Timothy Stanley, "Bonhoeffer and the Judaism Question," Paper presented at the Annual Australian Bonhoeffer Conference, Kincumber, Australia, 15-16 November, 2013.
Andrew Kloes, "Book Review: Luther's Hostility to the Jews in His Own Theological Category, Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Own Better Judgment, Grand Rapids: WB Eerdmans, 2012," Expository Times, 125(3) 2013.
This is a note that the RSS feed for this website will change on 12 Nov to http://timothywstanley.com/notes/rss.xml. A brief explanation is as follows:
I have been building educational and non-profit websites since the late 1990s, and reflecting on the shift between digital and paper communication as a research concern. Increasingly, I've come to think that my modes of communicating online require better metaphors which convey the convergences between digital and paper media.
The language of blog, for instance, no longer seems adequate to me. It used to indicate how a web log differed from other forms of writing and note taking. However, as a variety of tablet devices invade our reading space, the distinction now seems problematic. So too, I struggled for some time with how to refer to my "work" online, making distinctions between teaching and research, different kinds of writing, etc. However, everything I now do is mediated through pages of various kinds. The old notion of a portfolio communicated more precisely this convergence.
A similar difficulty is emerging in how I refer to the difference between online and face to face teaching. Almost all of our students come to university now equipped with tablet devices with sufficient video, processing and bandwidth capacity to coordinate face to face engagement wherever they are. They increasingly learn through whatever mediums and modes that work best for them. I have older students who actually prefer digital mediation because they can amplify the sound and more easily control the pace of the learning experience.
In any case, my blog is more or less my notes on the writing and teaching I do. I post them as a matter of interest and a matter of emphasising things that stream through my reading.
"Faithful Codex: A Theological Account of Early Christian Books," The Heythrop Journal , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.12079/abstract. The essay provides a summary of part of my argument regarding the theological nature of codex books.
Some years ago Tom Tykwer's Heaven (2002) inspired my visual and aural awe. Tykwer reworked Krzysztof Kieślowsk posthumous script into his own masterpiece starring Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribissi . After watching the trailer for Alfonso Cuarón's recent Gravity, I heard again the haunting soundtrack from Heaven, Arvo Pärt's Spiegel im Spiegel for Violin and Piano. The two films could be understood as mirrors which echo each others' deep humanism. Both evoke the experience of recovering a long forgotten but essential love of life. In any case, these soundtracks have been my writing's inspiration today.
Francis Clooney, "Comparative Theological Learning as an Ordinary Part of Theological Education," Teaching Theology and Religion vol 16 no 4 (October 2013), pp. 322-28.
This is a special issue on multifaith theological education, with interesting articles throughout.
Did Heidegger read Barth? Did Barth influence Heidegger? In my last book on Protestant Metaphysics, I noted an unsubstantiated citation to that effect in Graham Ward’s Barth, Derrida, and the Language of Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) p 80 n1, which cited George Steiner’s Heidegger (London: Fontana, 1992) p 73. It turned out there were no references to Heidegger actually reading Barth in Steiner's work.
More recently Rudy Koshar noted Barth’s explicit influence upon Heidegger in his essay “Where is Karl Barth in Modern European History?,” p 345 n 51, which can be found in vol. 5 no. 2, of the 2008 edition of Modern Intellectual History. Koshar cites Benjamin Crowe's Heidegger's Religious Origins (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006) where Barth is referred to over 8 times. At one point on page 75, Crowe notes that “Heidegger was familiar not only with their [Barth's] biblical and Lutheran sources, but also with the work of these young theologians.” The relevant footnote 10, however, references Heidegger’s Supplements: From the Earliest Essays to Being and Time and Beyond (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002) p 110. Here, one of Heidegger's early lectures on Luther is reproduced. However, this lecture never refers to Barth. Rather it makes a vague reference to the inadequacies of “contemporary Protestant theology.”
Again, to my knowledge, no claim of Barth’s direct influence upon Heidegger has been substantiated.
26 October, 2013
In a follow up to the notes above, a quote from Christophe Chalamet's Dialectical Theologians: Wilhelm Herrmann, Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann has come to my attention. Here, Chalamet cites a letter from Bultmann as follows: "Heidegger, besides having an excellent knowledge of scholastic theology and of Luther, is 'in particular an admirer of Hermann - he also knows Gogarten and Barth and estimates the former in the same way as I do'" (pg. 165)
This is helpful and gets us closer to the events. The quote provides Bultmann's assessment of Heidegger's appreciation of Hermann. It then links Gogarten and Barth by association. Herrmann's prominence in Marburg and his direct engagement with Herman Cohen and neo-Kantianism makes him a likely candidate for Heidegger's interests. However, to my knowledge, Heidegger does not reference Herrmann in any of his works. For instance, in Phenomenology of Religious Life, he writes on Troeltsch, Schleiermacher, he cites Bultmann at one point, and discusses a range of concerns he has with contemporary Protestant theology, but nothing on Herrmann, much less Barth. So, is Bultmann claiming that Heidegger knew of Barth in a way akin to Herrmann? Is this the way he understood Barth? This would be interesting but problematic, given Barth's distanciation from Herrmann over the 1920s.
Nonetheless, on the precise details, Bultmann's note here is also unsubstantiated. We need some comment from Heidegger which indicates both what of Barth's work he read, and how he did so.
Interesting essay in a special edition of the Journal of Early Christian Studies on Origen's textuality.