influence, Barth mentions the reviews he read of Romans I. In fact, it was the positive reviews that made Barth question himself the most, for they seemed to be missing the point. (A similar sentiment will reappear in the preface to the fifth edition.) Immediately after charting these influences, Barth offers us an interesting line that typically goes unnoticed: “more important, however, are those fundamental matters which are common to both editions” (4). What are these “fundamental matters” present