卡爾巴特有沒有談過「第二純真」? Is Second Naïveté a Barthian Notion?

Paul Ricoeur, philosopher
Paul Ricoeur, philosopher (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

在網路上與人談論神學與護教的過程中,對手(kockroach @ PTT Christainity)寫出下面這一段話:

如果你想要建構一套神話的再詮釋的神學,想要指出一套以亞崴為中心的神學 發展過程,或者說,如果你想要引導那些對聖經史實、神話已經產生懷疑的信徒,從原本的經文進入2nd Naivete(我用的是 Ricoeur 的定義,不是巴特的)的再詮釋,光是在那邊呼喊「對上帝要有信心」、「要相信聖經」、「要有聖經根據」這些 mantra 是不夠的。

這讓我很納悶:

Second Naïveté本來就是Paul Ricoeur 的概念。Karl Barth 在哪裡自己有闡述過這個東西熟的話,可以分享一下參考資料嗎?

在我這樣說之後,對方只丟出了一本書 Mark I. Wallace (1990), The Second Naiiveté: Barth, Ricoeur, and the New Yale Theology

但這本書根本就是我寫論文很快就要念的書(雖然目前還沒細讀),所以我打算先抓這點來談一下。

Mark I. Wallace在芝加哥大學(University of Chicago)拿到神學博士學位(PhD inTheology),他的指導教授就是 Paul Ricoeur 本人。這本 The second naiveté: Barth, Ricoeur, and the new Yale theology 就是發展他的博士論文後出版的。那時答辯的口試教授有芝加哥大學的David Tracy(其新基礎主義詮釋學深受 Ricoeur 影響)和Brian Gerrish。

用這本書來說 Karl Barth和 Paul Ricoeur都談過 Second Naïveté的人,顯然連這本書的書皮都沒打開過。

基本上,Wallace 採取的是Paul Ricoeur 的觀點,而他對Karl Barth 的神學詮釋學就有褒有貶,在 The Second Naiiveté: Barth, Ricoeur, and the New Yale Theology的 pp.61-62 間,作者提出了他的批判:

Barth 的問題,在於他的詮釋學雖然很小心地在以神為本的同時,並不摒棄所有能用來幫助神學解釋的方法論工具,但這些也是Schleiermacher 和 Butlmann等人的初衷。他在批判這些人的時候,卻無法就「以神為本」這件事提供清楚一致的判斷標準,體現早期 Barth 的主觀與霸道。

但這主要是早期Barth的問題。Barth 對神學詮釋學方法論(theological prlegomena)的部份大多在他 1930年之前就完成。而 50 年代中期後的成熟 Barth 已經不在那樣關注詮釋方法,而是上帝的道的實際宣講和體現。所以後世要完整看待巴特詮釋學(Barthianism)的發展,就只能為後期的 Barth 建構理論系統。也就是說,這成為一個詮釋 Barth的問題。

談到這個部份,Wallace 在導論中便寫道:

Yet while Barth and Ricoeur formally share this threefold strategy for interpreting the biblical world, we will see in this chapter that they materially interpret the content of this world so differently that the dialogue between them carried out to this point will now appear limned with major difficulties, perhaps intractable difficulties.

Nodding to Barth, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the Yale School‘s ambiguity concerning the precise status of Christian truth-claims: do such claims provide us with  reliable access to the world outside of the Bible, however tenuous this access may be; or are they circumscribed within an intratextual horizon that has no purchase on reality extra…?

In the light of this three-way conversation, the final chapter suggests that a revival of the idea of revelation is the challenge for theology today. If the wager of the book is to be successful, if a hermeneutic of the second naivete is a viable option for our time, then the dialogue opened up in the previous four chapters must be pressed into the service of articulating how the biblical witness can remake and refigure reality through its conflicted play of multiple discourses.

在 p.82,作者再次談到,Barth 和 Ricoeur的差異。Ricoeur 不同意 Barth 詮釋學的原因,在於 Barth 根本就缺少了 Second Naïveté 中所要求的,對文本的一段批判疏離的過程:

Ricoeur’s problem with some Protestant exegetes such as von Rad, Bultmann, and Barth, however, is that they essentially forgo these first and second steps by arriving too quickly at what they consider to be the text’s central message.

最後這一段話來自 Richard E. Burnett (2004), Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis: the hermeneutical principles of the Römerbrief period,p. 115-16

看完後還能說 Barth 發明了 Second Naïveté 嗎? Second Naïveté 和 critical naïveté 是一樣的概念嗎?希望用吊書「皮」的方式在辯論上草率急功者,今後能以誠交流,有一分論據,說一份話!

CD IV/2 的這一段原文(德語英譯),我也將他一併放上來:

In relation to the biblical histories we can, of course, ask concerning the distinctions and even make them hypothetically. But if we do we shall miss the kerygmatic sense in which they are told. Indeed, the more definitely we make them and the more normative we regard them for the purpose of exposition, the more surely we shall miss this sense. To do justice to this sense, we must either not have asked at all concerning these distinctions, or have ceased to do so. In other words, we must still, or again, read these histories in their unity and totality. It is only then that they cay say what they are trying to say. To be sure, the history of the spies does contain different elements. There is a “historical” element in the stricter sense (the persons and cities and localities mentioned). There is also an element of saga (the account of the branch of grapes carried by two men, and of the giants who inhabited the land). There is also the element which has its origin in the synthetic or composite view (fusing past and present almost into one) which is so distinctive a feature of historical writing in Old and New Testament alike. It is to the latter elements that we must pay particular attention in our reading of these stories if we are to understand them, for they usually give us an indication of the purpose which led to their adoption into the texts. But in relation to them, if we are discerning readers, we shall not overlook the historical elements or even jettison those which seem to have the character of saga. When the distinctions have been made they can be pushed again into the background and the whole can be read (with this tested and critical naivety [KD: geprüfte, kritische Naivität]) as the totality it professes to be.

Barth, K., Bromiley, G. W., & Torrance, T. F. (2004). Church dogmatics, Volume IV : The doctrine of reconciliation, Part 2. Translation of Die kirchliche Dogmatik.; Each pt. also has special t.p.; Includes indexes. (479). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

(打完收工。)

3 thoughts on “卡爾巴特有沒有談過「第二純真」? Is Second Naïveté a Barthian Notion?”

  1. Thanks for drawing my attention to this interesting passage.

    Barth’s proposal is that, since biblical ‘histories’ (Histoiren) are historical narratives (Geschichtserzählung) serving definite purposes, when reading them one should avoid making ‘distinctions’ but rather view them as a whole, in a unity encompassing elements of ‘history’ (Historie) and of saga as well. Or one might say, more briefly, Barth is urging that one read biblical histories synthetically and not analytically.

    This is not a new proposal from Barth, but his use of the language of ‘naivety’ is the focus of interest to you. Here I provide a revision of the English translation which might make a stronger case (than provided in the original ET) of the ‘tested and critical naivety’ Barth is proposing:

    In other words, we must [, *still or *again naively], read these histories in their unity and totality. [For] it is only then that they cay say what they are trying to say[!] (CD IV/2, 479)

    muß man diese Historien *noch oder *wieder naiv, in ihrer Einheit und Ganzheit, lesen. Dann sagen sie nämlich, was sie sagen wollen – sonst nicht! (KD IV/2, 541)

  2. You can read the passage I have added:
    Richard E. Burnett (2004), Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis: the hermeneutical principles of the Römerbrief period,p. 115-16

    This post is a clarification of Barth and Ricoeur’s difference rather than a commentary or evaluation of the pros and cons concerning Barth’s approach.
    Though my investigation into the phenomenology and the phenomenology of interpretation do lead me fuller appreciation of Ricoeur’s insight.

  3. If I were to do so, I will do it in another chapter, such as how Tracy’s notion of « the eventful reading of classics » may have a great deal of bearing on reading the Bible anaologically and may lead us to turn to von Balthasar and Ricoeur (see David Tracy [1981], Analogical Imagination, pp.100-107)

    What Tracy lacks though, is a robust pneumatology and ecclesiology that can make reading the Bible special than reading Homer or Shakespeare- this is where we will need Barth, Lindbeck, Moltmann, and Ratzinger.
    This is to say:
    I am concerning about the rational/epistemological basis for reading the Bible theologically (an explanation needed for not only outsiders but insiders as well), even though this epistemological basis, characteristic of all postliberal projects, will ultimate be theologically informed (material principle) and involve the canon of our Christian faith as the formal principle.

Poster un commentaire 我有話說

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s