Conservative critiques of Bultmann have commonly started from the view that Bultmann is fitting Christianity to Existentialism and, therefore, allowing contemporary philosophy to shape Christianity rather than releasing Christianity to shape or challenge contemporary thought. This argument completely misunderstands Bultmann’s intention (whatever one thinks of the results) and therefore is not a useful place from which to begin a critique. An examination of Bultmann’s forms is a more constructive (and unusual) place from which to begin such a critique. Form-criticism tends to be an approach applied to texts or traditions other than those of the author and, therefore, those using it as part of their argument are commonly unaware of the contradictions inherent within the forms they themselves use.
Using this approach, Bultmann’s demythologization programme can be critiqued in the following ways:
- Acceptance of scientific methodology: Bultmann’s desire is to free the Word of God from scientific investigation yet his use of form-criticism, in understanding the Bible, is firmly grounded in this methodology. Science maintains that nothing can be accepted as true unless it is clearly and distinctly perceived. To achieve this perception what is being examined must be broken down into the smallest possible component parts. Science then reconstructs from the basis of the simplest idea. Form-criticism breaks down the whole text of the gospels into their smallest units (pericopes) examining each in the context of the Early Church in order to identify those considered original to Jesus. From the relatively small number considered original a picture of the Jesus of History is reconstructed. It is on the basis of such historical inquiry that Bultmann argues that little can be said about the Jesus of History. There is then a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Bultmann’s approach. He wants to maintain both the priority of God’s Word over scientific methodology and the value of scientific methodology in the understanding of God’s Word.
- Subjective versus objective: The above contradiction came be seen most clearly when Bultmann’s approach is considered in terms of subjectivity and objectivity. On the basis of objective historical-criticism Bultmann considers the gospels subjective (i.e. the interpretations of the Early Church, not historical fact). As a result, the gospels do not communicate clearly to a contemporary culture that accepts as objective scientific methodology. But when Bultmann selects what he considers to be an appropriate methodology for communicating the Gospel within contemporary culture he does not select an objective methodology. Instead, in selecting Existentialism he selects a subjective methodology. If objectivity is the issue then why is Bultmann selecting Existentialism for his approach and, if subjectivity is a meaningful means of encounter for contemporary culture, why are the gospels being discounted?
- Whole versus part: Form-criticism works with the smallest component parts of the text and, in doing so, categorises some pericopes as authentic and others as inauthentic to Jesus. Therefore, the form-critic is unable to approach the actual received text as a whole and there must, as a result, be a significant question mark over the extent to which the form-critic actually engages with the received text at all. This tendency is also apparent in demythologization where by interpreting the text in existential terms both the history and imagery in the received text are removed. As a result, the text that is encountered is not the whole received text but something less.
- Mythology and worldview: Mythology is a notoriously difficult term to define and, therefore, there is no real agreement about the extent to which the Bible contains mythology or is mythological. Bultmann defines mythology as “the use of imagery to express the otherworldly in terms of this world and the divine in terms of human life, the other side in terms of this side”. However, this definition can be challenged by other approaches and Bultmann, himself, is not consistent in his use of the term. As a result, there is no agreement on what needs to be demythologized or on how far demythologization should go. In addition, Bultmann has an implicit, uncritical and unexamined acceptance of the contemporary Modernist worldview which then leads him to an arrogant dismissal of the first century Jewish worldview. A dismissal which is actually based on two naïve assumptions. First, that he, himself, can stand outside a worldview altogether and second, that first century Jewish metaphor was understood literally.
- Visual versus lingual: In interpreting the text in existential terms Bultmann is converting images and metaphors that work visually into non-visual explanations. Metaphors work by analogy. They hold disparate objects or ideas together in order to reveal connections. As a result, ambiguity is necessarily built into metaphor. The connection or comparison between objects or ideas must be close enough to be meaningful but not so close as to be exact or the objects/ideas would be the same. This ambiguity is the creative core of metaphor maintaining the otherness of the objects/ideas and teasing the viewer with the possible extent of connection. However, when visual imagery is interpreted through language it is precisely this ambiguity that is lost. In interpretation meanings are closed down through definition instead of being opened up through relation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Crimson - 21st Century Schizoid Man.
No comments:
Post a Comment