Karl Barth's Christology Religion and Reason 21 Method and Theory in the Study and Interpretation of Religion GENERAL EDITOR Jacques Waardenburg, University of Utrecht BOARD OF ADVISERS Th. P. van Baaren, Groningen R. N. Bellah, Berkeley U. Bianchi, Rome H. J. W. Drijvers, Groningen W. Dupré, Nijmegen S. N. Eisenstadt, Jerusalem M. Elida, Chicago C. Geertz, Princeton K. Goldammer, Marburg P. Ricoeur, Paris and Chicago M. Rodinson, Paris K. Rudolph, Santa Barbara, Calif. N. Smart, Lancaster and Santa Barbara, Calif. G. Widengren, Stockholm MOUTON PUBLISHERS • BERLIN • NEW YORK • AMSTERDAM Karl Barth's Christology Its Basic Alexandrian Character By Charles T. Waldrop MOUTON PUBLISHERS • BERLIN • NEW YORK • AMSTERDAM Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Waldrop, Charles T„ 1938- Karl Barth's christology. (Religion and reason ; 21) Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Jesus Christ—History of doctrines—20th century. 2. Alexandrian school, Christian. 3. Barth, Karl, 1886-1968. I. Title. II. Series. BT198.W33 1984 232 84-20701 ISBN 90-279-3109-7 © Copyright 1984 by Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form — by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means — nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without written permission from the publisher. — Printing: Druckerei Hildebrand, Berlin. — Binding: Dieter Mikolai, Berlin. Printed in Germany. For Lyneve and Andy Preface This book began as a study of Barth's christological language. In the early stages of my research, I was in- fluenced by the emphasis among philosophers upon linguis- tic analysis, and my goal was to clarify and evaluate the principles which govern Barth's uses of the term "Jesus Christ" and its variants, such as "Jesus," "Christ," "Son of Man," and so forth. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that Barth assigns to "Jesus Christ" predicates which appear startling, confusing, and even contradictory. Following the lead of analytic philosophers, I wanted to determine whether Barth's christological propositions are meaningful, and if they are, what factors provide the foundation for their meaning. It soon became evident to me, however, that the principles which govern Barth's christological language are theological principles, not simply linguistic or philosophical principles. Consequently, I found it necessary to turn to the history of Christian theology, especially the crucial debates about Jesus Christ. As the final product of my research indicates, I have concluded that the dialogue between the theologians of Alexandria and the theologians of Antioch during the early centuries of Christian history, when the formative creeds were being developed, sheds considerable light upon the obscurities present in Barth's statements about Jesus Christ. When one becomes aware that Barth follows Alexandrian theolo- gians in his understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the unity of the person of Jesus Christ, Barth's uses of "Jesus Christ" and its variants become understandable. At one stage of my research, I believed that Barth was an Antiochian theologian. I was influenced by com- viii Karl Barth's Christology mentators such as John Mclntyre, who understand Barth as though he were a representative of the Antiochian theolog- ical tradition, and I discovered that much of Barth's christology can appear to "make sense" when it is seen from that perspective. It was my teacher and dissertation adviser, Dr. Gordon D. Kaufman, Professor of Theology at Harvard University, who first raised questions in my mind regarding the validity of that interpretation. In a pri- vate conversation, he told me that he doubted that Barth understands the human nature of the Logos as an individual person, even though that human nature is described in the Church Dogmatics as having its own personality and will. Since those who classify Barth as an Antiochian theologian tend to conclude that Barth identifies the human nature which the Logos assumed in the incarnation with the in- dividual named "Jesus," I realized that if Dr. Kaufman's doubts were justified, the view that Barth is an Antiochian theologian is seriously threatened. That realization was an important turning point in my research, for it led me both to reevaluate the idea that Barth is an Antiochian theologian and also to give careful considera- tion to the possibility that Barth might stand in the Alexandrian theological tradition. Once I began to inter- pret Barth from an Alexandrian perspective, I discovered how much more sound that view is. The last stage of the development of the subject matter of the book had to do, again, with philosophy. I came full circle, so to speak, in that my study began and ended with an emphasis upon philosophical concerns. Dr. Jacques Waardenburg, General Editor of the Mouton series "Religion and Reason," in addition to many other thoughtful observations, suggested that I broaden the scope of my study beyond christology by considering the philosophical presuppositions of Barth's theology in comparison with the philosophical foundations of Alexan- drian theology. He concluded, correctly, I believe, that adding a discussion of this question would enhance the quality of the book and also make it more interesting to philosophers as well as theologians. The results of my research and reflection on this topic to date are found primarily in the section "Barth's Theology and the Alexan- drian Theological Tradition" in the fifth chapter. Because this issue is important and complex, and because I Preface ix realize that my examination of it is not exhaustive, I hope that my observations will stimulate others to con- tinue the investigation. Many people and institutions have contributed to the completion of this work, and it would not be possible to acknowledge all of them. However, I want to express my gratitude to those whose influence has been most decisive. First, I am grateful to the members of my family, especially my parents, my wife, and my son. My mother taught me by example that religion is an important dimen- sion of human life; without her influence I doubt that I would have chosen the study of religion as my life's work. My wife, Lyneve, is also a college professor; we have helped each other balance the demands of Ph.D. programs, teaching careers, and domestic responsibilities. She read the entire manuscript and made many valuable suggestions regarding content and style. My young son, Andy, has heard about this book almost all of his life; his growing understanding of its importance to me, and his consequent willingness to allow me quiet time have led me to admire his young maturity. Second, many of my teachers, fellow students, and colleagues have had a significant impact on me. Dr. Dan 0. Via, Jr., now of the University of Virginia, was the pro- fessor of my first religion course in college, and it was under his direction that I first experienced the satis- factions of studying religion academically. Dr. J. William Angell, Wake Forest University, was my first professor of historical and systematic theology; and Dr. Leander E. Keck, now Dean of Yale Divinity School and at one time my professor at Vanderbilt University, restimulated my interest in theology when it was at a low ebb. Dr. Gordon D. Kaufman, in addition to his insight about Barth's concept of the human nature of the Logos, presented many constructive criticisms which have enhanced the quality of this work. Also, he, Dr. Richard R. Niebuhr, and Dr. Wolfhart Pannenberg launched my teaching career by invit- ing me to be "Teaching Follow" in courses they taught at Harvard Divinity School, and each of them gave me valuable guidance. Others who have helped me develop my theo- logical skills are Herbert W. Richardson, University of Toronto; George Rupp, Dean of Harvard Divinity School; Melvin Goering, Executive Director of Associated Colleges x Karl Barth's Christology of Central Kansas; Wayne Proudfoot, Columbia University; Gene Klaaren, Wesleyan University; Marcus Hester, Wake Forest University; Robert Shellenberger, Greeley, Colo- rado; Ronald Vinson and Thomas F. Duncan, Atlanta, Georgia; Claude Stewart, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Tom Davis, Skidmore College; and Gerald Largo, St. Francis College. Third, in a category by himself is Dr. Allen Hackett, now a retired churchman, who was Area Minister of the Metropolitan Boston Association, United Church of Christ, and my "superior" when I was a student-pastor. Dr. Hackett, an expert on French Protestantism and the author of several books, took time off from a busy schedule to read my manuscript and make comments. He provided helpful suggestions and enthusiastic encouragement. He and his wife Dorothy have become honorary members of my family. Fourth, for financial support, I want to register my appreciation to Brother Donald Sullivan, O.S.F., Presi- dent, and the members of the Board of Trustees, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, New York, for providing re- search funds for use by faculty members. I am also grate- ful that the ""members of the Faculty Research Committee, chaired by Professor Sidney Rutar, awarded me a portion of those resources to apply toward the production costs of this volume. Fifth, for advice regarding technical matters related to publication, I am grateful not only to the staff at Mouton, especially Asta Wonneberger, but also to Kevin Von Gonton and Francis Slade. For typing, I want to thank Sarah Braveman, Lynne Roberts, Nancy Giammarella, Elisa- beth Barlow and Joe Ann Olszowy. For proofreading, I am grateful to Gerald Galgan, Jeanne-Anne Lewis, Nithya Micheletti, and Geraldine Smith. Finally, I want to thank Professor Jacques Waardenburg, not only for his valuable advice regarding subject matter and style, but also for selecting this work for publi- cation in the "Religion and Reason" series. I am elated that my years of study have been rewarded with this good fortune. Any mistakes of detail or judgment that remain, in spite of the efforts of my many advisers, are, of course, my own. Saratoga Springs, New York Charles T. Waldrop