Britz, R. M.Hoepfner, Hendrik Gustav2016-06-032016-06-032004-05http://hdl.handle.net/11660/2697English: This research concentrates on the way in which the 20th century theologian Karl Barth became known in the Dutch Reformed Church between 1928 and 1959. Primary sources, especially theological journals were scrutinized. In terms of these sources four periods in this regard were identified: 1928-1932,1933-1945,1946- 1952 and 1953-1959. In the Dutch Reformed Church the years 1928-1934 were dominated ecclesiologically and theologically by the Du Plessis case. In this case matters such as views on Scripture, the revelation of God and Christology were not only the centre of attraction, but also questioned. During this time references were made to Karl Barth in a differentiated way: 1. Professor Keet and dr. Du Preez introduced Barth by means of his own publications on Scripture and the church as creation of Christ. They wanted Barth’s voice to be heard, in order to g ive direction in a theological dilemma.2. Dr. Snyman, editor of Die Ou Paaie and leading figure in the controversy against Du Plessis, used Barth without consultation of any primary sources, thus trying to gain theological profit. 3. Du Plessis, editor of Het Zoeklicht took notice of Barth, but regarded him negatively. He saw no future for Barth and created an image of Barth. Du Plessis was lead by secondary sources. The next period covered the years 1933 to 1945. The Du Plessis case was something of the past and Barth was no longer connected to it in a contextualised way. Readers of Die Gereformeerde Vaandel and Die Kerkbode were informed of his positive role in the so called German church struggle against the Nazi-regime of Hitler. The emphasis of Barth on the freedom of the church and his rejection of all forms of natural theology were appraised. Die Soeklig reproduced the entire text of the Barmer Erkläring in Afrikaans. This appreciation of Barth was mostly done by B.B. Keet. After Barth left Germany, attention was given to his theological convictions once again. In this regard two tracks of critisism amongst Dutch Reformed theologians, both positive and negative, became clear again. The negative line of interpretation were carried by representatives of a Neo-Calvinistic theology, which was introduced into South-Africa during the thirties. Professor Hepp of the “Vrije Universiteit” of Amsterdam played a major role in shaping the thoughts of young men on Barth, which did not regard him as a Reformed theologian at all. On the other hand there was still appreciation for Barth. Keet for instance persisted that the theology of Barth has to be evaluated positively. The third period in which the Dutch Reformed Church took notice of Barth, was confined to the years 1946 to 1952. During this period Barth was still referred to in two different and particular ways. The Neo- calvinists were critical of Barth. Keet, Du Preez and Verhoef, representing the other view, had a more positive attitude towards Barth. At the time theological students also engaged themselves in study on Barth. A visit by G.C. Berkouwer (1949), the successor of Hepp at the “Vrije Universiteit”, also lead to a new theological oriëntation. The Berkouwer visit encouraged accountable research on Barth in the Dutch Reformed Church. Just as Hepp was instrumental in stimulating a nagative view on Barth amongst the ranks of the Dutch Reformed Church since 1935, Berkouwer gave momentum to the more critical-positive view of Barth. This became evident after 1953. A monography appeared even on Barth during 1955 in Afrikaans by J.A. Heyns. The negative Hepp-line however continued. To conclude: the study showed that Barth’s theological views on Christ and Schripture were introduced in the Dutch Reformed Church in the context of the theological controversy raised by the Du Plessis case between 1928 and 1932. There after (1933-1936) the attention of the Dutch Reformed church was also focused on Barth’s role in the German ecclesiastical resistance to Hitler. With Barth in Switserland, young Dutch Reformed theologians, under influence of Dutch and Neo-Calvinistic views, evaluated Barth’s notion of the revelation as well as Scripture critically. After the Second World War (1946-1952) the theology of Barth in a more comprehensive way drew attention: appreciative and declinatory. This was continued during the 1950’s in terms of more incisive study.Afrikaans: Hierdie navorsing het hom toegespits op die vraag na die manier waarop die 20ste eeuse teoloog Karl Barth tussen 1928 en 1959 in die NG Kerk bekendgestel is. Primêre bronne, veral teologiese tydskrifte is gefynkam. Uit hierdie bronne kon die versamelde inligting in vier periodes gesistematiseer word. Die jare tussen 1928 en 1934 is ekklesiologies en teologies in die NG Kerk gestempel deur die Du Plessis-saak. Daarin het aangeleenthede soos die Skrifbeskouing, die openbaring van God en die Christologie nie net in die sentrum van belangstelling gestaan nie. Dit was ook in die gedrang. Gedurende hierdie tyd is uiteenlopend na Barth verwys. 1. Barth is op grond van sy eie geskrifte, met name oor die Skrif, en dan die kerk as skepping van Christus, deur veral Keet en Du Preez bekendgestel. Deur Barth se stem as ‘n alternatief te laat hoor, wou beide waarskynlik rigting gee in ‘n teologiese dilemma. 2. Dr. Snyman, as redakteur van Die Ou Paaie en ‘n leiersfiguur in die polemiek teen Du Plessis, eien Barth vir sy saak toe sónder oorweging van enige primêre Barth bronne. Daarmee wou hy teologiese wins behaal. 3. Du Plessis weer, as Redakteur van Het Zoeklicht, het eweneens van Barth kennis geneem, maar negatief teenoor hom gestaan. Tewens, hy het nie ‘n toekoms vir Barth gesien nie en ‘n inbeelding van hom geskep. Du Plessis het hom deur sekondêre bronne laat lei. Die volgende periode het die jare 1933 tot 1945 gedek. Die Du Plessis-stryd was afgeloop en Barth is nie meer kontemporêr daarmee in verband gebring nie. Lesers van Die Gereformeerde Vaandel en Die Kerkbode is ingelig oor Barth se 128 positiewe rol in die sogenaamde Duitse Kerkstryd teen die Nazi-regering van Hitler. Daar was waardering vir Barth se klem op die vryheid van die kerk en sy afwysing van alle vorme van natuurlike teologie. Die Soeklig het die hele teks van die Barmer Erklärung in Afrikaans weergegee. B.B. Keet was veral verantwoordelik vir hierdie positiewe waardering van Barth. Nadat Barth Duitsland verlaat het, word weer aandag aan sy teologiese oortuigings gegee. In hierdie verband word die twee lyne van beoordeling deur NG Kerk teoloë, weer duidelik. Die negatiewe interpretasie lyn vind sy verteenwoordigers by die Neo-Calvinistiese teologie, wat in die laat dertiger jare in Suid-Afrika grond gevat het. Dit was professor Hepp van die “Vrije Universiteit” van Amsterdam wat ‘n groot rol gespeel het in die gedagtevorming van jong manne oor Barth. Húlle het Barth nie as ‘n gereformeerde teoloog beskou nie. Aan die ander kant was daar steeds waardering vir Barth. Keet het byvoorbeeld daarop aangedring dat ‘n positiewe evaluasie van die teologie van Barth noodsaaklik is. Die jare 1946 tot 1952 begrens die derde periode waar daar van Barth kennis geneem is. In hierdie periode is daar weer op twee maniere na Barth verwys. Die Neo-Calviniste was krities teenoor Barth, terwyl diegene soos Keet, Du Preez en Verhoef ‘n meer positiewe houding ten opsigte van Barth ingeneem het. In hierdie tyd het teologiese studente hulle ook met Barth besig gehou. ‘n Besoek van Hepp se opvolger aan die “Vrije Universiteit”, G.C. Berkouwer (1949), het ‘n nuwe teologiese oriëntering tot gevolg gehad. Die besoek van Berkouwer het verantwoordelike navorsing ten opsigte van Barth in die NG Kerk aangemoedig. Soos wat Hepp ‘n negatiewe siening ten opsigte van Barth onder teoloë van die NG Kerk gestimuleer het, het Berkouwer momentum verleen aan die krities-solidêre standpunt ten opsigte van die teologie van Barth. Dit het veral ná 1953 sigbaar geword. ‘n Monografie oor Barth het selfs gedurende 1955 in Afrikaans verskyn. Om saam te vat: hierdie studie het aangetoon dat die teologiese standpunte van Barth ten opsigte van Christus en die Skrif hulleself in die NG Kerk aangekondig het te midde van die Du Plessis-stryd tussen 1928 en 1932. Daarna ( 1933-1936) 129 was die aandag van die NG Kerk steeds op Barth gevestig. Hierdie keer binne die konteks van die Duitse kerkstryd teen Hitler. Met Barth se terugkeer na Switserland het jong NG Kerk teoloë, onder invloed van die Nederlandse Neo-Calvinistiese standpunte, sy standpunte ten opsigte van die openbaring en die Skrif van naderby beskou. Ná die Tweede Wêreldoorlog (1946-1952) is die teologie van Barth omvattend bestudeer. Hy is weereens waardeer én afgewys. Hierdie tendens het voortgeduur gedurende die jare vyftig, toe die teologie van Barth op ‘n meer indringende wyse bestudeer is.afDissertation (M.Th. (Ecclesiology))--University of the Free State, 2004Barth, Karl, 1886-1968Nederduitse Gereformeerde KerkTheology, DoctrinalB. B. KeetDialectical theologyDu Plessis caseChurch historyCritical-positiveDutch Reformed ChurchViews on scriptureTwentieth centuryDissertationUniversity of the Free State