The Way of the Church
Part 3:
The
Apocalyptic Background, II
by
Hugh Nibley, Ph.D.
Improvement Era 58 (Dec. 1955), 902-3, 968
Bultmann begins with
the premise that the entire New Testament eschatology is pure mythology and
nothing else. There is nothing revolutionary about that: it is what the
scholars have been saying for many years, only, unlike Bultmann, they have
steadfastly refused to draw the logical conclusion from that conviction or face
its inevitable consequences. "The picture of the world we find in the New
Testament is a mythological one," we are now told; it served well enough
in its time, but it is no good any more. "When the New Testament . . .
describes the saving action of God in Jesus Christ . . . it describes this
action in terms of the contemporary mythological conception of the world. . . .
It was natural for the gospel to be stated in these terms, for that was the
outlook of the age."[1]
But such terms are
decidedly not natural for our
age, Bultmann insists: "It is impossible for the man of today to accept
the mythology of the New Testament. . . . As long as this is taken at its face
value as literally true, Christianity remains meaningless to modern man."[2]
It is not therefore a
matter of toning down or softening or adaption of the old eschatology, but of
its complete rejection: "He contends that to ask the man of today to
accept the picture of the world that is found in the New Testament would be at
once pointless and to ask the impossible. . . . It is, for instance, impossible
for the man of today to interpret a case of epilepsy or schizophrenia as
demoniac possession," or, in Bultmann's own words, "It is impossible
to make use of electric light and radio, and, in case of illness, to claim the
help of modern medical and clinical methods and at the same time believe in the
New Testament's spirits and miracles."[3]
Is this a shocking
statement? There is nothing the least bit new or radical about it. Over a
hundred years ago Charles Dickens denounced the Mormons as hopelessly deluded
and mentally incompetent because they were actually guilty of "seeing
visions in an age of railways!"[4]
Since it is agreed
that railroads and visions cannot possibly go together, why has Bultmann so
upset the clergy by saying only what they themselves have believed all along?
It is because he will
not let them keep their Christianity and deny it at the same time. "The
great difference between Bultmann's teachings and the liberalism of the
1900's," writes Henderson, is that "it eliminates the mythological, instead of interpreting
it."[5] If
it is a myth, Bultmann argues, why not treat it as such? It is his conclusion,
not his premise, that shocks. Yet with the premise all the damage is done. Over
fifty years ago a professor of Old Testament could write without shocking a
single scholar: "It is impossible from the modern point of view to regard
Abraham and Moses as historical characters"—they are simply myths.
"All the accounts from Saul to Solomon are mythological-astrological [6]presentations
. . . all details concerning the persons and their deeds have been borrowed
from a mythological system.Ó
For over half a
century a great band of Christian scholars have flatly denied that Jesus ever
lived, but they have gone on talking and writing about him just the same. [7]
Scholars became proud and boastful of their "brazen scepticism,"
entirely forgetting, Eisler points out, to be sceptical of their own highly
subjective conclusions. Their "unhistorical Jesus" was, he says,
"the stillborn creature of the age of Liberalism" . . . with a
capital "L."[8]
Albert Schweitzer attributed to a sound instinct for self-preservation the
rejection of the historical Jesus by the Christian churches—for certainly
the historical Jesus contradicts their teachings on many points.[9]
In the end, the only
Jesus for which Christianity had any use was an unhistorical Jesus, a
"de-mythologized" Jesus, to use Bultmann's expression.
Speaking of
revelation, Bultmann writes: "The existence of such a voice that speaks
when God, not as the idea of God . . . but as my God, who here and now speaks to me through the mouths of men, that is the
'demythologized' sense of 'the Word became flesh,' the Church's doctrine of the
incarnation."[10]
It is with the history
of the church as with its doctrine, according to Bultmann: you only accept of
that history what you personally feel is useful to you; Christianity, he says,
is the "eschatological phenomenon that brings the world to an end; it is
not a historical phenomenon of the past, but is the word of that Grace which destroys
and in destroying makes alive."[11]
The declaration that
one should take and believe from the scriptures only what one wants to has led
to loud protests from the churchmen.
Yet what else have
they been doing with the Bible all these years? "We are thankful,"
wrote Schweitzer years ago, "that we have handed down to us only gospels,
not biographies, of Jesus."[12]
The scholars have
shown by word and deed that they do not want to know any more about Christ than
they do; instead of joyfully embracing the priceless discoveries which from the
Didache to the Dead Sea Scrolls have brought us step by step nearer to a
knowledge of the true Church of Jesus Christ as it existed anciently, they have
fought those documents at every step.[13]
If the resurrected
Jesus were to walk among them they would waste no time beseeching him "to
depart from their coasts"—they have the only Jesus they want, and
they will thank you not to complicate things by introducing new evidence. In
the same spirit a great German classical scholar once expressed to the author
his disapproval of studying Oriental sources. They disturb the neatness,
compactness, symmetry, simplicity, and permanence of our mental picture of the
Greeks, he explained.
It is accepted
practice to rewrite the Gospels at will, provided one employs the proper
jargon. But in frankly admitting
that he is out to reshape Christianity to something nearer to the heart's
desire, Bultmann has gone too far. "I do not want my eschatology
de-eschatologized," cries the eminent scholar Millar Burrows.[14]
"It is one
thing," he says, "for a theologian to say that demonology is for him
a mythological experience of the reality of suffering and evil in the world; it
is something else for an exegete to say that Jesus himself did not believe in demons.
You cannot have accurate, realistic exegesis if you are not prepared and
willing to find ideas that you cannot accept."[15]
You cannot
de-mythologize the history in the New Testament no matter how badly you want
to, Oscar Cullmann protests, because after all it never was mythology or
allegory and never was meant to be—it was real history.[16]
What Bultmann fondly
thinks is a clear, detached, objective view of things, his vaunted Vorverstandnis is nothing but the scientific tradition he has
inherited, says von Dobschutz, a thing that conditions the thinking of every
scholar whether he admits it or not. And as to this business of picking out of
the scripture as the substance of your faith whatever suits your fancy and
rejecting what does not, what does that lead to? "Bultmann floats in Bible
and theology from one concept to another," von Dobschutz writes, "but
everything remains idea without substance. One forgets entirely that Primitive
Christianity was actually a very concrete phenomenon."[17]
It is high time these
things were being said, but without Bultmann it is hard to imagine their ever
being said by modern pastors and priests, for the charges against that alarming
man are precisely those to which they are most susceptible themselves. For
Bultmann by calling a spade a spade is smoking out the temporizers and
spiritualizers by forcing them to take a stand. Many years ago Bultmann himself
jarred a cornerstone of "liberal" religion with the announcement that
"a revealed religion must insist that it is the only true religion,
nothing less than the
Truth,"[18] thereby declaring that the true church must be a
"narrow," not a "liberal" one.
We believe that
Bultmann is quite wrong in choosing to throw away the old Christian eschatology
in that the ministry has no chance but to oppose him; but he is quite right in
insisting on the terrible truth that if you don't throw it away you have to
believe it! There he has the ministry checkmated, or rather they have
checkmated themselves, for it is they who for over a century and a quarter have
with a single voice hurled against the Mormons the awful charge of actually
believing in visions, miracles, and the visitation of angels! And now Bultmann
tells them they must believe in those things, too, or else forget about them.
But what now
complicates the game, to the embarrassment of both players, is the increasingly
frequent and maddeningly unpredictable introduction of new pieces onto the
board. New discoveries of documents are "compromising" modern
Christianity more deeply all the time, making it harder and harder for anyone
who would call himself a Christian to brush the old eschatological teachings
aside. At the same time the realities of the hydrogen bomb and the very real
possibility of world destruction have occasioned a world-wide resurgence of
eschatological thinking.
Forty-seven years ago
Father Lagrange could dismiss the apocalyptic presentation of the old
eschatology with contempt: true, he admitted, it was strictly orthodox doctrine
and the early Christians were all for it, but it was a mistake just the same,
"a false literary genre,
whose overheated imaginings leave hardheaded people (les gens de sangfroid) unimpressed." For Lagrange it was all "a
huge exertion in which a few flashes of bon sens illuminated a brain-sick nightmare."[19]
That is how it all
looked to the safe and solid world of 1909. But what do we read today in a
leading Catholic journal? "We know that thou hast been with us daily until
now, and that thou shalt be with us forever," writes the editor in Church
Latin, making a necessary concession to the official viewpoint, which
definitely frowns upon teachings of the Second Coming.[20]
Thou dwellest among
us, near us, in the land which is thine and ours. . . . But now has come a time
in which thou must appear to us again, and give to this generation a sign that
thou canst not put off nor deny. . . . For thou seest, Christ, our need, thou
knowest how great is our necessity, our helplessness, our poverty, our
desperation; thou knowest how badly we need thy coming, how necessary is thy
return. Come, Christ, even as lightning, and as lightning depart; only appear
to us, hear our prayer: come and go and speak but one word, one coming and one
departing. . . .
Send us a
sign—lightning in the sky or a light by night: let the heavens be opened,
let the night be lighted: give us but an hour of thine eternity; in place of
thy long silence give us but one word. . . . We do not, we do not ask for a
great descent in heavenly glory, nor for the splendor of the Transfiguration. .
. . Often after the resurrection didst thou appear to the living, and to those
who meant to hate thee . . . didst thou show thy countenance. . . . Thou, who
didst so often return for but a few, why dost thou not now return but once for
all of us? If they deserved to see thee . . . surely we in our utter
desperation deserve to see thee. . . . Never has thy word been so necessary as
it is today . . . the rule of Satan has reached its full maturity . . . the
only remaining hope is in thy return.
Return, O Christ, return!
. . . We expect thee, Christ, at this end-time; we expect thee daily, although
we are unworthy and although our desire is an impossible one, still we shall
expect thee.[21]
Where now is the clerical sang
froid and bon sens? When the world is topsy-turvy and the danger is
real, Christians have a way of suddenly remembering how fundamental to the
gospel are those eschatological and Messianic concepts of which official
Christianity disapproves. The ancient faith was no summertime religion, and its
preoccupation with eschatology—the "end of all things"—no
"brain-sick nightmare" but a hard-won decision to consider things as
they are.
[1] Ian Henderson, Myth in the New
Testament (London: SCM
Press, 1952), 10-11.
[2] Ibid. 9.
[3] Ibid. 11-12.
[4] See my discussion in The World and
the Prophets (Salt
Lake City: Deseret, 1954
[5] Henderson, Myth in the New
Testament, 13. Italics
are Henderson's.
[6] Hugo Winckler, "Geschichte und
Geographie," in Eberhard Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament, 3rd ed.
(Berlin: Reuther and Reichard, 1903), 209, 222.
[7] E.g., Bauer, Kalthoff, Hoekstra,
Pierson, Naber, E. Johnson, J. M. Robertson, W. B. Smith, P. Jensen, C. P.
Fuhrmann, A. Drews, A. Niemojewski, P. L. Couchard, George Brandes. The subject
is discussed by Eisler, Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas 1:xiv-xvii.
[8] Ibid. 1:205.
[9] Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der
Leben-Jesu-Forschung
(Tubingen: Mohr, 1921) 3:2.
[10] R. Bultmann, "Die Frage der
Entmythologisierung," Theologische Zeitschrift 10 (1954): 93: "Dass es ein
solches Zusprechen gibt, indem Gott nicht als Gottesidee . . . sondern als mein
Gott, der hier und jetzt zu mir spricht, u.z.w. durch den Mund von Menschen,
das ist der 'entmythologisierte' Sinn des ho logos sarx egeneto, der kirchlichen
Inkarnationslehre." The reader will note that the author's translation,
though all but incomprehensible, still lacks something of the density of the
German original. The authority of mere jargon in these discussions cannot be
overestimated.
[11] Ibid., 94. The remarks on the
preceding note apply here.
[12] Schweitzer, Geschichte der
Leben-Jesu-Forschung
3:12.
[13] The subject is treated at length by
Eisler, Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas 1:179-95.
[14] M. Burrows, "Thy Kingdom
Come" Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 8.
[15] Ibid. 3.
[16] Oscar Cullmann, Urchristentum und
Gottesdienst (Zurich:
Zwingli, 1950), 57.
[17] Ernst von Dobschutz, "Die Kirche
im Urchristentum," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 28 (1929): 108. Henderson, Myth in
the New Testament,
13-14, makes the same objection: Bultmann "ignores the fact that
Christianity is an event."
[18] Bultmann, "Untersuchungen zum
Johannes Evangelium," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft 27
(1928): 118-19.
[19] Lagrange, Le Messianisme chez les
Juifs, 135, 39.
[20] For an official statement, see Robert
Koch, "Der Gottesgeist und der Messias," Biblica 27 (1946): 260-68.
[21] Riccardo Avallone, "Veni,
Christe!" Antiquitas 8 (1953): 17-21. This is a translation from G. Papini, which,
however, the editor considers particularly applicable to the present time, 21.