Barfh is a monstrous miscreant
The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office,â were real historical men as we are, and â Actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word (Church Dogmatics, I, 2, 528-529).
"That the lame walk, that the blind see, that the dead are raised, that sinful and erring men men as such speak the Word of God: that is the miracle of which we speak when we say that the Bible is the Word of God" (page 529 -- four or five sentences from the above quote.)
Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments know nothing of the distinction of fact and value â between history on the one hand and saga and legend on the other (I, 2, 509).
"We must be clear that we cannot attach any final seriousness to this distinction and therefore any final difficulty to the objections to which it gives rise. [in spite of this distinction] ... it may be a matter of simply believing the Word of God [anyway]. " (same page as the above -- next sentences)
The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious or theological content (I, 1,509).
Volume 1.1 only has 503 pages including the index.
In common with the creation storyâthe history of the resurrection has to be regardedâ. as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection (IV, 1, 336).
Barth believes in the fact of the resurrection as seen through the eyes of faith, not as a historical and, thus, provable fact. He truly believes that faith is the substance of what we hope to be true. The 40 days following the resurrection are even more critical to Barth.
The "legend" of the finding of the empty tomb is not of itself and as such the attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself alive after his death. It is ancillary to this attestation. The one can be as little verified "historically" as the other. Certainly the empty tomb cannot serve as an "historical" proof (IV, 1, 341).
And why do you suppose that legend is in quotes. He is using someone else's phraseology, not his own. The resurrection was not an "attestation" (Barth's word) in the Christ event............. rather the events of the 40 days following this circumstance. Looking from the first disciple's point of view, the attestation of the resurrection was not shear acceptance of that claim. Not at all. Before the Cross, no one apostle was willing to stand up for the Christ. After this event, including the whole of the 40 days, to a man, the willingness to even die was forever present. Why the difference? The fact that Christ SPENT TIME WITH HIS DISCIPLES. Not much is made of the 40 days -- but what an enormous qualifier to the ministry of the Christ. During that 40 days, the coming together of all that Christ Jesus was trying to do with his apostles took place!!!!! The change in their lives, was given a sense of finality during this time. THAT IS BARTH'S POINT.
