^{page 105 note 1} Parrhesia, Karl Barth zum achsigsten Geburstag, ed. by Geiger, Max (Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} See Hamilton, William and Altizer, Thomas J. J., Radical Theology and the Death of God (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966)Google ScholarCox, Harvey, ‘The Death of God and the Future of Theology’ in New Theology, No. 4, ed. by Marty, Martin E. and Peerman, Dean G. (New York: Macmillan CO., 1967), pp. 243–53.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} Barth, Karl, Die Theologie und die Kirche (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1928), p. 241Google Scholar; English translation by Louise Smith, P., Theology and the Church (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 239.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 2} Bethge, Eberhard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1967), pp. 102–7, 115.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 1} Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik, Bd. IV/2 (Zürich-Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1955), p. 725.Google Scholar Parenthesis and translation mine.

^{page 107 note 2} ‘Von Anfang an, selber anfangen.’ The remark is, of course, reconstructed from memory. The phrase, ‘selber anfangen’ is clearest in my mind. The year was, I think, 1955. Could the Sanctorum Communio have been in the back of Barth's mind?

^{page 108 note 1} Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Wiederstand und Ergebung (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1952) p. 24Google Scholar; English translation by Fuller, Reginald H., Letters and Papers from Prison (London: SCM, 1953), p. 153Google Scholar; new edition, Fuller, revised and enlarged, 1967, p. 180.

^{page 108 note 2} Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Gesammelte Schriften (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Bd. I, 1958), pp. 23, 61.Google Scholar The allusion of the phrase ‘such things’ is to Abraham's appeal to God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18).

^{page 108 note 3} Bethge, , op. cit., p. 223.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 1} Bethge distinguishes four stages in the relations between Bonhoeffer and Barth: (1) a literary knowledge, beginning in 1925 and culminating in the questions put to Barth, in Sanctorum Communio (1927)Google Scholar and Akt und Sein (1929). The point at issue concerned the finitum capax infiniti. (2) The stage of eagerly sought out personal meetings, between 1931–3. Here Bonhoeffer hoped in vain for Barth's concurrence in his concern for the concreteness of the ethical command. (3) The period of theological distance, despite intimate personal comradeship in the church struggle. This was the period of the Nachfolge, which received Barth's laudatory recognition only after Bonhoeffer's death. (4) The period of renewed, though indirect questions to Barth from prison, especially in the letters of 1944, in which Bonhoeffer's charge against Barth of Offenbarungspositivismus greatly disturbed Barth. (ibid. p. 219.)

^{page 109 note 2} Bethge, ibid., p. 224.

^{page 109 note 3} Bethge, ibid., p. 224.

^{page 109 note 4} ibid., p. 227.

^{page 109 note 5} The phrases are in chronological and textual order, i.e. from Sanctorum Communio, Akt und Sein, Nachfolge, and the last two, from the Ethik.

^{page 110 note 1} Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Die Frage nach Gott’ (Evangelische Theologie, April-May, 1965), pp. 238–62.Google Scholar The major work on Christology is entitled, Grundzuege der Christologie (Guetersloh, 1964).Google Scholar An English translation of this work by Wilkins, Lewis L. and Prisbe, Duane A. is entitled, Jesus—God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} Cf. Gollwitzer, Helmut, Die Existenz Gottes (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1963Google Scholar; and Braun, Herbert, Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen: 1962).Google Scholar Gollwitzer's book appeared in English translation through the Westminster Press, Philadelphia, in 1965, under the title, The Existence of God as Confessed by Faith.

^{page 111 note 1} Cf. Fuchs, Ernst, Studies of the Historical Jesus (Naperville, 1964)Google Scholar; Kaesemann, Ernst, Essays on New Testament Thunes (Naperville, 1964)Google Scholar; Ebeling, Gerhard, The Nature of Faith (Philadelphia, 1961)Google Scholar; The Word of Faith, 1963; Robinson, James M., The New Hermeneutic (New York, 1964), The New Quest of the Historical Jesus.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 2} Fuchs, Ernst, op. cit., p. 186Google Scholar; Ebeling, Gerhard, in The New Hermeneutic, p. 96.Google Scholar There is an admirable summary and critique of the shifts under discussion here in Herzog, Frederick, Under-standing God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966)Google Scholar, chapter IV. Although Herzog is singularly silent about Karl Barth, his book is an instructive documentation of this thematic attempt at selber anfangen, with which we are here concerned. Indeed, it is in reflecting upon Herzog's discussion that the interconnections have suggested themselves to me.

^{page 112 note 1} Quoted by Herzog, Frederick, op. cit., p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 2} Robinson, J. M., The New Hermeneutic, p. 77.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 3} ibid., p. 70.

^{page 112 note 4} For a careful and instructive analysis of this possibility, see Jenson, Robert W., The Knowledge of Things Hoped For (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969)Google Scholar, especially chapters 4 and 6.

^{page 112 note 5} Moltmann, Jürgen, Theologie der Hoffnung (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966).Google Scholar References to this work will be indicated in parentheses in the text. Translations mine.

^{page 113 note 1} ‘Spes quaerens intellectum’ ist der Ansatz zur Eschatologie und, wo sie gelingt, wird sie zur dotta spes. (J. Moltmann, ibid., p. 30.)

^{page 113 note 1} Karl Barth, K.D. III/I, pp. 41–2.

^{page 114 note 1} Moltmann, J., op. cit., p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 2} The phrase is Moltmann's (ibid., p. 40). Moltmann further quotes, as a kind of key sentence, the following from Kant's essay: ‘Since we are here concerned (or merely play with) ideas which the reason itself creates, the objects of which (if there are such) lie quite beyond our horizon, yet which, although unobtainable by speculative knowledge, are nevertheless not on that account to be regarded as empty in every respect, but as given to use for practical purposes by the legislative reason, not in order to pursue pedantically (nachzugrübeln) the objects of these ideas or what they might be intrinsically, but in order to show how we are to use them to advantage in thinking about the moral foundations underlying the ultimate goal of all things (so that ideas otherwise totally empty would acquire objective, practical reality)…:’ Italics Moltmann's; parentheses Kant's; translation mine.

^{page 114 note 3} J. Moltmann, ibid., p. 40.

^{page 114 note 4} J. Moltmann, ibid., p. 43. Parentheses mine.

^{page 115 note 1} Barth, , K.D., I/2 (Zurich: Evangelische Verlag, 1938), pp. 741, 779).Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, op. cit., p. 142 (1967Google Scholar edition).

^{page 115 note 3} Altizer, Thomas J. J. and Hamilton, William, op. cit., p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 4} ibid., p. 37. See also Buren, Paul Van, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (New York: Macmillan Co., 1963)Google Scholar, esp. ch. I.

^{page 115 note 5} E.g. the controversy between Herbert Braun and Helmut Gollwitzer. See n. 16 above.

^{page 116 note 1} Barth, K.Die Theologie und die Kirche (Münich: Chr. Kaiser, 1928)Google Scholar, English translation by Smith, Louise Pettibone, entitled Theology and the Church (New York: Harper and Row, 1962; pp). 212–239Google Scholar; Die Protestantische Theologie in Neunzehten Jahrhundert (Zollikon: Evangelische Verlag, 1947), par. 18.Google Scholar The English translation is called, Protestant Thought: from Rousseau to Ritschl (New York: Harper and Bros., 1959), ch. 9.Google Scholar In the latter work, the tell-tale sentence reads, ‘His (Feuerbach's) concern is a simple but vast one: namely, to take Schleiermacher and Hegel very seriously precisely at that at at which they concur in affirming the non-objectivity (Nicht-Gegenständlichkeit) of God’. (P. 484.) Parentheses mine.

^{page 116 note 2} Motta, Henri, ‘Feuerbach and Bonhoeffer: Criticism of Religion and the Last Period of Bonhoeffer's Thought’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review (Vol. 24, 1), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 3} See Bethge, Eberhard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1967), p. 1049.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} Herzog, Frederick, Understanding God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966)Google Scholar; Richardson, Herbert, Towards an American Theology (New York, Harper and Row, 1967)Google Scholar; and Vahanian, Gabriel, The Death of God (New York: George Braziller, 1961)Google Scholar; Wait without Idols (1963); and No Other God (1966).

^{page 118 note 1} Vahanian, , The Death of God, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 2} ibid., pp. 175, 174.

^{page 118 note 3} ibid., p. 172.

^{page 118 note 4} ibid., p. 173.

^{page 118 note 5} ibid., p. 174.

^{page 119 note 1} Vahanian, , No Other God, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 2} Quoted by Vahanian, in No Other God, p. 30Google Scholar, from Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Christianity (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957), p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 3} Vahanian, ibid., p. 30. Barth's, remark is in The Word of God and the Word of Man (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957), p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 4} Vahanian, ibid., pp. 27–28, 30.

^{page 119 note 5} Vahanian, , Wait Without Idols, p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 6} Vahanian, , No Other God, p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 7} ibid., p. 29.

^{page 119 note 8} ibid., p. 30.

^{page 120 note 1} Barth, K.Der Römerbrief, Fünfte Abdruck (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1929), p. 5Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 2} Barth, K., K.D. IV/I (Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1953), p. 171Google Scholar; English translation (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark), p. 157.