(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...In previous posts, in answer to the question of whether I think that Jesus was a great moral teacher, I have said that I think the answer is Yes, but that there is a very serious caveat. Jesus’ ethical teaching is based on a view of the world that most of us today no longer hold. Jesus’ ethical teaching – just as all of his teaching – is deeply rooted in a form of Jewish apocalyptic thought that can be dated and localized to his time and place. Jesus thought that the culmination of the history of God’s people, Israel, was soon to come, that the climax of all human history was at hand, that God was soon to intervene in the course of history to overthrow the powers of evil that were in control of this world to bring in his good kingdom, here on earth. People were to live ethically in order to inherit that kingdom; and in fact, they were to begin to model the ethics of that kingdom in the here and now, so that when the cosmic judge of the earth came from heaven, they would be saved from the wrath of God that would strike the planet before the true people of God were exalted and made rulers of the earth.
So, the short story is that I do not subscribe to this apocalyptic view myself (though I once did, in its modernized form). I do not think there are actual cosmic forces in the world – the Devil, demons, cosmic powers of sin, and death, other principalities and powers that are wreaking havoc here. I don’t think that Jesus was right about when the end was going to come (during his disciples’ lifetime) or how it was to come (with the appearance of the Son of Man from heaven). I think that the entire framework for Jesus’ teaching was a form of Jewish mythology distinctive of Jewish thinkers in Jesus’ day, and that our modern world (again, except for modernized fundamentalist forms of apocalyptic thought) has a different way of looking at history, the powers who make things happen in this world, natural forces (that lead, for example, to disaster and devastation), and so on.
If Jesus’ basic world view (on which his ethics were built) does not translate into our modern world, does that mean that his ethical teaching, built on and rooted in that world view, also cannot be taken over into our modern world? If the ethics was rooted in a system we don’t subscribe to, don’t we need to abandon not only the underlying foundation but also the structure built on it?
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW AND SEE MORE!!!
I was introduced to Bultmann by Dan O. Via when I was at Duke Divinity School in the mid 80’s. We read “Jesus Christ and Mythology, in addition to Bultmann’s classic “Theology of the New Testament.” Via didn’t assign us Bultmann because he thought he represented the lunatic fringe of the academic community. Rather, and I’ll never forget when he said this, it was because “that’s the first time the New Testament ever made sense to me.”
At first blush, I was deeply offended by Bultmann’s methodology, thinking he had gone to far, especially with respect to the resurrection of Jesus and his dismissal of empty tomb narrative in Mark. After I left Duke, and embarked on a career as a Baptist minister, I began to see the wisdom of Bultmann, and later concluded that, not only had he not gone too far, but that he hadn’t gone far enough; namely, the demythologization of God him/her/itself. I can honestly say Bultmann was probably the single most influence in my evolution from Christian to agnostic. And for that, I remain grateful for his scholarship.
I do not believe it is a lost cause to demythologize the teaching of Jesus. In fact, I’d like to restate it as synchronizing his teachings with our modern culture. Since we live worlds apart from Jesus in culture and chronology, we sorely need a synchronization. What’s more, Bart, I believe Christians need to see where Jesus’ teachings stop. For example, abortion doesn’t appear to have been an issue during Jesus’ day at all. What would he have said of this issue in his time or how might we surmise he would address it now?
As you’ve pointed out many times, the Bible is silent on many issues Christians viciously argue about today. They cherry pick verses out of context to support their points of view and violate the very hermeneutic principles the claim to uphold. This goes for lay Christians and even scholars. I saw it at Moody Bible Institute and I see it raging all over the Internet today. It would be refreshing to extract the real Jesus from the mythology we’ve developed around him and see if we could make sense out of today’s issues with his approach — if we can isolate it from our filtered points of view.
Of course, even suggesting that Jesus was wrong about the coming Kingdom of God will turn off many Christians. I’m not particularly worried about that, however, because Jesus wasn’t worried about making the people of his generation angry. I say do it and let the chips fall where they may, because we need someone with an informed and sane point of view who can winnow the wheat from the chaff and help us find the real Jesus. I suspect that if he were to come to the United States today and deliver his teachings, they would not be well received. He certainly wouldn’t advocate an American Century, and I highly suspect he’d condemn the courser aspects of capitalism. Just a thought or two from a fellow MBI grad.
Personally, I think one will read this book or anything for that matter through their own developmental lens depending on which developmental perspective they are holding. So having the ability to move from a traditional to rational, integral or even transpersonal world view would predicate ones hermeneutics. . The more depth and span we can enable for bible readers by demythologizing the better we might become as human beings.
Bart, you ask, “is this kind of demythologizing interpretive (“hermeneutical”) move appropriate? Useful? Plausible?”
I think many of Jesus’s sayings and teachings, whether they were really said and taught by the historical Jesus or not, can be useful and helpful for today….if one properly, to use Bultmann’s word “demythologizes” them. Yeah, I think there are a lot worse things that one can do than apply at least some version of many of the Biblical (not necessarily historical) Jesus’s sayings and teachings in their life.
One has to be discerning and wise, though. “Turning the other cheek” and “blessing those who curse you” may be useful advice when driving on the interstate……but not for a wife who is constantly getting the crap beaten out of her by her husband.
I also have no desire to live as a eunuch. (Matthew 19:12) 🙂
Ah, the eunuch idea was one of the first to be demythologized!!
Seriously? This sounds like it could be genuine to me!
I don’t wish to go OT on this subject, but, it seems to me that this question has been plaguing mankind for ever.
As a human being I feel within my own conscience, since we ALL share a common humanity, we should do what we can to care for one another. One does not need some religious dogma to see this. When I was 19, I joined the Navy and my first duty station was in Sidi Yahia Morocco, for 15 months. Thats right, in the deserts of North East Africa. When I got off the plane I was greeted by “welcome to 600 BC”. Next to the Navy Base was a garbage dump and next to that was an orphanage that the sailors tried to help care for; it was a barn with no doors or windows, a french toilet (hole in the ground with a tank of water). There were a few children there, unsupervised, grossly underfed and wearing rags. This one 8 or maybe 10 year old came to me, put his arms around me, and held on for dear life.He had tuberculosis, one eye was eaten out of the socket, and yet, he smiled because someone was there to help him. I couldn’t help but ask what the hell did this kid do to deserve this. In his culture, Muslim, he was of no use to society so he was left to die. For 40 plus years I have been haunted by this experience. Not a day goes by I don”t see that beautiful face. For me this question has been answered. I must do what I can for my fellow man.
I meant to say North West Africa.
I do indeed know of Rudolf Bultamnn and “demythologizing.” While at Yale Divinity School (1964 on), we often had visitors from Yale College trek up to “Holy Hill” to visit us and try to save our souls. This was the fundamentalist “God Squad” of Yale undergraduates. Modernism and persons like Bultmann, Tillich, Niebuhr and others were the targets of their venomous rhetoric. I remember well also, from the parish church, Bishop James A. Pike (“radical” reformer of the 1960’s) (who I knew from my undergraduate days while living in the SF Bay Area). He even visited Yale College for a public seminar. He liked to use the phrase, “getting rid of excess baggage” rather than demythologizing.
It seems that these trends come and go. There’s always a new battle brewing.
I am enjoying your current articles and, as an “objective scholar” you are telling it like it is.
I realize that what you are doing is presenting a unbiased study of what the New Testament says without viewing it through the glasses of theology or church dogma…if that is possible.
I fear, however, that you may be presenting it through your glasses of agnosticism and humanism.
I am seeking the center of what there is left for us to believe in the 21st century from the rapidly fading Christian Tradition.
I am coming away from my current amateur studies in New Testament scholarship (from many writers) with the sense that there is nothing left to believe…at least not based on anything found in ancient documents with ancient world views.
There has to be something left in the New Testament that is true and eternal, worthy of our faith, devotion, and sacrifice. That is for me to find I guess.
What I would like you to do…sometime, if you choose…is to tell us what you believe (not as a scholar, but as a person), even if it is just about your agnosticism and humanism…and why you believe it.
That is…what is most important to you in this world and this life. What is it that gives your life meaning? What are you committed to you for the rest of your life.
For me (I’ll get personal), at 71, with not too many years left, I want to do as much as I can to tell and show people the awesome unconditional love of God, and do whatever I can to make even just a tiny speck of this broken world better. I try to do this personally (face to face), on the internet without being preachy, through social communications, contributions to projects I think are worthy, such as yours. For example, I work at a distance with what is called Flutemakerministries (www….org) who are working with a small group of “dump-picking” orphans in Cascabel Nicaragua. Check their website…amazing.
I do these things because Jesus said it is good to do these things (even though I know the apocalyptic reason why he said it). He was a product of his times as we are.
Yes…I would like to know what your prime objective is in this life and I would encourage other members of this blog to do the same since we all paid a contribution to be members).
Bottom line: What will make our existence, and your existence, on the planet significant?
Thanks for the post. Yes, questions of ultimate meaning are very important to me as well — but too long for a reply here! I deal with them at greater length in my book God’s Problem.
I’m currently reading “God’s Problem.” Very good.
PS…Ooops…to answer your question, Yes. I think it is essential to apply what we can from these ancient documents to make this world a better place for us all to live. I would like to know more of the content of this demythologizing.
This is an interesting and complex question. Some of what Jesus says in terms of what humans should or should not do in terms of ethics seems to be able to transcend his apocalyptic worldview (whether it should do this is another question!). But the fact that it is able to is supported by the way different cultures in different times and places throughout the centuries have sought to follow what Jesus prescribed ethically—diversely within their own unique contexts. Some of the things Jesus said ethically are embraced by non Christians and modern Christians (most, apart from some fundamentalist Christians) who do not hold to an apocalyptic worldview. One argument that can be made against this is they aren’t really embracing what Jesus said because they really don’t understand what he said or if they do not follow everything Jesus said. But I don’t know about this. It might be right, but Jesus may have said to do X (care for those in need; don’t oppress others) because of Y (God says so) – but can one do X without believing in Y. Yes, people do it all the time! I follow a lot of Buddhist morals, but I don’t do so for the same reasons a Buddhist does (I’m not a Buddhist). In terms of Jesus, a modern non-apocalyptic person may hold to X but not because of Y. It seems to me that while much of what Jesus says results from a very specific form of Jewish apocalyptic thought in the first century, what he says ethically is very general and trans-cultural and is still applied in many different ways today, even if we do not hold to WHY he prescribed what he did. There are a lot of problems with what I said here but for the sake of space I will stop.
It’s actually, “Blessed (happy, in Hebrew Baruch) are the poor in SPIRIT,” which I think should be translated “humble,” rather than poor or destitute. Makes perfect sense, going along with the verses in Proverbs (3:34) and James (4:6). It DOESN’T go along with any of Yeshua/Jesus’ other teachings in the NT, nor is being rewarded just for being poor or destitute taught in the Torah. What, would their be a special place in heaven for those in a certain tax bracket? We WILL be awarded for WHAT we do with our money, storing it up where rust, moth, etc., won’t decay it. Where it will go for things that will last.
Yes, that’s Matthew’s version. The saying is actually from Q, and many scholars think that Luke’s version is closer to the way Jesus said it (without the words “in spirit”).
Dr. Ehrman,
Frankly the reason I can be a believing Christian with integrity, why I credit you with giving me back the gospels, etc. is because I do what you’re asking about. I demythologize Jesus. I try to read the Gospels with 1st century Jewish eyes and understand them in their “literal” sense. (Your NT textbook is quite useful for this!). The lessons I glean from them are almost always universal and can be transplanted relatively easily because the teachings come down to values that run against the world’s status quo. Take the poor.
In our society the poor are not exactly valued. Sin in the Roman/Jewish society of the first century was a rough equivalent of “lazy and undeserving” in ours. We essentially blame them for their condition. Jesus then and now I argue, flips that whole script as you pointed out. And I act in accordance with his teaching: value the poor, be generous, work for economic justice (the sound love makes in public).
But I go one step further, as Bishop John Shelby Spong has argued in many of his books, I try to demythologize Jesus (I long ago gave up on the historical Jesus). I’m persuaded that Jesus was a deep spirit-person (likely a mystic) who inspired those around him to see God in him. And for me he does this as well.
And the reason I believe this is appropriate is because I’m doing nothing new. Religions have always evolved. God-concepts and all. I can never believe Jesus is on God’s right hand on the opposite side of the dome we call the sky. There is no dome only the relative vacuum of space. And so it goes. It’s something we have to do IMHO. The old faith is dead long love the faith!
Best,
Robert
P.S. I find Bishop John Shelby Spong’s work very illuminating in this regard. You may know others who walk in a Tillichian path.
This is a major question, perhaps the most important one, as humanism is concerned, but when you write: “we should work for those who are impoverished since they are the ones who deserve our care and attention”, I read a paralogism because you still have to explain why the poor *deserve* attention. I like the following aphorism of Chamfort: “Jouis et fais jouir, sans faire de mal ni à toi, ni à personne, voilà je crois, toute la morale.” The (extremely popular) French philosopher Michel Onfray has been building a whole philosophy based on a modern hedonism. (60 books translated in tens of languages, but only *The Atheist Manifesto* is available in English, and it is the least interesting of his books, being polemical in nature.) Of a poor family, he is very engaged in social and political issues concerning the people. Perhaps his approach of starting from pre-Christian philosophers (in particular of the Roman era) and also moder materialist thinkers is a better start.
I think demythologizing the teachings of Jesus is still valid. I also think some of his teachings were certainly colored by his apocalyptic cosmology but not derived merely from apocalypticism, eg, that which he derived fron the school of Hillel. An apocalyptic worldview can result in very different approaches to morality, some of which are not at all appealing, but there were other sources of Jewish morality at the time that influenced Jesus’ teachings. Apocalypticism adds a sense of urgency and ultimate sanction, but it does not account wholly for the kind of divine kingdom that is is expected or desired.
Given that the author of the Fourth Gospel did not seem to hold to an apocalyptic worldview nor did he present Jesus as such, did he:
1) misunderstood the historical Jesus
or
2) deliberately misrepresented Jesus
or
3) want to extend Jesus’ theology given the new situation the author finds himself in?
or
4) had no reliable information on the historical Jesus?
or none of these?
I’m not sure it has to be one or the other of these things, and I think I would put it differently. Whoever wrote the Gospel of John “knew” about Jesus only from the traditions about Jesus that were available to him (he did not have direct access). And these traditions portrayed Jesus in a certain set of ways, since they had developed over time as stories about jesus were told and retold year after year, decade after decade, and were obviously changed in detail and substance with each retelling. This author has a distinctive non-apocalyptic understanding of Jesus which was not historically accurate, but it is not necessarily because he himself misunderstood or misrepresented Jesus. My sense is that he and all the others did not see himself as giving a history lesson of what happened 60 years previous, but was preaching a “Gospel” (= good news) about the significance of Jesus, seen theologically.
“And so the question that I’m wrestling with – and will wrestle with over a series of posts: is this kind of demythologizing interpretive (“hermeneutical”) move appropriate? Useful?”
This reminds me of your advice that we shouldn’t try to merge the gospels narratives together but allow each of them to tell their story and theological view. Along the same lines, I think we should take Jesus’ morality for what it was at the time, the same way we would take Socrates’ philosophy or Ptolemy’s astronomy for what they were at the time. But then, I’m not a believer and feel no particular need to reconcile modern rules for maximizing wellbeing with first century apocalyptics, although I understand the impulse believers might have to do so.
I think demythologising ancient ethics that was wrapped in mythological worldviews can yield illuminating ethical insights applicable in modern day. This is not hermeneutics as such, but finding inspiration from ancient wisdom in the same way we can find inspiration from fiction. I don’t think ancient theology – statements about nature and existence of God – yields much insights about nature of reality except about how ancient religious minds functioned, if God is a myth.
I guess I would ask about the entering assumption of the demythologizing exercise. Do we assume that all of Jesus’ teaching has a grounding in some universal standard of secular and/or divine truth, or do measure it against the prevailing contemporary standards of ethics and morality (which would seem a foundation on sand)?
Yes, that’s a good question. I personally don’t think there are universals in this kind of discourse.
I agree, I don’t think there are universals either. Even in killing, telling lies, and stealing — sometimes the higher ground is to do so.
Like you, when I was nineteen years old, I was introduced to some pretty amazing thinkers. One of them happened to be Bertrand Russell who wrote “Why I’m Not a Christian!” Among the several points he made (as I now recollect) was the following: “to be a believer in in Jesus Christ,” he said, “one would have to think he was the wisest or at least the smartest man who ever lived.” Russell then goes on to critique many of the things Jesus said and did, things that are obviously absurd or nonsensical (or even unwise) when they are thought through to their logical or ethical conclusions.
Another person I met (not the man but his books and music) was Albert Schweitzer. Most people know his Quest for the Historical Jesus, but few remember A Psychiatric Study of Jesus wherein he sums up the object of his study as being what we would call a schizophrenic, someone who is deeply split and unsure about himself, psychologically speaking. We’d probably call it “bipolar” today.
Then there was Joseph Campbell and his magnificent work wherein he analyzes and ranks mythological heroes. In that regard, Jesus doesn’t come out number one or even very near to the top.
Now for my take on the object of this discussion. I agree that the person we call “Jesus Christ” was A PRODUCT OF HIS TIME AND PLACE IN HISTORY. That person has been mostly replaced over the centuries (for a lot of complicated but understandable reasons) by someone else. What exists today is/are piecemeal contrivances that satisfy our own longings for someone bigger and better than ourselves to lean on, especially in desperate times or circumstances. It is that desire, I think, that seems to propels most everyone living in the western world, even some scholars, to square, and otherwise reshape, a round hole.
D.C. Smith
If you bring the teachings of Jesus into the modern context, Jesus becomes a “bleeding heart liberal” and someone that modern conservative Christians despise. You could interpret his teachings to support social causes that most of them are totally against (universal health care, social programs for the poor, gun control, amnesty programs for illegal immigrants, taxing the wealthy, tolerance, etc..) We can all think of parables and teachings of Jesus that could support all of the items that I’ve mentioned. I think this is why you don’t hear much (at least I never did) of his teachings from the fundamentalist preachers. They have to work too hard at explaining these teachings away so as to make them more acceptable to their modern conservative congregations. They are definately not a good fit in the Southern Baptist church that I grew up in. Maybe they have already demythologized them in their own way without even knowing it.
I think you are right about things Jesus would say today, except I discount two items you mention that I respectfully suggest you read into him from your own worldview. I see no evidence in my understanding of Jesus that he would favor gun control (or oppose it). I also think he would be neutral on taxing the wealthy. That seems to fall under the heading “render under to Caesar.” Now he would seem certainly to urge the wealthy to contribute substantially to caring for the poor, but I don’t read in any call for the agency of Caesar in that process.
Seems to me that Thomas Jefferson was attempting to do something like that when he did the cut and paste to create his own version of the Bible. He did take out all of the myth and fabulous claims, but he did not go the next step in trying to update the text that was left. I just don’t see much value in trying to do that because I don’t think we need the teachings of Jesus to figure out the morally right thing to do most of the time. When there is a matter of great debate about what is the “right” thing in modern times, I don’t think the simplistic guidelines offered by Jesus are adequate in today’s world. How would his teachings be effective in a situation like deciding to drop an atom bomb on Japan to end a war quickly or not? What is the right thing to do? What about stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, right to die issues? To me the moral / ethical questions we face go well beyond the scope of what the concerns were then. I think because of the Bible people do still try to use the ethical guidelines from the time of Jesus to make decisions in 2013, and it is preventing scientific progress Even though some people use the Bible selectively to justify their own personal bias- such as in homophobia. They ignore the verses surrounding the one that they use to justify hate and feel that they are following God’s Word in doing so. I will be interested in reading your thoughts on why this would be useful. I am not seeing it.
It will be interesting to see where you go with this topic. I read Bultman’s ‘”Jesus Christ and Mythology” one summer between college terms, along with some Tillich, but did not really understand either author very well. I am curious about what in Bultman’s writings scholars no longer accept. I certainly understand being accused of being of the Devil or being accused of just plain not being able to see the truth. That part seems quite familiar.
On a somewhat related note, I’m sure I once read somewhere about similarities in thought between Jesus’ ethical teachings and the supposedly Pharasaic tract Pirqei Avoth in the Mishnah. Do you think there’s any scope in that one?
You can see for yourself! Here’s one online tool: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/sjf/index.htm
Dear Dr.Ehrman,
I find your lectures fascinating and really appreciate your honest approach. Jesus has always stricken me as a very conflicting moral figure, it’s hard for me to argue with many of my family, who I would regard as somewhat fundamentalist. So my first question to you are your thoughts on whether or not Jesus, or the writers of the NT encourage or demand fanaticism in some way? I find that even some of the ethical statements attributed to Jesus are creepily total, such as in Matthew when he preaches about thought and action being equivalent, that looking at a woman lustfully is equivalent to adultery, and anger towards your brother may condemn you to hell. Also, I wanted to ask you about the relationship between power and Jesus’s extreme passivity, and whether or not his preachments directly benefit predatory forces. Such as, again in Matthew, when he says not to resist evil, to not just abide by what they demand but to give even more. I think it’s pretty obvious this has been used as politically advantageous for Christian empires, but I’m curious about the context and your ethical opinions regarding that.
I’d say that in some senses “fanaticism” is in the eye of the beholder. Like most fundamentalists, most fanaticists don’t think of themselves that way. Jesus certainly urged extreme commitment in light of the imminent coming of God’s koingdom. And I think that explains some of the passivity in his teachings. He didn’t believe human violence would solve anything, but that God himself would soon intervene to destroy all the powers of evil. Since “soon” never happened, the ethics became complicated, and they certainly were not meant for governmental policy (turn the other cheek?! You’ll survive that approximately ONCE) or for society for the long haul (since there wasn’t going to be a long haul).