Subscribe to our mailing list.
Karl Barth’s Angry Letter to Helmut Gollwitzer on the Book of Job

In 1959, Karl Barth wrote an exposition of the Book of Job that he divided into four long small-print sections weaved into the end of the Church Dogmatics IV/3.1. Helmut Gollwitzer was Karl Barth's personal assistant in the 1960's after Charlotte Von Kirschbaum became ill. And in 1966, Gollwitzer realized that these small-print sections on Job may be extracted from CD IV/3.1 and read independently, so he edited them into an independent exposition on the Book of Job. Unfortunately, he made a huge mistake, and did not include the fourth and final small-print section on Job by mistake.

Karl Barth received a copy of this book on Job that Gollwitzer had edited and was livid when he saw that the fourth small-print section was missing. Barth was so angry that he wrote back and told Gollwitzer he had committed a "wicked act" and that "irreparable damage . . . has been done" and that he desired to "publicly protest somewhere against this". Gollwitzer rectified the error by publishing the fourth section separately.

Barth's letter to Gollwitzer was published in Karl Barth's Letters: 1961-1968, and I was taken back by how harsh this letter was when I first read it, and was surprised that Barth would write such a letter. However, reading posthumously published letters is similar to reading a person's emails after they had died, and everyone sends an angry email from time to time. I revisited this letter after recently reading Barth's exposition of Job in CD IV/3.1, and realized that he wrote this harsh letter to his close friend and personal assistant, which I had not realized previously. The letter reminds me that world famous theologians are people like everyone else, and everyone writes an angry email from time to time that should never have been sent. This book of Barth's letters is an intimate view into Barth's private life, and demonstrates that my heroes can be arrogant jerks once in a while!

For the sake of background, Barth's exposition on Job appears in four small print sections in CD IV/3.1: According to the older English Translations, part 1 is on pp. 383-388, part 2 is on pp. 398-408, part 3 is on pp. 421-434, and part 4 is on pp. 453-461 (n.b. The T&T Clark Study Edition divides IV/3 into three parts, so §70 is in CD IV/3.2 instead of CD IV/3.1). Here are a few quotes from CD IV/3.1 that provide a glimpse of Barth's exposition on Job: Barth says that in Job "the figure of Jesus Christ as the true Witness unmasking the falsehood of man is delineated in it in distant, faint, fragmentary and even strange yet unmistakable outline"[1]. The beginning (Job 1-2) and end (Job 42), Barth describes as a "folk-story concerning the rich Job who was sorely tried but remained faithful to God and was finally justified and blessed by Him. They constitute the framework for chapters 3-31, which are a poetical account of the speeches of Job and his three friends". And the remaining chapters are later additions constituted of "poetical speeches of Elihu (32-37), the poem of Behemoth and Leviathan attributed to Yahweh in 40-41, parts of 38-39" (etc.) I highly recommend it!

The angry letter that Karl Barth sent to his assistant Helmut Gollwitzer after Barth's exposition of the Book of Job had been published without the fourth and concluding section mistakenly:

To: Helmut Gollwitzer, Berlin
From: Karl Barth, Basel

23 April, 1966

Dear Helmut,

Yesterday evening the parcel arrived with complimentary copies of "our" book on Job. I thank you sincerely for your dedication and for the great amount of work you have done a second time on my behalf. I also admire your skill in seizing on what is important as this comes to light in your introduction and the transitions. Your account of the very different book on Job by Bloch naturally interested me too. But—yes, but! I know, Helmut, that one should not look a gift-horse in the mount. But what if one finds that the gift-horse has only three legs instead of four? You wanted to give people my exposition of Job as such. But where are pp. 522-531 [ET 453-461]; where are my illuminating elucidations of the theology of the three friends?! An able scholar like you could hardly fail to see that the whole point is to be found on these pages. And now you leave them out, although in your version on p. 68 you expressly refer to the fourth time that I turn to the book of Job. And no hint as to the reason for this omission! I really cannot think what reason there could be. Helmut, how could you? Nelly can bear witness that all through our mid-day meal I was complaining about you and your wicked act. And if you were not you, I would publicly protest somewhere against this being regarded as my exposition of Job. I can still only weep quietly at the irreparable damage that has been done.

Well, in spite of it all, in friendship and therefore with warm greetings,

Yours,

Karl Barth[2]

References:

[^Header Background Image] By Internet Archive Book Images - https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14761939436/Source book page: https://archive.org/stream/biblepanoramaorh00fost/biblepanoramaorh00fost#page/n118/mode/1up, No restrictions, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42051662

[^1] Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Vol. IV/3.2. Vol. 28. London: T & T Clark, 2010. 384. Print. Study Edition. [Original ET is CD IV.3.1,  page 384]

[^2] Barth, Karl, Jürgen Fangmeier, Hinrich Stoevesandt, and G. W. Bromiley. Karl Barth Letters, 1961-1968. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. 204-05. Print.Letter #210

 

Related: , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)
  1. To be fair, Barth’s “angry letter” is still well put together and considerably more gracious than anything I could’ve written had this have happened to me.

  2. Paul wrote a few “angry” letters too……… not to talk about Christ assessment of the Pharisees’s ministry. their errors were probably more damning and damaging than Golliwitzer… hence Christ public rebuke . Sometimes anger has its place.

  3. Do we know anything about a response from Gollwitzer?

  4. Wyatt, thank you for your site. Just found it and am enjoying perusing it. Have been reading Barth now for well over three decades, and he, along with John Calvin and Martin Luther and Augustine, are the main foundation for my theological perspective, along with a whole lot of Reinhold Niebuhr and H. Richard Niebuhr. There’s something rather interesting here regarding this Gollwitzer letter, and I do think it’s a generational thing. Namely, I didn’t think the letter was that harsh. I seriously did not. Because I read the phrases you pulled out, I read in context. Let me explain how I’m reading this letter: The letter begins quite warmly with KB’s gratitude for G’s work on this book. Then he gently (yes, gently) asks about this gift, recalling the old maxim about ‘don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’, what is one to do if this gift horse has three legs, not four? And then he quotes G himself back to G about referring to the fourth time in IV/3 that B refers to Job, but where is the fourth section? This is like a father to a very much loved son who has messed up a project because he either rushed to complete it or got very sloppy with it, or both. Because of the words surrounding this phrase ‘wicked act’ I see the older, experienced scholar looking with some exasperation at his younger, brilliant protege, and with a twinkle in his eye, saying quietly, ‘Helmut, how could you?” And then ruefully smiling and shaking his head with a few chuckles. This is not a harsh letter. To me a harsh letter about this incident would be something on the order of “Gollwitzer! You STUPID IDIOT!!!! How the H___ could you do something lame-brained??!!! Are you trying to RUIN ME, you stupid SOB!!!!! Leaving out the fourth section of my exposition??? You say you’ve got a brain? HA!!!! Sure can’t prove it be me!!!” (cough. . .or words to that effect) I read this as letter of gentle exasperation. You want to read B being harsh, check out his late and final correspondence with Emil Brunner (NEIN!, etc). (And if you want to read some seriously harsh communications, check out some of the essays by the late writer Harlan Ellison) And you are so on target when you say that all of us have written things in a heated frame of mind that perhaps if sent, should not have been. If we’re more ourselves after a while, we usually tear up or delete what we’ve written. I’ve done that quite a few times myself. But, again, this letter does not, to me, fit such a category. Well. . . I said I thought this, your response, was generational. Let me explain what I mean. I was ordained into the PC(USA) (actually the PCUS and the UPCUSA, as I was ordained in a Union presbytery, Western Kentucky) in 1980, and am not retired yet, still serving as a pastor. Being the old fart that I am, I’ve begun to notice that a lot of younger adults hear things differently; I mean I am beginning to perceive that so many are very (I almost said ‘overly’, but checked myself. . . I can be polite) sensitive to certain phrases and words, much more so than people of my generation. Case in point, your evaluation of this letter from G to B. The phrases B uses in the way he uses them does not set off disturbances in me the way it seems to have done in you. And it’s not just you. I’ve seen other examples of FB and from within my own family (I have four daughters, all grown, all in their early thirties and late twenties). There seems to be a heightened sensitivity to verbage, to words, especially pejorative words/phrases. To me, the reaction to such verbage comes across as more than it should be. And (God knows esp on FB) this reaction then engenders counter-action, and things escalate. Well, simply for conversation, good, shared conversation among fans of KB, I wanted to share/post a slightly different reading than what you posted. Again, thanks for posting, and for taking your time to keep up this site. It’s rewarding and fun! Blessings!

    • James,

      Thank you for your commentary. The general feedback I’ve received from others is that Barth was not being too harsh. I read the letter without knowing the long academic and personal relationship that Gollwitzer and Barth had, and I think Barth’s response is understandable considering that Gollwitzer was Barth’s assistant and should have known better. Also, this was a personal letter, written within a private context that I still do not fully appreciate. I know that Gollwitzer rectified the problem.

      I appreciated your comment, and I apologize for the delayed response due to being on holiday (but not at the Bergili).


Cancel reply

No trackbacks yet.