• LIFE-OF-JESUS RESEARCH AND THE ECLIPSE OF MYTHOLOGY

Theological Studies
54 (1993)
LIFE-OF-JESUS RESEARCH AND THE ECLIPSE
OF MYTHOLOGY
CRAIG A. EVANS
Trinity Western University, British Columbia
FOlife of and debatedtheologiansscholarly literature that has been
the
R
gated
TWO CENTURIES and biblical scholars have investi-
the various problems that attend research on
Jesus. Perusal of the
produced over this period of time reveals several interesting trends
and, with respect to thle topic of mythology, seems to suggest that we
have moved in the last ten or twenty years into a new era in historical-
Jesus research.1 It would appear that there has been a major shift—
from an agenda shaped in large measure by concerns with mythology
to a new agenda that makes little or no reference to mythology.
The purpose of this article is to assess that shift, including its ante-
cedent and subsequent developments. A clearer understanding of the
path that has been trod and the new path that lies ahead should assist
us in perceiving better the problems that attend research concerned
with the historical Jesus. This essay is not a history of the scholarly
quest, for many of its major contributors and issues will not be touched
upon;2 rather it is an investigation into the role that myth has played
in the scholarly quest.
FACTORS LEADING UP TO THE MYTHOLOGICAL DEBATE
With the posthumous (and anonymous) publication of several frag-
ments of Hermann Reimarus's lengthy manuscript Apologie oder
Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes? the historicity of
1
For bibliography, see my Life of Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography, New
Testament Tools and Studies 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1989) 85-100.
2
For recent assessments of life-of-Jesus research, see H. K. McArthur, The Quest
through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966);
G. Aulén, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976);
D. L. Pals, The Victorian "Lives*' of Jesus, Trinity University Monograph Series in Re-
ligion (San Antonio: Trinity Univ., 1982); and W. S. Kissinger, The Lives of Jesus: A
History and Bibliography (New York: Garland, 1985).
3
Several parts of this manuscript, which is essentially a defense of Deism, were
published by G. E. Lessing between 1774 and 1778. Fragments 6 ("Über die Auferste-
hungsgeschichte") and 7 ("Vom Zwecke Jesu and seiner Jünger") have been tradition-
ally cited as the work that inaugurated the scholarly quest for the historical Jesus.
Fragment 7 was originally published as Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger: Noch
ein Fragment des Wolfenbütteischen Ungenannten, ed. G. E. Lessing (Braunschweig: [no
3
4 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
the gospel portrait of Jesus came to be seriously questioned. Reimarus
believed that Jesus had not anticipated his death but had hoped to
become Israel's earthly Messiah. This is seen in Jesus' entry into Je-
rusalem, mounted on a donkey (a deliberate attempt to fulfill Zech
9:9), in the crowd's acclamation of Jesus as king, and in the placard
placed over Jesus' cross, which read "King of the Jews" (cf. Matt 27:37).
That death on the cross was neither Jesus' intention nor expectation is
seen in his cry of dereliction, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken
me?" (cf. Matt 27:46). After the crucifixion and burial, the disciples
stole the body of Jesus (cf. Matt 28:11-15). They then reformulated
Jesus' teachings and proclaimed his resurrection and glorious return.
The life of Jesus was freely retold, with the miracle stories no more
than mere fictions intended to advance the apostolic proclamation.
Reimarus's skeptical stance did not represent anything new. The
whole question of miracles had in recent years been subjected to crit-
ical philosophical scrutiny. Reimarus wrote his manuscript only a few
years after the appearance of David Hume's treatise on epistemology,
a treatise in which miracles had been subjected to trenchant criticism.4
And it was only a few years after the appearance of Reimarus's frag-
ments that Thomas Paine's well-known critical discussion of religion
and miracles appeared.5 Such skepticism was not confined to philoso-
phers, for even among biblical scholars serious doubts were beginning
to be expressed as to the historicity of the miracle stories of the Bible.6
Thus Reimarus's attitude toward the miraculous is completely in step
publisher identified], 1778); English trans.: Fragments from Reimarus consisting ofBrief
Critical Remarks on the Object of Jesus and His Disciples, ed. C. Voysey (London:
Williams and Norgate, 1879). For a recent edition, see C. H. Talbert, ed., Reimarus:
Fragments (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970).
4
D. Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) esp. sect. 10, "Of
Miracles." See also the 17th-century writings of B. Spinoza, e.g. Tractatus Theologico-
Politicus (1670) chap. 6, "Of Miracles"; and Epistle 73 (to Oldenburg). Spinoza regarded
miracles as the product of ignorance and superstition, arguing that God does not act
contrary to the laws of nature.
6
T. Paine, Age of Reason (Part I, 1794). It should be noted that numerous works of
English Deists were translated into the German language and had profound influence
upon the thinking of German theologians and philosophers; see G. V. Lechler, Ge-
schichte des englischen Deismus (Hildesheim: Olms, 1965 [orig. 1841]) 451; A. Tholuck,
"Ober Apologetik und ihre Literatur," in his Vermischte Schriften grössentheils apolo-
getischen Inhalts, 2 vols. (Hamburg: Perthes, 1859) 1.362.
6
J. J. Hess, Geschichte der drei letzen Lebensjahre Jesu, 3 vols. (Leipzig and Zurich:
Weidmann, 1768-72); J. S. Semler, Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canon,
Texte zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte 5 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1967 [orig. 1771]); J. G.
Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1780-83).
 LIFE-OF^ESUS RESEARCH AND MYTHOLOGY 5
with the Zeitgeist of 18th-century Europe.7 The significance of Reima-
rus's work lies not in its skepticism, but in the fact that it was the first
critical assessment of the life and teaching of Jesus which concluded
that the true Jesus of history was very different from the Jesus por-
trayed in the Gospels, the Jesus in whom Christians have historically
placed their faith. His critical assessment brought an important part of
the contemporary philosophical discussion to bear directly upon gospel
research. In the place of dogmatic orthodoxy (i.e. the historical Jesus =
the Jesus of the Gospels, who is none other than the Christ of orthodox
Christianity) there arose dogmatic skepticism (i.e. miracles cannot oc-
cur; all documents that describe miracles are therefore mythological).
After the appearance of Reimarus's work many critics assumed that
the Gospels contained an admixture of the historical and the unhis-
torical (i.e. the miraculous).8 In fact, no serious work could avoid dis-
cussing the problem. Various studies attempted to salvage the essen-
tial historicity of the Gospels by rationalizing the miraculous ele-
ments. Two early and influential works by Johann Herder argued that
some of the miracles, especially those recorded in the Fourth Gospel,
were symbolic only and so should not be taken literally.9 Similarly,
Heinrich Paulus attempted to rationalize the miracle stories and to
present an historical Jesus devoid of supernatural (or "mythological")
elements.10 He believed that the disciples were mistaken in assigning
miraculous explanations to many of the events in Jesus' life and min-
istry. These events, when rightly understood, prove to be no more than
natural events.
The works of Herder and Paulus were among many that grappled
with this perceived problem of myth in the Gospels.11 In the early
7
For a competent assessment of the philosophical background against which Reima-
rus should be interpreted, see W. L. Craig, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection
of Jesus during the Deist Controversy, Texts and Studies in Religion 23 (Lewiston and
Queenston: Mellen, 1965).
8
Although sharply critical of Reimarus's position, J. S. Semler (Beantwortung der
Fragmente eines Ungenannten insbesondere vom Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger [Halle:
Erziehungsinstitut, 1779]) viewed the gospel miracles as unhistorical.
9
J. G. Herder, Vom Erlöser der Menschen nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (Riga:
Hartknoch, 1796); Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland nach dem Johannes Evangelium
(Riga: Hartknock, 1797).
10
H. E. G. Paulus, Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar über das neue
Testament, 3 vols. (Lübeck: Bonn, 1800-02); Das Leben Jesu, als Grundlage einer reinen
Geschichte des Urchristentums, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: Winter, 1828).
11
K. Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu, 4 vols. (Berlin: [n. p.], 1787-
93); G. L. Bauer, Entwurf einer Hermeneutik des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Leipzig:
Weygan, 1799); Hebräische Mythologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, mit Parallelen
6 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
decades of the 19th century the debate centered on the questions of
how'much myth was present in the Gospels and how this myth should
be understood.12 Many believed that the miraculous elements (e.g.
Jesus' virginal conception, divine identity and attributes [such as om-
niscience], miracles, exorcisms, transfiguration, resurrection, and as-
cension) represented nothing more than mythological embellishments
of certain aspects of Jesus' life and ministry. Ingenious explanations
were offered to explain the gospel miracles in rational, nonsupernat-
ural, terms.13 Some even suggested chicanery.14 Conservative schol-
ars, of course, attempted to defend the historicity of much of the mi-
raculous element. Liberal scholars were content to defend less. 15
THE MYTHOLOGICAL DEBATE
Presence and Extent of Myth in the Gospels
The two-volume work of David Strauss gave new shape and focus to
the controversy.16 Strauss sided with the hermeneutical position of
conservative scholars by agreeing that the main literary and theolog-
ical point of the gospel accounts is the supernatural identity of Jesus.
The point of the Gospels is not, as many liberals maintained, a natural
Jesus around which supernatural embellishments eventually formed.
aus der Mythologie anderer Völker, vornehmlieh der Griechen und Römer, 2 vols.
(Leipzig: Weygan, 1802); K. Venturini, Natürliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von
Nazareth, 3 vols. (Bethlehem: [η. p.], 1800-02); J. P. Gabler, "Ober den Unterschied
zwischen Auslegung und Erklärung erläutert durch die verschiedene Behandlungsart
der Versuchungs-geschichte Jesu," in Gabler, Kleinere theologische Schriften, 2 vols.
(Ulm: Stettinische Buchhandlung, 1831) 1.201-7.
12
A classic in this regard is F. Schleiermacher's Das Leben Jesu, ed. by Κ. A. Rütenik
(Berlin: Reimer, 1864). This edited work is based on Schleiermacher's 1832 lectures at
Berlin University. For a critical response, see D. F. Strauss, Der Christus des Glaubens
und der Jesus der Geschichte (Berlin: Duncker, 1865).
13
Popular explanations typically ran along the following lines: Impressed by the
generosity of the young lad the 5000 produced supplies of food that had been withheld
out of selfishness; when walking on the water Jesus was actually walking across a
sandbar; the "dead" that Jesus raised were only comatose; others who were sick suffered
from psychosomatic conditions which were relieved when assured by Jesus that they
were forgiven.
14
Bahrdt (see n. 11 above) believed that Jesus faked some of his miracles, including
his (apparent) death and resurrection.
15
It should be noted that in the early years of the quest, apostolic authorship of the
Gospels of Matthew and John was assumed by liberals as well as by conservatives.
16
D. F. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet, 2 vols. (Tübingen: C. F. Oslander,
1835-36; repr. 1984); English trans.: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (London:
SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972).
 UFE-OF-JESUS RESEARCH AND MYTHOLOGY 7
Strauss sharply criticized the rationalizing interpretations of Herder,
Paulus, and others,17 arguing that the whole point of the Gospels is
nothing less than the presentation of Jesus as the miracle-working Son
of God. But Strauss was no conservative. He believed that, far from
historical, this presentation of Jesus was thoroughly mythological.18
Thus, Strauss believed that the correct approach to the Gospels was to
view them as myth, not history. Or, to put it another way, the Gospels
present religious, not historical, truths.
Whereas most scholars sought ways to refute Strauss's radical skep-
ticism, 19 some contended for even more radical conclusions. Best
known in this regard are the works of Bruno Bauer. In three massive
studies Bauer attempted to show that there never was a historical
Jesus, 20 but that Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than a fictional
character invented by the Marcan evangelist.21 For two generations or
so this radical view was treated seriously in most major German uni-
versities, though it never came close to being the dominant view
among scholars.22 Convinced, nevertheless, that Bauer's radical skep-
ticism was destined to carry the day, Artur Drews in 1909 gave new
expression to what had come to be called the "Christ myth."23 He
argued that the gospel story of Jesus is completely mythical, that Jesus
never lived, and that Paul, the tentmaker of Tarsus, was one of the
17
Strauss also criticized Reimarus's conspiracy theory; see D. F. Strauss, Hermann
Samuel Reimarus und seine Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes (Leipzig:
Brockhaus, 1862). Parts of this work appear in English translation in Talbert, Reimarus
44-57.
18
See also D. F. Strauss, Die christliche Glaubenslehre in ihrer geschichtlichen En-
twicklung und im Kampfe mit der modernen Wissenschaft (Tübingen: Oslander, 1840),
where the influence of Spinoza and Hume is clearly seen.
19
Strauss's provocative study touched off an academic furor that resulted in the pub-
lication of hundreds of books and articles. An early and significant reply to Strauss was
offered by J. E. Kuhn, Das Leben Jesu, wissenschaftlich bearbeitet (Mainz: Kupferberg,
1838). An invaluable guide that supplements the older surveys of this debate (which
usually restrict themselves to books) is E. G. Lawler, David Friedrich Strauss and His
Critics: The Life of Jesus Debate in Early Nineteenth-Century German Journals (New
York: Lang, 1986).
20
B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte und der Synoptiker, 2 vols. (Leipzig:
Wigand, 1841-42; 2d ed., 1846); Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs,
4 vols. (Berlin: Hempel, 1850-51).
21
B. Bauer, Christ und die Cäsaren: der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem römi-
schen Griechentum (Berlin: Grosser, 1877; 2d ed., 1879).
22
The belief that Jesus never existed was picked up by Marx and Engels and came to
be the "official" view of Marxism.
23
A. Drews, Die Christusmythe (Jena: Diedrichs, 1909; 3d ed., 1924); English trans.:
The Christ Myth (London: Unwin, 1910).
8 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
mqjor developers of the myth. But Drews's work failed to convince
many,24 coming to be looked upon as the last gasp in a rather strange
chapter in the century-long quest of the historical Jesus.
The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never
doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the
Church. The quest for the historical Jesus therefore continued. After
Heinrich Holtzmann's important and influential work,25 most believed
that Mark's Gospel was earliest and that it and the sayings source
common to Matthew and Luke (eventually called "Q") yielded the raw
materials necessary for the recovery of the Jesus of history. The
widely-held belief that Mark and Q were relatively free from theolog-
ical and mythological tendencies gave scholars the confidence they
needed to go about their work. They were convinced that history could
be isolated from myth; an historical Jesus could therefore be found.
The Interpretation of Myth: Demythologization
The appearance of several books at the turn of the century did much
to shake scholarly confidence both in the possibility of the recovery of
the historical Jesus and in the theological relevance and value of the
results themselves. First, the foundation on which 19th-century schol-
arship had been built was the belief that Mark's Gospel offered simple
history that was relatively free from mythological and theological ten-
dencies. William Wrede's analysis of the so-called "messianic secret,"
however, made it apparent that Mark could not be considered simple,
nontheological history.26 In his masterful analysis of life-of-Jesus re-
24
Drews's position was immediately attacked by conservatives and liberals alike; see
J. Weiss, Jesus von Nazareth: Mythus oder Geschichte? Eine Auseinandersetzung mit
Kalthoff, Drews, Jensen (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1910); K. Dunkmann, "Die Christ-
usmythe," Der Geisteskampf der Gegenwart (March 1910) 85-94; English trans.: 'The
Christ Myth," Bibliotheca Sacra 68 (1911) 34-47; E. Troeltsch, Die Bedeutung der Ge-
schichtlichkeit Jesu fur den Glauben (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1911); S. J. Case, The
Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention that Jesus Never lived (Chicago: Univ.
of Chicago, 1912; 2d ed. 1928); Κ. Staab, "Wege zur 'Christusmythe' von A. Drews,"
Biblica 5 (1924) 26-38; M. Goguel, Jésus de Nazareth. Mythe ou Histoire? (Paris: Payot,
1925); English trans.: Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (New York: Appleton, 1926);
and H. Windisch, "Das Problem der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu: die Christusmythe,"
Theologische Rundschau NS 2 (1930) 207-52.
25
H. J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher
Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863). In a chapter entitled "Lebensbild Jesu nach der
Quelle A [i.e. Mark]," Holtzmann responds to Strauss and others and offers his own
sketch of the life of Jesus based on the Marcan Gospel (468-96).
26
W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Ver-
ständnis des Markusevangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901); Eng.
trans.: The Messianic Secret (Cambridge and London: James Clarke, 1971).
 LIFE-OF-JESUS RESEARCH AND MYTHOLOGY 9
search, Albert Schweitzer challenged Wrede, arguing that his conclu-
sion does not make good sense of history or of the theological concerns
of the evangelist Mark.27 Such an understanding of Mark, moreover,
could take us back to the radical skepticism of Strauss. 28 But
Schweitzer's portrait of a deluded prophet who thought that by taking
upon himself Israel's eschatological sufferings he could bring on the
messianic age appalled theologians and did not find a significant fol-
lowing.29 In any case, the advent of form criticism supported Wrede's
skepticism, if not always his conclusions, and had the effect of erecting
a formidable barrier between the modern scholar and the object of his
research, the Jesus of history. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the pioneers of
form criticism, gave clear expression to the historical skepticism of this
period when he concluded: "In my opinion we can sum up what can be
known of the life and personality of Jesus as simply nothing."30 Al-
27
A. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung
(Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1906); Eng. trans.: The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A
Critical Study ofIts Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (London: Black, 1910; with Intro-
duction by J. M. Robinson; New York: Macmillan, 1968), rev. ed.: Die Geschichte der
Leben-Jesu-Forschung, 1913; 6th ed., 1951; idem, Das Messianitäts- und Leidensge-
heimnis: Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu (Tübingen and Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck], 1901);
Eng. trans.: The Mystery of the Kingdom of God; the Secret of Jesus' Messiahship and
Passion (London: A & C Black, 1925; New York: Macmillan, 1950). Schweitzer's was an
attempt to work out more thoroughly the eschatological interpretation of Jesus offered
by J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1892; 2d ed., 1900; 3d ed., 1964, ed. by F. Hahn, with introduction by R. Bultmann); Eng.
trans.: Jesus9 Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (Chico: Scholars, 1985). For
Schweitzer's critique of Wrede, see Quest 338-50. The validity of Schweitzer's interpre-
tation depended upon the essential historicity of the gospel narrative, especially its
chronology. Although Schweitzer (Quest 359-97) based his interpretation primarily on
the Gospel of Matthew (rather than Mark), the implication of Wrede's thesis was obvi-
ous. If Mark, supposedly the least theological of the synoptics, could not be trusted, then
in all probability Matthew could not be trusted either.
28
Schweitzer (Quest 331-38) suggests that Christianity is faced with two alterna-
tives: thoroughgoing skepticism (as in Strauss and Wrede) or thoroughgoing eschatology
(as in Weiss and Schweitzer).
29
In a famous passage (Quest 370-71) Schweitzer describee Jesus' experience as fol-
lows: "Soon after [the preaching of John the Baptist] comes Jesus, and in the knowledge
that He is the coming Son of Man lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on
that last revolution which is to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refuses to turn,
and He throws himself upon it. Then it does turn; and crushes him. Instead of bringing
in the eschatological conditions, He has destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and the
mangled body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was strong enough to think of
Himself as the spiritual ruler of mankind and to bend history to His purpose, is hanging
upon it still. That is His victory and His reign."
30
R. Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926) 12; Eng. trans.: Jesus and
the Word (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1934) 9. Elsewhere Bultmann avers: "We no
longer can know the character of Jesus, his life, or his personality.... There is not one
10 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
though Bultmann's pessimism at that time was not widely shared,
many did concur that it had begun to appear as though there was little
chance of recovering the historical Jesus; the mythological component
was simply too pervasive.
Second, at the same time that confidence in the possibility of the
task was being shaken, doubts began to arise as to the efficacy of the
results themselves. These doubts could be traced to Martin Kähler's
work which had suggested that the historical Jesus the 19th-century
quest had produced, although ostensibly freefrommyth, was also theo-
logically irrelevant for Christian faith.31 The Jesus of liberal theology,
a Jesus who, it was claimed, had been chiefly concerned with social and
religious reform, bore little resemblance to the Christ of the Church's
historic creeds. Although Kähler's very significant contribution was
passed over in Schweitzer's scholarly assessment, and consequently
was ignored initially, the new theological mood that arose in Germany
following the First World War began to voice similar concerns. Käh-
ler's criticism of the 19th-century quest had now found an interested
and receptive audience. Neoorthodox theology (also sometimes called
neoliberalism or dialectical theology) sharply criticized the thinking
that lay behind the 19th-century effort to recover the Jesus of history.
In the minds of many, the quest of the historical Jesus had thus
reached a dead end, with some claiming that such a quest was histor-
ically impossible (a judgment in large measure supported by form crit-
icism) and theologically illegitimate (as was frequently asserted by the
dialectical theologians). Many scholars believed that once again they
were faced with the very dilemma with which 19th-century scholar-
ship had struggled and at one time thought it had overcome.
But Bultmann saw a way out. His solution lay in a new understand-
ing of the gospel's relationship to history and myth. First, with regard
to history, Bultmann believed that the truth of the gospel stands apart
from historical confirmation or historical details. He rejected, of
course, the radical skepticism of Bauer and Drews, affirming the fact
(the daß) of Jesus' life, but denying the possibility (or necessity) of
recovering its details (the was and the wie).32 He did not wish to sac-
of his words which we can regard as purely authentic" {Die Erforschung der synopti-
schen Evangelien [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925] 32-33).
31
M. Kahler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Chris-
tus (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1892; 2d ed., 1896); Eng. trans.: The So-Called Historical Jesus
and the Historic, Biblical Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964).
32
R. Bultmann, "Allgemeine Wahrheit und christliche Verkündigung," in his
Glauben und Verstehen (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1960) 3.176-77. See the expanded
version that appeared as Das Verhältnis der urchristlichen Christusbotschaft zum his-
 LIFE-OF-JESUS RESEARCH AND MYTHOLOGY 11
rifice the Christ of faith, the gospel itself, for an uncertain historical
Jesus. Nor was the Christ of Christian faith to be set aside or lost in the
33
quest for a Jesus of history. He believed that the loss of history did
not mean the loss of the gospel (as had usually been assumed). At this
point Bultmann obviously differed significantly from the 19th-century
scholars.
Second, Bultmann did not wish to dispense with myth; he wished to
interpret it. 3 4 Herein lies the major difference between this 20th-
century interpreter and the 19th-century quest. According to Bult­
mann, myth was the hermeneutical mode of expression by which early
Christians testified to their faith in what God had done through
Christ. Myth was not to be set aside in a quest for historical facts, a
notion contrary to Christian faith itself (cf. 2 Cor 5:7). But myth, of
course, could not be accepted in its ancient and unscientific form, for
that presented modern people with a false stumbling block (to believe
in miracles and angels, etc.). Myth, therefore, had to be "demytholo-
gized." That is, the mythological language of the New Testament was
to be unpacked of its (existential) meaning and communicated in lan­
guage that modern humanity could understand and live by.35
Bultmann's approach to myth added a whole new dimension to the
mythological problem. Now, myth was not being isolated and dis­
carded, nor was its presence viewed as threatening. Myth and the
Christian gospel were apparently wrapped up together. The literature
that contributed to this debate spans some three decades and is volu-
torischen Jesus (Heidelberg: Winter, 1960; 3d ed., 1962); Eng. trans.: 'The Primitive
Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus/' in C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville,
eds., The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ: Essays on the New Quest of the
Historical Jesus (New York: Abingdon, 1964) 15-42.
33
One of the evident strengths of Bultmann's approach is that it provided an answer
to the criticism that Kahler had raised. See the helpful assessment of N. Perrin, 'The
Challenge of New Testament Theology Today," Criterion 4 (1965) 25-34.
34
For the classic statement of the problem, see R. Bultmann, "Neues Testament und
Mythologie," Part Π of his Offenbarung und Heilsgeschehen, Beiträge zur evangelischen
Theologie 7 (Munich: Kaiser, 1941); repr. in H.-W. Bartsch, Kerygma und Mythos: Ein
theologisches Gespräch, Theologische Forschung 1 (Hamburg-Bergstedt; Reich und
Heidrich, 1948); Eng. trans.: "New Testament and Mythology," in Kerygma and Myth: A
Theological Debate (London: SPCK, 1957) 1-44; repr. Neues Testament und Mythologie:
Das Problem der Entmythologisierung der neutestamentlichen Verkündigung, Beiträge
zur evangelischen Theologie 96, ed. E. Jüngel (Munich: Kaiser, 1985); see also his Jesus
Christ and Mythology (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1958).
36
R. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1933); Eng.
trans.: Faith and Understanding (New York: Harper & Row, 1969); Existence and Faith
(New York: Meridian, 1960); "ττίστις," TWNT 6:174-230; Eng. trans.: Faith, with A.
Weiser (London: A&C Black, 1961); 'The Christian Hope and the Problem of Demythol-
ogizing," Expository Times 65 (1953-54) 228-30, 276-78.
12 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
minous. Although many criticized Bultmann's approach,36 no alterna-
tive seemed to offer itself. Even with the emergence of the post-
Bultmannian movement and its "New Quest" of the historical Jesus,
myth continued to occupy a prominent place on the agenda. The pres-
ence of myth was taken for granted; what to do with it was the point of
debate.37
36
Among the earliest responses are those of P. Althaus, "Neues Testament und My-
thologie: Zu 1$. Bultmanns Versuch der Entmythologisierung des Neuen Testaments,"
Theologische Literaturzeitung 67 (1942) 337-44; W. G. Kümmel, "Mythische Rede und
Heilsgeschehen im Neuen Testament/' in B. Reicke, ed., Conieetanea Neotestamentica
XI, A. Fridrichsen Festschrift (Lund: Gleerup, 1947) 109-31; repr. in Kümmel, Heils-
geschehen und Geschichte, ed. E. Grasser et al. (Marburg: Elwert, 1965) 153-68; and
J. R. Geiselmann, "Der Glaube an Jesus-Christus—Mythos oder Geschichte?" Theolo-
gische Quartalschrift 129 (1949) 257-77, 418-39. Other significant studies include
W. G. Kümmel, "Mythos im Neuen Testament," Theologische Zeitschrift 6 (1950) 321-
37; A. N. Wilder, "Mythology and the New Testament," Journal ofBiblical Literature 69
(1950) 113-27; W. F. Arndt, "Entmythologisierung," Concordia Theological Monthly 22
(1951) 186-92; G. Bornkamm, "Mythos und Evangelium: Zur Diskussion des Problèmes
der Entmythologisierung der neutestamentlichen Verkündigung," in G. Bornkamm and
W. Klaas, Mythos und Evangelium: Zur Programm R. Bultmanns, Theologische Exis-
tenz heute NS 26 (Munich: Kaiser, 1951; 3d ed., 1953); Eng. trans.: "Myth and Gospel:
A Discussion of Demythologizing the New Testament Message," in C. E. Braaten and
R. A. Harrisville, eds,, Kerygma and History: A Symposium on the Theology of Rudolf
Bultmann (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 172-96; E. Fuchs, "Das entmythologisierte
Glaubensärgernis," Evangelische Theologie 11 (1951-52) 398-415; and P. Althaus, Das
sogenannte Kerygma und der historische Jesus: Zur Kritik der heutigen Kerygma-
Theologie, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 48 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann,
1958); Eng. trans.: The So-Called Kerygma and the Historical Jesus (Edinburgh and
London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959).
37
To be sure, there were significant differences between Bultmann and his pupils in
the understanding of myth and the Gospels. For example, G. Bornkamm avers that 'the
gospels are the rejection of myth" (Jesus von Nazareth, Urban-Bücher 19 [Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1956; 3d ed., 1959]; Eng. trans.: Jesus of Nazareth [New York: Harper &
Row, 1960] 23). For further discussion see C. K. Barrett, "Myth and the New Testa-
ment," Expository Times 68 (1957) 345-48,359-62; J. M. Robinson, A New Quest of the
Historical Jesus, Studies in Biblical Theology 25 (London: SCM, 1959; repr. Missoula:
Scholars, 1979; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); German ed.: Kerygma und historischer
Jesus (Zurich and Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1960; 2d ed., 1967). There were many, of course,
who complained that the presence of myth in the New Testament was exaggerated; see
G. Casalis, "Le problème du mythe," Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 31
(1951) 330-42; K. Adam, "Das Problem der Entmythologisierung und die Auferstehung
des Christus," Theologische Quartalschrift 132 (1952) 385-410; A. Nygren, "On the
Question of De-Mythologizing Christianity," Lutheran Quarterly 4 (1952) 140-52; A.
Barr, "Bultmann's Estimate of Jesus," Scottish Journal of Theology 7 (1954) 337-54; O.
Cullmann, "Le mythe dans les écrits du Nouveau Testament," Numen 1 (1954) 120-35;
J. Thompson, "Demythologising," Bible Translator 7 (1957) 27-35; and H. Wenz, "My-
thos oder historisch zeichenhaftes Heilsgeschehen?" Theologische Literaturzeitung 18
(1962) 419-32.
 UFE-OF^ESUS RESEARCH AND MYTHOLOGY 13
However, while Bultmann's approach may have provided some theo-
logical relief from the problem, the negative impact that it had on the
quest for a Jesus of history is obvious. In Germany the quest all but
came to a halt. Although historical-Jesus research continued in some
German,38 French,39 and British40 circles, great caution (usually skep-
ticism) was the watchword.
THE DEMISE OF THE MYTHOLOGICAL DEBATE
The secondary literature of the last two decades or so suggests that
mythology's role in scholarship concerned with the historical Jesus has
been eclipsed. Superficially this is seen in the noticeable decline in the
number of books and articles that even speak of myth in relation to the
question of the historical Jesus.41 In the 1980s only a handful of stud-
ies appeared that were concerned with myth, and in these doubt is
expressed as to the future of the demythologizing hermeneutic itself.42
38
E.g. P. Feine, Jesus (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1930); M. Dibelius, Jesus (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1939; 2d ed., 1949); Eng. trans.: Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949; repr.
1963); W. G. Kümmel, Verheißung und Erfulling: Untersuchungen zur eschatologischen
Verkündigung Jesu (Basel: Majer, 1945; 2d ed., Zurich: Zwingli, 1953); Eng. trans.:
Promise and Fulfillment (SBT 23; London: SCM, 1957).
39
E.g. M. Goguel, La Vie de Jésus (Paris: Payot, 1925); Eng. trans.: The Life of Jesus
(New York: Macmillan, 1933); M. J. Lagrange, L'Evangile de Jésus-Christ (Paris:
Gabalda, 1928); Eng. trans.: The Gospel of Jesus Christ, 2 vols. (London: Burns, Oates,
and Washbourne, 1938); F.-M. Braun, Où en est le problème de Jésus? (Paris: Gabalda,
1932); Jésus: Histoire et Critique (Tournai: Casterman, 1947); C. A. H. Guignebert,
Jésus (Paris: Renaissance, 1933); Eng. trans.: Jesus (London: Paul, Trench, Trübner,
1935; New York: University Books, 1956).
40
E.g. J. Mackinnon, The Historic Jesus (London: Longmans, 1931); T. W. Manson,
The Teaching ofJesus (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1931; 2d ed., 1935); F. C. Burkitt,
Jesus Christ: An Historical Outline (London and Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1932); P.
Gardner-Smith, The Christ of the Gospels (Cambridge: Heffer and Sons, 1938); W. Man-
son, Jesus the Messiah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946); German trans.: Bist Du der da
kommen soll? (Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1952).
41
See Evans, Life of Jesus Research 99-100.
42
For recent reviews, see J. Macquarrie, "A Generation of Demythologizing," in J. P.
van Noppen, ed., Theoünguistics (Brussels: Vrye Universiteit, 1981) 143-58; and K. H.
Schelkle, "Entmythologisierung in existentialer Interpretation," Theologische Quartal-
schrift 165 (1985) 257-66. For an essay that ponders the future of demythologization,
see U. Luz, "Rückkehr dee mythologischen Weltbildes: Überlegungen bei einer neuen
Lektüre von Bultmanns Programm der Entmythologisierung," Reformatio 33 (1984)
448-53. For an essay that offers a positive assessment of demythologization, see M. J. de
Nys, "Myth and Interpretation: Bultmann Revisited," International Journal for Philos-
14 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
What is more significant is the fact that most of the recent significant
books published on the historical Jesus make little or no reference to
the problem of myth or demythologization. In contrast to the systemic
skepticism that characterized much of German and North American
scholarship, often a concomitant of assumptions about myth in the
Gospels, Jesus research in recent years has reflected a greater opti-
mism that the Gospels can yield the data necessary for an intelligible
reconstruction of the ministry of Jesus. This is seen in the fact that
virtually all of these works make historically plausible suggestions as
to how Jesus understood himself and his mission, things that Bult-
mann and others a generation ago thought beyond reach. What ac-
counts for this change in thinking? And, more to the point of the
present essay, why has mythology dropped out of the mainstream of
the discussion? In my judgment there are at least five major factors
involved in the demise of mythology as a relevant issue in life-of-Jesus
research.
First, the New Testament Gospels are now viewed as useful, if not
essentially reliable, historical sources. Gone is the extreme skepticism
that for so many years dominated gospel research.43 Representative of
many is the position of E. P. Sanders and Marcus Borg, who have
concluded that it is possible to recover a fairly reliable picture of the
historical Jesus. Borg notes that more and more scholars are coming to
the conclusion that "we can sketch a fairly full and historically defen-
sible portrait of Jesus."44 Similarly, Sanders comments: "The domi-
nant view today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus
was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and
that those two things make sense within the world of first-century
Judaism."45 With regard to Mark, some critical interpreters, although
ophy of Religion 11 (1980) 27-41. For a negative assessment, see D. Cairns, "A Reap-
praisal of Bultmann's Theology," Religious Studies 17 (1981) 469-85.
43
To be fair, one must remember that much of the skepticism in the first half of the
20th century was in reaction to the positivistic historiography of the Old Quest that
sought to extractfromthe Gospels the mental, psychological, and spiritual development
of Jesus. The "lives" generated by this thinking deserved to be regarded with skepticism.
44
M. J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 15.
45
E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 2.
For evidence of this "dominant view" Sanders (355 n. 14) cites H. Schürmann, "Zur
aktuellen Situation der Leben-Jesu-Forschung," Geist und Leben 46 (1973) 300-10, and
G. Aulen, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research, viii, 3. See also W. R. Farmer,
Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Scripture, and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982),
who says with regard to the Gospels: "We have access to a large body of first-rate
historical evidence that is decisive in answering important questions about Jesus" (21).
 UFE-OF-JESUS RESEARCH AND MYTHOLOGY 15
still recognizing his theological motives and redactional activities, be-
lieve that the Marcan evangelist has treated his tradition in a conser-
vative manner.46
Second, mainline life-of-Jesus research is no longer driven by theo-
logical-philosophical concerns, at least not overtly.47 There has been a
shift away from a philosophical orientation to a historical orientation.
Gone is the lively and often convoluted discussion of Geschichte and
Historie as meaningfully distinct categories. The matter is simply no
longer debated.48 Likewise, the related concern tofinda Jesus