Not the post on Bible...

It may not be clear from the last post, but the goal of this process is a matter of wrestling with Barth and the rest of my necessary knowledge of faith and theology in order to produce something useful.  Gaining, on the one hand, a clear grasp of Barth in his own logic, and on the other a clear grasp of the extent of my necessary disagreement with him, in order to have a basis for realigning that in Barth which must be said into an order in which I may say it today.

For quite some time, I feel like I have been implicitly doing what Nigel Biggar suggests he had done in The Hastening That Waits: attempting to say what Barth should have said, as though he did actually say it.  That won't fly in my dissertation.  Proper exposition, productive disagreement, and clear and explicit adaptation are both more intellectually honest and more likely to do something useful in the field.  No place better to start than here.

On the other hand, this also isn't the post on the Judean logic of scripture that was coming next.  That is far too long and involuted, and keeps moving as I keep trying to write it again.  I've written the blessed thing four times now!  I can't keep the edges from curling in and obscuring the axis of the argument.  But: Paul's perspective isn't simply of chronological importance; he is irreducibly different in perspective from the gospel writers and what follows them.  And the difference is history -- Paul's worldview, the worldview of the Synoptics, and John's worldview are three different things, because of the events they use to interpret the meaning of the promises of God.  Very different apocalypticisms.

Anyhow, having this disagreement with Barth has started to boil down to doctrine-of-scripture differences.  Not coincidentally, this is what I told my adviser I planned to work on when I entered the program.  :)  I seem to have simply come at it the long way 'round.