Myth and Symbol:I. Tillich's Definition of Unbroken Myth

Klaus Rosenthal

doi:10.1017/S0036930600015106

Myth and Symbol:I. Tillich's Definition of Unbroken Myth

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009

Klaus Rosenthal

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Paul Tillich did not contribute a detailed essay to the discussion of the programme of ‘Entmythologisierung’ (demythologising) as did Karl Barth or Karl Jaspers. However, it will not escape the reader of his works that Tillich has often expressed his views on this theme, though it be only by a brief reference. The question of the interpretation of myth has not only engaged him during the last decade; on the contrary, more than 30 years ago, Tillich had explained his position in systematic form in the article on myth in the 2nd edition of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Tillich has not substantially departed from the essential points of this position. On the one hand, Tillich is concerned with the fundamental distinction between unbroken and broken myth, and on the other hand, with the equally characteristic relation which he draws between myth and symbol. These definitions and questions permit us in the following detailed interpretation to construct a form adequate to Tillich's thinking. First we will present Tillich's understanding of unbroken myth, and second, his definition of broken myth, which in its determining points is an interpretation having recourse to his definition of symbol.

Type: Research Article
Information: Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1965 , pp. 411 - 434

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600015106 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 412 note 1} ‘Neues Testament und Mythologie’ (‘New Testament and Mythology’) in Kerygma und Mythos, vol. I, p. 22 (translated).

^{page 412 note 2} RGG IV, 363 (translated).

^{page 412 note 3} Systematik, vol. I, p. 92.

^{page 412 note 4} ‘Die Gegenwart der Griechen im neueren Denken’, Tübingen 1960, p. 117 (translated).

^{page 412 note 5} RGG IV, 363 (translated).

^{page 412 note 6} ibid.

^{page 413 note 1} For the following compare 363 (translated).

^{page 413 note 2} op. cit., 395 (translated).

^{page 413 note 3} op. cit., 399f (translated).

^{page 413 note 4} Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 224.

^{page 413 note 1} op. cit., p. 222.

^{page 414 note 2} op. cit., p. 222.

^{page 414 note 3} op. cit., p. 224.

^{page 414 note 4} op. cit., p. 223.

^{page 415 note 1} ibid.

^{page 415 note 2} op. cit., pp. 223–4.

^{page 415 note 3} ibid.

^{page 415 note 4} op. cit., p. 222.

^{page 415 note 5} op. cit., p. 134.

^{page 416 note 1} op. cit., p. 224.

^{page 416 note 2} op. cit., p. 225.

^{page 416 note 3} Article ‘Myth’, RGG IV, 365 (translated).

^{page 416 note 4} Cf. op. cit., 370 (translated).

^{page 416 note 5} Cf. op. cit., 365 (translated).

^{page 416 note 6} Cf. op. cit., 370 (translated).

^{page 417 note 1} Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 222.

^{page 417 note 2} op. cit., p. 228

^{page 417 note 3} Article ‘Mythos’, RGG IV, 363 (translated).

^{page 417 note 4} op. cit., 365 (translated).

^{page 417 note 5} ibid. (translated).

^{page 417 note 6} op. cit., 370 (translated).

^{page 417 note 7} ibid. (translated).

^{page 417 note 8} ‘Religionsphilosophie’ in early main-works, vol. I, 1959, pp. 351, 352.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 1} With the following compare Loof, H., Der Symbolbegriff in der neueren Religins-philosophie und Theologie, Köln 1955.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 2} H. Loof, op. cit., pp. 57 (translated), 40ff (translated).

^{page 418 note 3} Article ‘Mythos’, in RGG IV, 364 (translated).

^{page 418 note 4} Tillich, , Religiöse Verwirklichung, Berlin 1930, p. 96 (translated).Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 1} op. cit., p. 99 (translated).

^{page 419 note 2} ibid. (translated).

^{page 419 note 3} ibid. (translated).

^{page 419 note 4} ibid. (translated).

^{page 419 note 5} ibid. (translated).

^{page 419 note 6} op. cit., p. 88 (translated).

^{page 419 note 7} ibid. (translated).

^{page 419 note 8} op. cit., p. 89 (translated).

^{page 420 note 1} ibid. (translated).

^{page 420 note 2} op. cit., p. 101 (translated).

^{page 420 note 3} op. cit., p. 102 (translated).

^{page 420 note 4} ibid. (translated).

^{page 420 note 5} ibid. (translated).

^{page 420 note 6} ibid. (translated).

^{page 420 note 7} op. cit., p. 103 (translated).

^{page 421 note 1} op. cit., p. 102 (translated).

^{page 421 note 2} op. cit., p. 100 (translated).

^{page 421 note 3} op. cit., p. 101 (translated).

^{page 421 note 4} ibid. (translated).

^{page 421 note 5} Loof, Hans, Der Symbolbegriff in der neueren Religionsphilosophie und Theologie, p. 59 (translated).Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 1} Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 188.

^{page 422 note 2} op. cit., p. 131.

^{page 422 note 3} ibid.

^{page 422 note 4} ibid.

^{page 422 note 5} op. cit., p. 224.

^{page 422 note 6} op. cit., p. 170.

^{page 422 note 7} op. cit., p. 224.

^{page 423 note 1} op. cit., p. 172.

^{page 423 note 2} Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 224.

^{page 423 note 3} op. cit., p. 243.

^{page 423 note 4} ibid.

^{page 424 note 1} op. cit., p. 244.

^{page 424 note 2} ibid.

^{page 424 note 3} op. cit., p. 245.

^{page 425 note 1} ‘Religionsphilosophie’ in vol. I, p. 350 (translated).

^{page 425 note 2} op. cit., p. 353 (translated).

^{page 425 note 3} op. cit., p. 354f (translated).

^{page 425 note 4} op. cit., p. 355 (translated).

^{page 425 note 5} ibid. (translated).

^{page 425 note 6} ibid. (translated).

^{page 425 note 7} op. cit., p. 353 (translated).

^{page 426 note 1} op. cit., p. 346 (translated).

^{page 426 note 2} op. cit., p. 355 (translated).

^{page 426 note 3} op. cit., p. 354 (translated).

^{page 426 note 4} op. cit., p. 355 (translated).

^{page 426 note 5} op. cit., p. 337 (translated).

^{page 427 note 1} Cf. ibid.

^{page 427 note 2} Article ‘Revelation’, RGG IV, 665 (translated).

^{page 427 note 3} RGG IV, 664 (translated).

^{page 428 note 1} op. cit., 665 (translated).

^{page 428 note 2} op. cit., 666 (translated).

^{page 428 note 3} op. cit., 667 (translated).

^{page 428 note 4} op. cit., 666 (translated).

^{page 429 note 1} Systematic Theology, vol. II, p. 123.

^{page 429 note 2} ‘Religionsphilosophie’ in collected works, vol. I, p. 350 (translated).

^{page 430 note 1} Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 17.

^{page 430 note 2} ibid.

^{page 431 note 1} Cf. the known statement of Bultmann: Myth ‘speaks of the unworldly worldly, of the gods humanly’. Kerygma und Mythos, I, 23 (translated).

^{page 431 note 2} Cf. these three definitions, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 119 and 164.

^{page 431 note 3} ‘Wesen und Bedeutung des existentialistischen Denkens’ in collected works, vol. IV, p. 182.

^{page 431 note 4} Systematic Theology, vol. II, p. 152.

^{page 431 note 5} ibid.

^{page 431 note 6} ibid.

^{page 432 note 1} ibid.

^{page 432 note 2} ibid.

^{page 432 note 3} In the Systematic Theology, vol. I, there is the statement, only as note: ‘The concept of a “philosophical faith” appears questionable from this point of view.’. See Jaspers, K., Der philosophische Glaube, 1948, p. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 432 note 4} Cf. The Courage to Be, p. 148. The work Sein und zeit has its independent philosophical standing whatever Heidegger may say about it in criticism and retraction.

^{page 432 note 5} Die Frage der Entmythologisierung, p. 42f (translated).

^{page 432 note 6} Vernunft und Widervernunft in unserer Zeit, p. 58 (translated).

^{page 432 note 7} ibid. (translated).

^{page 433 note 1} Systematic Theology, vol. II, p. 94.

^{page 434 note 1} With the following compare Pannenberg, W., ‘Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte’ in Kerygma und Dogma, 1959, sec. 3 and 4, especially sec. 3, p. 237, and sec. 4, p. 285.Google Scholar

Article contents

Myth and Symbol:I. Tillich's Definition of Unbroken Myth

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests