@article{oai:icu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004100,
 author = {木村, 里奈},
 issue = {46},
 journal = {ICU比較文化},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {The aim of this study is primarily to compare the first edition of Karl
Barth’s commentary on The Epistle to the Romans with the second edition, which
Barth himself regarded as the wholly revised version, and secondly to analyze
the theological background of the transition between these two editions. The
author employs Erkenntnis Gottes (knowledge of God) as a lens through which
to compare both editions. By emphasizing Erkenntnis Gottes, one can grasp the
essence of his work.
The first chapter examines how Erkenntnis Gottes was deployed in the first
edition. In this edition, the relation between God and man is characterized as
an immediate relationship, one that is das ergriffene Ergreifen (not only grasping,
but also being grasped). At the time of the Resurrection, the immediate
relationship between man and God was restored. In this relation, while the
distinction between God and humans is maintained, a divine nature within
humanity enables them to “grasp” God immediately, without having to reflect onthemselves.
The second chapter analyzes how Erkenntnis Gottes was developed in the
second edition. In this edition, Erkenntnis Gottes means to recognize God as being
unknowable. There is an “infinite qualitative distinction” between human beings
and God. Therefore, Jesus Christ, the revelation of God Himself, appeared in
history in the form of a paradox. This paradox made the gospel of God have to be
believed, rather than recognized. Therefore, in order to have faith, it is essential torecognize this paradox, which is the denial of the immediately recognized God.
Chapter three consists of two parts. The first part highlights the differences
and the commonalities between the two editions. In both editions, Barth proposes
seemingly opposite ideas about Erkenntnis Gottes: the immediate recognition of
God and the recognition of God as unknowable. As a result, the dynamism of
faith has different foundations in these two editions. In spite of such differences,
Barth keeps his contention that faith is a dynamic given by God at every single
moment. Hence the change in ideas about Erkenntnis Gottes emphasizes this
dynamism. The latter part of the third chapter explores Barth’s intention in
revising his commentary, referencing reviews given by Emil Brunner, Adolf
Jülicher and Paul Wernle. Brunner showed a positive response, while Jülicher
and Wernle harshly critisized Barth’s work. However, none of these thinkers
correctly understood Barth’s idea that humanity is absolutely and qualitatively
different from God: ‘World remains world. But God is God.’ To clear this
misunderstanding, Barth had to emphasize the dynamism of faith by reformingthe idea of Erkenntnis Gottes.
Theology in the 1920s saw a conflict between two generations: the liberalism
of the late nineteenth century and the dialectical theology of the early twentieth
century. Jülicher and Wernle belong to the former, and Barth and Brunner to
the latter. In conclusion, the meaning of Erkenntnis Gottes in the first edition
is “to grasp God immediately,” while in the second edition, it is “to recognize
God as unknowable.” Although these two editions seem entirely dissimilar,
Barth’s assertion that faith is given by God at every moment remains consistent.
Moreover, the second edition was the result of polishing this idea, in reaction to
the generational conflict in theology at that time.},
 pages = {65--90},
 title = {カール・バルトの『ローマ書』における「神認識」 —第一版と第二版の比較研究—},
 year = {2014}
}