I’ve read a few times in Barth about the difference of interpreting things synthetically and analytically. For example: “The words ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ (Phil 2.11, 1 Cor 12.3, Rm 10.9) also are to be interpreted not synthetically but analytically–the name Jesus Christ is as such the name of the Lord.” (I/2, 10) And, of course, every time I read this distinction, I was blurred as I didn’t know what it was supposed to mean. Never did I know that the analytic-synthetic distinction is a well-known conceptual distinction in philosophy which was originated by Kant. Analytic proposition basically means that the predicate is contained in the subject, while synthetic proposition means that the predicate is not contained in the subject. In this case, it means that the word ‘Lord’ found its true meaning in the name of Jesus Christ.
(Anyway, I guess it confirms that to appreciate Barth (nay, anyone) better, one must also consider his (or her) philosophical influences.)