INTRODUCING CHRISTIANITY INTO CHRISTENDOM: INVESTIGATING THE AFFINITY BETWEEN SØREN KIERKEGAARD AND THE EARLY THOUGHT OF KARL BARTH BY SEAN A. TURCHIN A THESIS PRESENTED FOR THE DEGREE OF PhD THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH SCHOOL OF DIVINITY 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................iv INTRODUCTION: Barth’s Relation to Kierkegaard…………………..........1 Introducing the Problem The Barthian Lenses: The Problem The Problem Addressed Task and Procedure CHAPTER ONE: Kierkegaard’s Dialectical Theology ................................22 Introduction: Procedure .....................................................................22 Kierkegaard’s Authorship ..................................................................24 1. Introduction 2. Historical Backdrop: Hegelian Christianity 3. The Authorship’s Task Speculative Philosophy and Knowledge of God: The Infinite Qualitative Difference ........................................................................44 1. The Self With/Without Selfhood and God 2. Christ as Knowledge of God Christ and History ..............................................................................68 Faith and Offence ...............................................................................84 Conclusion......................................................................................................89 CHAPTER TWO: Kierkegaard and Der Römerbrief : The Infinite Qualitative Distinction ..........................................................................................91 Introduction: Procedure .....................................................................91 Kierkegaard in Romans II : Problems .................................................92 The Infinite Qualitative Distinction and Dialectical Theology ..........96 1. The Historical Context of the Significance of the Infinite Qualitative Distinction 2. Barth’s possible familiarity with Kierkegaard’s thought: The Kierkegaard Renaissance 3. The Function of the Infinite Qualitative Distinction in Romans II 4. The Grounding of the Infinite Qualitative Distinction 5. Barth’s misapprehension of Kierkegaard’s dialectic of the Infinite Qualitative Distinction: Positive dimensions of the Infinite Qualitative Distinction History and Christian Truth .............................................................129 Paradox: The Incarnation and History .............................................132 Faith and Offence .............................................................................147 Conclusion .......................................................................................155 ii CHAPTER THREE: Kierkegaard and the Göttingen Dogmatics ...............160 Introduction: Procedure and Problems .............................................160 1. The Objective of the Göttingen Dogmatics 2. Evidencing a Problem with Kierkegaard Man as His Question: Human Existence as Contradiction .............170 1. A More Refined Anthropology 2. Barth on the Self as Contradiction 3. Kierkegaard and Barth on the Self The Objective Possibility of Revelation ..........................................186 1. God as Object in Jesus Christ 2. The Paradox of Revelation 3. Christ and History 4. Indirect Communication and Contemporaneity The Subjective Possibility of Revelation .........................................207 1. The Recipients of Revelation 2. Faith as Subjectivity CONCLUSION ............................................................................................220 iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CUP Concluding Unscientific Postscript [1846] PF Philosophical Fragments [1844] POV The Point of View For My Work as an Author [Posthumous 1859] PC Practice in Christianity [1851] SUD The Sickness unto Death [1849] JP The Journals and Papers Disclaimer: Some of the material in the section, Kierkegaard’s Dialectical Theology and Barth’s possible familiarity with Kierkegaard’s thought: The Kierkegaard Renaissance is taken from my M.A. thesis, Examining the Primary Influence on Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans. iv INTRODUCTION: BARTH’S RELATION TO KIERKEGAARD: PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURE Introducing the Problem The Swiss theologian Karl Barth’s (1886-1968) relation to the Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is one which has been touched upon repeatedly with regard to influence and parallels. It is an issue that has produced diverse conclusions ranging from that of T. F. Torrance, who believed Barth to have been influenced by Kierkegaard to an extent even unknown to himself, 1 to the likes of Bruce McCormack 2 who views the affinity as exaggerated. 3 However, this intriguing relationship refuses a conclusive position regarding the extent to which Barth had been influenced by Kierkegaard; any attempt that seeks to resolve this question disregards both the complexity of Barth’s thought and the sheer range of thinkers who had contributed to his theological development.4 Moreover, Barth’s own comments on the influence of Kierkegaard on his development complicate the investigation into the relationship between the two. Whereas in 1922 Barth admits a dependence on Kierkegaard in the second edition of The Epistle to the Romans , by 1963 he has assumed a more cautious relation to Kierkegaard. In 1963, Barth accepted the Sonning Prize in Copenhagen, Denmark, in recognition of his role in facilitating Kierkegaard’s reception in both the German and 1 See, T.F. Torrance, Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology 1910-1031 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962), 44. 2 See, Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 216-217. 3The scholarship addressing this relationship, although not mentioned specifically here, will be mentioned throughout this work as relevant to the specific discussion at hand. Therefore, the various considerations given by both Barth and Kierkegaard scholarship which aid in both obscuring and/or clarifying this relationship between Barth and Kierkegaard will be noted at length. 4 For a full discussion of Barth’s theological development see, Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). 1 English speaking world. 5 Commenting on this role Barth states, “The second edition of my Epistle to the Romans is the very telling document of my participation in what has been called ‘the Kierkegaard Renaissance.’” 6 As is well known, Barth’s participation in the Kierkegaard Renaissance is confirmed in his own attributing of his methodology of the second edition of the Epistle to the Romans (hereafter Romans II ) as one grounded in Kierkegaard’s concept of the infinite qualitative difference (hereafter IQD ) between God and humanity. Continuing his speech, Barth notes what he, and others, had learned from Kierkegaard at that time: [What] attracted us particularly to him, what we rejoiced in, and what we learned, was the criticism, so unrelenting in its incisiveness, with which he attacked so much: all the speculation which blurred the infinite qualitative difference between God and man…all the attempts to make the scriptural message innocuous, all the too pretentious and at the same time too cheap christianism and churchiness of prevalent theology, from which we ourselves were not as yet quite free .7 Yet the influence of Kierkegaard’s thought on Barth’s Romans II extends beyond the confines of this one concept alone. Romans II repeatedly makes use of Kierkegaardian terminology such as Paradox, Incognito, indirect communication , etc. 8 Interestingly, however, after reminiscing those early days, Barth’s tone suddenly shifts in direction. He asks, “Did not a new anthropocentric system announce itself in Kierkegaard’s theoretical groundwork – one quite opposed to that 5 Although the name “Kierkegaard” is seen scattered and imbedded throughout the works of a few theologians at the dawning of the twentieth century, it was predominantly Barth who had introduced the theological world to Kierkegaard’s thought which found its debut in Barth’s better known second edition of the Epistle to the Romans (Der Römerbrief ). For a further, but brief, examination of Barth’s role in the Kierkegaard Reception in Germany, see Heiko Schulz, “Germany and Austria: A Modest Head Start: The German Reception of Kierkegaard” in Kierkegaard’s International Reception Tome I: Northern and Western Europe , edited by Jon Stewart (Ashgate, 2009), pp. 307-387. 6 Karl Barth, “Thank –You and a Bow: Kierkegaard’s Reveille” in Canadian Journal of Theology , Vol. XI.I (1965), 5. 7 Ibid., 5. 8 McCormack questions whether the presence of “Kierkegaardian language and concepts” in Romans II is suggestive of influence. It could be that Barth, suggests McCormack, merely borrowed Kierkegaard’s concepts but then received the “content” from others such as Heinrich Barth. See, McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 , 237. 2 at which we aimed?” 9 In light of Barth’s own admission that his methodology is Kierkegaardian, coupled with his use of other Kierkegaardian language, his questioning, here, is intriguing. 10 Kierkegaard’s influence on Romans II was, for Barth, significant when contrasted with the first edition, which Barth later thought yet too reflective of the liberal theological training he had acquired while studying at Bonn, Tübingen, and Marburg. However, with