Myth And Christianity An Inquiry Into The Possibility [Paperback]

Modernity was a troubling thing for those who had to live through it. Pure, objective, unassailable science was quickly supplanting religious ideas, and paring those ideas down to what they were - mere myths perpetrated on us by those who wanted to exert social and cultural control. Or at least this was the conclusion reached by many who, with the advent of a new way of approaching universal truth, now wanted nothing to do with that old-time religion. But not everyone felt the same way. This very short book introduces the thought of Rudolph Bultmann, one of the leading German theologians of the early twentieth century and proponent of "demythologization," and Karl Jaspers, the well-known German existentialist and philosopher. First, there is a very capable introduction by R. Joseph Hoffmann, followed by an opening statement by Jaspers, a reply by Bultmann, and then a closing reply by Jaspers. Jaspers and Bultmann both being dyed-in-the-wool Heideggerians, it is interesting to read about their intellectual justifications regarding the respective virtues and weaknesses of hermeneutics as applied to religious myth.

As I mentioned earlier, toward the latter part of Bultmann's career, he started to talk about something called demythologization, in which he attempts to divest religious meaning and intent from the original myths in which they are couched. For Bultmann, the Ascension and the Virgin Birth (just to name two highly representative religious myths) mean something, but the fact that the religious content is ensconced in the language of the miraculous is a serious stumbling block for the modern man whose mind has come to see the miracle as ridiculous and impossible. Therefore, these myths need to be reconfigured - divested - of their Biblical form and given a structure which is makes getting at their meaning and significance possible for someone living in the twentieth century.

Jaspers, however, sees the element of myth as indispensable from the content of religious belief itself. Jaspers claims that "reading" these myths without their mythical structures is impossible. He rejects the idea that any religion can be understood apart from its mythical origins. The topology of the origins themselves, he argues, is essential to our understanding. Religious myths are not there to provide us with a decoding project; their cutting away cannot happen without the simultaneous disappearance of any possibility of a religious message. Myth is, for Jaspers, das Umgreifende (the Great Encompassing) by and through which we can escape the worn dualities of subjectivity and objectivity, and achieve a sort of transcendence.

Jaspers saw Bultmann's project of demythologization as a sanitizing one, one that failed to understand myth as an essential vehicle for apprehending and describing the transcendent. Jaspers comes close to the one that Northrop Frye constructs in "The Great Code: The Bible and Literature," in which he suggests that modern attempts to read the Bible are often foiled because we no longer read and write in the mythical; rather, he thinks, following Vico's tripartite theory of language, that our system of writing has since taken on empirical, positivistic concerns. While Frye thinks that one cannot read the Bible without myth since it is written in myth, Jaspers respects the mythic, and asserts that the religious person must come to terms with it. Jaspers accuses Bultmann of a scientism which sees itself as being responsible for not be accused of foolish mythologies.

I would like to include a word about the construction and editing of the book itself. It has a wonderful introduction by R. Joseph Hoffmann which provides one of the greatest contexts and explanations of the rise of liberal theology in the nineteenth century. However, Jaspers' first parry in the conversation includes a lot of material from his Existenzphilosophie which is completely unnecessarily for the overall understanding of the text and the content of the argument at hand. This part of the text includes explanation the reader could have done without, like "We cannot think unless something becomes an object for us. To be conscious means to live in that clarity which is made possible by the split between I and the object. But it also means to live within the walls constituted by the split between the I and something known to be an object." And so on. If this language had been excised, the book would have made its argument in tighter, more cogent terms. Also, of the 88 pages devoted to the back-and-forth of Bultmann and Jaspers, Bultmann is allotted a grand total of 12 pages, which makes me think the editor may have had a slight bias. In any case, the substance of the debate is fascinating, but these weak points to detract from the overall rating. I would recommend a close examination of these ideas for anyone interested in the shapes and trends of liberal theology in the twentieth century, but one can probably find another publication whose editor is less clumsy in communicating them.

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) was a German theologian and professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg. He was the author of many influential books, such as The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus and the Word, etc. Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) was a German psychiatrist and existentialist philosopher, who wrote many important books such as Philosophy of Existence (Works in Continental Philosophy), Way to Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy, Second Edition (Yale Nota Bene), etc.

The translator notes, "The essay 'Myth and Religion' by Dr. Jaspers ... was later published (in 1953)... Bultmann's reply first appeared (in 1954)... Dr. Jaspers' rejoinder was first published in an open letter..."

Jaspers argues, "It we forget that myth is also a code language, a cipher, it loses all reference to transcendence, it becomes mere tangible presence." (Pg. 14) He suggests that Bultmann "alternates between empirical, philological exegesis and a theological appropriation of religion. The two opposing goals, which are the historical investigation of religion and the primary comprehension of faith, do not add up to a convincing statement, but rather collapse for lack of tension and clarity." (Pg. 28)

Bultmann replied, "(Jaspers) is as convinced as I am that a corpse cannot come back to life or rise from the grave, that there are no demons and no magic causality. But how am I, in my capacity as pastor, to explain, in my sermons and classes, texts dealing with the Resurrection of Jesus in the flesh, with demons, or with magic causality? And how am I, in my capacity as theological scholar, to guide the pastor in his task by my interpretation?... When (Jaspers) says that the redemptive history... must 'be tested existentially and judged on the basis of ... the truth that arises from it in the reality of life,' I can only reply to such a vague statement by the question, 'Well, how is this done?'" (Pg. 60-61)

Jaspers then asserts in his own reply, "you do not go far enough... I assay the differences between us in terms of the opposition between liberalism and orthodoxy, and I conclude that your position can be defined as orthodox. The actual meaning of my lecture, however, was to asert the rights of philosophy." (Pg. 72) He concludes, "The greatness of Protestantism... achieves reality only in exceptional individuals... who translate into action the great moral earnestness... inherent in this faith... I see hope in the liberal faith... which as such is capable of transforming the Biblical faith in all its manifestations." (Pg. 114-115)

Although one suspects that the two protagonists are often missing the other's point, this still a fascinating interplay between these two thinkers.

› Go to Amazon.com to see both reviews  4.0 out of 5 stars