Mark S. Gignilliat, Assistant Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, USA.

• Contents: Preface; Barth and the renaissance of Old Testament theology in the early 20th century; Die Zeit der Erwartung; Barth's theological exegesis of Isaiah 1-39; Bart's theological exegesis of Isaiah 40-66; Theological exegetical implications of Barth's Isaianic exegesis; Bibliography; Indexes.

’With this volume Gignilliat has preformed a fine service to both the biblical studies and theological guilds by expositing Barth’s use of the text of Isaiah in his Church Dogmatics. Particularly helpful are Gignilliat’s sensitivities to the history of Old Testament scholarship and especially his own expertise as an exegete of Isaiah... biblical scholars and theologians alike ought to be grateful.’ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ’Chief among its merits is Gignilliat’s strategy for establishing Barth’s nuanced hermeneutical instincts by putting him in dialogue with Baumgartner and Vischer. This approach is creative, well-executed and very illuminating. Furthermore, Gignilliat’s project is at its best when it demonstrates how Barth’s explicitly theological approach can be more appropriate to a text than atomizing historical-critical methods because it respects the final form’s own historical ambiguities rather than interpreting against the backdrop of a hypothetical historical setting of little concern to the text itself.’ Center for Barth Studies

Mark S. Gignilliat, Assistant Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, USA.

• Contents: Preface; Barth and the renaissance of Old Testament theology in the early 20th century; Die Zeit der Erwartung; Barth's theological exegesis of Isaiah 1-39; Bart's theological exegesis of Isaiah 40-66; Theological exegetical implications of Barth's Isaianic exegesis; Bibliography; Indexes.

’With this volume Gignilliat has preformed a fine service to both the biblical studies and theological guilds by expositing Barth’s use of the text of Isaiah in his Church Dogmatics. Particularly helpful are Gignilliat’s sensitivities to the history of Old Testament scholarship and especially his own expertise as an exegete of Isaiah... biblical scholars and theologians alike ought to be grateful.’ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ’Chief among its merits is Gignilliat’s strategy for establishing Barth’s nuanced hermeneutical instincts by putting him in dialogue with Baumgartner and Vischer. This approach is creative, well-executed and very illuminating. Furthermore, Gignilliat’s project is at its best when it demonstrates how Barth’s explicitly theological approach can be more appropriate to a text than atomizing historical-critical methods because it respects the final form’s own historical ambiguities rather than interpreting against the backdrop of a hypothetical historical setting of little concern to the text itself.’ Center for Barth Studies

Mark S. Gignilliat, Assistant Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, USA.

• Contents: Preface; Barth and the renaissance of Old Testament theology in the early 20th century; Die Zeit der Erwartung; Barth's theological exegesis of Isaiah 1-39; Bart's theological exegesis of Isaiah 40-66; Theological exegetical implications of Barth's Isaianic exegesis; Bibliography; Indexes.

’With this volume Gignilliat has preformed a fine service to both the biblical studies and theological guilds by expositing Barth’s use of the text of Isaiah in his Church Dogmatics. Particularly helpful are Gignilliat’s sensitivities to the history of Old Testament scholarship and especially his own expertise as an exegete of Isaiah... biblical scholars and theologians alike ought to be grateful.’ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ’Chief among its merits is Gignilliat’s strategy for establishing Barth’s nuanced hermeneutical instincts by putting him in dialogue with Baumgartner and Vischer. This approach is creative, well-executed and very illuminating. Furthermore, Gignilliat’s project is at its best when it demonstrates how Barth’s explicitly theological approach can be more appropriate to a text than atomizing historical-critical methods because it respects the final form’s own historical ambiguities rather than interpreting against the backdrop of a hypothetical historical setting of little concern to the text itself.’ Center for Barth Studies