Many theologians of the twentieth century have presented radical views concerning the Bible. Rudolf Bultmann is no exception in this case. He is well known for his concept of demythologization, in which he strove to update, or demythologize, the first-century view of the New Testament so that modern man might understand it better. Unfortunately, his concept of demythologization lacks sufficient evidence for its basis, and therefore is unworthy of acceptance. As proof of this the issues of the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection will be evaluated with Bultmann's process of demythologization and disputed thereafter. However, the most important thing to first understand is the foundation for the theology of Rudolf Bultmann.

Rudolf Bultmann based his theology in the school of thought called Neo-Orthodoxy. This greatly influenced his ideas and thus it's important to examine the doctrines of this school of thought. In terms of Neo-Orthodoxy, no use of philosophy can bring one to know God in any way. Furthermore, revelation can be perceived only by those who have faith; no use of reason or experience can perceive it (Hordern, 192). Subsequently, according to Bultmann and Neo-Orthodoxy, God reveals [Himself] through events in nature; everyone can see this natural event, though only the faithful can perceive God's revelation to man in its occurrence (208). Having established these general beliefs of Neo-Orthodoxy, it is now possible to introduce the method of interpretating the Bible which Rudolf Bultmann called demythologization.

In demythologizing the New Testament, Bultmann was concerned primarily with myth, or mythology, in which the New Testament is based. It is important to realize, however, that this "mythology" of the Bible is not to be paralleled with the idea of Greek or Roman mythology. Nor is it meant to imply that parts of the Bible are "mythical" in the sense that they are fairy tales meant to entertain their readers. On the contrary, Bultmann defined myth as "the report of an event or occurrence in which supernatural, superhuman powers or persons are at work . . ." (Good, 27). Furthermore, myth is a way of man's expressing himself in the world in which he lives, in hopes of explaining his existence (Ashcraft, 50).

For clarification, Bultmann cited the first-century view of the universe in which people thought that the earth was a sphere, with heaven above and hell beneath; in this sense it formed a "three-tiered" universe. He explained that people of that time used this mythical view of the universe to explain the divine in human terms (Ashcraft, 51). In addition, the virgin birth, the crucifixion of Christ, and the resurrection of Jesus were similarly classified by Bultmann as myths which were attempts by first-century man to explain the divine in human terms (53). Having now provided an adequate understanding of the term myth, it is possible to examine Rudolf Bultmann's concept of demythologization.

Demythologization can be well defined as "the interpretation of the New Testament in terms that contemporary man can understand" (Good, 22). Using this idea as the basis for his thought, Bultmann asserted that the writers of the New Testament expressed the revelatory kerygma (proclamation) [of God] in the mythological terminology of the first century A. D. Since modern man has scientific presuppositions which do not prove the myths of the New Testament, it is impossible for any intellectual man of the twentieth century to believe the events described by the writers of the New Testament (Ashcraft, 51). This is an overview of Bultmann's idea of demythologization. Having established a general understanding of this, it is now possible to explain it in detail.

According to Bultmann, modern science recognizes that nature is based upon cause-and-effect relationships which can be readily observed by man (Ashcraft, 57). Bultmann also acknowledged the fact that modern man has applied science to the world and found ideas of the first century, such as the "triple-tiered" view of the universe, to be false. Accordingly, in order for modern man of the twentieth century to intellectually accept the mythical views of the first century, he must discard the intellect and knowledge he has gained to this point in time.

Bultmann believed that this was an atrocious thing to have to do, and thus he tried to express the New Testament in such a way that people of today can grasp its messages without abandoning their knowledge of the twentieth century (Ashcraft, 52). In order to do this, he attempted to interpret the myths of the New Testament in such a way that the meaning of the scriptures could be retained; the only things that change are the expressions and terms used to convey this scriptural meaning.

At this point, however, it is imperative to realize that Rudolf Bultmann was not trying to eliminate or remove the myths of the New Testament (Ashcraft, 53); this is what he believed to be the error of liberalism (Good, 26). Bultmann was merely trying to serve modern man by translating the New Testament into modern terms. Now that a detailed definition of demythologization has been presented, it's important to apply this concept to some myths of the New Testament--including the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of Jesus--in order to analyze and evaluate its results and reliability.

The first myth to be examined is the virgin birth; did it really happen, or is it an unfounded myth used to express a scriptural meaning? Rudolf Bultmann would suggest the latter. But how can one demythologize the virgin birth in this way, while retaining its significance and meaning? That question will now be answered. First of all, the virgin birth did not happen as far as Bultmann was concerned; it did not happen because miracles do not happen. Furthermore, miracles do not occur because science has proven at this point that they cannot be replicated by man (Good, 25). Therefore, according to Bultmann it would be inane to ask a man of the twentieth century to believe in the virgin birth, for it has been proven to be scientifically illogical, and impossible.

A further point must be made, however, about Bultmann's conception of miracles. Rudolf Bultmann was aversive to the idea of objectifying God. For this reason, he rejected the idea of miracles, because he didn't believe that God would act in such an objective way. To explain, Bultmann said that miracles become objective proofs, upon which Christians base their faith. Eventually, these proofs become crutches for one's faith and God therefore becomes an objective reality associated with historical events (Hordern, 208). This is a credible idea in terms of original thinking, though it can be seen that it is not necessarily true.

Nonetheless, Bultmann cited a biblical comparison with the virgin birth (Matthew 1:18-25) and the reference to Jesus as a pre-existent being (Col. 1:17, John 17:5). He is quick to point out that these two myths are contradictory, for if Jesus was pre-existent then it's scientifically illogical to say that Jesus was born as a baby of a virgin (Ashcraft, 56). Nevertheless, Bultmann asserted, the virgin birth can be interpreted differently to retain the idea that Jesus' existence is a necessary element for faith; in this sense its scriptural meaning is retained and the myth of the virgin birth is demythologized. But was Bultmann correct in asserting such things? Perhaps he was not as correct as it might first appear.

The virgin birth as expressed in the Bible does not claim scientific basis; it is described as a supernatural event, what Bultmann called a myth. Moreover, in order to accept the demythologized view of the virgin birth, one must subscribe to a completely scientific view, which Bultmann claimed that modern man in general has accepted. However, Bultmann did not seem to realize that not every intellectual person in the twentieth century has the purely scientific view which he imposed upon the myths of the Bible. In fact, many people of the twentieth century who consider themselves to be intellectual assent to the idea that the virgin birth was a supernatural event.

Another problem to deal with here is Bultmann's negation of miracles, due to the fear of objectifying God. He presupposed an extreme view in which every person relies completely upon miracles as crutches for their faith. However, this is not necessarily the case. Some persons view miracles as the Bible intends to present them . . . as supplemental events in which God reveals his power to man through history. With this understanding of miracles, the fear of objectifying God is minimized. It is true that some people will use miracles to prove, instead of defend, their faith and thereby objectify God; however, this is by no means the maxim.

Therefore, Bultmann is too extreme and rigid in his view of modern man, and this causes him many problems. In terms of miracles, Bultmann's reasons for having negated them are very weak and in no definite way substantiated his claims in this instance. With these things resolved, one realizes that the virgin birth can be accepted without a need to demythologize it. But does demythologization present an acceptable view of the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection, despite the instance of the virgin birth? We shall see.

Rudolf Bultmann accepted the undeniable proof that a man named Jesus was crucified on a cross. However, although he accepted the historical event of the crucifixion, he found the biblical notion of redemption via Christ's blood to be ridiculous, for it is scientifically illogical (Ashcraft, 57). Nevertheless, Bultmann believed that the crucifixion of Jesus is the foundation of faith (Fergusson, 186). After demythologization of the crucifixion, then, the idea is that people constantly "crucify sin", following the model of Christ. Therefore, the meaning of the crucifixion is not dependent upon the fact that it happened, but rather is meant to be a model to support people as they "crucify" sin in daily life (Ashcraft, 57).

Along these lines, Bultmann believed that the sacrificial mythology (the crucifixion) is no longer relevant to the twentieth century, for the scientific culture of today is more advanced and thus doesn't accept the idea of Satan and his demonic hosts (Good, 27). Accordingly, the historical event of the crucifixion is irrelevant. The important thing to realize, for Rudolf Bultmann, was the fact that its meaning is present when preached as the gospel and instituted in the sacraments such as communion and baptism. Furthermore, since the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are nearly inseparable issues, Bultmann's understanding will be examined now while his views of the crucifixion and resurrection will be critiqued together later.

Not surprisingly, Rudolf Bultmann attributed no historical truth to the resurrection of Jesus; according to him it never happened. One might ask then, "what was the need for the myth of the resurrection if it never happened?" Bultmann explained that this myth does in fact have meaning, even if it didn't really happen. According to him, the resurrection myth is a supplement for one's faith; it is a story designed to help a Christian sustain his faith, even if the myth isn't historically true. Thus, Bultmann explained, "Christians participate in the death and resurrection of Christ in everyday life." When the resurrection is demythologized, it is understood that the "risen Christ encounters us through preaching" (Ashcraft, 57). Now that the myths of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ have been demythologized, the question again rises as to whether the results of Bultmann's process hold to be sufficiently true. Once again, we shall see.

In terms of the crucifixion of Christ, Bultmann said that science has shown that Satan and demons do not exist, as believed in the first century, and thus the sacrificial mythology concerning the cross can be disregarded as irrelevant and false (Good, 27). However, one can point out that science at this date in time has in no way proven that Satan and demons do not exist, but rather science has assumed that they don't exist because there is no proof to substantiate claims of their existence.

But then again, where is the proof to substantiate the statement that the cross did not serve the purpose of atonement and Satan does not exist? The answer is that there is as much proof to scientifically negate such things as there is to prove them. And why is this so? . . . because things of divinity are not objective realities, but rather are supernatural occurrences (something that Bultmann couldn't accept).

And what about the resurrection? Bultmann is so falsely confident in this instance that he said that the resurrection of Jesus is not to be taken literally, for it can't be proven as a historical fact (and it can't be replicated today). Therefore, according to Bultmann, if it can't be proven to be possible in the scientific age of the twentieth century, then how can any intelligent person believe that this could happen in the first century A. D.?

Bultmann once again stumbled over his aversion to miracles, for any reasonable person can point out that the resurrection is presented in the New Testament as a supernatural event. The Bible does not say that the disciples resurrected Jesus, for then it would be easier for Bultmann to accept this myth. Instead, the Bible says that God resurrected Jesus (Acts 2:24); therefore, it was a miracle, and obviously this is the point where Bultmann separated himself from the myth of the resurrection.

At this point, the process of demythologization has been applied to the myths of the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of Jesus and all have been shown to have insufficient results for various reasons. However, there is a bigger problem (besides Bultmann's unfounded negation of miracles) which undermines his entire theory of demythologization. To recapitulate, Bultmann was aversive to the idea of relying upon historical events (such as the crucifixion) in order to present proofs for one's faith. To do this would be to objectify God, an atrocious act in the eyes of Rudolf Bultmann (Hordern, 206). Fortunately, Bultmann didn't fall into this trap of objectifying God, right? . . . wrong.

Consider this interpreted idea of Bultmann:

Consider the virgin birth; Bultmann asserted that it is scientifically impossible (and illogical) for a divine entity to be born of a virgin (Ashcraft, 56). Was not Bultmann limiting God in this case to human science, thereby showing God to be objective since he is finite? Now consider the crucifixion of Jesus. Bultmann said that the cross did not serve to atone men of their sins, for that is scientifically impossible (57). Again he reduced God to an objective reality which can operate only within the boundaries of science.

And the same holds true for the myth of the resurrection. In this case Bultmann said that the resurrection can't be scientifically replicated, and thus it couldn't have happened in the first century A. D. Once again, Bultmann confined God to the limitations of human science. This all points to the problem of objectifying God--the very thing which Bultmann opposed, and yet ironically it was one of the largest contradictions he imposed upon his theory of demythologization.

At this point there isn't much left to say about Rudolf Bultmann and his theory of demythologization. It has been shown that in using this process on a few myths of the New Testament, the results are in no way stable. In addition to these problems, Bultmann undermined his entire theory by doing the very thing that he ardently opposed: objectifying God. For these reasons, Rudolf Bultmann's theory of demythologization is logically and theologically unworthy of acceptance.

His greatest problem seems to be that he could not accept the possibility of supernatural occurrences, even though he had no proof to negate them. This stemmed mostly from his foundation in Neo-Orthodoxy, and unfortunately brought his eventual theological downfall in this case. Nevertheless, despite the fallibility of the demythologization theory, Rudolf Bultmann was a respectable scholar who presented an ingenuous and intelligent idea with the aim of helping his fellow man, and for this he is to be commended.
 

WORKS CITED

Ashcraft, Morris. Rudolf Bultmann. Texas: Word Books, 1972.

Fergusson, David. "Meaning, Truth, and Liberalism in Bultmann and Lindbeck." Religious Studies June 1990: 186.

Good, Edwin M. "The Meaning of Demythologization." The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Ed. Charles W. Kegley. 1st ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. 22-34.

Hordern, William E. A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1968.

(QBaal presents Gossett's article for its concise comment on Bultmann.  Certainly not because Qbaal
        agrees with Gossett's on the merits of Bultmann's New Testament scholarship.)

To QBaal, Gossett's overall assessment is in error.  There is lots of myth in the New Testament -
the Virgin Birth, the Ascension,  several  versions of a physical Resurrection, etc.  Yes,
it's true Bultmann doesn't aim to eliminate myth from Christianity.  Despite his demythologizing program.   He aims, actually, to recognize New Testament myth for what  it is  - imaginative stories based on Old Testament themes to communicate an act of God e.g. the Resurrection.   I've always had the feeling Bultmann ended up affirming life eternal and Jesus eternally alive by affirmation.  Meaning he affirms the resurrection not because of what happened to Jesus after the cross but because its part of the New Testament message (keryma).  In other words, affirmation by assertion  which, for many, is what  New Orthodoxy boils downs to.  In other words, the
Church proclaims the gospel (kerygma) because the Church (the 1st Century Church) proclaimed the gospel.

QBaal goes with Spong on the Resurrection - the Resurrection was a spiritual event in history that
spiritually impinged on Jesus first followers.  A reality but not not a literal, historical fact.  It's
theology but not newspaper reporting.  A prime example as St. Paul would say of "things unseen
bringing to nought material things (like Caesar's power) that are seen."

Many moons  Bishop John S. Spong has informed us there are many myths in  the  four  gospels.  And added those myths  are derived from  Judaism's commentary on old testament  themes and characters.  Thus, the Church preaches the Resurrection as the central Reality of  history i.e. God really raised Jesus to eternity from the cross.  The resurrection connects with history for God reveals to all Christians, then and now,  that Jesus indeed has conquered death. And is a living presence in our hearts today.  It's simple - When God acts in history it can't be communicated as newspaper reporting.  It's not factual history where a physical Jesus, after death, ran around Jerusalem.

Now, Spong and many other Christians  may have moved beyond Bultmann during the last 50 years  and arrived at our own insights re New Testament myth.   I doubt it. For everyone  owes a lot  to Bultmann for  his careful and
arduous analysis  of  the  New Testament gospels and for demonstrating the important role myth played in their writing. And so does all Christianity. Despite what the fearful conservatives would like to think.