Today’s biblical scholars and dogmaticians are giving a significant amount of attention to the topic of theological exegesis. A resource turned to for guidance and insight in this discussion is the history of interpretation, and Karl Barth’s voice registers loudly as a helpful model for engaging Scripture and its subject matter. Most readers of Barth’s theological exegesis encounter him on the level of his New Testament exegesis. This is understandable from several different vantage points. Unfortunately, Barth’s theological exegesis of the Old Testament has not received the attention it deserves. This book seeks to fill this lacuna as it encounters Barth’s theological exegesis of Isaiah in the Church Dogmatics. From the Church’s inception, Isaiah has been understood as Christian Scripture. In the Church Dogmatics we find Barth reading Isaiah in multi-functional and multi-layered ways as he seeks to hear Isaiah as a living witness to God’s triune revelation of himself in Jesus Christ.
Table of Contents
Contents: Preface; Barth and the renaissance of Old Testament theology in the early 20th century; Die Zeit der Erwartung; Barth's theological exegesis of Isaiah 1-39; Bart's theological exegesis of Isaiah 40-66; Theological exegetical implications of Barth's Isaianic exegesis; Bibliography; Indexes.
Mark S. Gignilliat, Assistant Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, USA.
’With this volume Gignilliat has preformed a fine service to both the biblical studies and theological guilds by expositing Barth’s use of the text of Isaiah in his Church Dogmatics. Particularly helpful are Gignilliat’s sensitivities to the history of Old Testament scholarship and especially his own expertise as an exegete of Isaiah... biblical scholars and theologians alike ought to be grateful.’ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ’Chief among its merits is Gignilliat’s strategy for establishing Barth’s nuanced hermeneutical instincts by putting him in dialogue with Baumgartner and Vischer. This approach is creative, well-executed and very illuminating. Furthermore, Gignilliat’s project is at its best when it demonstrates how Barth’s explicitly theological approach can be more appropriate to a text than atomizing historical-critical methods because it respects the final form’s own historical ambiguities rather than interpreting against the backdrop of a hypothetical historical setting of little concern to the text itself.’ Center for Barth Studies