布特曼的「解神話」詮釋學以及「敘事神學」的回應

Rudolf Bultmann’s Hermeneutics of Demythologisation and the Response of Narrative Theology

國內一般人文學界和基督教神學界都甚少為文探討德國新約學者布特曼（Rudolf Bultmann）的思想。即便神學院的新約研究課程，因教學之需不得不提，大多一筆帶過，甚至視布特曼為信仰的顛覆者，避之唯恐不及。因此失去了認識他的神學精華所在的機會。本論文的目的是要研究布特曼的神學詮釋學，以及弗萊的敘事神學（narrative theology）對它的回應。儘管布特曼一開始是自由神學的擁護者，但他很快就發現，想要透過自由派的形式批判法來追尋歷史上的耶穌是一件不可能的事。因此布特曼轉而注重福音書所記載之「基督事件」的歷史性意義，而非耶穌的歷史真實性。本文將分為兩個小節來探討布特曼的「解神話」（demythologisation）詮釋學。首先闡述「解神話」的意義。根據布特曼的說法，「解神話」的主要目的不在於剔除聖經中的神話，而是對神話進行詮釋，以便向現代人揭示隱藏在它們背後的意義。其次說明布特曼對此神學概念的進一步應用。布特曼強調，唯有經由解神話的過程，基督徒才能本真地存在這世界上。他相信這就是保羅所說的「新造的人」的真諦。「解神話」廿世紀的七十年代遇到了弗萊的「敘事神學」的質疑。弗萊強調，福音書的內容不是大眾神話，而是「寫實主義的敘事」。救主的身分是藉由對福音故事寫實的理解而確立的，並非透過對基督神話的存在的詮釋而獲取的。對弗萊而言，整個福音敘事的高潮就在於它告訴讀者：唯有透過耶穌的行動（act），才能認識耶穌的存有（being）；要認識耶穌的身分，就必須仔細地端詳發生在他周遭的一切事物。經過本文第二部分的比較後，筆者認為，布特曼和弗萊的關注點都是在「福音故事的本質」，不過兩者的認知卻大相逕庭。布特曼注重福音故事對現代人的存在意義（existential meaning），弗萊則強調它的真實性（reality）。

The primary purpose of this essay is to investigate into the German New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann’s theological hermeneutics and the response of Has Frei’s Narrative theology. Firstly the essay deals with the theory and meaning of ‘demythologisa-tion’. Although starting as a companion of Liberal Protestantism Bultmann soon came to realise that it was impossible to discover Jesus as he really was in history by means of the method of form criticism. Therefore, Bultmann began to pay attention to the historic sig-nificance of the Christ event in the Gospel rather than the historyof Jesus. Hence the essay secondly focuses on Bultmann’s application of demythologisation. According to Bultmann, the aim of demythologisation is not to demolish the myths in the Bible but to interpret the myths in order to unveil the meanings underneath for the modern world. Bultmann argues that only through the process of demythologisation can a Christian’s existence become authentic. He believes that this is what the Pauline concept ‘New Creation’ is really about. However, ‘demythologisation’ was challenged by Hans Frei’s ‘narrative theology’ at the 70s in the last century. Frei insists, the Gospel is not a popular myth but a ‘realistic narra-tive’. The Saviour’s identity is acknowledged by the realistic understanding of the Gospel narrative rather than the existential interpretation of the Christ myth. The fictional Gospel narrative renders an identity of Jesus that entails the claim of his factual presence today. For Frei, the whole Gospel narrative culminates in the proposition that to know who Jesus is in connection with what took place, is to know that he is. After a comparative study of Bultmann and Frei the present writer concludes that both theologians understand the nature of the Gospel story differently. The former insists its existential meaning to the contempo-raries whereas the latter maintains its reality.