Different Editions/Translations of Barth's Dogmatics?

Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
This post has 5 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 1147
Sean | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Feb 15 2020 12:15 PM

This isn't a big issue, but as Barth is on sale this month, I'll ask.

I'm reading Retrieving Eternal Generation and on p. 132 I came across a Barth quote:

Assuredly generatio and processio verbi must be regarded as describing the same material content. But not in such a way that one of these concepts may simply be reduced to the other.… The two figures, that of the Son and that of the Word of God, point to an object for which they are not appropriate. But for that very reason each of them must be taken seriously for itself, and neither of them should be dispensed with because the other is suggested.

The reference given is "Karl Barth, CD I/1, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 493." There's no hyperlink in the note. I opened my copy of CD I/1 to find out why--there's no page 493 in the body of the text.

I had to hunt a bit in the volume to find the actual quote. It's on page 430 and is worded differently:

On this point we must say that generatio* and the processio verbi* are certainly to be regarded as terms for the same thing, yet not in such a way that one of the terms can be simply reduced to the other. Processio verbi* may also be regarded as an important figure of speech but in its own way it is inadequate too. Both metaphors, that of the Son and that of the Word of God, point to an object with which they are not commensurate. But for that very reason each of them must be taken seriously, and neither should be abandoned with a reference to the other.

Obviously these are different translations. The info for my Logos copy of this CD volume is the same as the above--same date, publisher, translator, etc., except it's marked as the second edition.

My question is: where did the author of this book get this quote from? My guess is that he made his own translation from KD, but why would he cite the English edition if he had? I can think of a few other possibilities, but they make even less sense.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks in advance.

Posts 1147
Sean | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 17 2020 5:36 AM

Bumping in hope of some insight.

Posts 4
Joshua Steele | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2020 12:56 PM

Perhaps the quote is from the first edition (1936), not the 1975 edition?

Posts 4
Joshua Steele | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2020 1:02 PM

I think that this was the author's own translation of the German original, KD I/1, page 453: "Gewiß müssen die generatio und die processio Verbi als Bezeichnung desselben Sachverhaltes verstanden werden. Aber nicht so, daß der eine von diesen Begriffen einfach auf den anderen zurückgeführt werden könnte. Auch die processio Verbi wird man als eine wichtige, aber in ihrer Weise ebenfalls inadäquate Bildrede auffassen müssen. Beide Bildreden, die vom Sohne und die vom Wort Gottes, weisen auf einen Gegenstand hin, dem sie nicht angemessen sind. Aber eben darum muß auch jede von ihnen für sich ernst genommen und darf keine von ihnen durch den Hinweis auf die andere erledigt werden."

Posts 1147
Sean | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2020 2:03 PM

I think you're probably right. The page citation is probably a typo and referencing KD (p. 493 instead of 453). What I don't understand, though, is why the author would make his own translation but cite the English translation of the second edition. I may just have to live with the mystery.

Anyway, thanks for looking it up in KD for me!

Posts 1043
Tom Reynolds | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2020 4:43 PM

If you're patient you can borrow the 1936 translation and compare: https://archive.org/details/churchdogmatics0001bart_pt1/page/n5

Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS