Demythologization refers to the critical analysis of biblical narratives to discern the actual historical events behind the mythological and supernatural elements. It involves separating the historical facts in the Bible from the mythological framework they are presented in. The goal is to uncover the kerygma or central message behind the mythological stories and supernatural claims.
Demythologization was popularized by the German theologian Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976). Bultmann argued that the worldview of the New Testament was mythical in nature, reflecting ancient perspectives on cosmology, anthropology and soteriology. For instance, the New Testament speaks of demonic powers, miracles, and a three-tiered universe of heaven, earth and hell. Bultmann contended that modern people no longer believe in this mythical supernatural worldview. Therefore, to communicate the deeper existential truths in the New Testament, we must strip away the outmoded mythological framework. This process of peeling away the mythological layers to reveal the core kerygma is what Bultmann meant by demythologization.
Bultmann focused his demythologization project on the Gospels and Pauline epistles. For instance, he interpreted the Virgin Birth of Jesus, his miracles and the Resurrection as myths which modern people could no longer accept literally. Bultmann would excavate the texts to find the true historical event that likely gave rise to these mythological stories. For Bultmann, the kerygma or central message was an existential call to authentic life through faith in God. Demythologization was about removing the supernatural myths to highlight this existential kerygma.
Bultmann’s ideas provoked much debate and criticism. Many theologians accused him of removing the supernatural core of Christianity. They argued that myth conveys divine truths that should be retained. Demythologization threatened to reduce faith to an abstract philosophical idea. Several theologians offered mediating positions that did not fully demythologize or fully retain the myths as is. They focused on interpreting the myths based on genre, ancient worldview and authorial intent.
While not entirely rejecting demythologization, most theologians today favor a more nuanced hermeneutic. They do not neatly divide the Bible into historical facts versus supernatural myths. The biblical narratives integrate historical events and supernatural elements in complex ways that reflect the worldview of the original authors and audiences. Therefore, the task is to interpret the text carefully based on its historical-cultural context, literary genre and theological purpose. This more holistic interpretive approach can discern the deeper meaning without totally demythologizing or uncritically retaining the ancient mythical mindset.
Several key principles can guide our interpretation of the challenging supernatural narratives in the Bible:
- Recognize the ancient Near Eastern cosmological worldview that shapes the biblical language and imagery while also noting the countercultural ways the biblical authors critique mythical thinking.
- Explore the metaphorical and symbolic meanings of mythical language without hastily dismissing it as primitive pre-scientific errors.
- Focus on the essential revelatory purpose behind the myths instead of getting distracted by questions of historicity and scientific accuracy.
- Recall that God chose to inscripturate divine truth within an ancient mythical framework. As we translate this into our modern mindset, we need to preserve the revelatory core without perpetuating the obsolete mythical wrapping.
- Emphasize the transcendent truths embodied in the myths rather than viewing them as dispensable husks covering the kernel of existential kerygma (as Bultmann argued).
Examples of key biblical myths requiring careful interpretation:
1. Creation
The creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 feature a dome-like firmament separating primeval waters above from waters below (Genesis 1:6-8), God effortlessly speaking things into being, Adam being formed from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:7, 21-22). Clearly, this reflects an ancient Near Eastern cosmology very different from our modern scientific understandings of astrophysics, biology and human anthropology. A demythologizing approach would excavate some bare historical core behind these myths such as God being the ultimate source of the universe and humanity being uniquely God’s creation. But we lose rich revelation by too hastily dismissing the myths as dispensable husks. The numinous imagery conveys profound truth about God’s supreme power, the meaningfulness of materiality, and the dignity of human origins. We should interpret the myths based on their revelatory purpose within their historical-cultural context rather than filter out the supernatural elements.
2. Miracles of Jesus
The Gospels present Jesus performing incredible miracles like turning water into wine (John 2:1-11), walking on water (Mark 6:45-52), multiplying food (Mark 6:30-44) and raising the dead (John 11:1-44). A demythologizing approach would explain these as legends embellishing the historical Jesus. But again, this risks missing out on rich revelation. The miracles metaphorically convey Jesus’ identity as the incarnation of divine creative power. He fulfills the Old Testament motif of God’s miraculous provision of food in the wilderness. The miracles manifest Jesus’ authority over nature, disease, death and demonic powers. They preview the coming of God’s kingdom, reversing the impacts of sin and death. As signs, their meaning goes beyond the bare historicity of the events. The supernatural mythical elements serve specific revelatory purposes.
3. Crucifixion and Resurrection
The Gospels and epistles present Jesus’ bloody crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice for sin (Mark 10:45, Romans 3:25). This reflects the Old Testament sacrificial system. The Resurrection is framed mythically as Jesus triumphing over death and the demonic powers (1 Cor 15:54-55, Col 2:15). Bultmann demythologized these to their core kerygmatic message: through faith in the crucified and risen Christ, we can experience new life and freedom from sin and death. But reducing the cross and resurrection to abstract symbols of authentic existence strips away layers of rich biblical revelation. Jesus’ death was a real supernaturally-ordained event in which divine love absorbs human sin. The Resurrection was a literal victory over death’s power, verifying Jesus’ divine identity and the future of new creation. The mythical language conveys essential revelation that should not be dehistoricized. Careful interpretation must retain the revelatory myths.
In conclusion, demythologization reminds us to interpret the Bible in light of its ancient worldview and avoid perpetuating obsolete myths. But comprehensive demythologization that filters out the supernatural and miraculous goes too far. It diminishes rich biblical revelation. The myths embed divine truths we must carefully unpack, not hastily remove. Sound interpretation requires retaining the myths while also learning to translate their meanings into our modern context. The myths are not dispensable shells obscuring the kerygmatic kernel. Rather, they organically convey and incarnate divine revelation. Faithful interpretation requires dealing with the myths on their own terms, discerning their revelatory purpose.