I got this book after I had been reading Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics for a year. Barth's writing is truly dense, and has led to many misunderstandings of him. This book has helped me to notice patterns that I had missed before. I read this book in parallel with Barth's treatment of divine election, and this book saved me from misinterpreting Barth as a universalist. In terms of practical use, I can't think of a better book.

Having taken a class from him, he is a truly brilliant teacher, and he has helped me to pay close attention to the text. One of the poverties in American theology is that the art of commentary has been lost. The medieval universities trained the Scholastic theologians by making them do close readings (lectio) of important texts (e.g. the Bible, Lombard's Sentences, etc.). Whether you agree with the Scholastics or not is one thing, but you cannot deny that the disciplined approach to theology led to some monumental achievements. Hunsinger's book is a tool to help you do that with Barth.

This book has two parts. The first part suggests six patterns that run throughout the Church Dogmatics (particularism, actualism, realism, personalism, rationalism and another one which I can't recall just now). The second part is a set of etudes on Barth's theology utilizing the 6 patterns. Hunsinger addresses the issue of double agency in Barth's soteriology, secular parables of the kingdom of God, his view of revelation, etc.

On a different subject, the other best secondary sources on Barth are Bruce McCormack's intellectual history of the pre-dogmatics Barth, John Webster's _Ethics of Reconciliation_ and Hans Urs Von Balthasar's classic study.

Karl Barth and the Strange New World within the Bible. Barth, Wittgenstein, and the Metadilemmas of the Enlightenment: 'It is a rare and exciting event to find a theologian within the English-speaking world who is so deeply involved with the current biblical debates concerning creation, covenant, and resurrection. His learned and profound analysis represents a major hermeneutical step forward as he recovers the genuine stature of Barth's interpretation of Scripture.' Brevard Childs, Sterling Professor of Divinity (Emeritus), Yale University, USA. 'Neil MacDonald has done the impossible in this amazing new book - that is, he has rescued Barth from his friends and his enemies by helping us see how Barth might end the problematics of modernity. MacDonald has, moreover, accomplished this task by an extraordinary, fruitful comparison between Wittgenstein and Barth. Anyone working in contemporary theology must read this book.' Stanley Hauerwas, Gilbert T Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics, Duke University, USA. 'Brilliant and nuanced' Christopher Seitz, Professor of Old Testament and Theological Studies, University of St Andrews, Scotland. 'MacDonald has a masterly grasp of Barth's distinctive theological vision ... This is a book which will bear reading and re-reading.' Trevor Hart, Professor of Divinity, University of St Andrews, Scotland This is a new, major study of the twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth. Its chief strength is that it demonstrates the genuine intellectual force behind Barth's approach to the Bible. Drawing on the history of biblical, theological and philosophical criticism originating in the Enlightenment - and most notably on the arguments of the Austrian philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein - it dares the thought that, if Barth is right, the Bible understood the Enlightenment better than it understood the Bible, and, indeed, better than the Enlightenment understood itself: according to its own canons of inquiry it ought not to have lost faith with the Bible in the way that it did.

Gary Deddo has done the church a great service in this book. So much of today's Christian books on the family are based on cultural wisdom with a Biblical veneer. In this work, Gary lays out a thorough outline of Karl Barth's theological anthropology. With this in hand, he ably evaluates other approaches and points out directions for further exploration. Those from healthy families will see a greater work in progress to see beyond an idolatry of the family to "the Father of all". Those from broken families will see a greater grace that offers real healing. No pat answers here. Just a solid foundation for relational reflection.

An excellent book! Not only is this a significant work by one of the past century's most important Roman Catholic theologians, but it has set a paradigm for Barth interpretation for 40 years since its publication - even among Protestant scholars. Balthasar's study focuses on the issue of nature and grace (naturally) and the promise of Christological ways of theologizing for ecumenical dialogue. Balthasar's reading of Barth's theological development has been challenged of late (Bruce McCormack), but his 'magisterial work' contains so much promise and insight that it is not likely to be outdated anytime soon. I definately recomend this book to anyone interested in Barth, Balthasar, or in Catholic-Protestant dialogue.

Let's be honest -- Barth would despise most contemporary so-called "Barthians." All sorts of folks who are teaching theologies he abhored and risked his career to battle have tried to appropriate his name. Most "Barthians" are far less orthodox than Barth. Often they have affinities to some small aspect of his approach to theology, while rejecting the rest of this thought that hangs with it.

Bruce McCormack is not one of these pretenders! While perhaps not a "slavish" Barthian, McCormack is a Barthian that Barth would recognize, appreciate, and support.

In general, McCormack wants to present Barth as classically orthodox, not "neo-orthodox." This is a difficult task in many ways, because of Barth's novel appraoch and his departure from the theology of the Reformation on many points (outright rejection of all natural theology, Barth's universal salvation, his rejection of Biblical inspiration opting for an emphasis on illumination instead, etc.)

McCormack is one of the sharpest minds in the mainline church. I studied under him for two degrees at Princeton, where he was clearly the brightest theologian in a brilliant department. Unfortunately, like his hero Barth, he is not often kind to his reader. He makes you work very hard. This is a difficult read. But many will find it worth the effort, not matter what their view of Karl Barth.

This book won the 1998 Karl Barth prize in Germany, which is awarded to secondary sources on Barth. That is an honorable prize, considering that one of the judges was Eberhard Jungel, who is a great Barth scholar himself. For any interested in Barth, this is a book that must be read in order to understand the current state of discussion.

McCormack manages to trace through the complex world of pre-WW2 Germany to show Barth's influences from the Marburg neo-Kantians, expressionism, socialism, etc. His basic point is that Barth's break with liberalism and his "decisive turn to analogy" were not as radical as one would think. In other words, the Barth of Romans has far more in common with the mature Barth of the Church Dogmatics. This book also proceeds to correct a number of misperceptions about Barth, based on historical work. In the final analysis, McCormack has hoped that his work will press theologians to read the primary sources firsthand, rather than relying on "received interpretations."

I would recommend reading this book, then von Balthsar's _Theology of Karl Barth_ (in that order). The von Balthsar book is interesting, because it tells you how people have understood Barth (up to now), and because of von Balthasar himself. But in the final analysis, I find McCormack's book to be more technically correct.

"Church Dogmatics: A Selection" is an excellent introduction to the theology of Karl Barth. Anyone even remotely acquainted with Christian theology cannot dispute the fact that Karl Barth is one of the most relevant and scholarly theological minds of our time. He articulated some of the most basic, yet profound truths of the Bible at a time when mainstream Christian theology had begun to place less and less emphasis on the Bible as God's inspired Word. He dialogues with the great theologians and philosophers from Luther to Calvin, to the scholastics, to his contemporaries. The unifying thread through his writing is the person of Jesus Christ, as witnessed in scripture. Barth, in his Church Dogmatics, did what no other modern theologian has been able to do with such clarity- he synthesized a millenium of Christian thought and focused it through the lens of what scripture says about Christ. His Doctrine of the Word of God is an amazing and thorough exposition of the topic- to get the full thrust of what Barth was saying, though, I would recommend working through the multi-volume set of his Church Dogmatics. For introductory or casual reading (if such a thing is possible), I would highly recommend starting with this concise volume. Best wishes on your theological quest!

Okay, this is probably high heresy, but Barth is *the* most over-rated theologian of the last century and *one* of the most over-rated intellects overall. His early stuff serves as a prelude for that monstrosity produced by Bultmann and his later stuff (post controversy with Brunner) is just bizarre. The product of a Germanic mind in love with his own ratiocination and *sitzfliesch.*

CHURCH DOGMATICS is a work of monumental irrelevance, published 1400 years too late and only fit for consumption by hard core systematic theology junkies today. I defy anyone to find *any* pastoral use from it and I question if anyone finds any insight into *biblical* theology (the only one that *really* matters) from it.

Otherwise, for graduate students by all means use this to avoid the soul numbing experience of the full multi-volume work.

Selah.

Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics is one of the most important theological treatises of all-time, which set the agenda for religious thinking in the first half of the 20th Century. However, its sheer size and depth (reminiscent of Aquinas' Summa Theologiae) frequently discourage average readers from delving into its treasury of insights. Professor Gollwitzer's short selection of the Dogmatics provides a useful introduction to Barth's most important themes, especially his understanding of revelation, Christology, and salvation. Great reading for any serious college or seminary student who wants to wrestle with the mind of this great Christian thinker!

The first Complete English Edition had almost 400 pages for Part 1 - Background, before the few hundred pages of History which cover the century mentioned in the title, including chapters on Schleiermacher, Baur, Feuerbach, and Strauss. Most of the chapters have a heavy philosophical theme, but lines of verse liven up Barth's analysis of Lessing's play, "Nathan the Wise," the poems of Herder, and much of what Barth has to say about Novalis, who proclaimed, "The secret path leads inwards. Eternity with its worlds, the past and the future, is within us, or nowhere." Most pages in this book which have footnotes start with a footnote number 1, and anyone flipping through pages might well forget where "Frag., 593" can be found. An earlier review of this book has incorrect citations on David Friedrich Strauss. Albert Schweitzer wrote about Strauss in his THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS, a book which covered a topic on which Struass wrote three books with varying points of view and for different audiences. The biography called D. FR. STRAUSS AND THE THEOLOGY OF HIS TIME was by Hausrath, who called him "essentially a pathological figure."

The last page on Hegel provides the kind of contrast which makes a comparison of the two parts of this book imperative. "Theology had, and still has, no occasion to throw stones at Hegel, as if it had not trodden the same path as he, only not in so firm or so logical a manner as he did. When we come to consider Schleiermacher we shall have to ask very seriously whether his secret is a different one from that of Hegel, only that with Hegel it might be a secret which was to a great extent more respectable and at all events more instructive than that of Schleiermacher."

As philosophy has developed into a field in which a prime consideration is whether it is possible to catch someone in the act of thinking, theology is expected to be something a bit different. In Chapter 23, on Richard Rothe, Karl Barth wrote: "His biographer Hausrath reports in amazement that one never seemed to meet him when he was not in secret conversation with an invisible power and reality; on one bright day during his lifetime he is said to have appeared to one of his pupils `in a transfigured form'." For those who lack such attributes, as in the case of the most typical, Barth observed, "We may reflect upon the great practical problem he raised, which caused him to be so violently rejected, and think how he was in fact unable to find an effective counter to this rejection; we may observe him in the grief and loneliness which was brought upon him on the one hand by the truth he unwillingly represented, and on the other by the insufficiency and lack of fertility of his zeal for truth. Observing these things we involuntarily see not only him, bit in a certain aspect the typical theologian of the century, so that we are not then content, like Hausrath, to establish that Strauss was `essentially a pathological figure.' " I'm not giving a page number for anything in this review, knowing that a 1959 translation of eleven chapters of this book was published with the title FROM ROUSSEAU TO RITSCHL, the complete book was prepared from lectures "which Hitler prevented him from finishing" according to the Preface to the First Complete English Edition in the Judson Press edition, 1973, and I have not had an opportunity to compare either with whatever might be currently available.

What strikes me about the book, as a whole, is that it attempts to cover religious thought at a time which coincides with the concepts of Karl Jaspers in his unfinished history of THE GREAT PHILOSOPHERS VOLUME IV, subtitled: The Disturbers. Barth died in 1968 and Jaspers in 1969, though Jaspers was born in 1883 and Barth in 1886, and both were concerned about German thought in the century that produced them. Jaspers sees a relationship between Kant and Lessing, though "Kant's CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON appeared a few weeks after Lessing's death." Lessing might not have learned much from Kant, but Kant "learned aesthetics and religion from him. . . . Seen objectively, here were two Germans who overcame and went beyond the halfhearted and shallow Enlightenment of reason to the true enlightenment, which is the medium and presupposition of the philosophy of Existenz." Kant and Lessing are both considered in Part I/Background of PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY by Karl Barth.

A big difference between Barth and Jaspers is on David Friedrich Strauss, who gets credit, in Jaspers, for information on a huge volume by Reimarus, which "became known at a time when it had lost most of its interest. A quarter of the material was published in 1850-52 in Niedner's JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY; the rest was reported on in a careful analysis by D. F. Strauss." Barth is more interested in what Strauss might have been thinking, and quotes that, "he found it possible to write, as early as 7th April, 1837: `I am beginning to find the manner of pure science a dry one. I was not really meant to be a scholar; I am much too dependent upon mood, and far too self-occupied.' " (Chapter 19/Strauss). Barth even quotes Albert Schweitzer, [this is not in the book, D. FR. STRAUSS UND DIE THEOLOGIE SEINER ZEIT], who wrote, "Strauss must be loved in order to be understood." Barth suggests that we sympathize. "It may well be that in David Friedrich Strauss, just because there is no tragic quality in him, a secret ailment of the whole of modern theology is focused and represented in a special way, so that it was not without justice that he was probably the best-known and most influential theologian of the nineteenth century, in non-theological and non-church circles." It is in the field of music, in which the praise of Strauss for Mozart, the universal genius, where Barth found Strauss superior to those who most ferociously were his detractors. "In this poor Strauss really seems to have chosen the better part, as against Nietzsche, who, as is well known, was the helpless slave of the dreadful Wagner at the time of his great deriding of Strauss."

Webster continues the task taken up in his previous effort, Barth's Ethics of Reconciliation, which examined Barth's mature ethical writings. Here, he expands the defence of his thesis that Barth's relativizing of human moral consciousness before the Word of God does not at all compromise, but rather properly establishes, the true place of human action. He offers a revision of previous efforts at Barth interpretation (similar to Bruce McCormack's work) through a more exhaustive and systematic study, utilizing neglected or previously unavailable texts such as Barth's Muenster Ethics and The Christian Life, as well as the early ethical writings not addressed in Webster's last study in Barthian ethics. It is an important contribution to Barth scholarship and to theological ethics upon which further efforts will be built.

Dr. Dorrien's discussion of modern theology is in-depth, thoughtful and an accurate portrayal of this Barthian revolt. He gives a detailed portrayal of all aspects of this movement.

David Paul Henry, The Early Development of the Hermeneutic of Karl Barth As Evidenced by His Appropriation of Romans 5:12-21 (National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Dissertation Series, 1985)

Karl Barth is something of an enigma: a self-styled Roman Catholic "simple country preacher" before and during World War I who took up the task of theological hermeneutics (at its most simplistic level, hermeneutics is simply the interpretation of text) as a means to the end of finding a more effective way to get the Christian message across to his parishoners. He ended up as, basically, the voice of Pauline thought acorss the Christian religion by the time of his death in 1968. David Paul Henry, in his doctoral dissertation, looks at the differences between the first two editions of Barth's book _Der Romerbrief_, published in 1917 and 1920, in an effort to trace the development of Barth's interpretive skills and methods during this period-- in which, it can be inferred, Barth's theological underpinnings did more changing than they did at any other time during his life. Henry also includes an epilogue pertaining to Barth's 1959 release Christ and Adam, which is in many ways a second revision of the original Der Romerbrief.

Barth as a subject is an endlessly fascinating person. His writings, on the other hand, can be something of a trial for the casual reader (I've heard they're actually worse in the original German). Thus, when Henry starts his book with a forty-page excerpt of the first edition of Der Romerbrief (Henry's own translation of the work-- which, in his own words, "attempts to render Barth's phrases in literal English equivalents." Oh, the pain and suffering.), the reader can get the feeling of being quite overwhelmed, even if he has been immersed in the writings of Barth before. Henry's translation does, however, achieve his stated goal of allowing the forcefulness of Barth's personality and conviction to come through; Barth, compared to most of today's well-known American evangelists, comes off as the Mephistopheles to a legion of wan, undernourished Fausts.

The remaining hundred-fifty-odd pages of the book are Henry's own writing, which is quite a bit more readable than Barth, and the book picks up speed. Henry first devotes two separate chapters to the two steps Barth took in his exegetical writing-- the historical interpretation of the text first, and then the (as J. T. Beck put it) "pneumatic exegesis," best described in cimplestic terms as the spiritual interpretation of the text. The fourth and last chapter compares the differences in the second edition-- not so much differences in text as differences in Barth's thinking that led him to rewrite the manuscript (the textual differences are, for the most part, differing translations of the original Greek which Biblical scholars have been arguing over for centuries, are still arguing, and will likely never stop arguing).

If you're a fan of understanding methods of textual interpretation, you don't need me to tell you it's fascinating stuff. Trying to get at the thought processes of a writer makes for great history. Henry had an inroad that most authors don't, in that Barth left two distinct editions of one work in his corpus, and so Henry's book is more cpaable than most of tracing those thoughts. As this is his intention, he also stays away (until the last few paragraphs of chapter four) of value judgments of the work itself, a refreshing change from most exegetical histories.

This isn't light reading, and those completing the book are likely to crack a smile at the irony of Henry's last sentence in Chapter Four: "The task of theological hermeneutics, as Karl Barth recognized, is not simple." Indeed. But that doesn't make Henry's work any less worth reading. I would suggest, however, that novices to the intriguing world of exegesis (either of original texts or exegetic texts such as Barth's) find a slightly less difficult subject to address first, e.g. Stanley Fish's exegesis of Milton, _Surprised by Sin: The Reader in Paradise Lost_. If you find it to your liking, Henry should be right up your alley. (Tackling Henry before tackling Barth is much advised.) *** 1/2