Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sun Feb 15 2004 - 18:20:25 EST

Dick Fischer wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> >Dick Fischer wrote; What I advocate now, that Genesis 2-11 does appear to
> >have historically integrity, can be substantiated. There is no other
> >method of apology that will come close, because something has to be left
> >out. Liberal theology, starting in 1860 with Barth, Bultmann, and so on,
> >leaves out history. YEC methodology ignores science. If Bible, science,
> >and history are all given full face value (I'm not saying equal value)
> >then this is the method that works.
> >
> >I had a good chuckle at this as I haven't read any liberal theology
> >starting in 1860 with Barth and Bultmann. My reason for that is that Barth
> >and Bultmann were born in the 1880s so hadn't written anything by 1860.
> >
> >With elementary howlers like that we can safely ignore what Dick Fischer
> >has to say.
> Ah, so quick to criticize, that's so British of you Michael. My
> understanding, puleeze correct me if I am wrong, is that Karl's ideas were
> started by his father, Fritz Barth, who was a "Swiss Reformed minister and
> New Testament scholar," but I don't know when he was born or when he
> died. Karl, of course, is far more famous, and Bultmann wasn't around at
> the time of Fritz, but was famed for further advancing the liberal method
> of apology. I would suppose the absolute beginning of liberal theology
> could be traced to about 1928-30. But if that is wrong, by all means feel
> free to lop off my head, Michael. Be sure to use a dull, rusty axe.

        Any theologian who mentions "Barth and Bultmann" without qualification means
Karl Barth, not his father. A more serious error than dates is the fact that Karl Barth
can hardly be classified as a "liberal", though he may be thought such by
fundamentalists. After 1917 Barth pretty consistently criticized what is properly
called the liberal theology of the 19th century, the kind of thing that had its roots in
Schleiermacher c.1800. What "began"- if anything - about 1928-30 (though really a bit
earlier) was what came to be called neo-orthodoxy.



George L. Murphy
Received on Sun Feb 15 18:34:13 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 15 2004 - 18:34:14 EST