Rudolf Bultmann was an influential twentieth century New Testament scholar and a pioneer in the use of the form-critical method but is most well known for the programme of demythologization that he began in his 1941 essay New Testament and Mythology.
In his work Bultmann had two main concerns. The first was to let God be God and the second was to allow the Word and scandal of the cross to be experienced and known in twentieth century Western culture. In critiquing Bultmann’s ideas it is necessary to keep his positive aims at the forefront of our thinking, in order not to demonize a man who genuinely wished to see Christ preached and received by faith in his time.
Bultmann saw the damage that scientific methodology as applied in the historical-critical method had done to faith in the Christian God during the nineteenth century. The search for the Historical Jesus had eventually led to a position in which, because the gospels were considered primarily the interpretive work of the Early Church, the Bible (the authoritative word of God) was viewed as historically inaccurate.
Bultmann accepted, as a New Testament historian, historical-critical methods and, therefore, the position that very little could be said about the Jesus of History. In addition, he understood that, as a result, many did (or would) view Christianity as essentially disproved by a combination of science and history. Viewing this methodology as correct but also wishing to defend Christianity and to present the Word and the cross to his contemporaries with power, he faced a considerable dilemma.
Liberal Protestantism supplied him with an answer to his dilemma. This was, that the Bible contained a timeless message concealed under the cloak of a time-bound worldview. However, Liberal Protestantism had tied this idea to the Quest for the Historical Jesus. The Quest, it had been thought, in uncovering the Jesus of History would also clarify the timeless message of Christianity that had been obscured by the mythology the Early Church had created about Jesus. Bultmann now considered that this was not possible for the reasons noted above. Therefore, what he needed to do was to detach this timeless message from the Quest and from all historical inquiry in order to reveal its timeless nature and through this, the transcendence of God. God, he needed to argue, cannot be investigated by historical or scientific methods. In fact, this Word calls science itself into question by calling man out of all man-made security.
He found the means to do this in Existential philosophy. Existentialism emphasises the extent to which human knowing is conditioned by personal participation in being and argues that, as human beings are the only creatures to possess self-understanding, knowledge of being must begin with personal being. The effect is an emphasis on subjectivity and personal encounter within time. On this basis, science and historical-criticism (based on scientific methodology) cannot be a starting point for knowledge of being. Bultmann, therefore, can argue not only that nothing significant can be known of the Jesus of History but also that this does not matter because knowledge of being does not come through objective analysis of history but instead through personal encounter with God in time. For Bultmann, this personal encounter comes through the contemporary preaching of the Word.
What is needed then, Bultmann argues, is for the kernel of the gospel to be clearly preached in such a way that the scandal of the cross challenges individuals to personal encounter with God. To do this the husk has to be cleared away but need not be simply discarded as Liberal Protestantism aimed to do. Instead the husk needs to be interpreted in existential terms so that once this is done no hint of mythology remains. This is, then, Bultmann’s programme of demythologization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woody Guthrie - Jesus Christ.
2 comments:
You write:
“Bultmann accepted, as a New Testament historian, historical-critical methods and, therefore, the position that very little could be said about the Jesus of History.”
I was Christian for six years; le-havdil (to differentiate) now I study and practise meta-Orthodox Judaism. By studying first century history I learned that there was a first century pro Torah and pro-Halakhah (oral Torah) Pharisaic Ribi (a prominent Jewish leader) named Ribi Yehoshua from Natzrat (hellenized to Nazareth) (the Messiah). The research of world-recognized authorities (Oxford Historian James Parkes -
The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) in this area implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee (a Torah-practising Jewish group - whom according to Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT practised both written and oral Torah).
No one can follow two polar-opposite masters — the authentic, historical, PRO-Torah 1st-century Ribi from Nazareth and the 4th-century (post-135 C.E.), arch-antithesis ANTI-Torah apostasy developed by the Hellenists (namely the Sadducees and Roman pagans who conspired to kill Ribi Yәhoshua, displaced his original followers and redacted the NT).
Le-havdil, the historical J*esus is an oxymoron. The historical person was named le-havdil (to differentiate) Ribi Yehoshua from Natzrat. This is not the same person as the le-havdil Christian Jesus.
So I want to ask you: Do you want to follow the historical pro-Torah Ribi Yehoshua from Natzrat or the le-havdil counterfeit Jesus.
Many persons think there is continuity between Judaism and le-havdil Christianity.
Logic has always dictated that such a transition must be proven. Yet, not one shred of evidence has ever been shown in support of any such transition while overwhelming evidence proves that the original followers of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a remained mutually exclusive from Hellenist Christians—being defended by Pharisees and persecuted by Hellenists—throughout their short history.
Dig deeper: read Oxford historian James Parkes (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) and see http://www.netzarim.co.il
Finding the historical Jew, who was a Pharisee Ribi and following him brings you into Torah, which gives you a rich and meaningful life hereon earth and great rewards in life after death (“heaven”)!
Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, the only legitimate Netzarim, which is in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who is followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in [meta-]Orthodox Judaism
Thank you for making me aware of the life and work of James Parkes.
I note from his bio at the Parkes Institute that it was Parkes conviction "that it was every Christian's duty to respect the religious integrity of Judaism and to abandon all attempts to proselytize." Presumably, the reverse also applies.
You will see from the remainder of my 'Critiquing demythologization' and other posts that I find many aspects of the historical-critical approach as accepted by Bultmann to be problematic.
Post a Comment