129 - Jesus and Judas: Biblical Exegesis in Barth

Jesus and Judas: Biblical Exegesis in Barth
By Paul McGlasson
Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1991. 160 pp. $14.95.

This study of the famous exegetical fine print in the Church Dogmatics is based on the author's supposition that "the best way to come to grips with Barth's possible contribution to contemporary theological hermeneutics is to focus on his actual exegesis, rather than the less clear contours of his few hermeneutical statements."

The investigation is limited to the exegetical passages contained within the first four half-volumes of the Church Dogmatics, in the confidence that this material will disclose major characteristics of Barth's exegesis as a whole. The description and analysis of this material is carried out under four headings: (1) The Bible as Witness, which concentrates on the content of the Bible as text, and the object of the Bible in the divine Word, (2) Christ and the Bible, which gives an account of the ways in which Barth's "christocentrism" emerges (and fails to emerge) in the exegesis, often surprisingly, and never by means of a formal christological hermeneutic, (3) The Bible and Theology, which examines "pressures" brought to bear on Barth's exegesis by "the conceptual and theological context in which it is conducted," and (4) Explication of the Text, a summary characterization of Barth's exegetical method as the combination of a "conceptual analytical" with a "narrative," or "broken narrative" reading of the text. A final chapter affords a lucid overview of the ground that has been covered

130 - Jesus and Judas: Biblical Exegesis in Barth

In each of the four main chapters, the author characterizes what he takes to be a "major aspect of Barth's biblical exegesis, "each illustrated by exegetical examples drawn from the selected volumes of the Church Dogmatics. In addition, each chapter offers a close analysis of a particular exegetical excursus in its own right.

The provocative title, Jesus and Judas, derives from Barth's treatment of New Testament accounts of Judas in Church Dogmatics II, 2. Close analysis of this excursus complements the discussion in chapter four, but the author also finds this excursus to be representative to some extent of "Barth's exegetical approach as a whole." This is a debatable judgment, but the author does show how this piece of exegesis reflects the substance of the argument in each of the four main chapters.

Could one make an alternative selection of exegetical examples from the entire Church Dogmatics and arrive at a different characterization of Barth's exegesis? My hunch is that such an enterprise might well extend and modify what is said here, but I doubt whether it would dislodge McGlasson's conclusions altogether. The late Hans Frei must have been gratified that one of his doctoral students was able to say so much, so clearly, in such short compass, on so daunting a dissertation subject. Karl Barth himself, I think, would have been at least mildly apoplectic on reading this attempt to characterize his exegesis in relative isolation from the whole argument of the Church Dogmatics. Yet Barth's exegetical work has been taken very seriously here, and a sensitive effort has been made to fathom its depths.

Die-hard Barthians should read this book for the honest questions it raises about Barth's use of the Bible. Non-Barthians may want to read it for the corrective it offers to facile misrepresentations of Barth's exegesis. Those who look forward to "a renewed attempt at the theological exegesis of biblical texts, an encounter with Holy Scripture beyond historical criticism and hermeneutics" may find this discussion especially stimulating. Its clarity of language makes the book accessible to anyone who is curious, whether for these or other reasons.

With some imagination most of the typographical errors are surmountable (I do hope Dr. McGlasson intended "singleminded" rather than "simpleminded" on p. 66), but elisions in some sentences (for example, those bridging pages 60 and 61 and pages 76 and 77) render significant statements unintelligible.

James A. Wharton
Perkins School of Theology
Dallas, Texas