One year after the publication of Fides Quaerens Intellectum, Karl Barth produced the first half-volume of what was to become his life work, the massive Church Dogmatics. The first volume of the Church Dogmatics (which included two half-volumes) amounted to an exten- sive revision and expansion of his now abandoned Christliche Dog- matik and reflected the significant way in which the study of Anselm had changed his thinking about the interpretation of Scripture. To be sure, Barth continued to insist that the goal of interpretation was to meet and understand the subject matter of the text, but now he came to believe that it was possible to meet this subject matter only if the subject made itself known to the interpreter.
The first volume of the Church Dogmatics deals with the doctrine of the Word of God. In it Barth considers the doctrine of Scripture and, in the second half-volume, offers his understanding of the na- ture of hermeneutics. It will become apparent that Barth’s doctrine of Scripture can be understood only in the light of his hermeneutical position. His understanding of Scripture as the witness to revelation, necessary for understanding this revelation, yet not itself the reve- lation, flows directly from his conception of language and its inter- pretation. In turn, his understanding of language in general and religious language in particular proceeds from his study of Anselm’s methodology. To fail to understand these connections is to fail to understand one of the most important elements of Barth’s thought.
Barth insists, in the Church Dogmatics, that biblical hermeneutics is really no different from general hermeneutics. “There is no such thing as a special biblical hermeneutics.“’ All hermeneutical meth-
1. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 5 vols., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Thomas F.
Torrance, trans. Geoffrev W. Bromilev et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1955-57).
l/2: 456:Subsequent references to this text will be madYe parenthetically in the text, using the abbreviation CD.
Reprinted from “The Hermeneutics of Karl Barth” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1980), pp. 136-76.
241
242 CONTEMPORARYAPPROACHES
odology ought to operate on common ground with common pre- suppositions. According to Barth, “biblical, theological hermeneutics is not claiming for itself a mysterious special privilege” (CD, l/2:
727). This is not to say, however, that general hermeneutics and biblical hermeneutics actually do function in the same manner, only that they would do so if each were to recognize how any text is to be interpreted.
There is, says Barth, only one general task of hermeneutics. As an interpreter of the Bible, “I must try to hear the words of the prophets and apostles in exactly the same freedom in which I at- tempt to hear the words of others who speak to me or have written for me as in the main intelligible words” (CD, l/2: 723). In the interpretation of Scripture, as in the interpretation of any other text, it is necessary to employ the tools of “literary-historical investiga- tion.” Indeed, says Barth, “at the start of this attempt [of biblical interpretation] we still find ourselves wholly upon the plane of gen- eral hermeneutics” (CD, l/2: 723).
There is, of course, genuine disagreement between the practi- tioners of general hermeneutics and those who interpret the Bible.
Barth claims, however, that such disagreement does not come about from the use, in biblical hermeneutics, of special and mysterious means of interpretation. Instead, the conflict arises from the failure of general hermeneutics to recognize and appreciate the significant insight into the general methodology of interpretation which is pro- vided by the practice of biblical hermeneutics. “It is from the word of man in the Bible that we must learn what has to be learned concerning the word of man in general. This is not generally rec- ognized. It is more usual blindly to apply to the Bible false ideas taken from some other source concerning the significance and func- tion of the human word” (CD, l/2: 466). The principles of exposi- tion which Barth discusses are, he believes, valid for all texts. He asserts, “because they are valid for biblical exposition they are valid for the exposition of every human word, and can therefore lay claim to universal recognition” (CD, l/2: 466).
THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE
In Barth’s view, a study of biblical hermeneutics can provide im- portant insights into the nature of all human utterances. Based upon these insights, Barth developed a theory of language and meaning which, while derived from observations of biblical language, is de- scriptive of language in general.
According to Barth, the words of an author evoke a picture, or image, of that which is said or written. “The image which [the
THE SOVEREIGN SUBJECT MATTER 243
authors] conjure up reflects the image of an object” (CD, l/2: 723).2 In other words, an author has a particular picture of his world and of the realities that surround him. He then puts this picture into words which reflect the object which he perceives in his world. The reader or hearer of these words then obtains a “picture of [the au- thor’s] expression.”
ducing this picture.
The task of interpretation is the task of repro- Words, then, direct the thinking of the hearer to the object evoked by the word. This thought is reminiscent of Barth’s thinking in his book on Anselm: “We can think of an object by thinking of the word that describes it, that is by obeying the directions which our thinking receives from the sign language of this word and so considering what claims to be the thought of the object concerned.“3
Words are directional signals to an object which is beyond them;
they have no ontological force of their own. Neither do words direct us to an author’s inner thoughts and feelings. Instead, they point to an object beyond both author and interpreter. Indeed, says Barth,
“the understanding of [a human word] cannot consist merely in discovering on what presuppositions, in what situation, in what linguistic sense and with what intention, in what actual context, and in this sense with what meaning the other has said this or that”
(CD, l/2: 464). The point of interpretation is not found in under- standing the words of the text as such nor in entering into the thoughts of the author. Instead, understanding properly occurs when the object evoked by the words of the author is reproduced in the mind of the interpreter.
Indeed, for Barth true understanding does not take place until the image of the subject matter of the text is in some real sense reproduced in the mind of the reader. “We can speak meaningfully of hearing a human word only when it is clear to us in its function of referring to that which is described or intended by the word, but when this its function becomes an event before us, when therefore it happens that by means of the human word we ourselves catch sight to some degree of that which is described or intended” (CD, l/2: 464-65).4 If an interpreter does not “catch sight” of what is
2. Translation mine. The German original reads “Es spiegelt das Bild ihrer Worte das Bild eines Gegenstandes” (Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, 5 ~01s. [Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1939-601, 112: 811; subsequent references to this work will be cited using the abbreviation KD) .
3. Barth, Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellecturn, trans. Ian W. Robertson (New York:
Meridian Books, 1960), p. 163.
4. Translation mine. The German original reads “Gerade vom H&en eines men- schlichen Wortes kann doch sinvollerweise nur da die Rede sein, wo es uns nicht nur in seiner Funktion des Hinweisens auf ein durch das Wort Bezeichnetes oder Ge- meintes deutlich wird, sondem wo diese seine Funktion uns gegenilber Ereignis wird, wo es also geschieht, dass wir durch das Mittel des menschlichen Wortes in irgendeinen Mass selber ansichtig werden” (KD, l/2: 514).
244 CONTEMPORARYAPPROACHES
described or intended, then the language of the text has been unable to accomplish its purpose of evoking a subject matter. The words must so project an image of the object that this image “becomes an event before us” (uns gegeniiber Ereignis wird). Otherwise, the inter- preter works in vain.
Thus, to use a simple example, the word unicorn has meaning for us only when we are able to conceive in our mind’s eye an animal which is like a horse but which also has a single horn growing out of its head. On the other hand, if we say the syllables of the word unicorn to a child who is not yet familiar with mythological beasts, there will be no understanding because the child will not know what image the word is to evoke in his mind. Understanding cannot take place until he realizes the reality to which unicorn points.
Barth’s insight led him to formulate what he believed was a prin- ciple which would govern all hermeneutics, both biblical and gen- eral: “the universal hermeneutical rule applies that a text can be read, understood, and expounded only with reference to and in the light of its object” (CD, l/ 2: 493; italics mine) .5 The determination of the meaning of any particular text is dependent upon a previous under- standing of the subject matter. A text has meaning and is understood insofar as the interpreter knows the referent of that text. No text can be understood without such knowledge, for without it the text can only be forms without content.
This means, according to Barth, that the object, or subject mat- ter, of a text controls the meaning of that text and, ultimately, our understanding of it. Thus far, Barth claims, biblical and general hermeneutics are in accord. But Barth goes on to say that this fact necessarily implies that “interpretation is not a conversation inter pares, but inter impares” (CD, l/2: 720). The subject matter of any text is, in some sense, sovereign. If we wish to hear what it has to say to us, we must submit ourselves to it.
THE DISPUTE WITH GENERAL HERMENEUTICS It is at this point, Barth states, that biblical hermeneutics parts ways with general hermeneutics. In principle this ought not to be the case, says Barth, since both are governed by the same hermeneutical rule, a rule that implies that the interpreter must subordinate him- self to the subject matter of the text. In fact, however, the two kinds of hermencutics stand at odds. Barth outlines the major point of disagreement:
5. Translation mine. The German original reads “Gilt die allegemeine herme- neutische Regel, dass ein Text nur im Wissen urn seinen Gegenstand und von diesem her recht gelesen, verstanden und ausgelegt werden kann” (KD, l/2: 546).
THE SOVEREIGN SUBJECT MATTER 245
It is only within definite limits that general hermeneutics is accus- tomed to take seriously the idea that what is said in a text, that is, the object which we have to reproduce might bring into play other possibilities than those previously known to the interpreter. . . . It thinks it has a basic knowledge of what is generally possible, of what can have happened, and from this point of view it assesses the state- ment of the text, and the picture of the object reflected in it as the picture of a real, or unreal, or doubtful happening. It is surely plain that at this point an alien factor is exercising a disturbing influence upon observation. (CD, l/2: 725)
Practitioners of general hermeneutics come to every text with an a priori judgment that certain things are possible and others im- possible. Therefore, when they are confronted with a subject matter which they have decided is unreal, the subject matter is unable to have its proper role in bringing about understanding.
Even though the one universal rule of hermeneutics is that the subject matter of the text must be allowed to have its decisive role in bringing about understanding, many interpreters refuse to allow the subject that freedom. Yet, says Barth, “strict observation ob- viously requires that the force of a picture meeting us in a text shall exercise its due effect in accordance with its intrinsic character”
(CD, l/2: 725). Thus, general hermeneutics is often inconsistent with its most basic principle.
To be sure, Barth says, there are those who will advance the argument that biblical hermeneutics simply imposes its own special methodology upon all sorts of interpretation. Barth admits that the principle of the sovereignty of the object of a text is an insight which derives from biblical hermeneutics. But the source of the principle cannot invalidate its truth. “That it derives this hermeneutic prin- ciple from the Bible itself, i.e., that the Bible itself, because of the unusual preponderance of what is said in it over the word as such, enforces this principle upon it, does not alter the fact that this prin- ciple is necessarily the principle of all hermeneutics” (CD, l/2: 468).
If general hermeneutics would learn the lesson which is to be gained from the insights of biblical hermeneutics, there would be no conflict between the two, for then interpreters would allow the subject mat- ter of every text to have its decisive role in determining the meaning of the text.
THE PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THE BIBLICAL OBJECT
Insight into the fact that every text must be interpreted in the light of its subject matter comes about “because of the unusual prepon- derance of what is said in [the Bible] over the word as such” (CD,
246 CONTEMPORARYAPPROACHES
l/2: 468).6 That is, the object of the biblical text so overwhelms the words of the text that it becomes obvious that a text must be inter- preted by means of its object.
What, then, is the object of the Bible which has this “unusual preponderance” over the words of the text of Scripture? “The object of the biblical texts is quite simply the name Jesus Christ, and these texts can be understood only when understood as determined by this object” (CD, l/2: 727). Jesus, the living Word of God, is the subject matter of the Bible, and if one is to understand the Bible, he must understand it because he has perceived the image of the Word of God about whom it speaks.
Because Jesus Christ, as the subject matter of the Bible, domi- nates the words of the biblical text much more obviously than does any other textual subject matter, the principle of the universal rule of hermeneutics becomes especially apparent in biblical interpreta- tion. As the eternal God, the subject matter of the Bible claims, in a particularly forceful manner, “the freedom [of any object of any text] to assert and affirm itself over against these presuppositions of ours, and in certain cases to compel us to adopt new presuppc- sitions, as in fact it can do” (CD, l/2: 726).
The central difference between biblical interpretation and the interpretation of any other text lies in the “majesty” of the subject matter of the Bible. Indeed, Barth argues, the reality of the objects of all other texts depend, in an ultimate sense, upon the reality of the majesty of the biblical object. This is “a majesty without which [every other human word] would be meaningless if [the human word in the Bible] were only an exception and not the law and the promise and the sign of redemption which has been set up in the sphere of all other human words, and of all that is said by them” (CD, l/2:
472). The “majesty” of the biblical subject matter has an ultimate significance because the object of the biblical text confers meaning not only upon the Bible, but upon every text since he is the Creator of the object of every object of every text.
Barth’s thought here is reminiscent of that of his work on Anselm where he points out that the issue of the existence of God is not merely the issue of the existence of an object, but of “the existere of Truth itself which is the condition, the basis and indeed the fashioner of all other existence, the simple origin of all objectivity, of all true
6. Barth uses several words, more or less interchangeably, in reference to the subject matter of a text, including das Gesagte (“that which is said”), das Bezeichnete (“that which is described”), das Gegenstand (“the object,” or, more properly, “that which stands over against”), and die Sache (“the subject matter”). Sometimes such words as theme or matter or substance are used to translate the latter two German words, which are the ones he uses most often.
THE SOVEREIGN SUBJECT MATTER 247
outward being, and therefore also of all true inner being.“7 God is creative Truth; therefore all truth has its validity only because it receives it from the Creator. For this reason, the subject matter of the biblical text has an ultimate significance in the interpretation of every text, because every other subject matter is dependent upon God for its truth.
THE FREEDOM OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
Because the object of the Bible is no less than Jesus Christ, the sovereign Lord, it is conceivable that an interpreter might grasp the meaning of the words of the Bible but not really understand it if he is not acquainted with the biblical subject matter. This corresponds with the idea Barth had learned from Anselm. In the Proslogion Anselm had written, “a thing is conceived in one way when it is the word describing it that is conceived, in another way when the thing itself is known.“8 True understanding, Barth claimed, occurs only in the second case since only then is the subject matter, which de- termines the meaning of the word, understood.
In ordinary human texts Anselm’s insight can pose no difficulty, for we are sufficiently acquainted with the objects of our world that when a text speaks of such objects, we understand both word and object. When the text refers to a humanly inconceivable object such as the Word of God, however, the object must make itself known if the text is to be understood. In an ultimate sense, then, the under- standing of the biblical material rests not upon the hermeneutical skills of the interpreter but upon the sovereign freedom of the object, God’s Word. For this reason, says Barth, “revelation speaks, even in the Bible, if, then and there where God wishes it to do ~0.“~
If the biblical exegete recognizes that the subject matter of the Bible determines understanding and if he further understands that the biblical subject matter is free to make himself known to whom- ever he wills, the exegete will understand two of the basic principles for understanding the Bible. Barth states,
if the exposition of a human word consists of the relating of this word to what it intends or denotes [zu der von ihm gema’nten oder bezachneten Saehel, and if we know the sovereign freedom, the independent glory
of this subject-matter [die Selbsthewlichkeit dieser Sache] in relation both 7. Barth, Anselm, p. 98.
8. Anselm, quoted by Barth in Anselm, p. 163. It is worth noting that Barth apphes Anselm’s insights to a peculiarly post-Kantian problem-how the existence of God can be something more than a projection of human imagination. No doubt Anselm was not directly concerned with this problem in his writings.
9. Barth, Theologische Fragen und Antworten (Ziirich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1957), p. 181.