How are the angels in the Bible different than the Easter Bunny in traditional folklore? In Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics III/3, paragraph §51 "The Kingdom of Heaven, The Ambassadors of God, and their Opponents", he answers that "the angels and the March Hare are two different things" [1] but it "is the difference between good saga and bad" [2] and not the difference between historie (i.e. real historical events) and geschichte (i.e. saga or legend). Barth explains that "almost the whole of the biblical history is engaged in that transition to saga or legend, and the angels in particular can only make this clear." [3] Barth argues that the very appearance of an angel in any biblical passage indicates it is written in the genre of saga (i.e. geschichte) and it might not be based upon any historical events (i.e. historie) at all. Therefore it is a fool's errand to scour the angel appearances in the Bible to verify the existence of angelic beings, in the same way as it is an error to scour folklore to verify the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Karl Barth says "For in some way, we repeat, almost the whole of the biblical history is engaged in that transition to saga or legend, and the angels in particular can only make this clear." [4] And, “when the Bible speaks of angels (and their demonic counterparts) it always introduces us to a sphere where historically verifiable history, i.e., the history which is comprehensible by the known analogies of world history, passes over into historically non-verifiable saga or legend.” Also, “Not all saga or legend deals with real history, nor can this be said of all narratives which cannot be verified historically. But there is true saga or legend as well as false.” [5]

Barth did not deny the existence of angels, but he did affirm that all biblical passages featuring angels are in similar literary genres of saga, legend, and myth like the folkloric tales featuring the Easter Bunny. (I'm using the Easter Bunny and the March Hare interchangeably, even though they are different myths for argument's sake). Barth condemned D. F. Strauss and Rudolf Bultmann for their "ruthless" demythologizing and "complete dismissal" of the angels. Barth invokes John Calvin to explain that the difference between good saga and bad saga is similar to the difference between true myth and false myth. In terms of good saga, Barth says "that in relation to the angels we are commanded to think and say something very definite—vera, certa [true, certain] and utilia [useful], to use once again the terminology of [John] Calvin." 

“Hence we are not released from this task by the fact that we regard the angels as figures of biblical saga or legend. This does not mean that we are in the sphere of Red Riding Hood and her grandmother and the wolf, or the stork which leaves babies, or the March Hare and Father Christmas; in a sphere in which the biblical authors give free reign to their poetic imagination, and in which we can give ourselves up with abandon to the same indulgence. This is not the case. For there can be meaningful as well as meaningless imagination, and disciplined as well as undisciplined poetry—this is the difference between good saga and bad.” [6]

In CD III/3, paragraph §51, Barth goes on to affirm the existence of angels by exegeting locus classicus Hebrew 1:14 anew. I may discuss this exegesis in the future, because it merits its own discussion. The most valuable point is that it is an error to assume passages featuring angels are verifiable history (i.e. historie) and it is an error to dismiss angels because they are revealed through saga (i.e. geschichte).

Sources:

1. Karl Barth, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Thomas F. Torrance, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 3, 3rd ed., vol. 3 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 377.

2. Barth. Ibid. p. 376.

3. Barth. Ibid. p. 375.

4. Barth. Ibid. p. 375.

5. Barth. Ibid. p. 374.

6. Barth. Ibid. p. 376

Header Image of Easter Bunny: source wikipedia