Demythologising

[didymus]

On another thread the OP and other expressed their frustration with catechists “de-mythologyzing” the NT; with teachers, even priests, claiming that Jesus never made the statements attributed to Him, or worked miracles; and that certain facts are completely made up.

So, if any of you use, or have studied this kind of scriptural analysis, how does it work? How can one make a claim like “Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God” or “Mary and John were not present at the Crucifixion”?

And if you don’t believe Jesus actually said and did more or less what the Gospels claim (making some allowance for the vagaries of eyewitness testimony and memory) why be a Christian at all?

Please explain this to me. Anyone. I promise not to attack or be snide in return.

 

[Spirithound]

And if you don’t believe Jesus actually said and did more or less what the Gospels claim (making some allowance for the vagaries of eyewitness testimony and memory) why be a Christian at all?

I have no idea!

 

[Crumpy]

This comes out of liberal protestantism, and is a creation of Rudolf Bultmann (or you sometimes see Bultman).

This is discussed in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, which, overall, I don’t recommend.

The idea is twofold: 1) A lot of people don’t accept Christianity because they reject the miracles, etc., anything supernatural. Now, coupled with that is, 2) the idea that the biblical stories are embellishments.

Bultmann’s idea is that he accepts the kerygma, what I understand him to mean the basic underlying idea of Jesus as our Savior. But, he rejects all that he perceives to be embellishment, up to and including the resurrection.

What he thinks needs to be done, is to de-mythologize the Bible, and, moreover, to re-mytholigize it in a more acceptable package, to evangelize more people.

From my brief and non-scholarly journey through this non-sense, it seems that nobody has ever accomplished the task of de-mythologizing, which even he predicted would take decades (starting from the mid-1920’s or so, when he proposed this).

The ideas of Bultmann have been picked up by many, riding the crest of over-zealous people who think that historical criticism has solved all the mysteries of the Bible.

Even our present Holy Father, while admitting that historical criticism is an important tool in biblical research, feels that historial criticism has been misapplied and has taken many people astray.

It is my opinion, that the development of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was a major response to false teaching in the Church since the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, which developed from the over-zealous historical criticism, Bultmann’s ideas in particular.

Last, I suspect that the Fall 2007 Synod of Bishops at the Vatican will take up this and other issues about the Bible. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, read your bible and keep your catechism close at hand. do what you will, of course, but I would advise, don’t waste your time on Bultmann.

 

[Crumpy]

And, more.

The late Fr. Raymond S.Brown was one of the editors and writers of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary.

He is respected by many people, particularly by many priests. He was a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

In his book, 101 Answers to Questions about the Bible, he gives his personal opinion, as he calls it, that all the infance narratives of the gospels are myth.

So, even today, as we celebrate the feast of St Joseph, 3/19/07, he would probably be telling you the story is all myth. From a historical standpoint, there is no evidence of a man named Joseph who was Jesus’ step-father or whatever. And, Brown’s style was to point out to you that the Catholic Church has probably never made an official statement about St. Joseph, nothing that you might think that they have made.

In another book, that has the title something like Biblical Perspectives on Modern Issues, he takes up the matter of whether women can be ordained priests. He formulates three arguments, one against, one for, and one intermediate position on the matter. Then, he withdraws from actually telling you what his position is.

My reading of parts of his Jerome commentary is that he rejects the idea of original sin. He just comes out and says we ought to get over it and move on.

And, in the Perspectives book, he has an essay on Marian issues. He chops away at most of our mythology about Mary, for the purpose, he says, of removing obstacles to Christian unity.

This is my take on his writing and philosophy, which seems heavily influenced by Bultmann and the idea of demythologizing scripture.

The Church does not seem to be following his intellectual leadership.

 

[Verbum]

Hi didimus,

The gospels are teaching tools. They are not biographies of Jesus. The same facts may be used differently by different evangelists to make a point. St. John, for example, builds his whole gospel around three trips to Jerusalem, culminating in the ultimate trip, his supreme sacrifice. He may quote Jesus saying something in the third year that Matthew dates in the first year.

The gospels are the result of “work in progress” as Christians reflected on the life and sayings of Jesus. Today it is the “in” thing for exegetes to take apart the gospels and say that the first part of a sentence was really said by Jesus, but that the second part is a reinterpretation by the Christian community. It becomes really boring and very controversial. And it is, in my view, stupid to present the gospels in this way to people who are just trying to read the Gospels to improve their spiritual life.

Verbum

 

[a_cermak]

Because the truth matters. If we are to believe in something, shouldn’t it be true? Also it can explain certain facts like why Jesus delivered the same sermon on a plain, a mountain and a boat. Was he just using the same general sermon everywhere he went or did he use new material in different venues? The most important thing with the Gospels is understanding what they meant to their audience of the time. Did the cursing of the fig tree mean something specific to those folks? That would at least make the story reasonable to modern people. How about his anger at the woman who touched his hem to be healed? What was that all about? His unwillingness to heal the gentile child until her mama reminded him about the dogs getting crumbs from the meal? Hard to reconcile with Paul’s mission to the gentiles? What did it mean? Why was it included? Literary and Historical Criticism can clear up these mysteries.

 

[Spirithound]

The gospels are teaching tools. They are not biographies of Jesus. The same facts may be used differently by different evangelists to make a point. St. John, for example,…may quote Jesus saying something in the third year that Matthew dates in the first year.

The gospels are the result of “work in progress” as Christians reflected on the life and sayings of Jesus.

I disagree. The Gospels are, by definition, biographies of Jesus, albeit incomplete ones. If Matthew allegedly dates something in the first year and John dates it in the third year, you should ask yourself whether Matthew is really describing one year, and whether the same speech/event may have been given more than once.
The Gospels are not a result of a work in progress, they were written by Apostles.

How about his anger at the woman who touched his hem to be healed?

I don’t recall Jesus being angry at this…

 

[Verbum]

Hi a-cermak,

The Gospels are, by definition, biographies of Jesus

You are right. I should have said that they are not biographical in purpose. In order words they have not been written to satisfy our curiosity but to hand down the teaching of Christ.

Verbum

 

[patg]

Some claim that the Gospel genre is really biography. It is true that if studied as biography the Gospel writers show amazing skill in the revelation of character. In fact, it was centuries, possibly not until the eighteenth century, before biography caught up with the Gospels. However, the motive of the Gospel writers is not simply to describe the person of Jesus. Their theme is the significance of Jesus’ identity and the fact that the act of revelation which took place in Jesus demands a response from the reader. There is no attempt to describe Jesus physically, and very little is said about the first thirty years of his life. Each Gospel writer assumes that a great deal is already known about Jesus. Disciples are introduced without the explanations of their identity that a biographer would give. In fact, the main emphasis in the Gospels is not on Jesus’ life but on his death.

Neither can the Gospels be classified as history. This is not to say that the events reported in the Gospel never happened. They may have. But the intent of the Gospel writers is not the intent of the historian. They are not trying to give an accurate historical account. Rather, they are trying to let the reader understand what those who were contemporary with Jesus did not understand. The Gospel writers do not limit their accounts to what was understood by Jesus’ contemporaries. Rather, they report the events of Jesus’ lifetime in such a way as to make their significance fully realized only in hindsight, visible to their readers.

The Synoptic Gospels were written for believers. Those who read the Gospels read them not out of historical interest but out of a desire to understand more fully events in which they themselves had become intimately involved. The early Christians did not simply remember Jesus in the sense of recalling to mind someone no longer present. They remembered Jesus in the sense of once again becoming members- remembering-uniting themselves to Jesus in order to become one with him in his life, death, and resurrection. For both the writer and the reader of the Gospels, the goal was **not **to learn history, ***not ***to recall past events, ***not ***simply to gain knowledge, but to achieve union and participation in a mystery through which the believer is joined to Jesus. Union and participation, not recollection, were the goals.

**The written Gospel is a unique literary form called into being by a new message. **Just as the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are unique events in church history, so the works that make these events present to successive generations and incorporate readers into these events are also unique. The need to come to terms with a new reality resulted in a new form, the Gospel.

 

[Spirithound]

Thank you for clearing that up. I know you to be an orthodox Catholic, so your post was a bit confusing at first.
Peace.

 

[Petergee]

In fact, the main emphasis in the Gospels is not on Jesus’ life but on his death.

Neither can the Gospels be classified as history. This is not to say that the events reported in the Gospel never happened. They may have. But the intent of the Gospel writers is not the intent of the historian. They are not trying to give an accurate historical account.

How do you reconcile this with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, which tells us that the Church unhesitatingly affirms the historicity of the four Gospels, and asserts that they truly report what Jesus really did and taught during His earthly life? The Church also tells us that what the gospels tell us about, not only His death, but His life, teaching and example are also very important.

For both the writer and the reader of the Gospels, the goal was not to learn history, ***not ***to recall past events, ***not ***simply to gain knowledge, but to achieve union and participation in a mystery through which the believer is joined to Jesus. Union and participation, not recollection, were the goals.

St Luke, for one, disagrees with you. He clearly states at the outset (Luke 1:1-4) that his goal in writing his gospel is to set forth an accurate and orderly account of what really happened.