Talk:Karl Barth

message: Why isn't bonhoeffer mentioned in this article? The bonhoeffer vs barth dialog is one of the most well know aspects about both people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.167.250 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonhoeffer

message: Paul foord 08:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work on Theology and Bibliography

message: I had added the quote "I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally.", but since I could not find a source attributing this directly to Barth, I have removed it. It is certainly one of his more famous arguments and should be considered for this article.
:I think that's Tillich. Barth does say in the Preface to the 2nd ed. of the Romans commentary that he thinks the Bible is a very good book and people should take its ideas at least as seriously as they take their own. One might see it as a similar point, since he wrote this in response to people who had called him a "Positiv" (i.e., a fundamentalist).Mtalleyrand (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: ... and should he appear on Template:Calvinism? Please see the discussion at Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not calvinistic in his doctrine of election (as I understand it). He may have been influenced by Calvin in other regards though, as would be most likely for a Swiss Reformed theologian. But he may have been more influenced by Kierkegarrd (Francis Schaeffer's understanding of him) than Calvin, it all depends what is meant by "calvinist"? User:DMSBel|DMSBel]] (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Barth a Calvinist?

message: The Later Life section says that Barth taught at Duke.  I don't believe that this is true.  The article cited says that his name was on a list of Displaced German Scholars, but not that he was one of the six such scholars hired to teach at Duke.  
If no one objects, I plan to delete the offending sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esrogs (talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taught at Duke? 

message: Pope Pius XII gave an audience to Karl Barth in 1943 and he stated that he was "the greatest christian theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas". I think these facts should be mentioned in the article.Mistico (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Pius XII View of Karl Barth 

message: :Image:Karl Barth.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Karl Barth.jpg

message: I took out the ridiculous statement that Barth is the 'father of Neo-Orthadoxy'.  Whatever that weak-minded term means it is certainly not something which Barth spawned, and it bears noting that the term was invented by Barth's most ignorant and mean-spirited critic(Van Til) who created the term as a dismissive insult to Barth.  Futher, Barth himself rejected the titled and expressed complete exasperation at the American Fundamentalists (especially Van Til's) criticisms.  Barth chose not to address their critiques, noting that one can't discuss theology with those who are disingenuous in their dialogue, and calling them theological 'cannibals'.
:I mostly agree with this, but would point out that Paul Tillich had called Barth "neo-orthodox" (for being too conservative!) eleven years before Van Til picked it up in an opposite sense.Mtalleyrand (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Karl Barth, not surprisingly for his time and place, was antisemitic. I've come across several quotes of his from the 30s and the 40s that attest to this. While thoroughly anti-Nazi, he was not pro-Jew.   To paint a fuller picture of Barth, I think this should be included in his wikipedia entry.  However, I'm new to editing wikipedia, and I'm not sure if these additions would be deleted right away.  Any thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.201.154 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a fairly long digression in vol. II of the Church Dogmatics about why anti-Semitism is wrong; you're going to have to take that into consideration before you make any definitive statements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.4.36 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I think if you are going to claim Barth was "antisemitic" you're going to have to give precise quotes and context for those quotes.Commonthings (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically they would be deleted right away (and quite properly) not because it would be wrong to quote whatever the statements are (provided they are not taken out of context)- but because not being pro-Jew (in your opinion), does not necessarily equate to being anti-semitic. You would also need to be familiar with the whole body of his writings to know for sure if he was anti-semitic or not, a few quotes in themselves will not suffice for such a claim - There would need to be substantial agreement (not merely from wikipedia editors I hasten to add) but from other commentators that those quotes were antisemitic in context. If the quotes (in context) are anti-semitic I think there would be some critical response to them from Jewish commentators and other theologians at the time, if that exists then discuss it further here. DMSBel (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Antisemitism

message: The article mentions that the New Testament scholar Markus Barth was Karl Barth's son. Wasn't the Old Testament scholar Hermann Barth (known especially for his influential work on the composition of the Book of Isaiah) also his son?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.48.58 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  children 

message: If K.B. really obtained that award shouldn't there be more about i in the article? Usually the award was obtained at great risk V. Joe (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Righteous Among the Nations?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Karl Barth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111023013517/http://www.kevintaylor.me:80/journal/2011/4/7/the-influence-of-karl-barth-on-christian-ethics.html to http://www.kevintaylor.me/journal/2011/4/7/the-influence-of-karl-barth-on-christian-ethics.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927234028/http://libweb.ptsem.edu/collections/barth/reviews/CharlotteKirschbaum.aspx?menu=296&subText=468 to http://libweb.ptsem.edu/collections/barth/reviews/CharlotteKirschbaum.aspx?menu=296&subText=468
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Karl Barth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100609161357/http://libweb.ptsem.edu/collections/barth/reviews/EthicsinCrisis.aspx?menu=296&subText=468&disclaimer=668 to http://libweb.ptsem.edu/collections/barth/reviews/EthicsinCrisis.aspx?menu=296&subText=468&disclaimer=668
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Karl Barth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105071643/http://www.lutterworth.com/jamesclarke/jc/titles/karlbart.htm to http://www.lutterworth.com/jamesclarke/jc/titles/karlbart.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is it more charitable to describe Barth's theology as a theology of the word than as neo-orthodox theology?Vorbee (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Why more charitable?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karl Barth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103125745/http://www.ptsem.edu/library/barth/ to http://www.ptsem.edu/library/barth/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karl Barth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120121425/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/PhilosophyofReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780198263906 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/PhilosophyofReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780198263906
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I restored the quotation removed by [[User:S.Mangano] "I deleted the alleged quote of Pope Pius XII on Karl Barth that he was "the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas" because the sources were not pertinent. I could not find the aforementioned quote in the references mentioned in footnotes. The only real reference was a blog post under the title "The Life of Karl Barth: Early Life from Basel to Geneva 1886-1913 (Part 1)" but it did not contain a source for the direct quotation. In short, I could not find proof that Pius XII ever said that."
The quotation "the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas" is cited by many Barth scholars, and there are several citations in the wiki, that I recommend leaving the quotation in, until someone else finds counter-evidence. Perhaps the sentence could be rephrased to include the quotation yet admit that the origin of the quote is disputed. Barth had a private audience with Pope Paul VI, and many catholic scholars have praised barth and wrote books about him, such as Hans Kung, and hans urs von balthasar, so there's good reason to see it as original. 
ApexOsprey (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the four references do not even mention Pius, so I deleted them. Adpete (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I found two references on Google Scholar that (a) Pius said it in 1951, and (b) the source is Karl Barth Fragments Grave and Gay (The Fontana Library of Theology and Philosophy), London: Collins, 1971, p. i. I have not been able to see page i of Fragments Grave and Gay myself, so see whether it gives more details. Personally I am still a little suspicious of the 20 year gap, if 1971 is the earliest attribution. Adpete (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas

message: The lead sentence of the article says in part "his landmark commentary The Epistle to the Romans (1921) (a.k.a. Romans II)". The comment "a.k.a. Romans II" is unreferenced, and not explained anywhere else in the article. It should be explained in the article (with references) or be removed. Adpete (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, for the above reasons. Adpete (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a.k.a Romans II" 

message: Here's a quote from a book review in LARB. After I added this, I saw the section on Kirschbaum. It isn't really textbook sexual abuse, but it is noteworthy. I also note, there is no "personal life" section. We have his views, but what did Nelly think of it?
"In the last decade, a mix of reporting and scholarship has revealed three of Hauerwas’s greatest influences — John Howard Yoder, Jean Vanier, and Barth himself — to have engaged in long-term extramarital, inappropriate, or violent sexual behavior. Yoder and Vanier (the former a Mennonite ethicist who died in 1997, the latter a French priest who died in 2019) both used their fame, authority, and institutional power to coerce and manipulate women into sexual relationships. Whereas Barth, it turns out, maintained a lifelong affair with his assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, even having her move into his household (alongside his wife, Nelly, and their children) for the final four decades of his life."
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-ruins-of-christendom/
The Hauerwas book probably has much to say about Barth. cheers
Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The current (May, 2024) Charlotte von Kirschbaum section is discrete on the physical relationship to the point of evasion and dishonesty. The letters apparently make it clear this was a long-term adultery, and that having his mistress installed in the family home caused enormous pain to the family.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Missing Affair and Personal Life data