What do you think?
Rate this book
New Testament Mythology and Other Basic Writings
rare
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1941
33 people are currently reading
224 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 27, 2021
We read a great deal of Bultmann in seminary. I appreciated his scholarship as regards the exegeses of Christian texts but never really thought about his own acceptation of the tradition. This book, however, is for the most part precisely about that.
Demythologization, recognizing, in other words, that the thought world of the ancients was radically different than ours and acknowledging that our own sciences have constituted a far superior world picture, is Bultmann's starting point. That is clear enough. His end point, his specifically 'Christian' faith, however, is less clear to me unless its very specificity be abandoned, something he emphatically rejects.
What Bultmann is trying to do is comparable to what Kant did in attempting to maintain the rigors of science on the one hand, while postulating the radical freedom of the will on the other--a distinction that might be pointed to in terms of that obtaining between phenomenal objects and one or more noumenal subjects. Bultmann never defines what he means by 'God' but I suspect it is something like the noumenal subject as the Logos (itself associating with biblical texts, the prologue to John and to Logos theologies) behind or beneath all things apprehensible to us as subjects. It's a pity, though, that Bultmann does not relate his thinking explicitly to philosophy which might help me in understanding him. It is a pity also, I think, that he doesn't evince much respect for non-western thinking about such matters as concern him, matters soteriological, eschatological, ethical, etc.
Demythologization, recognizing, in other words, that the thought world of the ancients was radically different than ours and acknowledging that our own sciences have constituted a far superior world picture, is Bultmann's starting point. That is clear enough. His end point, his specifically 'Christian' faith, however, is less clear to me unless its very specificity be abandoned, something he emphatically rejects.
What Bultmann is trying to do is comparable to what Kant did in attempting to maintain the rigors of science on the one hand, while postulating the radical freedom of the will on the other--a distinction that might be pointed to in terms of that obtaining between phenomenal objects and one or more noumenal subjects. Bultmann never defines what he means by 'God' but I suspect it is something like the noumenal subject as the Logos (itself associating with biblical texts, the prologue to John and to Logos theologies) behind or beneath all things apprehensible to us as subjects. It's a pity, though, that Bultmann does not relate his thinking explicitly to philosophy which might help me in understanding him. It is a pity also, I think, that he doesn't evince much respect for non-western thinking about such matters as concern him, matters soteriological, eschatological, ethical, etc.
September 16, 2014
Wow. This book might have just changed my life. It's the first theological work I've read that attempts seriously to reconcile an intellectually honest appraisal of the world as it's presently understood with the miracle language of the Bible. His isn't a perfect system, by any means (his method of demythologizing the New Testament does not adequately reckon with anecdotal evidence of contemporary supernatural experience, for one), but it provides a way for those who struggle with the notion of the miraculous in a world of scientific naturalism yet still want to maintain something resembling real faith.
July 17, 2024
ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS OF THE 20TH CENTURY
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) was a German theologian and professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg. He also wrote books such as The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus and the Word, Presence of Eternity, etc.
His 1941 essay "New Testament and Mythology" famously begins, "The cosmology of the New Testament is essentially mythical in character. The world is viewed as a three-storied structure, with the earth in the centre, the heaven above, and the underworld beneath. Heaven is the abode of God and celestial beings--the angels. The underworld is hell, the place of torment. Even the earth is more than the scene of natural, everyday events ... It is the scene of the supernatural activity of God and his angels on the one hand, and of Satan and his demons on the other. These supernatural forces intervene in the course of nature and in all that men think and will and do. Miracles are by no means rare... (The) end will come very soon, and will take the form of a cosmic catastrophe. It will be inaugurated by the `woes' of the last time. Then the Judge will come from heaven, the dead will rise, the last judgment will take place, and men will enter into eternal salvation or damnation."
He then asks, "Can Christian preaching expect modern man to accept the mythical view of the world as true? To do so would be both senseless and impossible. It would be senseless, because there is nothing specifically Christian in the mythical view of the world as such. It is simply the cosmology of a pre-scientific age." He argues that "An Existentialist interpretation is the only solution," and outlines a program for "demythologizing the New Testament."
His essay has five critical appraisals (including one by Helmut Thielicke), followed by responses by Bultmann. In the essay, "Bultmann replies to his critics," he states, "The Bible not only shows me, like other historical documents, a possible way of understanding my own existence, a way which I am free to accept or reject: more than that, it assumes the shape of a word which addresses me personally." He adds, "Our radical attempt to demythologize the New Testament is in fact a perfect parallel to St. Paul's and Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from the works of the Law."
Whether one agrees with Bultmann or not, his essay and the responses in this book will be "must reading" for students of contemporary theology, etc.
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) was a German theologian and professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg. He also wrote books such as The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus and the Word, Presence of Eternity, etc.
His 1941 essay "New Testament and Mythology" famously begins, "The cosmology of the New Testament is essentially mythical in character. The world is viewed as a three-storied structure, with the earth in the centre, the heaven above, and the underworld beneath. Heaven is the abode of God and celestial beings--the angels. The underworld is hell, the place of torment. Even the earth is more than the scene of natural, everyday events ... It is the scene of the supernatural activity of God and his angels on the one hand, and of Satan and his demons on the other. These supernatural forces intervene in the course of nature and in all that men think and will and do. Miracles are by no means rare... (The) end will come very soon, and will take the form of a cosmic catastrophe. It will be inaugurated by the `woes' of the last time. Then the Judge will come from heaven, the dead will rise, the last judgment will take place, and men will enter into eternal salvation or damnation."
He then asks, "Can Christian preaching expect modern man to accept the mythical view of the world as true? To do so would be both senseless and impossible. It would be senseless, because there is nothing specifically Christian in the mythical view of the world as such. It is simply the cosmology of a pre-scientific age." He argues that "An Existentialist interpretation is the only solution," and outlines a program for "demythologizing the New Testament."
His essay has five critical appraisals (including one by Helmut Thielicke), followed by responses by Bultmann. In the essay, "Bultmann replies to his critics," he states, "The Bible not only shows me, like other historical documents, a possible way of understanding my own existence, a way which I am free to accept or reject: more than that, it assumes the shape of a word which addresses me personally." He adds, "Our radical attempt to demythologize the New Testament is in fact a perfect parallel to St. Paul's and Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from the works of the Law."
Whether one agrees with Bultmann or not, his essay and the responses in this book will be "must reading" for students of contemporary theology, etc.
December 15, 2019
Like many of my recent reviews, this gets 3 stars because of its importance, not because I think its content deserves it. Bultmann's project was to reinterpret the NT for the modern scientific age in a way that would resonate with the 'modern self-understanding'. This means the NT must be 'demythologized' and 'deobjectivized', stripped of it so-called mythological elements (which are a way of speaking of spiritual or other-worldly truths as this-worldly concrete images and historical events, thus objectivizing them) so that the timeless truths that of God's works might be seen as the spiritual events they are, to the eyes of faith. Miracles are jettisoned (including the resurrection) but the cross is retained and is central as the "Christ event". It is a project of individual existentialist interpretation of Scripture, a version of the 'kernel and husk' project of German liberal theology. Had to read this for a class on modern Protestant thought.
People really must read this and try to understand it for themselves before rolling their eyes and dismissing it outright. I was amazed to realize just how much of modern 'conservative' OT biblical interpretation follows somewhat along these lines, where the events recorded in OT Scripture are not concrete historical events but are mythical ways of expressing significant truths for Israel. Genre allowances accepted (there is a time and place in the text for doing this - perhaps references to ANE mythical creatures that YHWH tames, or gods he defeats in combat, for two examples), there are a lot of events that have been universally understood to have been history which many recent scholars simply categorize as expressions of the significance of a religious truth couched in mythical language.
People really must read this and try to understand it for themselves before rolling their eyes and dismissing it outright. I was amazed to realize just how much of modern 'conservative' OT biblical interpretation follows somewhat along these lines, where the events recorded in OT Scripture are not concrete historical events but are mythical ways of expressing significant truths for Israel. Genre allowances accepted (there is a time and place in the text for doing this - perhaps references to ANE mythical creatures that YHWH tames, or gods he defeats in combat, for two examples), there are a lot of events that have been universally understood to have been history which many recent scholars simply categorize as expressions of the significance of a religious truth couched in mythical language.
September 25, 2023
Bultmann was not the first to point out the mythical character of the New Testament. Critics of Christianity, as well as ancient, medieval, and Liberal theologians had already done that. Bultmann’s novelty and wisdom lay in his recognition that myth is the irreplaceable language of religion and that, to retain the powerful message of the myth, one must "demythologize" or, as Paul Tillich put it, “deliteralize” — the NT. Liberal theologians, like Herrmann, von Harnack, Ritschl, saw fit simply to subtract the myth and focus on what was left: ethics, piety, morality. But Bultmann saw this as reductionistic.
Bultmann focused on the role of myth as encapsulating the particular self-understanding of the community that held the myth. Thus, myths could be demythologized to reveal the society’s perception of its own place in the world. Many myths are about the dependable cyclical continuation of the familiar: the gods recreate the world and give it new stability every year. Other myths attached to rituals of rebirth and salvation. Some myths are about grace while others tell at once of a consciousness of oppression and the thrill of new freedom and maturity. The kernel of myth is the existential self-understanding of those who tell and live the myth.
Bultmann focused on the role of myth as encapsulating the particular self-understanding of the community that held the myth. Thus, myths could be demythologized to reveal the society’s perception of its own place in the world. Many myths are about the dependable cyclical continuation of the familiar: the gods recreate the world and give it new stability every year. Other myths attached to rituals of rebirth and salvation. Some myths are about grace while others tell at once of a consciousness of oppression and the thrill of new freedom and maturity. The kernel of myth is the existential self-understanding of those who tell and live the myth.
November 19, 2022
This was an excellent book containing Bultmann's essay setting forth his demythologization theory, followed by criticisms by several other (German) scholars and Bultmann's responses. It tees up the issues nicely and enables the reader to take a position on the debate. In this English language edition, I would have liked a fuller bibliography of English language publications; the one offered was almost entirely in German.
February 28, 2022
A fascinating take on the nature and role of the proclamation of the faith. I was surprised by how pastoral Bultmann’s motivation is (solely because of the negative way I have heard his theology presented). While I can’t give up a belief in the literal, physical resurrection of Christ, Bultmann’s argument does make me believe that one can do so while still being a Christian.
December 10, 2019
Genius
April 22, 2025
well written heresy
April 3, 2015
Rudolf Bultmann deserves much more attention. The bad rap he gets for his project of demythologization (if he is mentioned at all in conservative circles) is entirely unjustified. I’ve just been reading his “New Testament & Mythology and Other Basic Writings” and can only say that, while I don’t subscribe to Bultmann’s demythologization, I’m deeply impressed.
Here is a theologian with a deep understanding of the problems of modernity, the hermeneutical problem, and the relationship between science and theology. Who can possibly disagree with Bultmann’s careful presentation of the scientific nature of theology as an objectifying discourse with a method and objective appropriate to its own subject matter? Who can argue with his sophisticated ideas on hermeneutics as not only the science of understanding following certain rules of grammatical interpretation, and not only the discipline of getting a grip on the psychological state of the original writer, but foremost as an attempt to get at that which both interpreter and writer have in common, namely a concern with human existence. Indeed, this commonality is the sine qua non of hermeneutics.
Even Bultmann's program of demythologization deserves a closer look. Aren’t all of us engaged in demythologization when we attempt to go behind the facts of the Christ-event to arrive at the true symbolic meaning of these events contextualized for today? The right way of constructing theology would in my opinion arrive at symbolic meaning without doing violence to the concreteness of the 'resurrection of the Son of God.' But that does not mean that the intention behind demythologization should be utterly rejected. Bultmann is utterly serious in his attempt to do justice to the reality of God. For him to take the ‘mythological’ as historical is tantamount to drawing God into the world with its closed causal system and this the modern human can no longer do. But that does not mean that there is no real encounter with God in Christ through the Spirit for Bultmann. For him there is only salvation in Jesus Christ. A purely human analysis of human existence can only get us to a certain understanding of the problem but not at the solution. For this is the free gift of God in Jesus Christ.
I do not follow Bultmann’s demythologization project because I do not think demythologization is possible ever. For Bultmann, science and myth are opposite ways of looking at the world. In my opinion, however, even though there is a stark difference between science an myth, there are strong commonalities as well. Both are part of the attempts to explain human origins and the meaning of human existence; both use the best instruments of their time available to do so. Because this is so, science is simply a modern myth. Science is the myth we live by because it has better eplanatory power of the world in which we live than the old myths had. Since, however, it is limited to the material world we inhabit, it is less able to provide us with meaning and purpose. Since modern times myth/religion has been split in two parts: fact and meaning. Whether this is a happy separation remains to be seen. As myth, science is always a provisional way of explaining those things that are beyond the horizon of human knowledge.
All Bultmann’s project can achieve, then, is no more than remythologization rather than demythologization. There is merely a redescription according to the rules of the modern myth, or as it is sometimes called, ‘modern dogma,’ in which fact and value have been split. The ‘myth’ of redemption in Jesus Christ is made to conform to the myth of science's closed system of cause and effect. In my opinion this results in a loss of the concreteness of the Christ-event. It is a unnecessary surrender to the modern myth. And why would we do so, when the myth’s of modernity themselves are not final but merely a transitional stage to new myths, whatever shape or form they will take?
While Bultmann’s existential analysis along Heideggerian lines is powerful, there is absolutely no reason why it should be the only thing we can talk about in the kerygma. As Bonhoeffer pointed out, the myth of the Christ-event is the very thing that cannot be distilled into any further derivative. In Bultmann’s demythologization the mythical worldview of ancient times is exchanged in favor of the myth of science. Behind both, however, stands the concreteness of the person of Christ. Christ and Easter are non-reductive. That is the real hope for the modern human being.
Here is a theologian with a deep understanding of the problems of modernity, the hermeneutical problem, and the relationship between science and theology. Who can possibly disagree with Bultmann’s careful presentation of the scientific nature of theology as an objectifying discourse with a method and objective appropriate to its own subject matter? Who can argue with his sophisticated ideas on hermeneutics as not only the science of understanding following certain rules of grammatical interpretation, and not only the discipline of getting a grip on the psychological state of the original writer, but foremost as an attempt to get at that which both interpreter and writer have in common, namely a concern with human existence. Indeed, this commonality is the sine qua non of hermeneutics.
Even Bultmann's program of demythologization deserves a closer look. Aren’t all of us engaged in demythologization when we attempt to go behind the facts of the Christ-event to arrive at the true symbolic meaning of these events contextualized for today? The right way of constructing theology would in my opinion arrive at symbolic meaning without doing violence to the concreteness of the 'resurrection of the Son of God.' But that does not mean that the intention behind demythologization should be utterly rejected. Bultmann is utterly serious in his attempt to do justice to the reality of God. For him to take the ‘mythological’ as historical is tantamount to drawing God into the world with its closed causal system and this the modern human can no longer do. But that does not mean that there is no real encounter with God in Christ through the Spirit for Bultmann. For him there is only salvation in Jesus Christ. A purely human analysis of human existence can only get us to a certain understanding of the problem but not at the solution. For this is the free gift of God in Jesus Christ.
I do not follow Bultmann’s demythologization project because I do not think demythologization is possible ever. For Bultmann, science and myth are opposite ways of looking at the world. In my opinion, however, even though there is a stark difference between science an myth, there are strong commonalities as well. Both are part of the attempts to explain human origins and the meaning of human existence; both use the best instruments of their time available to do so. Because this is so, science is simply a modern myth. Science is the myth we live by because it has better eplanatory power of the world in which we live than the old myths had. Since, however, it is limited to the material world we inhabit, it is less able to provide us with meaning and purpose. Since modern times myth/religion has been split in two parts: fact and meaning. Whether this is a happy separation remains to be seen. As myth, science is always a provisional way of explaining those things that are beyond the horizon of human knowledge.
All Bultmann’s project can achieve, then, is no more than remythologization rather than demythologization. There is merely a redescription according to the rules of the modern myth, or as it is sometimes called, ‘modern dogma,’ in which fact and value have been split. The ‘myth’ of redemption in Jesus Christ is made to conform to the myth of science's closed system of cause and effect. In my opinion this results in a loss of the concreteness of the Christ-event. It is a unnecessary surrender to the modern myth. And why would we do so, when the myth’s of modernity themselves are not final but merely a transitional stage to new myths, whatever shape or form they will take?
While Bultmann’s existential analysis along Heideggerian lines is powerful, there is absolutely no reason why it should be the only thing we can talk about in the kerygma. As Bonhoeffer pointed out, the myth of the Christ-event is the very thing that cannot be distilled into any further derivative. In Bultmann’s demythologization the mythical worldview of ancient times is exchanged in favor of the myth of science. Behind both, however, stands the concreteness of the person of Christ. Christ and Easter are non-reductive. That is the real hope for the modern human being.
May 27, 2013
Word soup. That's the first thing that comes to mind in regards to Bultmann's philosophy, or theology, I guess. Three stars for effort, but I can't shake my head enough after having read this memorable quote on page 114. Memorable not because it's correct, or that I agree with it, but because of the silliness of it.
"Certainly, faith in its relation to its object is not provable. But as Herrmann already taught us, the fact that faith cannot be proved is precisely its strength. To claim that faith could be proved would imply that God could be known and established outside of faith and thus put God on the same level as the available world that can be disposed of by an objectifying view. Of course within the world it is appropriate to demand that things be proved."
Come again? The fact that faith cannot be proved is a strength? No, that's precisely it's weakness! By attempting to make theology a "science", one simply overlooks theology's implicit ambiguity and it's inability to be verified. Verification and falsifiability is exactly what makes the scientific method work. Yes, you can use the term "science" in whatever manner you want, but I think it's pulling a fast one to take the word and apply it in the domain of subjectivity. Which of course is all theology is. This assumption in the quote also completely fails to take into account the interpreter of the god. Who of course is subject to objective evaluation. When you use the method that is being applied here, you've ultimately proven everything and anything.
This is why I don't do theology! I'll stick to Bultmann's textual studies.
"Certainly, faith in its relation to its object is not provable. But as Herrmann already taught us, the fact that faith cannot be proved is precisely its strength. To claim that faith could be proved would imply that God could be known and established outside of faith and thus put God on the same level as the available world that can be disposed of by an objectifying view. Of course within the world it is appropriate to demand that things be proved."
Come again? The fact that faith cannot be proved is a strength? No, that's precisely it's weakness! By attempting to make theology a "science", one simply overlooks theology's implicit ambiguity and it's inability to be verified. Verification and falsifiability is exactly what makes the scientific method work. Yes, you can use the term "science" in whatever manner you want, but I think it's pulling a fast one to take the word and apply it in the domain of subjectivity. Which of course is all theology is. This assumption in the quote also completely fails to take into account the interpreter of the god. Who of course is subject to objective evaluation. When you use the method that is being applied here, you've ultimately proven everything and anything.
This is why I don't do theology! I'll stick to Bultmann's textual studies.
September 8, 2013
A reprinting of Bultmann's 1941 essay, "The New Testament and Mythology," including five responses to it and two responses by Bultmann to his critics' essays, "Kerygma and Myth" is a gold mine of challenging ideas and most excellent quotations on the merits and demerits of Biblical Christianity. It's a chewy read, like the sort of sticky caramel that threatens to pull your fillings out of your teeth. Bultmann and his peers were deep into a sophisticated and nuanced theology one does not encounter among our current surplus of evangelical apologists or the ascendant wing of Roman Catholics that seem intent on stealing the Religious Right's conservative credentials. Fascinating stuff.
All that said, I find it striking that these essays were written and presented at meetings in Germany during the Second World War. It is strange to me that these men of faith applied their prodigious talents and energies to go at each other with philosophical and theological hammer and tongs while their government was grinding all of Europe and North Africa under its boot and building extermination camps. Of course they all seem to have survived the war, unlike their coreligionist Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
All that said, I find it striking that these essays were written and presented at meetings in Germany during the Second World War. It is strange to me that these men of faith applied their prodigious talents and energies to go at each other with philosophical and theological hammer and tongs while their government was grinding all of Europe and North Africa under its boot and building extermination camps. Of course they all seem to have survived the war, unlike their coreligionist Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
July 10, 2008
This book is a difficult read. Bultmann introduces his idea of faith; a faith interpreted through the eyes of existentialist philosophy. Bultmann believes that faith and God, the cross and resurrection, are relevant only as to how it affects us in the present. To Bultmann, the historical event has no real validity if we do not encounter it in the present.
While there are some facets of Bultmann's argument that enhances the idea of faith, his ideas can be construed as an argument against the historical reality of things such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. Bultmann seems to be catering to the modern man and his world view, as well as esteeming the scientific world view as being better than the mythological world view of the first century Christians. His ideas in this book sparked a controversy that is still ongoing in the church today.
I highly recommend the book, but do read it with a conscientious eye. It took me quite a bit to get used to the language and also to feel as though I was comprehending what Bultmann and the other critics were saying. Its worth the effort and once you begin to understand, it becomes an interesting and profitable read.
While there are some facets of Bultmann's argument that enhances the idea of faith, his ideas can be construed as an argument against the historical reality of things such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. Bultmann seems to be catering to the modern man and his world view, as well as esteeming the scientific world view as being better than the mythological world view of the first century Christians. His ideas in this book sparked a controversy that is still ongoing in the church today.
I highly recommend the book, but do read it with a conscientious eye. It took me quite a bit to get used to the language and also to feel as though I was comprehending what Bultmann and the other critics were saying. Its worth the effort and once you begin to understand, it becomes an interesting and profitable read.
December 10, 2012
This book is an amazing introduction to Rudolf Bultmann's works. I recommend, before you read this, to read his essay "What Does It Mean To Speak Of God?" first, as it, basically, contains most of Bultmann's thought explicated throughout this book. I think Bultmann is a must read for anyone studying philosophy or theology, but especially theology. He takes Martin Heidegger's existential analysis of man and applies it to Christian faith and talks, in length, on the problems of language--How can we speak about God if God is the all inclusive point of reality? It seems to assume some standpoint outside of God from which one can stand. He concludes that one can only speak of God if one must--although all talk about God is objectifying (and existential realities don't stand still to be objectified). Although his philosophical theology seems incomplete without Charles Hartshorne's dipolar theism, it is imperative for any student interested in modern theological studies. Highly recommend.
July 9, 2016
Disclaimer: I only read the 40+ pages that Bultmann wrote (and not the five critics) so I'll only be judging that.
I expected to give it 1 star, but it wasn't all bad. Other than the excruciating fact that he disavowed the resurrection, a central piece of the historic faith, there was some good insight! The 40+ pages were a hard read, be sure of that, but I got in touch with some of the most brilliant theologically liberal world.
I'd still recommend, but with caution and wisdom.
I expected to give it 1 star, but it wasn't all bad. Other than the excruciating fact that he disavowed the resurrection, a central piece of the historic faith, there was some good insight! The 40+ pages were a hard read, be sure of that, but I got in touch with some of the most brilliant theologically liberal world.
I'd still recommend, but with caution and wisdom.
July 28, 2015
Terrible Way to Read Scripture
Bultmann reads Scripture by assuming an existential worldview. The results are that he denies the supernatural as an actual thing and, as such, labels all of it as myth that requires demythologizing to understand properly. One of the problems with this way of reading Scripture is that it violates the very worldview that Scripture teaches.
Bultmann reads Scripture by assuming an existential worldview. The results are that he denies the supernatural as an actual thing and, as such, labels all of it as myth that requires demythologizing to understand properly. One of the problems with this way of reading Scripture is that it violates the very worldview that Scripture teaches.
April 27, 2013
When I say read...I mean I read three of the essays and that is all I will do here. Bultmann is enjoyable to read and very clear in his argumentation. However, I can't say that I find his program all that realistic or convincing.
April 19, 2009
Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate by Rudolf Bultmann (1961)
August 27, 2014
some good essays, some so so.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews