Abstract

What is the nature of Barth 's development over the 1920s? Barth himself understood this period as his “apprenticeship,” and cites his 1931 book on Anselm as a significant juncture in moving beyond this stage in his thinking. Barth 's emphasis upon both change and continuity lies at the heart of the discrepancy between two prominent interpreters of his theology, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Bruce McCormack. On the surface it appears as though their disagreement centers around Barth 's employment of dialectic and analogy in his theology. However, my thesis is that this focus conceals the ontological strategies Barth 's multifarious uses of analogy and dialectic always implied. Although McCormack is right to suggest that Balthasar's depiction of a shift from dialectic to analogy is inadequate, in the end McCormack's account of Barth 's development over the 1920s conceals as much as it reveals. The following essay demonstrates the kinds of insights which can be made of the past accounts of Barth 's development which focused on the transition from dialectic to analogy. Far from relegating these accounts to the sidelines, McCormack's work helps us see all the more clearly just what was at stake in figures like Balthasar's work. By looking past McCormack and Balthasar's respective periodizations of Barth 's development, a clearer focus upon Barth 's theological ontology can begin to take place.