The Unity of the Church According to Calvin and Its Meaning for the Churches in Indonesia

Agustinus Marthinus Luther BATLAJERY

This study deals with the central question of Calvin‟s opinion concerning the unity of the church, and whether and in what ways, his view will be useful to the churches in Indonesia as they seek unity. To answer this question we will study Calvin‟s ecclesiology, trace the ecumenical journey of the churches in Indonesia under the Communion of Churches in Indonesia, and see how far Calvin‟s view influenced their thinking on the unity they are searching. Calvin did not develop his ecclesiology in an empty space. On the one hand he faced the traditional church with its papalist ecclesiology, and on the other hand the Anabaptists as an emerging radical movement, which was not always easy to define; sometimes Calvin calls them Anabaptists, sometimes „fanatics‟, „enthusiasts‟, or „libertines‟. He reacted against the Catholic identification of the church with the kingdom of God on earth, and to the Anabaptist concept of the nature of the church, the actualization of the church and the maintenance of a pure church. In this he asserted that it would not be possible that the church could be so perfect at that time. He stressed this in relation to Anabaptist spiritualism and subjectivism. This is the context that influenced Calvin‟s ecclesiology, which is described in Chapter 2.

In Chapter 3 Calvin‟s clear understanding about the unity of the church and also of the way to achieve ecclesiastical unity is explained and discussed. His ideas were implied in all his writings such as the Institutes, commentaries, sermons, letters, and in tracts like his Reply to Sadoleto.

Examining the Institutes of 1936 we find that Calvin contextualized and developed his ecclesiology in interaction with Rome and the Anabaptists. Therefore, according to Calvin there was a need for a church order and for the office of the minister in the church. He showed prominently the invisible dimension and hidden aspect of the church and also the nature of the church as one. More than Luther did, he added the aspect of predestination and the glory of God. Besides, he asserted that there could not be two or three churches since the church is catholic and universal, one body with Christ as the head, to be one congregation of God where Christ is the good shepherd, a unity of believers. From this we begin to have a clear picture of Calvin‟s firmness in refusing all sectarian tendencies.

In the Institutes of 1539, however, there was a new dimension which Calvin put forward: the visible dimension of the church. As to this dimension, Calvin stressed two things: Firstly, the unity of the church should be manifested in the visible church. While the traditional church was in ruins and had become an ecclesia deformata and the Anabaptists boasted that they had the ecclesia perfecta and tended to be exclusive, for Calvin it was always necessary to preserve the unity of the church. The basis on which we believe the church is that we are fully convinced that we are members of it. Therefore, to withdraw from the community of the church is an inconsistency. Secondly, the idea of the church as mother of all believers was meant to assert that it is necessary for every believer to be a church member. With this idea Calvin wanted to oppose the tendency of the Anabaptists to walk out from the church and build up a new church consisting of holy, perfect members.

The next edition of the Institutes, of 1543 showed other developments. Here Calvin discussed in detail the visible church. Baptism is understood as an insertion into

the body of Christ and as a sign of initiation, which was the real sign of acceptance into the visible church. The other issue of this edition is about ecclesiastical offices and the discipline which is very important for the visible church. Here we see that for Calvin, to have faith in Christ, to accept the right teaching, to love and to confess God‟s Word as true and trustworthy are important unifying forces. These forces are in action where the Word is truly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered.

In the 1559 edition of the Institutes, Calvin stressed several points such as the church as mother of the believers; the catholicity of the church; the marks of the church; that the imperfection of the church is no reason for separation from the church; and fundamental criteria for the unity of the church. The same ideas which are found in the Institutes could be traced also in Calvin‟s other writings such as commentaries, sermons, letters, and his Reply to Sadoleto.

For Calvin the way towards the unity of the church was not at first an issue of building up new structures or a bureaucratic organization. The most important thing is that it had to start with the basic issue of faith in Jesus Christ as the Head of the church which is Christ‟s body. Calvin‟s view of unity is based on his vision of true catholicity. This is not a geographical, horizontal structure, but a spiritual communion in obedience to Christ‟s commandments, and the true preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments. What Calvin referred to was the unity in and because of Christ, the unity in the basic Christian faith and the true doctrine, which can be called the criteria of the unity – the unity in mutual acknowledgment and acceptance as churches that perform the ministry of the Word and the sacraments. These are the principal and fundamental elements of the unity. This kind of unity should be apparent in the visible church. Although various structures are possible, also differences concerning unessential matters are possible.

Calvin had not merely a theological theory about unity. He was not just a formulator of the ideas but he was the executor as well. This is the main theme of Chapter 4. Calvin really fought for this unity itself. Therefore, he took part in Colloquies of Hagenau, Worms and Regensburg, and the ecumenical meeting of the reformists‟ leaders in Lambeth Palace in London. We also see what Calvin did in several disputes, which reflected how he was very sensitive to separation and tried hard to avoid it. Calvin was involved in efforts to end the conflicts in Neuchatel and Frankfurt and also the disagreement concerning the Lord‟s Supper, which resulted in the Consensus Tigurinus. Additionally, his tolerant attitude to various issues, such as ecclesiastical structure in Poland is part of the evidence. All this shows us the concordance of his teaching and life or between a theoretical Calvin and a practical Calvin.

In Chapter 5 we try to analyze and discuss the influence Calvin‟s thinking on unity in Indonesia. We do so in a historical overview, divided into three sections, which respectively have a historical, ecumenical and theological emphasis. In the first section, it is demonstrated how Calvin‟s teachings and ideas entered the Dutch East Indies (the future Indonesia) through the VOC, through non-church bound mission societies, and through missionary organizations of particular churches. The second part describes the history of the ecumenical journey of the Dewan Gereja-gereja di Indonesia (DGI) and its successor, the Persekutuan Gereja-gereja di Indonesia (PGI).

It can be concluded that the Reformed churches indebted to Calvin played a big role in the formation of the Council and later the Communion of Churches in Indonesia. Several Reformed pastors and theologians, whose ideas showed a deep affinity with Calvin‟s thinking, influenced the form and content of the unity the Indonesian churches are struggling for. The Five Documents of Church Unity (1984) which were revised and accepted during the General Assembly of the Communion of Churches in Indonesia in 2000 to become its official Documents on Church Unity, breath the spirit and show the thinking of Calvin in several of its chapters. Calvin‟s teachings on the government and the relation between church and state are echoed in the Statement on Mutual Profession (Understanding) about the Christian Faith in Indonesia. One of its articles emphasizes that the government is instituted by God and given the task of protecting those who are good and resisting evil. The church is obliged to pray for the government and help it to carry out its job. The church is also expected to criticize the government if it wrongly exercises the authority it has been granted (Rev.13). If the government should demand something that is incompatible with the faith, Christians are to show their allegiance to God before man. Another article makes clear that the church is an autonomous institution apart from the state and is free of any state intervention. Meanwhile, the church has no right to intervene in the life of the state, for both have their own tasks. So it can be said that this document exhibits a Calvinistic approach or Reformed traits toward unity both in title and content, especially within the Statement on Mutual Profession (Understanding) about the Christian Faith in Indonesia and the Charter of Mutual Recognition and Acceptance. The latter document should be understood as the manifestation of unity in a more concrete way, for instance the mutual recognition of ministry and sacraments.

In the third section of Chapter 5 the thinking about church unity of seven contemporary Indonesian theologians and church leaders is discussed. Several of them were actively involved in the DGI or PGI. Leimena stressed the parallel path of the nation and the church as to unity and diversity. Rumambi emphasized the need of a coordinating institution. Soedarmo and Harun Hadiwijono, both professors of systematic theology in Jakarta and Yogyakarta respectively, wrote important essays on the plurality of the church and the need for a common confession. Abineno pointed to the Bible which testifies the necessity of a good equilibrium between of plurality and unity. Two theologians belonging to the most recent period have been Eka Darmaputera, who encountered practical problems such as primordiality (e.g., ethnic Chinese churches) and Agustina Lumentut who was offended by the lack of a spirit of togetherness within many churches.

In Chapter 6, finally, it is attempted to draw conclusions as to the benefit and meaningfulness of Calvin‟s thinking about the unity of the church for the churches in Indonesia nowadays. I prefer to state that unity witnessed to by having these Five Documents of Unity is sufficient within the Indonesian context. Failure of endeavors to form such a United Christian Church in Indonesia (GKYE) is caused by a lack of awareness as to the views about unity of some of the sixteenth-century reformers and especially of Calvin. So, what will be important in the future is not thinking about how to form a GKYE but how to manifest this United Christian Church in accordance to the decision of the Tenth General Assembly of the Council of Churches in Indonesia in 1984.

But we have to be aware that there are factors that challenge the proposed unity from a Calvinistic perspective: ethnic factors, nationalism instead of church unity, non-creedal churches, the problems of rebaptism and the power of confessional families. Also critical theological voices have been raised from some theologians and church leaders who have a negative evaluation concerning the significance of Calvinist teaching in the Indonesian context. Nevertheless, we see that Calvin‟s legacy is still kept in the church life and practices of the churches in Indonesia.

To keep the unity of the church, Calvin showed tolerance in various circumstances. He did not require of all Christians to share the same insight on all questions, nor did he require of all churches the same height of spiritual life in all situations. Compared with Luther and Zwingli, Calvin was the sole really international ecumenical reformer. His theology was basically and essentially an ecumenical one, aimed, especially in its ecclesiology, at building bridges between the different churches. Practically all his life Calvin struggled to bring a visible unity in reality in the various Reformed churches of his time. Though he distinguished between the visible and the invisible church, in both cases he stressed the necessity of unity.

This study is important for the ecumenicity of the churches in Indonesia. The Council of Churches in Indonesia was founded in 1950 and later became the Communion of Churches in Indonesia. Its aim is to form a United Christian Church in Indonesia. Two streams of thinking emerged concerning what this intended United Christian Church in Indonesia should look like, and how would it come into being. The first stream stresses the structure: the so called structural unity. The second stream emphasizes unity in togetherness by witnessing and serving, which is called the functional unity. The tension between these two streams has been for long in discussion. In this situation, it may be useful for the churches in Indonesia to learn and to study the teachings of Calvin as the reformer who settled the basic doctrines of Protestantism including ecclesiology.

Finally, the churches in Indonesia are recommended to do several things. Firstly, that study on Calvin and his theology ought to be promoted in Indonesia, both in the churches and in academic theological circles. This recommendation is more specifically directed to the churches which proclaim themselves Calvinistic. Secondly, it is recommended that the Documents on Church Unity are implemented more concretely and universally by churches which have joined together in the PGI. Thirdly, it is advised that these churches carry out joint studies about the roots of Protestantism that can bring them closer together. Fourthly, it is recommendable that Calvinist churches conduct a study of the presbyterial-synodal system to reevaluate whether it still suits the cultural context of leadership in Indonesia. Finally, I strongly recommend the churches in Indonesia to keep the Church Documents on Unity as a model of unity that is relevant to the Indonesian context and to think about its realization through what is called unity in action.

Read more

Sharing in God's Mission: The Evangelical Pentecostal Union of Venezuela and The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States 1960-1980

Carmelo Álvarez

The Evangelical Pentecostal Union of Venezuela (UEPV), an autonomous pentecostal denomination, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States, a Mainline Protestant denomination, established an ecumenical partnership in 1963 that remains a positive force today. The initial steps in establishing this relationship began when Rev. Edmundo Jordán, Puerto Rican Disciples pastor and Puerto Rican Assemblies of God missionary to Venezuela, initiated informal and exploratory conversations that came to fruition in the 1961 II Latin American Evangelical Conference (CELA) in Lima, Peru.  Mae Yoho Ward, then Secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Christian Missionary Society (UCMS), made the initial contacts at CELA to enable this ecumenical partnership.

For four decades these two very different denominations have shared in an ecumenical partnership, primarily in the sharing of ecumenical resources. The first two decades of ecumenical partnership were formative, establishing the foundations for a more permanent and solid relationship. The concrete praxis of sharing ecumenical resources between these two denominations was deepened by an explicit theological and missiological reflection. This unique ecumenical experiment deserves serious theological analysis, the study of which will contribute to contemporary theological and missiological discussions on ecumenical sharing in mission.

The theoretical framework is based on two biblical-theological and missiological concepts: missio Dei and koinonía. Missio Dei is analyzed in the context of the ecumenical discussions of the past four decades: its Trinitarian implications of missio Dei, its relationship to an ecumenical and pentecostal thinking on the Holy Spirit, and its role in mission. The koinonía concept is examined as a partnership within the ecumenical movement, particularly the practical application of sharing in partnership as expressed by the World Council of Churches (WCC) as Ecumenical Sharing of Resources (ESR). The writer traces the evolution and usage of these two concepts and their influence on ecumenical missionary theology, particularly that of the Disciples of Christ. The main objective of this dissertation is to show both the challenges and long-term success of one example of sharing in God’s mission and thus to elaborate a consistent and solid argument for that model of church work.

The main thesis of this dissertation is that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and the Evangelical Pentecostal Union of Venezuela have shared for four decades in a praxis of mission through ecumenical partnership that has become a successful model of a true and mutual partnership.

The scope of this dissertation focuses on two decades, 1960-1980, but it also touches on circumstances before the official relationship started in 1963 as well as further developments beyond the two decades. A main focus of this discussion is the theological reflection that directs and sustains these mission strategies. An extensive analysis of official documents, letters, and interviews provides some of the key questions arising within these two denominations that allow the writer to present an in-depth evaluation of this particular partnership. 1) How do the two denominations articulate and reflect theologically on their praxis? 2) What are the predominant theological motives that undergird their theologies of mission? 3) Which models of mission inform and influence their theologies of mission? 4) Do these denominations hold a common theological understanding of their sharing in God’s mission? 5) How do they develop a sharing/learning process? 6) What are some issues and challenges for both denominations? 6) How do they move forward in mission? 8) How can they continue to improve and deepen an ongoing ecumenical partnership?

The relationship between these two very different denominations is a unique experiment in ecumenical sharing. This dissertation is the first attempt to analyze and evaluate these relations.

The research presented in this dissertation was conducted in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the United States. Venezuela is the country that has received more attention because of the focus on the Evangelical Pentecostal Union of Venezuela in relationship with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States. Extensive travel has taken the writer all over the Venezuelan territory in the last three decades.

The writer of this dissertation claims that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and the Evangelical Pentecostal Union of Venezuela have shared for four decades in a process that started as an experiment in cooperation and became a successful ecumenical partnership based on equality, mutuality, and respect.

In the Chapter I the author sets forth the dissertation’s theoretical framework, defines the thesis as a forty-year success of the ecumenical partnership between the Disciples and the UEPV, and introduces the concepts of missio Dei and koinonía. He shows the importance of the search for identity and mission both as a defining factor for denominational identity and as the foundation of relationships between groups. Chapter I describes two models of mission strategy (Mainline Protestant and Pentecostal), analyzes the joint mission strategy of the partnership, and highlights the ESR model of partnership. Chapter I also outlines the methodology, principles, and delimitations for this study, which includes performing an examination of context and a historical criticism of root causes behind the character of the churches through participation/observation, interviews, and letters, and documents. Eight key questions are raised early in the introduction and were addressed as the chapters unfolded.

The theological elements of mission are provided in the Chapter II through an examination of different traditions and diverse theological positions while searching for consensus on the key concept of missio Dei as God’s missionary action and emphasizing the holistic, integral, and inclusive dimensions of mission. The conciliar process is shown to follow the same path of affirming mission as missio Dei. Another predominant motive in ecumenical circles has been koinonía as communion in Christian fellowship, worship, and witness in service. This chapter shows that since the Church is called to a commitment to solidarity and unity while caring for God’s creation, koinonía as partnership is seen as ecumenical cooperation in concrete sharing of resources. A feminist theologian is quoted to claim that real partnership requires the construction of better relationships for the future of all humanity. The United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) and the Sao Paulo Process are cited as offering a common witness in moving away from the colonial heritage into self-determination, self-support, and dignity.

The main purpose of Chapter III is to stress that the Mainline Protestant missions in Venezuela faced the crucial issue of determining their identities by affirming their heritage while looking toward a promising future. These churches confronted many obstacles in this process, including their own internal divisions as well as the historical conflict within Latin America and the Caribbean. Churches and ecumenical organizations struggled to live in mission and unity as a visible sharing in God’s mission and the coming of God’s reign. Regional and national conferences, consultations, and continental assemblies promoted a conciliar process that was expressed concretely in the founding of the Latin American Council of Churches (CLAI) in 1978. Here ecumenical vocation and missional commitment were intertwined. The liberal missionary model was able to move from the influence of an expansive “liberal project” promoted by the United States to a holistic, viable, and relevant Protestantism within the historical conditions of Latin America and the Caribbean where the church in a new diaspora was a predominant theological motive.

Chapter IV delineates the mission strategy of Pentecostal churches in Latin America and the Caribbean, defining their identity and mission as an ecumenism of the Spirit. Pentecostal church leaders were active participants in promoting this style of ecumenism and in establishing partnerships with mainline denominations. Mission and unity was envisioned as a gift of the Spirit that resulted in the promotion of justice, hope, and peace. CEPLA was established as a venue for dialogue and an instrument to enhance partnerships and encourage strategies for social action and evangelism. As inheritors of ecumenism of the Spirit blowing in the Azusa Street movement and other revivals and spiritual movements in the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean received inspiration and a missionary impulse in what was already a diverse and complex Pentecostal movement. The three predominant mission models listed are the missionary expansive model connected primarily to United States based boards of missions, a divine healing neopentecostalism, and the indigenous autonomous movement. All three mission models responded to the pressing needs of the poor and oppressed that have comprised the majority of members in the Pentecostal churches of Latin America and the Caribbean to this day.

Chapter V traces the shaping of a strategy for mission within the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States. This denomination grew out of the restoration movement but opted for an ecumenical commitment in the promotion of mission and unity. The Disciples developed a theology of mission as God’s mission and an integral mission strategy in which the central theme of “kingdom building” emerged as an ecclesiology with three distinctive emphases: the members of the church as citizens of the kingdom, the kinship of God’s people as active agents in promoting mission in unity for the kingdom, and the kingdom as communion with God in ecumenical global cooperation for justice and the spread of the Gospel. In the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States, missio Dei was manifest as unity in diversity, with identity and mission in a creative tension between the church and the kingdom of God. Mission as God’s mission implied retaining the freedom to examine and interpret while accepting a consensus on the essential doctrinal tenets.

In Chapter VI the Evangelical Pentecostal Union of Venezuela is presented as an autonomous and autochthonous movement that opted for an ecumenical vocation and ecumenical relationships. Its strategy for mission integrated spiritual formation, leadership development, and the capacity to confront new challenges and conflicts. According to this strategy the Church is empowered by the Spirit to promote and witness to Christian unity. The UEPV was a pioneering force in reclaiming the Bolivarian ideal of a “Great Motherland.” The UEPV emphasized that the power of the Holy Spirit equips the people to respond to the crisis in Latin America and the Caribbean and to heal their own internal crisis as a church, as well as imparting the vision to discern the signs of the times and thus to better serve God’s people. The UEPV is shown to affirm a vision that maintained a balance between its mission as a Pentecostal church and its ecumenical commitment.

Chapter VII traces the relationship between the Disciples of Christ and the UEPV that started as an experiment in cooperation and mutual fellowship and grew to become a solid ecumenical partnership. The two denominations continued to honor differences and diversity by maintaining the identity and the integrity of each denomination. They reaffirmed an ecumenical commitment and vocation to continue working together in mission. The learning-sharing model in the Ecumenical Sharing of Resources was one of the key elements in this vital and positive ecumenical relationship.

These two denominations have articulated and reflected theologically on their praxis by developing missio Dei and Koinonia as strategies of mission that direct this praxis toward consistency and coherence while shaping and clarifying their identity and mission.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (DOC) and UEPV have developed a learning-sharing process of mutual accountability, a humble attitude to deal with misunderstandings and conflicts, and a determination to stay together and deepen their ecumenical commitment.

Both denominations have made the commitment to continue in their common vision for mission together, remaining open to dialogue, designing and promoting common projects, and planning new initiatives while consolidating existing projects. The denominations continue in the sharing of ecumenical resources such as the exchange of delegations and missionary personnel, educational funding, women’s ministries support, social programs for poor women, and evangelistic programs.

Each denomination can improve on deepening this ecumenical partnership by exploring new strategies for mission. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States can benefit from the evangelistic fervor and experience of the UEPV. The UEPV can learn from the experience in ministries of compassion, solidarity, and social action gained by the Disciples of Christ during more than 150 years of existence. The accumulated experience of these 40 years of ecumenical partnership forms a solid foundation upon which to continue exploring new adventures in mission.

One element that makes this mutual partnership a successful model is its immersion in concrete experiences and positive results, even during critical times. First, a mutual partnership requires speaking the truth to each other (Ephesians 4:25b) in order to be accountable in trust and respect for each other. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and the UEPV have followed this practice in several crucial moments: During the initial contacts from 1959 to 1972, an experiment in cooperation was established, avoiding any false expectations but cultivating a frank and honest dialogue while learning and sharing with one another. The second crucial moment came in the 1972-1980 period when the DOM and the UEPV decided to move forward in consolidating their ecumenical partnership, in sharing missionary personnel for specific projects, in providing funds, and in sharing the expertise of qualified professionals. The third crucial moment came in the years 1981-1983 when the UEPV suffered a serious internal conflict that almost destroyed the organization. During the UEPV XXVII Convention, August 25-28, 1983, the DOM stood with them by sending the Executive Secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean, Rev. David Vargas, which resulted in both churches confirming their intent stay together in mission. To further solidify this commitment, Rev. Gamaliel Lugo was invited as an international guest at the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Des Moines, October 1985. The fourth crucial moment came during the consultation “Sharing of Hope: An Ecumenism of the Spirit” in Indianapolis in 1997. This consultation provided a setting and opportunity for the UEPV and the other Pentecostal churches now in partnership to “speak the truth in love” once more. Participants confirmed that many weaknesses, obstacles, and dilemmas needed to be addressed by both sides (see Chapter VII, pp.203-207), but despite these challenges the participants were committed to staying together in mission, facing the challenges of the times.

Another element contributing to the success of the mutual partnership model is that sharing in God’s mission requires a mutual openness in correcting mistakes, improving relationships, and enhancing mutual ecumenical commitments. Between 1983 and 2004 the Executive Committee of the UEPV promoted an open dialogue with all the congregations that left that denomination between 1981 and 1983. Many of those congregations returned to the full membership in the UEPV, and others remain in cordial and open communication, sharing in many aspects of mission. The Executive Committee of the UEPV conducted a discernment process between 1984 and 1986 on ecumenical commitment, leading to a public statement at the XXX Convention at Hosanna Church in Guanare, August, 1986. At the XXXI Convention in “Comunidad El Triunfo” in Valencia, 1987, the UEPV publicly declared its ecumenical vocation, reaffirmed its Pentecostal identity, and affirmed its “preferential option for the poor.” This whole process made it clear that UEPV wanted to continue in an ecumenical partnership with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the ecumenical movement in Latin America and the rest of the world.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and the Evangelical Pentecostal Union of Venezuela have moved forward in mission toward equality and justice and have proven that a partnership based on mutual respect and trust, the sharing of human, educational, financial, spiritual and theological resources is the best foundation for an ongoing partnership in God’s mission.

Read more

Simson in tweevoud : Een onderzoek naar de ontstaansgeschiedenis van Richteren 13-16

Jan Pieter Bommel

This thesis, with the title Samson in duplicate, an inquity into the history of the origin of Judges 13 – 16, proposes a possible answer to the questions of how and when the Samson cycle was formed.

In the Introduction a survey of the Samson cycle is given, followed by the research questions, a review of this study and some highlights on the reception of Judges 13 – 16 in the course of history.

Chapter 1 contains in section 1 the translation of Judges 13 – 16, followed by a syntactic-stylistically analysis in section 2 and concludes in section 3 with an inquiry into the question if the deeds of Samson demonstrate him to be a Nazarite.

In Chapters 2 and 3 the context and the setting of the Samson cycle is discussed. Chapter 2, section 1, provides an ample review of the comprehensive debate among scholars on the Deuteronomistic History. The chapter continues in section 2.1.18 with a survey of the opinions of various scholars on the points of view of Deuteronomist(s) regarding the monarchy. The monarchy, important in the eyes of the Deuteronomists, is not present in the Samson story. Furthermore views of scholars on history writing are mentioned. I do not consider the Deuteronomist a history writer. In my opinion he was a theologian who applied historical facts for his own theological purposes, as for example in his report on the tumbling down of the walls of Jericho and in his report of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites (sections 2.1.19.2 and 2.1.19.3).

Chapter 2, section 2, renders the opinions of many learned scholars on the book of Judges. In section 2.2.8.1 the historical shift from polytheism to monotheism is investiGathed in order to discover at what point during this historical development the Samson story might have been formed. In section 2.2.8.2. literary data of the Samson cycle are compared with literary data in the remainder of the book of Judges.

In Chapter 3 the geographical setting of the Samson cycle is presented, illustrated by various maps. The significance of the cities Gath and Ekron in the bible is mentioned and the question is asked why these cities are not present in the Samson story. Chapter 4 expresses the exegesis of various scholars on the Samson story. The opinions of C.A. Simpson and J.A. Wharton are successively analysed and criticized. Then a survey is given of the ideas of a number of scholars with regard to the possibility of interpolations in Judges, chapter 14. Following this the exegeses of H. Gese, M. Witte and L.C. Jonker are reviewed. After these historical-critical exegeses the chapter continues with synchronical exegeses of J. Blenkinsopp, J.L. Crenshaw, E.L. Greenstein and some feminist exegetes. Furthermore the synchronical exegeses of B.G. Webb, A.G. van Daalen, J.Ch. Exum and J. Kim are reviewed. Section 4.3. deals with the opinions of various scholars on the riddles in chapter 14 of the book of Judges. Chapter 4 closes with a critical review and an enumeration of items for further research. My conclusion from the chapters 2 and 3 is that the Samson cycle does not fit into the literary or historical context nor in the geographical setting. Therefore I consider it highly unlikely that the Samson stories originated around a man who lived in the Iron Age I (1200-1000 BC).

In Chapter 5.1, my exegesis of the Samson story, a hypothesis is worded and then the text of Judges 13-16 is divided based on the syntactic-stylistically analysis in chapter 1, section 2 and the various parts (some combined to larger units) are discussed. Some of my conclusions are:

-         Judges 13, 1 does not constitute part of the deuteronomistic usage.

-         The motive of barrenness of Manoah’s wife, introduced in Judges 13,2, is not integrated in the composition of the Samson story.

-         Judges 13, 3-5 is not the “Gathtung” of a birth-announcement.

-         The wedding party in Judges, chapter 14, is characterized by the riddles and the ending of the marriage leads to Samson’s deeds in chapter 15. These deeds are based on retaliation of injustice.

-         Judges 15, 16-17 can be compared to the song of Lamech in Genesis 4 and is quite different from Judges 15, 18-19, where Samson utters a prayer and is presented as a servant of the Lord.

-         Judges 15, 20 cannot be related to the minor Judges or to the liberators among the Judges.

-         Judges 16, 23-30 is the first episode in the Samson story that fits into the framework of the holy war of YHWH against the enemies of his people.

-         Judges 16, 31 is a redactional statement to ascertain that Samson is just a man, not a demigod.

In section 5.1.6. a summary of the analysis is presented followed by an outlook to the remainder of this thesis. Section 5.2 contains a search for striking data in various historical periods. The first stages of the history of Philistines in Canaan are considered. The origin of the Philistines cannot be established with any degree of certainty. It is doubtful whether they all came from the Aegean area. The pottery, ascribed to the Philistines, shows similarities to the pottery from the Late Bronze Age in Canaan and cannot be traced back further than Cyprus. So it cannot be ascertained that folktales of Samson are influenced by stories from the Aegean area. The next period under consideration is that of the Persian rulers. Possible influences of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are viewed. The period of the Hellenistic domination however is in my opinion the most likely period during which the folktales and the biblical story of Samson were formed.

Chapter 6 deals with some linguistical and hermeneutical questions such as the absence of the influence of late Hebrew in the Samson story and the reason why the Samson cycle is inserted in the book of Judges.

Scholars from the Hellenistic age, devoted to YHWH, transformed the figure of the folkhero Samson to a Judge and a Nazarite, a servant of the Lord YHWH. - In Judges 16, 1-3 the Spirit of YHWH is strikingly absent. Section 6.2 presents the conclusions to the investigation in this thesis:

-         Secular folktales featuring a hero Samson were told to express hatred against the Phlistines. - These Philistines were not Israel’s enemy from the Iron Age I, but referred to the Hellenised cities at the coast of the Mediterenean sea.

-         The texts Judges 13, 1; 15, 20 and 16, 31 are in my opinion not written by Deuteronomist(s), but by the writer of the biblical Samson story.

-         Attached are an appendix - containing pictures as illustrations to the text - and a bibliography.

Read more

Politeness and Addressee Honorifics in Bible Translation

Ji-Youn Cho

The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine how the non-honorific language of the Greek New Testament could be translated into the proper AH of the multileveled honorific systems of some languages. In order to find a solution, we first examined the phenomena, function and social factors of Korean AH as the sample language (Ch. 1). Second, we established criteria and a framework for the evaluation of politeness and the selection of AH in chapter 2 and, in chapter 3, criteria and a framework for translating into AH. Next, we observed the AH phenomena of Mark 14:58-65 in Korean translations (Ch. 4), and finally evaluated the politeness of the dialogues in Mark 14:58-65 and suggested the possible AH for the church Bible translation through the analysis of the proposed criteria and framework (Ch.5).

In chapter 1, we elaborated the complex system of modern Korean AH along the synchronic survey of honorific systems and the diachronic overview of modern honorific phenomena. The classification of the honorifics systems depends on the linguists, but the modern uses of AH express formality, respect and intimacy rather than difference in social class. Among the social factors influencing the choice of AH—relative age, relative status, relative-gender, degree of familiarity and formality of situation—the former three factors are the decisive factors in traditional society while the latter two factors have become the principal factors for the choice of AH in modern society. The formality of the situation has especially become a crucial factor in modern honorifics. Through the analyses of the function of the Korean honorific second person pronoun (HSPP) and honorific verb ending (HVE) and its co-occurrence relationship rule, a new system has been proposed as follows: (1) the formal deferential forms (yeoreobun, tangsin, keudae + -pnita [P]), (2) the formal limited non deferential forms (tangsin, keudae + -o [O]), (3) the formal general nondeferential forms (noh + -ta [T]), (4) the informal deferential forms (tangsin, keudae + -yo [Y]), (5) the informal limited non-deferential forms (keudae, chane + -ne [N]), and (6) the informal general non-deferential forms (noh + -e [E]).

The deferential forms are generally used toward +respect addressee(s) and the non-deferential forms toward –respect addressee(s) with the exception of stranger(s) and formal situations. On the other hand, the use of the deferential forms toward –respect addressee(s) is implicitly awkward,mocking, flattery, insincere, or sarcastic except toward younger/lower or same age/status addressee(s) of higher, opposite gender, or strangers or in a formal situation. In contrast, the use of non-deferential forms toward +respect addressee(s) is considered as rude except in cases of intimate relationships between interlocutors in informal situations. The choice of AH is always flexible and the proposed classification would change the AH systems as described in grammars of Korean because of the diachronic processes of change. Accordingly, translator must be not only aware of the grammatical paradigm of the honorifics but also the relevant syntacticsemantic and pragmatic explanations.

In terms of the pragmatic usage of AH, chapter 2 examined the politeness concepts and parameters of R. Brown and A. Gilman, R. T. Lakoff, P. Brown and S. C. Levinson and G. N. Leech—all of which are representative models of the politeness theories. Brown and Gilman claim that two fundamental dimensions behind the use of the pronominal T-V variants in some European languages are power and solidarity. They provide useful concepts for social variables, i.e. power and distance, not only to evaluate the politeness of dialogues but also to determine its honorifics. The politeness rules of Lakoff, the strategies of Brown and Levinson, and the maxims of Leech also provide the parameters for the evaluation of politeness in dialogues. Particularly, the speaker’s assumption toward addressee(s) as a criterion for the evaluation of politeness and the selection of AH are formulated by the power and solidarity of Brown and Gilman, the distance of Lakoff’s rules, and the variables of FTAs Brown and Levinson suggested.

By examining the above politeness theories and recent studies, we have proposed the following set of criteria as common denominators for the variety of politeness concepts and parameters for the evaluation of politeness in dialogues and the selection of AH: (1) situations of dialogue; (2) social factors of the interlocutors; (3) cultural expectations; (4) the speaker’s assumption toward the addressee(s); and (5) paralinguistic politeness. Based on the criteria, we have established the framework for the evaluation of politeness in dialogue and the selection of AH. However, we also extended it to the translation framework for appropriately rendering the source text of non-honorific language into the target text of honorific language because translating into the AH requires multilateral points of sociolinguistic and pragmatic connections between the source and target texts.

To establish the theoretical framework for translating the biblical text into the proper AH, chapter 3 dealt with the existing translation theories, i.e. literal translation, dynamic equivalence approach, functional equivalence approach, literary functional equivalence, and the skopos theory. Since the selection of AH cannot be determined by the lexical and grammatical data, syntax, or semantics of the source text, the literal translation approach or theequivalence approach is not appropriate to establish the framework for translating into the proper AH. If translator follows the strict literal translation approach the target text would consist of one single uniform AH which makes the sentence awkward and flat and it would lose the sparkle, variety and charm of the original text. The model of dynamic equivalence also presents problems: (1) the translation elements - the source, message and receptor - are not enough to determine the proper AH of honorific languages; (2) the translator alone cannot take total responsibility of determining the AH without specific information and the requirements of the ‘final receptor’; and (3) the source text of non-honorific language cannot be the theoretical starting point for the translation. Nevertheless, it provides the significant three stages—analysis, transfer, and restructuring—for translating into AH. The functional equivalence approach influenced by socio-semiotics extends syntax and semantics to sociolinguistics in the field of Bible translation and emphasizes the rhetorical structure of text. It is useful in being aware of the overall structure of the discourse in terms of the sociolinguistics. However, since de Waard and Nida simply classify the linguistic problem related to the honorifics into formal and informal levels, their approach does not provide the sufficient framework for translating into the proper AH. Along the lines of the previous equivalence approaches, a literary functional equivalence approach integrates form, content and function, and furthermore relies on various modern translation theories.

However, this approach focuses on the literary characteristics of translation and is thus limited in providing a sufficient framework for translation. The skopos theory, which emphasizes the pragmatic aspect, suggests a suitable framework for translating into AH.

Based on the skopos theory, we formulated the following translation elements: (1) requirements of reader, (2) role of commissioner, (3) function of translator, (4) analysis of source text, and (5) function of target text. The translator must get as much information as possible about the requirements and needs of the readers and establish translation principles with the commissioner. In addition, the translator pragmatically analyzes the social situation, the relationship of the interlocutors and the cultural expectations of the biblical text by the framework for the evaluation of politeness and the selection of AH. The result of the analysis helps the translator perceive the speaker’s assumption and intention toward the addressee(s) and select the appropriate AH in the target text.

Chapter 4 assessed—from a skopos perspective—the extent to which each Korean translation was appropriate, acceptable and understandable given the linguistic changes that took place in the use of AH in the sample text, Mark 14:58-65.

We have observed that, since the first Korean version of 1882, old language versions have mostly used the lowest form, i.e. the formal general non-deferential forms. We have analyzed that the early Korean translation followed the literal translation approach and the specific AH system for the translations was not yet established in the early 20th century. However, the archaic uniform styles of the KB (1911) became the typical Korean “Biblical style” which has been read in a solemn tone for worship in the Korean church. Even the KRV (1961) and the NKRV (1998) almost uniformly render all the dialogues in Mark 14:58-65 into the formal general non-deferential forms except for the high priest’s speech to the rest of the Sanhedrin. On the other hand, the KNTNT (1967), the first modern language translation, is not only colloquial but also excellently polished at the same time and uses the HSPP and HVE to a broader extent. Still, Jesus’ speech is uniformly translated with the formal general non-deferential T form. The AH of the CTHB (1977/1999), published through interconfessional cooperation, is more vivid and natural than the ones of the KNTNT but the CTHB still has some awkward honorific expressions in the dialogues that mix the formal deferential P form and the formal limited non-deferential O form and break the consistency of AH. Furthermore, Jesus’ speech style when he answers the queries of the high priest is rendered into the formal general non-deferential noh and T form thereby implying extreme rudeness. The NKSV (1993) and the RNKSV (2001), which followed the optimal equivalence approach, use more developed honorific phenomena than any other Korean version. In contrast with the previous versions, Jesus’ speech style in Mark 14:58-65 is in balance with those of the high priest. The flexibility of Jesus’ speech style in the RNKSV allows people to overcome their preconception that Jesus must speak to every person in the non-deferential form. However, there is no theoretical framework or specific elements for translating into the proper AH even in the modern translations and the adoption of modern honorific systems for Jesus’ speech is an issue that still remains unresolved in Korean translations. Future translations must not retain the archaic mood and ought to keep up with the changes of contemporary Korean society. Even if the old language translation must be revised, the AH should be translated according to the theoretical framework.

Chapter 5 thus applied the proposed criteria and theoretical framework for translating into AH to the dialogues of Mark 14:58-65 and suggested possible selections of AH for a new Korean translation.

We first discussed the contradictions and improbabilities of the social situation, and, second, analyzed the social relationship of the interlocutors, cultural expectations concerning the communicative event and the speaker’s assumption and intention toward the addressee(s). The translator can determine the speaker’s assumption and intention toward the addressee(s) through exegesis and further evaluate the politeness in the dialogue. However, translating into AH is not only determined by exegesis but also by considering the readers’ community, i.e. translation skopos, insofar as it is consistent with the analysis of the source text. Among the various AH, the translator must select one AH as the common point that matches most closely with the result of the analysis of source text and the requirement of the intended readers.

If the translation skopos is to intensify the extreme target-oriented translation or the naturalness in the target context, all the dialogues of this pericope would consist of speech styles used in a real court situation such as the formal deferential tangsin pronoun or yeoreobun pronoun and P verb ending forms, omitting the pronoun altogether or using the noun instead of the pronoun and deferential P verb ending forms. All participants of real Korean court are obligated to use these forms. However, the translation inevitably loses some information of the source text, i.e. the high priest’s hostility toward Jesus, Jesus’ powerful declaration, his tragic suffering by his mockers, all of which reflects the tension of the trial.

If the translation skopos is to stress the extreme source-oriented translation, or the literal translation approach, the translation would match the non-honorific expressions of Greek with a single honorific form, i.e. usually the formal general non-deferential noh pronoun and T verb ending forms. However, this selection makes the adversarial relationship of the interlocutors and the serious social situation awkward, flat and monotone.

For the church Bible, the translator must therefore mediate between the target-oriented translation and the source-oriented translation and find a fitting compromise between the trial situation of the biblical text and a real court situation of the target context. The translator must avoid both extremes and introduce the readers’ community to the message of the source text as accurately as possible, expressing the naturalness of the target text. Thus, the AH in the dialogues of this pericope must be super-elaborated to show the adversarial dynamics between Jesus and his hostile interlocutors in the trial situation where Jesus’ accusers, the high priest, the members of Sanhedrin and Jesus’ mockers may win in the present trial but ultimately lose when the situation reverses in the future and the highest religious authorities are disempowered by the power of Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man.

The appropriate AH can reveal all these varying levels of power and makes the translation dynamic, fascinating and real to the readers. As a result, the importance of the theoretical framework for translating into the proper AH, which is valid for analyzing the dialogues of biblical text and selecting the proper AH, cannot be overlooked.

Read more