European Journal of Theology - Volume 32, Issue 2, 2023

Der vorliegende Artikel befasst sich mit zwei Fragen bezüglich Karl Barths Exegese in seinem berühmten Kommentar zum Römerbrief. Zunächst: ob Barths Exegese eine zuverlässige Richtschnur für die Kirche wie für interessierte Leser im 21. Jahrhundert darstellt. Zweitens: ob Barth Paulus‘ Gedankengang im Römerbrief gerecht wurde und ob er dessen Theologie treu wiedergab. Der Artikel versucht ein Schlaglicht zu werfen auf Barths exegetische Grundsätze und liefert Beispiele dafür, was im Kommentar geschieht, wenn Barth griechische Begriffe und Textvariante erörtert. Die Bilanz lautet: formal bietet der Kommentar Beispiele wertvoller Exegese, doch Barths theologische Agenda unterscheidet sich von der des Paulus. Statt sich auf den Römerbrief zu fokussieren, erörtert Barth die Begriffe des Paulus im Lichte dessen weiteren Briefen, die Barth durch eine kulturell stark gefärbte Brille betrachtet. Barth übersetzt die Botschaft des alten Textes in moderne Begriffe, vergleichbar mit Rudolf Bultmanns re-mythologisierte Bände neutestamentlicher Theologie.

This paper seeks to establish the current situation in respect of Barth reception among evangelicals, focussing on Barth reception among evangelicals in Scotland. Describing my own theological pilgrimage, I noted that this reception involved a contrast between two Reformed ‘tribes’, the one centred on Cornelius Van Til (against Barth) and the other on T.F. Torrance (for Barth). In the early period of Van Til’s criticism of Barth, most evangelicals supported him. Today the state of affairs is very different, with Barth finding acceptance among perhaps a majority of evangelicals. I note that, for some evangelicals, critical differences remain on Scripture, on the nature of Reformed Theology, on election and on the atonement.

Plato’s dialogue Parmenides contains the infamous ontological bombshell, the so-called Third Man argument. This argument involves a reductio criticism of the forms, arguing that the reductio premise – roughly, ‘there cannot be any ontological interpenetration between the One and the many’ – is false. The argument intimates that the only way for thought to move beyond the forms is to accept the ‘impossible’ object, the nonsensical One-and-many. This article calls any ontology which accepts this Third Man argument and attempts to answer it on its own terms, ‘material dialectic’. The high-profile debate between John Milbank and Slavoj Žižek in The Monstrosity of Christ brings the relevance of this dialectic into stark relief. Both authors accept the material dialectic and mobilise it toward competing christological theses. Yet it is important to navigate the Third Man argument in such a way as to keep a dyophysite Christology in order to satisfy orthodox theological pressures. I will therefore advance two conclusions: first, that the material dialectic is a valid analytical project; and second, that neither Milbank nor Žižek espouses an orthodox Christology: Milbank’s is monophysite while Žižek’s is patripassian. Following Milbank, I will call the final (dyophysite) corrective the ‘Catholic Žižek’ – only, contra Milbank, it will be the real Catholic Žižek.

The figure of Abraham occurs both in the Bible and in the Qur`an. In the Bible he is in particular held up as one whose faith is counted as righteousness. Similarly, the Qur`an reflects that Abraham is a ‘pure monotheist’ who will be among the righteous. He is also popularly understood as the Father of Faith, with interfaith and secular discourses representing him as the person who joins Judaism, Christianity and Islam together as Abrahamic religions. This paper considers biblical and qur’anic constructs of the righteousness of Abraham, including the qur’anic portrayal of Abraham as ḥanīf, as figurative of the ethics of hope for secular engagement.