I’m starting to believe as I continue my trek through the 6M words of Barth’s CD that many young (and some old) so-called Barth scholars have never read through Barth’s 
CD. There are things in there about history, the resurrection, so on and so forth that completely emaciate any claim that Barth did not believe in a bodily, historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. How Barth thought of history, through Christ, ends up being different than the historicist vision. Even so, for Barth it is bodily, historical, history delimiting and primordial event.
The way Barth takes Bultmann to task directly, in CD III/2 ยง47, undercuts the work Congdon did in his big book on Bultmann. That is, where Congdon attempts to bring Barth and Bultmann into greater rapprochement with each other. Barth is actually much more trad, even while engaging with modernity, and its historicism, than people have been led to think. Does he have ways beyond the textus receptus way of doing Christian theology? Indeed. But he is in step with the best of the Patristic tradition; which is to say, he is contra much of the scholastic tradition.