptual framework.  Could Jesus have walked on water, historically speaking? Yes.  No one is challenging the power of God.  Could Jesus have done something similar to walking on water that we can’t conceive of, and they called it “walking on water”? Yes.  Could Jesus not have walked on water, and later authors used their own mythological framework to tell the story of YHWH’s presence in Jesus? Yes.  By our scientific calculations this would be deceit, but not necessarily in an ancient society.  What do I think about the historical Jesus walking on water?  Sounds great, but I say it is not crucial.  What is crucial, is to ask the question, “why tell the story of Jesus walking on water?”  The meaning of this story is not found in mythology, nor in history, but in the narrative’s interaction with its audience.

So then, who cares about history?  Behind our need for history is a desire for accuracy and certainty for one’s faith claims (just blogged on this one).  But anxiety over whether the Scriptures are historical or not, does not help us to engage the Scriptures for our faith and for the renewal of our hearts.  As my old professor use to say, “Truth does not equal history.”  First of all, if a friend of yours gave you inaccurate information once, does that mean you can never trust that friend again?  If the same friend, told you a fairy tale about a talking rabbit, does that mean that your friend is unable to give reliable “historical” information anymore?  The answer to both question is a resounding, “No.”  So too with the Scriptures and their authority.  Second, history helps us deal with information efficiently.  I don’t have to suffer through mundane historical analysis.  I don’t have to deal with issues that question my faith.  I don’t have to spend my time arguing my points, if we just accept some things as historical.  But the truth is, we don’t need to interpret the Scriptures efficiently, we need to interpret them well.  And hopefully, Bultmann’s mythology, however correct, can give us pause and challenge us to interpret the Scriptures well.

Bultmannia: ‘Mythology’

(Slightly Wonkish)

“For the conception “Kingdom of God” is mythological, as is the conception of the eschatological drama. Just as mythological are the presuppositions of the expectation of the Kingdom of God, namely, the theory that the world, although created by God, is ruled by the devil, Satan, and that his army, the demons, is the cause of all evil, sin and disease. The whole conception of the world which is presupposed in the preaching of Jesus as in the New Testament generally is mythological; i.e., the conception of the world as being structured in three stories, heaven, earth and hell; the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the course of events; and the conception of miracles, especially the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the inner life of the soul, the conception that men can be tempted and corrupted by the devil and possessed by evil spirits. This conception of the world we call mythological because it is different from the conception of the world which has been formed and developed by science since its inception in ancient Greece and which has been accepted by all modern men.”– Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1958.

Let’s be frank.  To Christians, the term “mythological” is scary.  Bultmann caught a good deal of flak for this term, and he admitted it was not the best term, yet it was the best one available to him.  I imagine though, that even if there were a perfect term for Bultmann’s mythology, it would still be controversial among Christians. But keeping in mind that Bultmann did scholarship in service of the Church and is a giant in the field, I believe there is a great deal of value in Bultmann’s analysis.

The best place to start is in the first sentence above.  Bultmann does not say that the Kingdom of God is mythological, an ontological claim that it is not real, and simply part of an ancient narrative.  Rather, mythological refers to the conceptual framework of the ancient authors and audiences of the Bible, which is then juxtaposed to our modern “scientific” conceptual framework.  This is hard to grasp, but if one wants to criticize Bultmann, one must grasp this first, before all else.

Two remarks to conclude, and let us take the example of Jesus walking on water.  First, those, who want to claim that the historical Jesus actually walked on water in a modern scientific way, are interpreting outside of the ancient framework within which the stories were composed.  This does not mean that Jesus did not walk on water, for this question is irrelevant, especially to Bultmann. We will discuss more about history in the future.  And second, since stories with characters who walk on water were common in ancient literature, the most important question then becomes (since we cannot easily enter into a mythological conception of the world), “Why does the story-teller include a story about Jesus walking on water?”

More Bultmannia soon!  Cheers.

The Idolatry of Certainty

Working through Bultmann’s Jesus Christ and Mythology, I’m preparing to post on it soon–fascinating, really.  But an issue occurred to me today in church, one which I’ve been meaning to blog.  In holding God as an object, one whom we can love or worship or seek, a question of certainty of one’s faith arises.  It is likely that the basis for certainty in the ancient (mythological) mind are quite different than the grounds for certainty in the modern (scientific) mind.  But behind both, I believe a lie exists: that a faith filled with certainty is better than a faith filled with doubt.  To be unfaithful is an altogether different category for a later discussion.

Certainty does not make one’s faith-claim any truer.  Certainty does not change the world in any ontological sense.  Instead, certainty serves more of a social function, to bring confidence to the believer and legitimation for one’s faith claims within a community of similar, like-minded believers.  Certainty can also serve as a resistance to other, larger, and dominant faith-claims (i.e. that Christ is the son of god rather than Caesar).

Yet, there can come a moment in the life of faith, where the desire for certainty overcomes the faith aimed at God–a moment where one’s doubts and questions are no longer of any value.  Certainty becomes the object fetischized, overvalued in relational exchanges.  The believer peddles certainty as if it will satisfy the needs of the faithful.  But this is idolatry.  Certainty replaces God.  Therefore, if one holds faith in a one, true God, and frowns upon idols, then beware of certainty.  Embrace your doubts and questions, for a faith that wrestles with and survives these, is at least a stubborn faith, if not a stronger one.

Bultmannia Begins

“We have at our disposal no pneuma which is not bound to the word. Exegesis can proceed only from the interpretation of the word. Since exegetical work is work with concepts, and since the word of the text is never the subject matter itself, but its expression, this subject matter becomes available to the exegete only if he understands the word.”– The Problem of a Theological Exegesis of the New Testament (1925)

This is not a new idea on this blog, but it I find it important to begin with basic hermeneutic principles.  Our ability (inability really) to do theology out of a New Testament reading is structured and severely limited by our words and the words before us in the text.  But because of Bultmann’s statement here, we can see, although he finds much theology problematic, he still holds a high view of Scripture.  In essence, he is saying that both theological (and anthropological) interpretation and subsequent possible “revelation” is necessarily bound to the text, namely of the New Testament.  Of course, Bultmann’s committment to the text is social and external to Bultmann himself, yet his committment to the text, and to the Church for that matter, must be held in high regard, before we can even begin.