Existential interpretation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In theology, existential interpretation is a procedure to interpret the “ mythical way of speaking” of the New Testament proclamation , which is no longer understood, according to its statement on the spiritual questions of human existence.

The process was developed by the German Protestant theologian Rudolf Bultmann based on his reception of Martin Heidegger's existential philosophy .

Origin and historical context

Bultmann presents the process of existential interpretation in his essay "New Testament and Mythology" from 1941. He assumes that the mythical way of speaking in the New Testament proclamation causes difficulties in understanding for modern man, because he is so shaped by the scientific worldview that he can no longer think in the categories of myth and everything mythical, because it cannot be scientifically verified, thinks wrong. Particularly in view of the political situation in Germany in and around 1941 - National Socialism fought Christianity , which led to a high number of people leaving the church - Bultmann saw it as necessary to make the New Testament proclamation understandable again for modern people.

Hermeneutic approach

Problem formulation

Modern man and the mythical proclamation

Bultmann saw a problem in the proclamation of the truth of the New Testament in the mythical form of thought and language of antiquity , since modern people no longer understood this mythical way of speaking.

The truth of which the New Testament speaks is not accessible to the scientific way of thinking. In scientific thinking, humans see reality as an object that they can confront and that they can calculate and thus master. The intervention of supernatural powers in world events is unthinkable for him.

The problem in the mythical proclamation

The human being in mythical thinking sees himself as dependent on supernatural powers and knows that he cannot calculate and rule the world completely. The myth is therefore better suited to convey the New Testament view of human existence . However, the myth is in danger of speaking of otherworldly phenomena as of this worldly and thereby objectifying them from the hereafter to this world. In relation to the New Testament proclamation this would mean that God would be objectified from his transcendence into this world.

According to Bultmann, however, it is precisely because of the transcendence of God that any talk about God is impossible. About God we can only say how he acts in humans, but not how he is in himself.

Bultmann assumes that the myth speaks of a truth, but in an inadequate way.

The problem of man's decline in the world

In the reception of Martin Heidegger's existential philosophy, Bultmann sees a problem in man's decline in the world. This problem can already be found in the New Testament, where there is talk of the possibility of life according to the flesh and of life according to the spirit (e.g. Gal 6 : 8). Life according to the flesh is improper life, falling for the " man " ( Heidegger ), getting absorbed in everyday worries and the attempt to secure one's life from what is available. The life according to the spirit, on the other hand, is a life that is not absorbed in everyday worries and in what is available, but lives out of faith in God openly for his free future.

Possible solution: the existential interpretation

Bultmann did not want to simply eliminate the mythical part of the New Testament proclamation or, on the other hand, make the New Testament proclamation scientifically capable by simply translating it into the modern scientific way of thinking. That is not possible.

In reception of Martin Heidegger's existential philosophy , Bultmann developed the process of existential interpretation (also demythologizing ). The statements of the New Testament proclamation should be interpreted in terms of their relation to the existence of man, because according to Bultmann one can only say about God what he does to man, but not how he is in himself.

With this, Bultmann took up a principle of the Byzantine theologian Gregor Palamas : the distinction between the otherworldly being of God and his deeds in this world has been an established dogma in the Orthodox Church since the hesychasm dispute of the 14th century, but was in the Western churches until 20th century rejected.

Example: death and resurrection of Jesus

Based on these findings, Bultmann then carries out the existential interpretation of the Christ event (death and resurrection of Jesus Christ ). According to the conception of the New Testament, real life is only possible through an action by God. Here is the idea of ​​dependence on a transcendent power. And this required action of God is the Christ event that occurred within space and time in history. God's liberating saving action is based on a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth . That he lived can be scientifically verified, as can that he was crucified . The mythical talk of life and death of this historical person is intended to emphasize its importance for faith, which cannot be conveyed in any other than the mythical mode of representation. Therefore, according to Bultmann, belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not belief in a myth, but the grasping of the possibility of a new life. Just because God's saving act took place in history can it have an effect on human life and is not separate from space and time and meaningless to life on earth like the myths about the ancient gods.

reception

The first publication of Bultmann's essay in 1941 went relatively unnoticed. It was not until a new edition in 1948 that there were significant disputes within Protestant Christianity .

criticism

A main point of criticism of the existential interpretation is that Bultmann makes statements about God in and of itself impossible. Some theologians believe that myth must be retained as a means of speaking about God, since any other way of speaking lacks the necessary terminology.

Another point of criticism from theologians (such as Fritz Buri ) and philosophers (such as Karl Jaspers in the book The Question of Demythologization ) is that Bultmann did not eliminate the myth from the New Testament proclamation consistently enough, because he adhered to the resurrection of Christ as a salvation event. Buri considers Bultmann's demythologization to be a good beginning, which must progress towards dekerygmatization .

From the Catholic point of view it is criticized that it contradicts the physical, spiritual, historical and social nature of the human being to allow the "encounter with God in word and call to the authenticity of human existence ... to take place in the complete worldlessness of an existential act". The "incarnational .. mediation" of the revelation must be taken seriously.

literature

  • Hans Huebner: What is existential interpretation? In: Antje Labahn (ed.): Biblical theology as hermeneutics. Collected Essays; Festschrift for the 65th birthday of Hans Huebner . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1995, ISBN 3-525-53635-6 , pp. 229-251.
  • Rudolf Bultmann: New Testament and Mythology. The problem of demythologizing the New Testament proclamation. (1941), In: H.-W. Bartsch (Ed.): Kerygma and Mythos. Volume 1, 4th edition. Reich, Hamburg 1960, DNB 457196386 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Rudolf Bultmann: New Testament and Mythology. The problem of demythologizing the New Testament proclamation. (1941), In: H.-W. Bartsch (Ed.): Kerygma and Mythos. Volume 1, 4th edition. Reich, Hamburg 1960, DNB 457196386 , pp. 15-48.
  2. ^ Gerhard Ludwig Müller: Catholic dogmatics: for study and practice of theology. - 6th edition - Herder: Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 2005, p. 271