• 설교
  • 예화
  • 자료
  • 성경
14
1. JEZEBEL(이세벨)
JEZEBEL QUEEN'S BODY EATEN BY DOGS Jezebel was a princess from the rich coastal city of Sidon, where her father was king. She married Ahab, son of a famous warrior king of Israel called Omri. Jezebel kept on worshipping her own gods, the gods of agriculture and weather, after she moved to Israel. Her most loved god was Baal, god of storms, rivers and water, but she probably also worshipped his divine wife Asherah, who personified the fertility of all females and was a fierce champion of the family. The people of Israel wavered between Jahweh and Baal, and there was mutual hatred between the priests of Jahweh and Baal. Each side was more than happy to murder opponents. Jezebel championed the priests of Baal, and in a showdown with the Jahwist prophet Elijah on Mount Carmel, hundreds of her priests were slaughtered by the Jahwists. Jezebel swore revenge, and Elijah went into hiding. Jezebel's father in Sidon was an absolute monarch, and she believed that a king's word was law. But this was not the Israelite view. In one incident, her husband Ahab needed a plot of land to serve the palace at Jezreel. The owner of the land, Naboth, would not sell, and Ahab fell into some sort of black depression - he was a great warrior himself but always lived under the shadow of his famous father. Jezebel decided to act. '.....the palace dogs had got to her first, and all that remained of this royal woman was her head and her hands.' ___________________________________ She arranged the judicial murder of Naboth, and so got the land for her husband. She thought she was within her rights; many people disagreed. When her husband Ahab died, her son Ahaziah succeeded to the throne. Two years later he died in an 'accident', falling from a high balcony in the palace. Her second son Joram became king, but after some years he was murdered in a palace coup led by a sinister man called Jehu. In the ensuing violence Jezebel was killed as well, flung by her own eunuchs from a high balcony. She died as a queen should die, magnificent and defiant, hurling insults at her murderers to her last breath. The usurper, Jehu, ran his iron-wheeled chariot back and forth over her dying body, then went into the palace for a celebratory dinner. Afterwards, he remembered that her body was still lying in the courtyard of the palace, and ordered that it be buried. But the palace dogs had got to her first, and all that remained of this royal woman was her head and her hands. After this, Jehu ordered the murder all of the young men and boys of the royal family, about seventy in all. Their heads were sent to him in baskets. BIBLE REFERENCE Conflict between worshippers of Jahweh and Baal (1 Kings 16:29-34, 18:17-40, 19:1-3) The episode of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21:1-16) The death of Jezebel and her family (1 Kings 22:29-40, 2 Kings 9:21-28, 9:30-37)
10. ATHALIAH(아달랴)
ATHALIAH A WOMAN SEIZES POWER Athaliah had an impeccable lineage, being either daughter of the greatest king of Israel, Omri, and sister-in-law of Jezebel, or daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. Athaliah was born in the northern kingdom of Israel but married the crown prince of Judah in the south. His name was Jehoram, and he ruled as king of Judah for eight years before he died at the age of forty - comparatively young, even for those times. He had had a turbulent reign, largely spent on the battlefield. He was succeeded by Athaliah's twenty-two year old son Ahaziah, and her position automatically became much more powerful. The top woman in a kingdom at this time was not the king's wife - wives went in and out of favor - but the Queen Mother, who acted as counselor to her son and was often the only person he could trust. Unfortunately for Athaliah, her son reigned for only one year before he was murdered by Jehu, who had already killed all of the royal family of Israel, including Jezebel. Ahaziah had travelled north to visit his cousin Joram, Jezebel's son, and been caught up in the events of the coup that destroyed all Jezebel's family. Athaliah was at the palace in Jerusalem when she heard what had happened. Now the story gets a bit muddy. According to the Bible, Athaliah set out to destroy all of her own family, seizing power for herself. Why she would do this is not clear, unless every single one of her male children and grandchildren were already dead - or unless she thought she would make the most capable leader, and ruler, of the kingdom. If this was the case, she was well advised to make a grab for power; the only alternative was to hope for a quick death by sword thrust. 'Athaliah ran to the Temple, but did not have time to summon her own guard. She found herself alone in a hostile crowd. They pursued her out through the Horse Gate of the Temple, hunted her down and killed her.' _________________________ An alternative explanation is that the boys were killed by someone else, Jehu's followers, and that Athaliah managed to save herself but was later blamed for the carnage. According to the Bible narrative, a baby boy was saved by the quick action of Jehosheba, Athaliah's sister. His name was Jehoash, and he was said to be the son of Ahaziah. She hid the baby and his nurse in a remote bedroom of the palace and kept him hidden for the next six years. For the next six years Athaliah was the ruler of Judah - the only female monarch Judah or Israel ever had. But at the end of that six years there was another palace coup, led by a member of the Jahwist priesthood, Jehoiada - who was also, as it happened, the husband of Jehosheba. He produced the by-now six year old boy, told members of the military that the boy was the miraculously saved son of the murdered king Ahaziah and that they should place the boy on the throne - with Jehoiada as regent, of course. The breakaway group crowned the boy and anointed him, saluting him with cries of 'Long Live the King!' When she heard the uproar Athaliah ran to the Temple, but did not have time to summon her own guard. She found herself alone in a hostile crowd. They pursued her out through the Horse Gate of the Temple, hunted her down and killed her. The seven-year old Jehoash became king. Bible reference: 2 Kings 8:26-29, 9:27-29, 10:12-14, 11:1-16, 2 Chronicles 22:10-23:15
2. SALOME(살로메)
SALOME KING'S INCEST WITH DAUGHTER? Salome is remembered for two things: the Dance of the Seven Veils (which did not happen) and the execution of John the Baptist (which did). Salome started off with natural advantages: she was the daughter of Herodias, and step-daughter of Herod Antipas, who ruled a large part of ancient Palestine - under the direction of the Romans, of course. Her step-father Antipas had clapped John into prison because he was far too outspoken in his criticism of the marriage between Antipas and Herodias - the marriage violated Mosaic law because Herodias was the divorced wife of Antipas' half brother Philip. The political situation was very delicate, and Antipas and Herodias simply could not afford to have a trouble-maker roaming around the country criticizing the royal family. They knew they had to act to rid themselves of this political pest. But they could not do so openly. The most they could do was to clap John into prison and leave him there, which they did. This however did not seem to solve the problem and the royal family, particularly Herodias who faced being divorced if John kept on ranting about her, looked for another solution. It is impossible to know how much of what then happened was pre-arranged, but at Antipas' birthday dinner the young Salome danced, and pleased him mightily. In his cups, or seeming to be, Antipas promised her anything at all that she asked for. 'Her mother Herodias seized the opportunity and told her to ask for John's head. She went back to the banquet hall and made her request. Antipas immediately granted it.' __________________________________ She went to her mother for advice: what should she demand? Herodias seized the opportunity and told her to ask for John's head. She went back to the banquet hall and made her request. Antipas immediately granted it. John was beheaded (and therefore silenced permanently), and the young princess calmly went on with her life - she married well, twice, and lived a long life. Her story proved popular, and Herod is often portrayed as lusting after the pre-pubescent Salome, and she in turn desires John the Baptist. This may or may not be so. What is known is that the family was politically astute - Jesus called Antipas 'the fox'. It is more likely that the girl simply acted to protect her mother against the criticism of a man who was, to Salome, a crazed fanatic - much like Chelsea Clinton rallying to a call from Hillary. For John's story, see BIBLE PEOPLE: JOHN THE BAPTIST Bible reference: Mark 6:14-29, Matthew 14:1-12
3. EVE (하와)
EVE THE ORIGINAL TROUBLE-MAKER? At the supreme moment in the story of creation, God made a creature ‘in his own image’. This creature had a nature that was essentially creative. It could imagine, invent, and change the world, as God did in the Genesis story. The creature was itself an expression of the creative energy of God. But the creature was alone, so God created a mate for it. He took a bone from the creature's rib cage and fashioned Woman - Eve. Man would never be really complete again unless there was a woman beside him. She, it seems, was even more creative (and therefore God-like?) than her mate Adam. When one of the reptiles in the Garden of Eden spoke to her, suggesting she try something new, she was intrigued. She had been given the power of choosing and of making decisions. If she did as the reptile suggested and ate the Apple, she might gain new understanding and wisdom. Unfortunately, Eve was an innocent. She had no previous experience of deceit, so she believed what she was told. She made her choice, deciding to seek knowledge of good and evil rather than be obedient to God's command. '...like Helen of Troy and Guinevere, she is still seen as the central cause of unwanted change.' ______________________ As humans, we continually test boundaries and try new ideas, and in the Genesis story woman as ‘life-giver’ is the one who initiates this process. It is a dangerous activity - the quest for knowledge should always be balanced by wisdom. Eve would learn this lesson the hard way. She took the apple to Adam, so that he might taste it too. He ate it without thinking or arguing. Like Eve, he misused his ability to make decisions and did not consider the consequences. Instantly, the original harmony between humanity and nature was disrupted. The Garden of Eden was lost - as it continues to be lost, every day, in our world. Of the two, Eve was the mover and shaker in the story, the active person. In short, it was she who initiated change in an otherwise stable world. For more on Eve, see BIBLE WOMEN: EVE Bible reference: Genesis 2:18-4:2; 4:25
4. DELILAH(들릴라)
DELILAH MAN UNABLE TO KEEP SECRET!!! Delilah was a beautiful Philistine woman who lived in the valley of Sorek. She was probably a successful courtesan. She was certainly loved by Samson, a brutal warrior who described making love with his wife as 'plowing with my heifer...'. Despite his appalling record of violence, or perhaps because of it, he was a hero to the beleaguered Hebrew settlers who were trying to find a place for themselves in land already occupied by the Canaanites and Philistines. Samson was enormously strong, and people at that time believed this must be because of some magic trick that gave him extraordinary power. Some of the Philistine leaders approached Delilah and offered her an immense sum of money if she would find out the secret of Samson's strength. Three times she asked him, and three times he gave her a false answer. Eventually he told her what he believed: that his strength resided in his hair which, since it had never been cut, was far more plentiful that any other man's. Since he was probably only a customer to Delilah, and since the money she would get for the secret would be enough to release her from her life of prostitution, she gave his secret away. 'His eyes were gouged from their sockets and he was thrown into prison. After that, Delilah disappears from the story...' _______________________ She called the Philistines, told them the secret, and while Samson slept she allowed them to cut off his luxuriant hair. There is something moving in the picture of Samson sleeping with his head in Delilah's lap, unaware of the forces assembling against him. Unless she had reason to hate all Israelites, Delilah must have felt some pity for him. Without his hair - and therefore his strength - Samson was easily overpowered. In the words of the story, 'the Lord had left him'. Delilah probably expected a quick death for him, rather than the protracted torture which followed his capture. His eyes were gouged from their sockets and he was thrown into prison. After that, Delilah disappears from the story, but it is probably that the Philistines honored their promise of payment and Delilah enjoyed a comfortable retirement. For more of this story, see BIBLE WOMEN: DELILAH Bible reference: Judges 16:4-21
5. MAACAH
MAACAH GIVE ME THAT OLD-TIME RELIGION Maacah was a royal princess, but one born under a cloud. Her father was said to be Absalom, who rebelled against his father King David and was murdered. But she may have been the illegitimate daughter of Absalom's sister Tamar, who was raped by her obsessive half-brother Amnon and hidden away in the royal harem for the rest of her life. Either way, not a good start. Despite this, Maacah must have been a charmer, because she overcame the conditions of her birth and was married to Solomon's eldest son Rehoboam. The Bible says bluntly that he loved her more than any of his other wives and concubines. When Solomon died Rehoboam succeeded to the throne. There was trouble brewing. The ten northern tribes were discontented with the way that power was centralized in Jerusalem. They wanted the old autonomous tribal system, where they had more control over decisions that shaped their lives. Things came to a head at Rehoboam's coronation, and the ten tribes broke away, leaving Rehoboam with only two tribes (Judah and Benjamin) and his capital, Jerusalem. There was trouble from outside as well. Egypt invaded five years later, under the Pharaoh Sheshonq I, founder of the 22nd dynasty. Rehoboam's army was unable to repel the Egyptians, and the entire territory of Judah was left open to rape and pillage. Worse still (I joke) was that the royal women were forced to surrender all the jewelry as booty to the invaders. Maacah lost all her personal treasures. 'Worse still (I joke) was that the royal women were forced to surrender all the jewelry as booty to the invaders.' ________________________ Twelve years later her husband died, and Maacah's son Abijah succeeded him. Now Maacah came into full power as Queen Mother - the most powerful woman in the kingdom. She immediately began to restore the old religion - worship of the fertility gods - and it is for this reason that the Bible regards her as beyond the pale. Her role as Queen Mother probably included cultic ceremonies for the fertility goddess Asherah. The fertility religions in the ancient world attempted to predict and control the weather. Since the people of the ancient world depended utterly on agriculture, the state of their crops was of paramount importance. If crops were abundant, all was well. If there was a drought, the people simply starved to death. But Maacah's reign as Queen Mother lasted for only two years, while her son Abijah reigned. When he suddenly died he was succeeded by his son Asa, who may or may not have owed his throne to the Jahwist priesthood. In any case, Asa was removed her from her position of power and forced to live out her days in the claustrophobic rooms of the royal harem. Bible reference: 1 Kings 15, 2 Chronicles 11:20-23; 15:16
6. POTIPHAR'S WIFE(보디발의 아내)
POTIPHAR'S WIFE NAKED MAN DENIES LOVE TRIANGLE Joseph, the son of Rachel and Jacob, was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt. Once there, he became an outstanding success - Chief Steward for a rich Egyptian, Potiphar. Potiphar had a beautiful wife, a woman used to getting her own way. She was lonely, bored and constantly in the company of an unusually handsome man, the Brad Pitt of the ancient world. Neglected by her husband who may have been a eunuch, she fell in love with Joseph - to the point of obsession. Temptation became too much for her. She made some kind of sexual approach to Joseph - 'Lie with me', she said. Joseph had to either offend the wife or betray her husband. He decided to reject the woman. But one day when they were alone in the house she insisted, grabbing hold of him. In the physical tussle that followed, she pulled off his linen loin-cloth. He was naked, and ran out of the room and then out of the house altogether, leaving his clothing behind. 'Potiphar had a beautiful wife, a woman used to getting her own way. She was lonely, bored and thrown into the company of an unusually handsome man, the Brad Pitt of the ancient world.' _________________________ She was enraged. She called to the members of the household, telling them Joseph had tried to rape her. She held up Joseph's clothing to prove her point. Only her screams had prevented him abusing her, she said. She waited until her husband came home and told him the same story. He was enraged - at Joseph? at her? The incident was now common knowledge. As a cuckold he would become an object of ridicule. He charged Joseph with the attempted rape of his wife, and put him in prison. Of the wife, we hear no more. For more of her story, see BIBLE WOMEN: POTIPHAR'S WIFE Bible reference: Genesis 39:1-20
7. LOT'S WIFE
LOT'S WIFE DON'T LOOK BACK Lot's wife is unnamed, but her story is significant. Her crime, for which she was turned into a pillar of lifeless salt, was to look back - in other words, to long for the past rather than than living in the present and planning for the future. Her husband was the nephew of Abraham, and her whole family traveled with Abraham in the long wandering that his family/tribe endured as they looked for pasture for their flocks. Eventually they came to Canaan, and Lot's family and Abraham's parted company - their flocks had grown so large it was no longer practical to travel together. Lot moved into the Jordan valley, as far as the city of Sodom. It was not a particularly good place to be at that time. There was constant warfare between the petty kings of the region. Lot's family and servants were captured by one of these kings, and only saved because Abraham heard about their plight and came to rescue them. Some time after this, Lot settled with his family in the notorious city of Sodom, already well known as a center of homosexual and libertine practices. God now sent two men/angels to destroy Sodom, but on Abraham's insistence these beings warned Lot of what they were about to do. He in turn warned his family - his wife, two daughters and the two young men who were to marry his daughters. On the following morning Lot's wife and daughters, no doubt feeling somewhat dubious about the whole thing, agreed to leave the city. They packed whatever they could carry and headed for the hills. 'It became too much for Lot's wife. She turned her body and looked back - and died instantly, as her body turned from warm living flesh into dry, lifeless salt.' ________________________ The angels/men warned them not to look back: 'Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed.' The little group fled, and as they hurried away sulfur and fire began to rain from the sky. The cities behind them were consumed in some sort of terrible cataclysm. The noise, smoke and tumult must have been terrifying - and all the time, they could not look back to where they had come from, to the home they had left. It became too much for Lot's wife. She turned her body and looked back - and died instantly, as her body turned from warm living flesh into dry, lifeless salt. The point of the story? Don't look back. Life means looking forward, moving onwards, not focusing on the past to the extent that we become mired in the dark memories we all have. Looking back will leach the life out of you, and you will in effect become as arid as a pillar of salt. Jesus gave Mary Magdalene much the same message when, in the garden on the morning of the Resurrection, he told her not to cling to him, but to go and tell the disciples about him instead. Bible reference: Genesis 11:31-14:16; 19
8. LOT'S DAUGHTERS(롯의 딸들)
LOT\'S DAUGHTERS DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? After the cataclysm described above in the section on Lot\'s wife, Lot and his two daughters fled from the plain up into the hills, where they could be more safe. There were no settlements there, and Lot and the two girls huddled for shelter in a cave. They believed they were the only surviving members of the human race, and that all other people in the world had been destroyed. This was bad enough, but the two young men who had been promised husbands were now dead, and the young women saw no hope of ever having children of their own. They decided on a ruse to get themselves pregnant. It was the idea of the older sister: they would get their father drunk in the evening, and have sex with him as he lay in a stupor. This they did, both of them, on separate nights. \'they would get their father drunk in the evening, and have sex with him as he lay in a stupor\' _______________________ Sure enough, both girls became pregnant and eventually bore a son each. The older girl called her son Moab, and he was named as the ancestor of the Moabites, a tribe with whom the Israelites were often at war. The younger girl called her son Ben-ammi and he, the Bible says, was the ancestor of the Ammonites - another tribe with whom the Israelites fought. Thus both of the enemy tribes, the Bible proposed, were the result of acts of incest between Lot and his daughters. Bible reference: Genesis 19:30-38
9. HERODIAS
HERODIAS SHE STOOD BY HER MAN This little girl's life began in darkness, in a welter of blood. Before she was born, her grandfather Herod the Great killed her grandmother, the lovely, tragic Mariamne, in a fit of jealous rage. Then he killed her father, his own son. Her mother fled to Rome with Herodias and her younger brother Agrippa, and stayed there until it was safe to return. Little Herodias grew up as a royal aristocrat in Rome, pampered, spoiled and aware of her status. Her first husband, and the father of her daughter Salome, was her uncle Philip, also a son of Herod the Great. She divorced him and then married Philip's half brother Herod Antipas (who was also her uncle). Marriage to an uncle was normal practice among royal families in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Soon after she and Antipas were married, John the Baptist began to criticize her for marrying her former husband's brother. In response, Antipas put him in prison. Whose idea was this? Hard to say. Mark in his gospel says it was Herodias who wanted to see John killed. Matthew blamed Herod and said that from the start he plotted to be rid of John. In all probability, it was a bit of both. Royal status or not, nobody in Herodias' family was short of rat cunning, and the truth was that John's harangues were de-stabilizing a politically sensitive country. If a revolt broke out, Antipas and Herodias would be the ultimate losers, and they were well aware of the fact. So arrangements were made: Salome danced, Antipas promised, Herodias advised, and John was beheaded. His execution was probably arranged beforehand. Antipas had to make it appear as if he had no alternative to killing John, and a public promise given at his birthday banquet gave him a way out. After all, he had given his word to the girl; what could he do? He had to honor it. This would have been his defense. 'when they met Caligula face-to-face he casually stripped them of all their possessions, everything they owned, and gave it instead to Herodias' vicious young ne'er-do-well brother Agrippa' _________________________ It worked. John was executed and thus silenced, and his death acted as a warning to other would-be agitators. As far as the gospels are concerned, that was the end of Herodias' story. But in fact there was quite a bit more. Some years later her younger brother Agrippa was made a king by the Roman Emperor Caligula - Agrippa was a vicious young ne'er-do-well, but a close friend of Caligula's. Herodias was incensed at the injustice of it all. Why should her own husband Antipas, who had served Rome loyally for many years, not receive the same honor? She talked Antipas into going to Rome to ask for this favor, but when they met Caligula face-to-face he casually stripped them of all their possessions, everything they owned, and gave it instead to Agrippa. He also sentenced them to life-long exile. On being reminded that Herodias was Agrippa's sister, he made her an offer: disown her husband, and she would be allowed to retain her own wealth and return home. It was here that Herodias showed her true mettle. She proudly rejected Caligula's offer and went instead into exile with her husband. It must be said, however, that exile in this case meant living in a Roman city in the south of France, perhaps not such a terrible sacrifice after all. For Herod's story, see BIBLE PEOPLE: HEROD Bible reference: Mark 6:17-28, Matthew 14:1-11; Luke 3:19-20
95개조항(원문) 2004-03-06 09:45:04 read : 9 내용넓게보기. 프린트하기 95개조항 원문 1. Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo `Penitentiam(Matth. 4, 17) agite &c.` omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam esse voluit. 1. Da unser Herr und Meister Jesus Christus sp
95개조항(원문) 2004-03-06 09:45:04 read : 9 내용넓게보기. 프린트하기 95개조항 원문 1. Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo `Penitentiam(Matth. 4, 17) agite &c.` omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam esse voluit. 1. Da unser Herr und Meister Jesus Christus spricht : Tut Busse usw.(Matth. 4, 17), hat er gowollt, dass alles Leben der Glaeubigen Busse sein soll. 1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying : `Repent ye,` etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be penitence. 2. Quod verbum de penitentia sacramentali (id est confessionis et satisfactionis, que sacerdotum ministerio celebratur) non potest intelligi. 2. Dies Wort kann nicht von der sakramentlichen Busse verstanden werden,d.h.von dem Akt der Beichte und Genugtuung, der durchs Amt der Priester begangen wird. 2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that is, of the confession and satisfaction which care performed under the ministry of priests. 3. Non tamen solam intendit interiorem,immo interior nulla est, nisi foris operetur varias carnis mortificationes. 3. Doch meint es auch nicht nur die innerliche Busse, vielmehr ist keine innerliche Busse denkbar, die nicht zugleich nach aussen wirke allerlei Ertoetung des Fleisches. 3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay, such inward penitence is naught unless it outwardly produces various mortifications of the flesh. 4. Manet itaque pena, donec manet odium sui (id est penitentia vera intus), scilicet usque ad introitum regni celorum. 4. Daher waehrt auch die goettliche Strafe so lange, als der Mensch an sich selbst Gericht uebt (das ist die waher innere Busse), naemlich bis zum Eingang ins Himmelreich. 4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of self - that is, true inward penitence - continues, namely, till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven. 5. Papa non vult nec potest ullas penas remittere preter eas, quas arbitrio vel suo vel canonum imposuit. 5. Der Papst will und kann keine andern Suendenstrafen erlassen als die, welche er nach seinem oder nach der kirchlichen Satzungen Besinden aufgelegt hat. 5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties except those which he has imposed by his own authority or by that of the canons. 6. Papa non potest remittere ullam culpam nisi declarando et approbando remissam a deo Aut certe remittendo casus reservatos sibi, quibus contemptis culpa prorsus remaneret. 6. Der Papst kann keine Suendenschuld anders erlassen, als indem er erklaert und bestaetigt, dass sie von Gott erlassen sei; ausserdem kann er erlassen in den ihm vorbehaltenen Faellen; denn wollte man in diesen ihn verachten, so bliebe die Schuld voellig unvergeben. 6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt except by declaring or warranting it to have been remitted by God or, at most, by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which cases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly remain. 7. Nulli prorsus remittit deus culpam, quin simul eum subiiciat humiliatum in omnibus sacerdoti suo vicario. 7. Gott vergibt durchaus keinem die Schult, den er nicht zugleich dahin bringt, sich demuetig Gottes Stellvertreter, dem Priester, zu unterwerfen. 7. God never remits any man`s guilt without at the same time subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of His representative, the priest. 8. Canones penitentiales solum viventibus sunt impositi nihilque morituris secundum eosdem debet imponi. 8. Die kirchlichen Bestimmungen betreffs aufzulegender Bussen sind allerin den Lebenden gegeben; nichts darf laut derselben den Sterbenden aufgelegt werden. 8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and according to them no burden ought to be imposed on the dying. 9. Inde bene nobis facit spiritussanctus in papa excipiendo in suis decretis semper articulum mortis et necessitatis. 9. Daher tut uns der heilige Geist im Papste darin wohl, dass er in seinen Dekreten stets den Fall des Todes und der aeussersten Not ausnimmt. 9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us, in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the article of death and necessity. 10. Indocte et male faciunt sacerdotes ii, qui morituris penitentias canonicas in purgatorium reservant. 10. Ohne Verstaendnis und uebel handeln daher diejenigen Priester, welche Sterbenden kirchliche Bussen noch fuers Fegefeuer vorbehalten. 10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for purgatory. 11. Zizania illa de mutanda pena Canonica in penam purgatorii videatur certe dormientibus episcopis seminata. 11. Dies Unkraut, dass man kanonische Bussen in Fegefeuerstrafen verwandelt, ist augenscheinlich gesaet worden, da die Bischoefe schliefen. 11. Those tares about changing the canonical penalties into the penalty of purgatory surely seem to have been sown while the bishops were asleep. 12. Olim pene canonice non post, sed ante absolutionem imponebantur tanquam tentamenta vere contritionis. 12. Dorzeiten wurden kanonische Bussen nicht nach, sondorn vor der Absolution aufgelegt, um die Aufrichtigkeit der Reue daran zu pruefen. 12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition. 13. Morituri per mortem omnia solvunt et legibus canonum mortui iam sunt, habentes iure earum relaxationem. 13. Die Sterbenden werden durch ihren Tod von alle dem frei und sind den Forderungen der kirchlichen Satzungen alsbald abgestorben, indem ihnen von Rechtswegen diese Strafen erlassen sind. 13. The dying pay all penalties by death and already dead to the cannon laws and are by right relieved from them. 14. Imperfecta sanitas seu charitas morituri necessario secum fermagnum timorem, tantoque maiorem, quanto minor fuerit ipsa. 14. Ist ein Sterbender von seinen Suenden nur unvollkommen genesen oder ist seine Liebe nur unvollkommen, so empfindet er notwendigerwiese grosse Furcht, und zwar um so groessere, je geringer jene ist. 14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the greater the fear it brings. 15. Hic timor et horror satis est se solo (ut alia taceam) facere penam purgatorii, cum sit proximus desperationis horrori. 15. Diese Furcht und dieses Grauen sind an sich selbst hinreichend (um von anderem zu schweigen), um die Pein des Fegefeuers zu bereiten, da sie dem Grauen der Verzweiflung ganz nahe kommen. 15. This fear and horror are sufficient by themselves, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair. 16. Videntur infernus, purgatorium, celum differre, sicut desperatio prope desperatio, securitas differunt. 16. Wie mich duenkt,unterscheiden sich Hoelle, Fegefeuer, Himmel genau so wie verzweifeln, und des Heiles gewiss sein. 16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair, near-despair, and peace of mind differ. 17. Necessarium videtur animabus in purgatorio sicut minui hoarorem ita augeri charitatem. 17. Augenscheinlich buduerfen die Seelen im Fegefeuer Minderung des Grauens und Mehrung der Liebe. 17. With souls in purgatory, seemingly, it must needs be so, that, as horror diminishes, charity increases. 18. Nec probatum videtur ullis aut rationibus aut scripturis, quod sim extra statum meriti seu augende charitatis. 18. Auch scheint mir weder durch Vernunft noch durch Schriftgruende erwiesen zu sein, dass sie sich ausserhalb des Standes des Verdiestes und der Zunahme an Liebe befinden. 18. Nor does it seemes to be proved, by any reasoning or any Scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of the increase of charity. 19. Nec hoc probatum esse videtur, quod sint de sua beatitudine certe et secure, saltem omnes, licet nos certissimi si nus. 19. Aber ebenso scheint mir auch das unerwiesen zu sein, dass sie oder wenigstens sie alle, ihrer Seligkeit gewiss und versichert seien, ob wir schon an derselben keinen Zweifel haben. 19. Nor does this appear tobe proved, that they are sure and confident of their own blessedness, at least not all of them, though we may be very sure of it. 20. Igitur papa per remissionem plenariam omnium penarum non simpliciter omnium intelligit, sed a seipso tantummodo impositarum. 20. Wenn der Papst daher `vollkommenen Erlass aller Strafen` verleiht, so meint er damit nicht schlechthin alle, sondern nur die, die er selber auferlegt hat. 20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but only of those imposed by himself. 21. Errant itaque indulgentiarum predicatores ii, qui dicunt per pape indulgentias hominem ab omni pena solvi et salvari. 21. Daher irren alle die Ablassprediger, welche verkuendigen, dass durch des Papstes Ublass der Mensch von aller Strafe los und selig werde. 21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say that by the indulgences of the Pope a man is loosed and saved from all punishment. 22. Quin nullam remittit animabus in purgatorio, quam in hac vita debuissent secundum Canones solvere. 22. Vielmehr erlaesst er keine einzige Strafe den Seelen im Fegefeuer, die sie in diesem Leben nach den kirchlichen Satzungen haetten buessen muessen. 22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life. 23. Si remissio ulla omnium omnino penarum potest alicui dari, certum est eam non nisi perfectissimis, i. e. paucissimis, dari. 23. Wenn ein Erlass absolut aller und jeglicher Strafen einem gegeben werden kann, dann sicherlich nur denen, welche ganz vollkommen sind d. h. den allerwenigsten. 23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to anyone, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most perfect, that is, to very few. 24. Falli ob id necesse est maiorem partem populi per indifferentem illam et magnificam pene solute promissionem. 24. Darum muss der groesste Teil des Volkes betrogen werden durch jenes unterschiedslose und vollkommende Versprechen, dass sie ihrer Strafe ledig geworden seinen. 24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalties. 25. Qualem potestatem habet papa in purgatorium generaliter, talem habet quilibet Episcopus et Curatus in sua diocesi et parochia specialiter. 25. Dieselbe Gewalt, die der Papst uebers Fegefeuer insgemein hat, hat jeder Bischof und Seelsorger fuer seinen Sprengel oder seine Pfarre insonderheit. 25. The same powers which the Pope has over purgatory in general, every bishop has in his own diocese, and, in particular, every curate in his own parish. 26. Optime facit papa, quod non potestate clavis(quam nullam habet) sed per modum suffragii dat animabus remissionem. 26. Der Papst tut sehr wohl daran, dass er nicht in Kraft seiner Schluesselgewalt(die sich nicht so weit erstreckt), sondern nur fuerbittweise den Seelen Nachlass gewaehrt. 26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys(which is of no avail in this case), but by way of suffrage. 27. Hominem predicant, qui statim ut iactus nummus in cistam tinnierit evolare dicunt animam. 27. Menschenlehre predigen die, welche sagen, sobald der Groschen im Kasten klingt, die Seele aus dem Fegefeuer auffahre. 27. They preach human doctrine who say that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles. 28. Certum est, nummo in cistam tinniente augeri questum et avariciam posse : suffragium autem ecclesie est in arbitrio dei solius. 28. Das ist gewiss, dass, wenn der Groschen im Kasten klingt, Gewinn und Geiz zunehmen koennen; der Erfolg der Fuerbitte der Kirche aber steht in Gottes Wohlgefallen. 28. It is certain that when the money rattles in the chest, avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the Church depends on the will of God alone. 29. Quis scit, si omnes anime in purgatorio velint redimi, sicut de s. Severino et Paschali factum narratur. 29. Wer weiss denn auch, ob alle Seelen im Fegefeuer von uns losgekauft werden wollen, wie es nach der Legende mit St. Severin und Paschalis sich zugetragen hat. 29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints Severinus and Paschal? 30. Nullus securus est de veritate sue contritionis, multominus de consecutione plenarie remissionis. 30. Niemand ist sicher, ob seine Reue wahrhaftig sei, wie viel weniger, ob er vollkommenen Ablass erlangt hat. 30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of the attainment of plenary remission. 31. Quam rarus est vere penitens, tam rarus est vere indulgentias redimens, i. e. rarissimus. 31. Wie selten die sind, die wahrhaftig reuig sind, so selten sind auch die, welche wahrhaftig Ablass erwerben, d. h. ihrer sind sehr wenige. 31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys indulgences, that is to say, most rare. 32. Damnabuntur ineternum cum suis magistris, qui per literas veniarum securos sese credunt de sua salute. 32. Wer durch Ablassbriefe meint seiner Seligkeit gewiss zu sein, der wird ewiglich verdammt sein samt seinen Lehrmeistern. 32. Those who believe that through letters of pardon they are made sure of their own salvation will be eternally damned along with their teachers. 33. Cavendi sunt nimis, qui decunt venias illas Pape donum esse illud dei inestimabile, quo reconciliatur homo deo. 33. Vor denen wolle man sich wohl hueten, die da sagen, der Ablass des Papstes sie jene unschaetzbare Gabe Gottes, durch welche der Mensch Gott versoehnt werde. 33. We must especially beware of those who say that these pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by which man reconciled to God. 34. Gratie enim ille veniales tantum respiciunt penas satisfactionis sacramentalis ab homine constitutas. 34. Denn jene Ablassgnaden beziehen sich nur auf die von Menschen aufgesetzten Strafen sakramentlicher Genugtung. 34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of human appointment. 35. Non christiana predicant, qui docent, quod redempturis animas vel confessionalia non sit necessaria contritio. 35. Die fuehren unchristliche Predigt, welche lehren, dass denen, welche Seelen aus dem Fegefeuer loskaufen oder Konfessionalien (d.i. die Genehmigung, sich nach eigenem Belieben einen Beichtvater zu waehlen) kaufen wollen, Reue nicht noetig sei. 35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of purgatory or buy confessional licenses. 36. Quilibet christianus vere compunctus habet remissionem plenariam a pena et culpa etiam sine literis veniarum sibi debitam. 36. Jeglicher Christ hat, wenn er in aufrichtiger Reue steht, vollkommenen Erlass von Strafe und Schuld, der ihm auch ohne Ablassbriefe gebuehrt. 36. Every Christian who feels true compunction over his sins has plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of indulgence. 37. Quilibet verus christianus, sive vivus sive mortuus, habet participationem omnium bonorum Christi et Ecclesie etiam sine literis veniarum a deo sibi datam. 37. Jeder wahre Christ, ob lebend oder tot, hat Anteil an allen geistlichen Guetern Christi und der Kirche; Gott hat ihm diesen auch ohne Ablassbriefe gegeben. 37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by God, even without letters of indulgence. 38. Remissio tamen et participatio Pape nullo modo est contemnenda, quia (ut dixi) est declaratio remissionis divine. 38. Doch soll man darum den Erlass und den Anteil, den der Papst verleiht, keineswegs verachten, weil es (wie gesagt) die Erklaerung der goettlichen Vergebung ist. 38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of divine remission. 39. Difficillimum est etiam doctissimis Thoelogis simul extollere veniarum largitatem et contritionis veritatem coram populo. 39. Es ist ueber die Massen schwer auch fuer die gelehrtesten Theologen, gleichzeitig vor dem Volke die reiche Fuelle des Ablasses und die Pflicht wahraftiger Reue zu ruehmen. 39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned theologians, to exalt before the people the great riches of indulgences and, at the same time, the necessity of true contrition. 40. Contritionis veritas penas querit et amat, Veniarum autem largitas relaxat et odisse facit, saltem occasione. 40. Wahrhaftige Reue begehrt und liebt die Strafen, dagegen erlaesst die Ablassfuelle Strafen und schafft Widerwillen gegen dieselben, bietet wenigstens Gelegenheit dazu. 40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment, while the ampleness of pardon relaxes it and causes men to hate it or at least gives them occasion for them to do so. 41. Caute sunt venie apostolice predicande, ne populus false intelligat eas preferri ceteris bonis operibus charitatis. 41. Vorsichtig soll man den apostolischen Ablass predigen, damit das Volk nicht die falsche Meinung fasse, als wenn derselbe den andern guten Werken christlicher Liebe vorzuziehen sei. 41. Apostolic pardons ought to be purchased with caution, lest the people falsely suppose that they are to be preferred to other good works of charity. 42. Docendi sunt christiani, quod Pape mens non est, redemptionem veniarum ulla ex parte comparandam esse operibus misericordie. 42. Man lehre die Christen, dass des Papstes Meinung nicht sei, das Ablassloesen irgendwie den Werken der Barmherzigkeit gleichzustellen. 42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the Pope that the buying of indulgences is to be in any way compared with works of mercy. 43. Docendi sunt christiani, quod dans pauperi aut mutuans egenti melius facit quam si venias redimeret. 43. Man lehre die Christen, dass, wer dem Armen gibt oder dem Beduerftigen leiht, besser tut, als wenn er Ablass loesen wollte. 43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor man or lends to a needy man does better than if he buys indulgences. 44. Quia per opus charitatis crescit charitas et fit homo melior, sed per venias non fit melior sed tantummodo a pena liberior. 44. Denn durch Leibeswerk waechst die Liebe, und der Mensch wird besser, aber durch Ablass wird er nicht besser, sondern nur freier von Strafen. 44. For by a work of charity, charity increases, and man becomes better, while by means of indulgences he does not become better, but only freer from punishment. 45. Docendi sunt christiani, quod, qui videt egenum et neglecto eo dat pro veniis, non indulgentias Pape sed indignationem dei sibi vendicat. 45. Man lehre die Christen, dass, wer einen Beduerftigen sieht und des ungeachtet kein Geld fuer Ablass hingibt, nicht Papstes Ablass, wohl aber Gottes Zorn sich damit erwirbt. 45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in need and, passing him by, gives money for indulgences is not purchasing the indulgence of the Pope, but calls down upon himself the wrath of God. 46. Docendi sunt christiani, quod nisi superfluis abundent necessaria tenentur domui sue retinere et nequaquam propter venias effundere. 46. Man lehre die Christen, dass, wenn sie nicht ueberfluessiges Gut reichlich besitzen, sie verpflichtet sind, das, was zur Notdurft gehoert, fuer ihr Haus zu behalten und mit nichten fuer Ablass zu verschwenden. 46. Christians should be taught that unless they have superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary for the use of their own households and by no means to lavish it on indulgences. 47. Docendi sunt christiani, quod redemptio veniarum est libera, non precepta. 47. Man leher die Christen, dass das Kaufen von Ablass eine freie, nicht aber eine gebotene Sache ist. 47. Christians should be taught that while they are free to buy indulgences, they are not commanded to do so. 48. Docendi sunt christiani, quod Papa sicut magis eget ita magis optat in veniis dandis pro se devotam orationem quam promptam pecuniam. 48. Man lehre die Christen, dass der Papst bei der Gewaehrung von Ablass mehr bedarf und daher auch mehr Verlangen traegt nach ihrem andaechtigen Gebet als nach dem Gelde, das sie herbeibringen. 48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting indulgences, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer should be made for him than that money should be freely paid. 49. Docendi sunt christiani, quod venie Pape sunt utiles, si non in eas confidant, Sed nocentissime, si timorem dei per eas amittant. 49. Man lehre die Christen, dass des Papstes Ablass nuetzlich ist, wenn man kein Vertrauen auf ihn setzt, aber hoechst schaedlich wird, wenn man um seinetwillen die Furcht Gottes verliert. 49. Christians should be taught that the Pope`s indulgences are useful if they do not put their trust in them, but most hurtful if through them they lose the fear of God. 50. Docendi sunt christiani, quod, si Papa nosset exactiones venialium predicatorum, mallet Basilicam s. Petri in cineres ire quam edificari cute, carne et ossibus ovium suarum. 50. Man lehre die Christen, dass, wenn der Papst den Schacher der Ablassprediger wuesste, er lieber den Dom St. Petri wuerde zu Asche verbrennen lassen, als dass derselbe von Haut, Fleisch und Knochen keiner Schafe sollte erbaut werden. 50. Christians should be taught that if the Pope knew of the exactions of the preachers of indulgences, he would rather see the Basilica of St. Peter burned to ashes than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep. 51. Docendi sunt christiani, quod Papa sicut debet ita vellet, etiam vendita (si opus sit) Basilica s. Petri, de suis pecuniis dare illis, a quorum plurimis quidam concionatores veniarum pecuniam eliciunt. 51. Man lehre die Christen, dass der Papst, wir es ihm gebuehrt, gern bereit waere, selbst wenn er dazu St. Peters Do mverkaufen muesste, von seinem eigenen Gelde mitzuteilen, deren vielen jetzt etliche Ablassprediger ihr Geld ablocken. 51. Christians should be taught that the Pope, as is his duty, would rather, if necessary, sell the Basilica of St. Peter and give of his own money to those from whom the preachers of indulgences, extract money. 52. Vana est fiducia salutis per literas veniarum, etiam si Commissarius, immo Papa ipse suam animam pro illis impigneraret. 52. Das Vertrauen durch Ablassbriefe selig zu werden, ist eitel, wenn auch schon der Ablasskommissar, ja der Papst selbst fuer solche seine Seele zum Pfande setzen wollte. 52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of indulgence, even if a commissary--nay,the Pope himself--were to pledge his own soul for them. 53. Hostes Christi et Pape sunt ii, qui propter venias predicandas verbum dei in aliis ecclesiis penitus silere iubent. 53. Das sind Feinde Christi und des Papstes, die um der Ablasspredigt willen das Wort Gottes in anderen Kirchen gaenzlich verstummen machen. 53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope who, in order that indulgences may be preached, condemn the Word of God to utter silence in their churches. 54. Iniuria fit verbo dei, dum in eodem sermone equale vel longius tempus impenditur veniis quam illi. 54. Dem Worte Gottes geschieht Unrecht, wenn in derselben Predigt ebensoviel oder gar noch mehr Zeit auf den Ablass als auf jenes verwendet wird. 54. Worng is done to the Word of God when in a sermon as much time is spent on indulgences as on God`s Word, or even more. 55. Mens Pape necessario est, quod, si venie(quod minimum est) una campana, unis pompis et ceremoniis celebrantur, Euangelium (quod maximum est) centum campanis, centum pompis, centum ceremoniis predicetur. 55. Des Papstes Meinung ist selbsverstaendlich, dass, wenn man den Ablass, als der nur geringen Wert hat, mit einer Glocke, mit einfachem Gepraenge und Feierlichkeit begeht, man das Evangelium, als welches den hoechsten Wert hat, mit hundert Glocken, hundertfachem Gepraenge und Feierlichkeit ruehmen soll. 55. The mind of the Pope cannot but be that if indulgences, which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel, which is a very great matter, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies. 56. Thesauri, ecclesie, unde Papa dat indulgentias, neque satis nominati sunt neque cogniti apud populum Christi. 56. Der `Schatz` der Kirche, aus dem der Papst Ablass austeilt, ist dem christlichen Volke nicht genau genug bezeichnet und bekannt gemacht. 56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ. 57. Temporales certe non esse patet, quod non tam facile eos profundunt, sed tantummodo colligunt multi concionatorum. 57. Dass es sich hier nicht um zeitliche Schaetze handelt, ist klar; denn man weiss von vielen Predigern, dass sie diese Art Schaetze nicht so leicht austeilen sondern nur zu sammeln lieben. 57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures; for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated by many of the preachers. 58. Nec sunt merita Christi et sanctorum, quia hec semper sine Papa operantur gratiam hominis interioris et crucem, mortem infernumque exterioris. 58. Aber es sind auch nicht Christi und der Heiligen Verdienste; denn diese wirken bestaendig, auch ohne Zutun des Papstes, Gnade fuer den innerlichen Menschen, Kreuz, Tod und Hoelle fuer den aeusserlichen Menschen. 58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints; for these, idependently of the Pope, are always working grace to the inner man and the cross, death, and hell to the outer man. 59. Thesauros ecclesie s. Laurentius dixit esse pauperes ecclesie, sed locutus est usu vocabuli suo tempore. 59. St Laurentius nannte die Armen in der Gemeinde die Schaetze der Kirche, aber da hat er das Wort genommen, wie er zu seiner Zeit braeuchlich war. 59. St Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the poor of the Church; but he spoke according to the use of the word in his time. 60. Sine temeritate dicimus claves ecclesie (merito Christi donatas) esse thesaurum istum. 60. Mit gutem Grunde sagen wir, dass die Schluessel der Kirche (die uns Christi Verdienst geschenkt hat) jenen Schatz bilden. 60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that treasure. 61. Clarum est enim, quod ad remissionem penarum et casuum sola sufficit potestas Pape. 61. Denn es ist klar, dass zum Nachlass von Strafen und zur Absolvierung in vorbehaltenen Faellen des Papstes Gewalt an sich ausreichend ist. 61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope alone is sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases. 62. Verus thesaurus ecclesie est sacrosanctum euangelium glorie et gratie dei. 62. Der wahre Schatz der Kirche ist das allerheiligste Evangelium der Herrlichkeit und Gnade Gottes. 62. The true treasure of the Church is the holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God. 63. Hic autem est merito odiosissimus, quia ex primis facit novissimos. 63. Dieser Schatz steht aber naturgmaess in geringem Ansehen; denn er macht ja, dass Erste Letzte werden. 63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful because it causes the first to be the last. 64. Thesaurus autem indulgentiarum merito est gratissimus, quia ex novissimis facit primos. 64. Dagegen steht der Schatz der Ablaesse naturgemaess in hoechstem Ansehen; denn er macht ja, dass Letzte Erste werden. 64. But the treasure of indulgences is deservedly the most acceptable because it causes the last to be the first. 65. Igitur thesauri Euangelici rhetia sunt, quibus olim piscabantur viros divitiarum. 65. Darum sind die Schaetze des Evangeliums die Netze, mit denen man vorzeiten die reichen Leute gefischt hat. 65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets wherewith of old they have fished for men of means. 66. Thesauri indulgentiarum rhetia sunt, quibus nunc piscantur divitias virorum. 66. Die Schaetze der Ablaesse sind dagegen die Netze, mit denen man jetzt den Reichtum der Leute fischt. 66. The treasures of indulgences are nets wherewith they now fish for the means of men. 67. Indulgentie, quas concionatores vociferantur maximas, gratias, intelliguntur vere tales quoad questum promovendum. 67. Die Ablaesse, welche die Ablassprediger als `groesste Gnaden` ausrufen, sind freilich dafuer zu erachten, insofern sie ihnen viel Geld einbringen. 67. Those indulgences which the preachers loudly proclaim to be the greatest graces are seen to be truly such as regard the promotion of gain. 68. Sunt tamen re vera minime ad gratiam dei et crucis pietatem comparate. 68. In Wahrheit jedoch sind sie die allergeringsten Gnaden, verglichen mit Gottes Gnade und der Gottseligkeit des Kreuzes. 68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross. 69. Tenentur Episcopi et Curati veniarum apostolicarum Commissarios cum omni reverentia admittere. 69. Bischoefe und Seelsorger sind verpflichtet, die Kommissare des apostolischen Ablasses mit aller Ehrerbietug zuzulassen. 69. Bishops and curates ought to receive the commissaries of apostolic pardons with all reverence. 70. Sed magis tenentur omnibus oculis intendere, omnibus auribus advertere, ne pro commissione Pape sua illi somnia predicent. 70. Aber noch viel mehr sind sie verpflichtet, Augen und Ohren offen zu halten unD aufzupassen, dass jene nicht statt des Auftrags des Papstes ihre eigenen Traeume predigen. 70. But they are still more bound to open their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams in place of the Pope`s commission. 71. Contra veniarum apostovicarum veritatem qui loquitur, sit ille anathema et maledictus. 71. Wer gegen die Wahrheit des apostolischen Ablasses redet, der sei verbannt und verflucht. 71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed. 72. Qui vero contra libidinem ac licentiam verborum Concionatoris veniarum curam agit, sit ille benedictus. 72. Wer aber gegen die mutwilligen und frechen Reden der Ablassprediger auf der Wacht steht, der sei gesegnet ! 72. But he, on the other hand, who is seriously concerned about the wantonness and licenses of speech of the preachers of pardons, let him be blessed. 73. Sicut Papa iuste fulminat eos, qui in fraudem negocii Veniarum quacunque arte machinantur. 73. Wie der Papst diejenigen billing mit dem Bannstrahl trifft, die zum Nachteil des Ablasshandels allerlei listige Kunst truegerisch handhaben. 73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons. 74. Multomagis fulminare intendit eos, qui per veniarum pretextum in fraudem sancte charitatis et veritatis machinantur. 74. So will er die noch viel mehr mit dem Banne treffen, die unter dem Deckmantel des Ablasses zum Nachteil der heiligen Liebe und Wahrhaftigkeit ihre Kunst brauchen. 74. Thus, indeed, much more, it is his intention to thunder against those who, under the pretext of granting induigences use contrivances to the injury of holy charity and of truth. 75. Opinari venias papales tantas esse, ut solvere possint hominem, etiam si quis per impossibie dei genitricem violasset, Est insanire. 75. Des Papstes Ablass so gross achten, dass er auch einen Menschen absolvieren koenne, selbst wenn er--was doch unmoeglich ist--die Mutter Gottes geschaendet haette, das heisst unsinnig sein. 75. To think that papal indulgences have such power that they could absolve a man even if--to mention an impossibility--he had violated the Mother of God, is madness. 76. Dicimus contra, quod venie papales nec mimimum venialium peccatorum tollere possint quo ad culpam. 76. Dagegen behaupten wir, dass paepstlicher Ablass auch nicht die kleinste laessliche Suende aufheben kann, soweit es die Schuld derselben belangt. 76. We affirm, on the contrary, that papal indulgences cannot take away even the least of venial sins as regards its guilt. 77. Quod dicitur, nec si s. Petrus modo Papa esset maiores gratias donare posset, est blasphemia in sanctum Petrum et Papam. 77. Dass man sagt, auch St. Petrus koenne, wenn er jetzt Papst waere, keine groesseren Gnaden verleihen, das ist Laesterung gegen St. Petrus und gegen den Papst. 77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope. 78. Dicimus contra, quod etiam iste et quilibet papa maiores habet, scilicet Euangelium, virtutes, gratias curationum &c. ut 1. Co. xii. 78. Wir behaupten dagegen, dass auch der jetzige Papst gleich jedem andern Papste noch ueber weit groessere Gnaden als den Ablass verfuegt, naemlich ueber das Evangelium, ueber die charismatischen Kraefte, die Gabe gesund zu machen usw, wie 1. Kor. 12 lehret. 78. We affirm, on the contrary, that both he and any other Pope has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts fo healing, etc. 1 Cor.12:6,9. 79. Dicere, Crucem armis papalibus insigniter erectam cruci Christi equivalere blasphemia est. 79. Zu sagen, dass das Ablasskreuz, weiches mit des Papstes Wappen geschmueckt und in den Kirchen aufgerichtet wird, gleichen Wert wie Christi Kreuz habe, ist Gotteslaesterung. 79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the papal arms is of equal power with the Cross of Christ is blasphemy. 80. Rationem reddent Episcopi, Curati et Theologi, Qui tales sermones in populum licere sinunt. 80. Die Bischoefe, Seelsorger und Theologen, die da zulassen, dass man solche Reden vor den Gemeinden fuehrt, werden dafuer einmal Rechenschaft geben muessen. 80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such discourses to have currency among the people will have to render an account for this. 81. Facit hec licentiosa veniarum predicatio, ut nec reverentiam Pape facile sit etiam doctis viris redimere a calummis aut certe argutis questionibus laicorum. 81. Solche freche Ablasspredigt macht, dass es auch gelehrten Maennern schwer faellt, die dem Papste schuldige Ehrfurcht zu verteidigen gegen die boese Nachrede oder gegen die unzweifelhaft scharfen Einwendungen der Laien. 81. This license in the preaching of pardons makes it no esay thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to the Pope the calumnies or, at all events, the keen questioning of the laity. 82. Scilicet. Cur Papa non evacuat purgatorium propter sanctissimam charitatem et summam animarum necessitatem ut causam omnium iustissimam, Si infinitas animas redimit propter pecuniam funestissimam ad structuram Basilice ut causam livissimam? 82. Zum Beispiel: Warum befreit denn der Papst nicht aus dem Fegefeuer rein aus dem Drange heiliger Liebe und bewogen von der hoechsten Not der Seelen--das waere doch billig Ursache genug fuer ihn!--, wenn er doch unzaehlige Seelen erloest um elenden Geldes willen zum Bau der Peterskirche gegeben, also um einer so leichtwiegenden Ursache willen ? 82. For instance : Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of souls--this being the most just of all reasons--if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most perishable thing, money, to be spent on building a basilica--this being a very slight reason ? 83. Item. Cur permanent exequie et anniversaria defunctorum et non reddit aut recipi permittit beneficia pro illis instituta, cum iam sit iniuria pro redemptisorare ? 83. Desgleichen : Warum haelt man denn noch Exequien und Jahrestage der Verstorbenen, und warum gibt der Papst nicht alles gestiftete Geld zurueck oder laesst es zuruecknehmen, das fuer jene an Kirchen uebergeben ist, da es doch Unrecht ist, fuer schon aus dem Fegefeuer Erloeste noch weit er Gebete zu sprechen ? 83. Again : Why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or permit the withdrawal of, funds bequeathed for this purpose, since it is wrong to pray for those who are already redeemed ? 84. Item. Que illa nova pietas Dei et Pape, quod impio et inimico propter pecuniam concedunt animam piam et amicam dei redimere, Et tamen propter necessitatem ipsius met pie et dilecte anime non redimunt eam gratuita charitate ? 84. Desgleichen : Was ist das fuer eine neue Froemmigkeit Gottes und des Papstes, dass sie dem Gottlosen und Feinde um Geld gestatten eine fromme und von Gott geliebte Seele zu erloesen und doch dieselbe nicht um der grossen Not derselben frommen und geliebten Seele willen aus Liebe ohne Entgelt erloesen ? 84. Again : What new kind of holiness of God and the Pope is it to permit an impious man and an enemy of God, for money`s sake, to redeem a pious soul, which is loved by God, and not rather to redeem this pious. soul, which is loved by God, out of free charity, for the sake of its own need ? 85. Item. Cur Canones penitentiales re ipsa et non usu iam diu in semet abrogati et mortui adhuctamen pecuniis redimuntur per concessionem indulgentiarum tanquam vivacissimi ? 85. Desgleichen : Warum werden die alten Bussassungen, die doch tatsaechlich und durch Nichtgebrauch schon laengst abgeschafft und tot sind, dennoch wieder mit Geldzahlungen abgeloest aus Gunst des Ablasses, als wenn sie noch vollstaendig in Kraft waeren ? 85. Again : Why is it that the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in themselves, in very fact and because of nonuse, are still redeemed with money, through the granting of indulgences, as if they were still valid. 86. Item, Cur Papa, cuius opes hodie sunt opulentissimis Crassis crassiores, non de suis pecuniis magis quam pauperum fidelium struit unam tantummodo Basilican sancti Petri ? 86. Desgleichen : Warum erbaut der Papst, dessen Vermoegen heutigen Tages fuerstlicher ist als das der reichsten Geldfuersten, nicht lieber von esinen eigenen Geldern, als vondenen armer Glaeubigen, wenigstens diese eine St. Peterskirche ? 86. Again : Why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build the one Basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with that of poor believers ? 87. Item. Quid remittit aut participat Papa iis, qui per contritionem perfectam ius habent plenarie rimissionis et participationis ? 87. Desgleichen : Was gibt der Papst denen Ablass und Anteil an geistlichen Guetern, die durch ihre vollkommene Reue ein Anrecht haben auf vollkommenen Erlass und Anteil ? 87. Again : Why does the Pope grant indulgences to those who, through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remissions and indulgences ? 88. Item. Quid adderetur ecclesie boni maioris, Si Papa, sicut semel facit, ita centies in die cuilibet fidelium has remissiones et participationes tribueret ? 88. Desgleichen: Was koennte der Kirche groesseres Gut widerfahren, als wenn der Papst, wie er`s nun einmal tut, so taeglich hundertmal jedem Glaeubigen solchen Erlass und Anteil zuwenden wollte ? 88. Again: How much greater would be the benefit accruing to the Church if the Pope, instead of once, as he does now, would bestow these remissions and indulgences a hundred times a day on any one of the faithful ? 89. Ex quo Papa salutem querit animarum per venias magis quam pecunias, Cur suspendit literas et venias iam olim concessas, cum sint eque efficaces ? 89. Da es doch dem Papste beim Ablass mehr um der Seelen Heil als ums Geld zu tun ist, warum hat er denn jetzt die frueher bewilligten Briefe und Ablaesse ausser Kraft gesetzt, da diese doch ebenso wirksam sind ? 89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money, that the Pope seeks by granting indulgences, why does he suspend the letters and indulgences granted long ago, since they are equally efficacious ? 90. Hec scrupulosissima laicorum argumenta sola potestate compescere nec reddita ratione diluere, Est ecclesiam et Papam hostibus ridendos exponere et infelices christianos facere. 90. Derartige bedenkliche Gegengruende der Laien nur mit Gewalt daempfen und nicht vielmehr durch Angabe von Gruenden heben zu wollen, heisst die Kirche und den Papst dem Gespoett der Feinde preisgeben und die Christen ungluecklich machen. 90. Repressing these scruples and arguments of the laity by force along and not solving them by giving reasons for so do ingis to expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christian men unhappy. 91. Si ergo venie secundum spiritum et mentem Pape perdicarentur, facile illa omnia solverentur, immo non essent. 91. Wenn also Ablass nach dem Geist und Sinn des Papstes gepredigt wuerde, wuerden leicht alle jene Bedenken gehoben, ja sie wuerden gar nicht vorhanden sein. 91. If, then, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with ease; nay, they would not exist. 92. Valeant itaque omnes illi prophete qui dicunt populo Chisti `Pax pax`, et non est pax. 92. Hinweg also mit alle den Propheten, die dem Volke Christi sagen : Friede, Friede, und ist kein Friede (Hesek. 13: 10, 16). 92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, `Peace, peace,` though there is no peace. 93. Bene agant omnes illi prophete, qui dicunt populo Christi `Crux crux`, et non est crux. 93. Alle den Propheten aber muesse es wohlergehen, die Christi Volk sagen : Kreuz, Kreuz und ist kein Kreuz. 93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, `The cross, the cross,` and there is no cross. 94. Exhortandi sunt Christiani, ut caput suum Christum per penas, mortes infernosque sequi studeant. 94. Man ermahne die Christen, dass sie ihrem Haupt Christus durch Strafen, Todund Hoelle nachzufolgen sich befleissigen. 94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ, their Head, through pain, death, and hell; 95. Ac sic magis per multas tribulationes intrare celum quam per securitatem pacis confidant. 95. Und also mehr ihr Vertrauen darauf setzen, durch viele Truebsal ins Himmelreich einzugehen, als durch die Vertroestung : `Es hat keine Gefahr.` 95. And thus to enter heaven through many tribulations rather than in the security of peace.
A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic And Covenant Theology(칼빈의 언약적 성경해석과 언약신학으로부터 추론된 세대주의 비평)(1)/ Matthew 12:28(마12:28), Matthew 13:40-43(마13:40-43), Acts 1:3(행1;3), Acts 28:31(행28:
A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic And Covenant Theology(칼빈의 언약적 성경해석과 언약신학으로부터 추론된 세대주의 비평)(1)/ Matthew 12:28(마12:28), Matthew 13:40-43(마13:40-43), Acts 1:3(행1;3), Acts 28:31(행28:31), Col. 1:13(골1;13), Rev. 1:6(계1:6)/ Pastor Dr. Peter Lillback(피터 릴백 박사 목사)/ 2015-02-12 A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic And Covenant Theology(칼빈의 언약적 성경해석과 언약신학으로부터 추론된 세대주의 비평)(1) Matthew 12:28(마12:28), Matthew 13:40-43(마13:40-43), Acts 1:3(행1;3), Acts 28:31(행28:31), Col. 1:13(골1;13), Rev. 1:6(계1:6) A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic And Covenant Theology(1) Matthew 12:28, Matthew 13:40-43, Acts 1:3, Acts 28:31, Col. 1:13, Rev. 1:6 In this 500th anniversary year of the birth of John Calvin, we remember the work of the Genevan Reformer who permanently impacted the Protestant Reformation and Reformed theology. This can be seen especially in his teachings of the covenant. Calvin’s approach to the covenant makes a difference in the way one interprets the Scriptures and describes their unity in Christ’s saving work. In Calvin’s understanding of the covenant, we also discover a structure for developing the saving benefits of Christ as well as the Christian life and sacraments. Our study will engage Calvin’s covenantal hermeneutic as well as his covenant theology. Let us consider Calvin and the covenant with the specific backdrop of Dispensationalism, one of the important evangelical theologies of our day. Although dispensationalism was a system unknown to Calvin since it had not yet been formulated in his day, Calvin’s covenantal thought stands in distinction to dispensationalism and offers a ready critique to its leading ideas. Lecture One: A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic. In this first lecture, we will consider the following eight points: I. The Differences Between Dispensationalism And Covenant Theology. II. The Differing Historical Origins Of Dispensationalism And Covenant Theology. III. Calvin’s Emphasis On The Unity Of The Bible Seen In The Formula of the Covenant. IV. Calvin’s Covenantal Dictum For Interpreting The Bible: The Covenant Is Always The Same In Substance, Yet It Is Distinct In Administration. V. While Christ Is The Heart Of The Bible There Is Continuity And Discontinuity In The Covenant. VI. God’s Promises Of Salvation In Christ Are Organically Present In The Old Testament: The Covenant Is The “DNA” Of The History Of Salvation. VII. Boundary Disputes: The Covenantal Interpretation And the Dispensational Interpretation of the Old Testament Land Promises. VIII. Covenant Theology Teaches That The Kingdom Is Not Just Future, It Is Already But Not Yet. Let us begin, then, by addressing the first of these eight points. I. The Differences Between Dispensationalism And Covenant Theology. What makes dispensationalism to be Dispensationalism and what makes covenant theology to be covenant theology? When one reads his Bible, does the difference between these two approaches to interpreting the Bible matter? After all, people who read the Bible with a dispensational perspective believe in Jesus Christ. And people who hold to the covenant theological tradition do so as well. So this is not a debate about who is a Christian and who is not. It is a debate about the proper way to understand the Bible. So what makes Dispensationalism, dispensationalism? Dr. Charles Ryrie stated in Dispensationalism Today that the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is the distinction between the Church and Israel. Thus without the distinction between the Church and Israel, there is no Dispensationalism. Accordingly, the central idea of Dispensationalism is that there are two peoples of God: the Old Testament people of God called Israel, and the New Testament people of God called the Church. These two are entirely different. Dispensationalism declares that when Jesus came, He brought His kingdom to His Old Testament people but they rejected Him. Because they rejected Him they were set aside and God initiated an entirely different dispensation, the Church age. This age is a “great parenthesis”. The dispensation of the church is the age of grace after the Old Testament dispensation of Israel and the law. Then at the end of the church age, the church will be raptured out of the world before seven years of tribulation. God will return to His Old Testament plan for Israel. That plan is to bring the lapsed kingdom to a restored Israel. Thus the church is in the middle of God’s work with OT Israel and His work with the restored Israel after the rapture of the church. The kingdom in Dispensationalism therefore is futurethe premillennial kingdom. For dispensational theology, the kingdom has not come. It was rejected by Israel, and instead, Jesus planted His church. When the church is taken up, then the kingdom for Israel will come. Thus for Dispensationalism, the kingdom is future to be fulfilled in a literal thousand year kingdom as referenced in Revelation 20. Three foundational ideas of Dispensationalism, then, are: (1) there are two peoples of God, (2) the Church and Israel are to be kept distinct, and (3) the kingdom is for Israel and is primarily future. Covenant Theology takes a very different view of these three issues. How then does one define covenant theology? To begin, covenant theology teaches that there is only one people of God. This one people of God can be internally distinguished as the people who were looking forward to the Messiah to come from the people who are looking back at the fact that He’s come and is coming again. Nevertheless, these are one and same people of the Messiah. They are the true Israel of God. So whether we are speaking of the church, or of the Old Testament saint, they are part of the one people of God. Thus for Covenant Theology, the kingdom is not just totally future. The kingdom is already here even though there is much more yet to come. It is “already and not yet.” Covenant Theology declares that there is a kingdom that is already at work, and yet it is to come in far greater glory. This present and future kingdom has been brought to the one people of God, those who were looking forward to the first coming of the Messiah and those that are looking back at His having come and who is yet to come again a second time. Thus Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are two different systems and two different ways of reading the Bible. II. The Differing Historical Origins Of Dispensationalism And Covenant Theology. Next, let us summarize the history of each. Dispensationalism is a recent development in the history of the church. It began in the late 1800s in Plymouth, England under the teaching of John Nelson Darby, who developed the leading ideas of the Dispensational system. Dispensationalism has been popularized through Bible colleges and Bible publications. It is now a theology known around the world. Covenant Theology, on the other hand, goes back to the ancient church. St. Augustine put it this way, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed. The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” This simple theological dictum well summarizes the heart of Covenant Theology. Augustine is saying that the whole Bible is about Jesus. Augustine’s point is that the whole Bible is about Jesus whether one reads the Old or the New Testament. Both Testaments are interrelated in the coming of Christ. Augustine’s and other early Christian biblical scholars’ recognition of the unity of the Bible in Christ came to its own in the Reformation. In 1534 only 17 years after Luther’s 95 Theses, Henry Bullinger wrote the first treatise on the covenant, entitled, “Of The One And Eternal Testament or Covenant of God.” Bullinger was a Swiss Reformer working at the beginning of the Reformation. Because the Reformed theologians went back to a direct exegetical study of the Bible, following the principle of as sola scriptura, they rediscovered the centrality of the covenant for understanding the Bible. Bullinger and Zwingli before him concluded that the covenant was the key idea to understanding the Bible. Covenant theology, then, is an idea that goes back to the ancient church with Augustine, and is one of the important insights of the theology of the Reformed tradition. If one identifies with the Presbyterian tradition, another name for the Reformed tradition, one will quickly recognize that covenantal teaching is foundational in the Westminster Standards. Following Zwingli and Bullinger, Calvin emphasized the covenant and joined them in teaching that the covenant is a key idea to understand the Bible’s theology and to show its great unity in Christ. III. Calvin’s Emphasis On The Unity Of The Bible Seen In The Formula of the Covenant. What are some of the distinctives of covenant theology? First, let us speak of the formula of the covenant. A baker or a cook knows if one leaves something out of the recipe or formula, a disaster results. Leave out the baking powder and one might not have a good desert. A chemist has a formula that creates a certain chemical reaction. Similarly, there is a formula that describes the covenant. According to Calvin, it is, “I will be your God and you will be My people.” This phrase is encountered repeatedly in the Bible. A few examples include Genesis 17, Leviticus 26, Jeremiah 32, Ezekiel 36, 2 Corinthians 6, Hebrews 8 and Revelation 21. The formula of the covenant begins in the Old Testament, moves to the New Testament and carries forward into heaven in Biblical revelation. Notice that the formula of the covenant does not say, “I will be your God and you will be My peoples” in the plural. It says “I will be your God and you will be My people” in the singular. As it proceeds from the Old Testament to the New Testament to heaven, it manifests one people of God in relationship with God. It also reveals that the covenant is a relationship that God Himself initiates with man. This is seen in the divine “I”. The formula of the covenant does not say, “Let’s make a deal” or “Let’s make a bargain.” It begins with “I will be your God.” God takes the initiative. We call this monergism, mono-lateral salvation, sovereign grace, or Calvinism.. God takes the first step. He seeks us out. Jesus Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost (Lk. 17:10). In the covenant, God takes the initiative and by His initiation we become His people. Consider three texts: Jeremiah 31:31, Genesis 15 and Genesis 17. Jerome of Bethlehem translated the Hebrew and Greek Bible into Latin creating what was been called the Vulgate translation which is still the official translation for the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome wanted to differentiate the books of Israel before the coming of Christ (Genesis to Malachi) from the books after the coming of Christ (Matthew to Revelation). He called the first the Old Testament and the second, the New Testament. To do so, he utilized Jeremiah 31 where it says, “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. Jerome translated the Hebrew word berith, by the Latin word, testamentum which can mean either a covenant or a testament, as in a last will and testament. Berith literally means “to cut” something and thus by implication a covenant because a covenant was made by sacrifice. And so after Jerome, we have spoken of the Old Testament and the New Testament as the two great sections of the canon of Scripture. But the Hebrew word that used in Jeremiah 31 suggests that we should rather speak of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant rather the Old Testament and the New Testament. This would help us to realize how important the idea of covenant is. The point here is that the idea of the covenant helps to organize the entire Bible because the Bible is God’s covenant with His people. IV. Calvin’s Covenantal Dictum For Interpreting The Bible: The Covenant Is Always The Same In Substance, Yet It Is Distinct In Administration. Now let’s take this a step further. Let’s consider how to read the Bible in a way that ties the Bible, Old and New Testament, into one book, that sees the Bible as a whole book for one people of God. How then do we make the Old Testament and the New Testament come together? Along with Calvin’s emphasis on the formula of the covenant, we find a basic interpretive principle that he presents to understand the history of salvation in the Bible. This says, “The covenant is always the same in substance but distinct in administration.” Substance means what something really is. Administration has the idea of how one governs something. For example, there’s an administration of a president that is followed by a different president who governs or administers in another way. This also holds in the administration of a family. For example, I have had a mother now for many years. When I was about two or three years old and learning to walk across the street my mother used to hold my hand and say, “Peter, you can’t run across the street now. You can only go when I let you go, and when you walk, you hold on to my hand. I don’t want you to get hurt in the traffic.” When I go home and see my Mom today, and when we cross the street I take hold of her arm and say, “Mom hold on to me. I don’t want you to fall down in traffic while we’re walking across the street.” We administer our love and concern for safety for each other differently now then when I was a child. Nevertheless, the love of our family is unchanged. The substance of family love is unchanged. The administration of family safety is quite different. In the same sort of way, the covenant is always the same in substance Christ’s saving love for His people while it is administered differently, as by sacrifice in the OT and by worship of the incarnate Christ in the NT. Calvin’s views of the continuity of the covenant can be presented as follows: A Summary of Calvin’s Arguments for the Spiritual Continuity of the Old and New Covenants They are the Same in Substance 1. Same Law and same Doctrine since Beginning of World 2. Christ is Mediator of the Covenants 3. Both have the Grace of Justification 4. Sacraments have Equal Significance in both 5. Both have the Word of God, which is to have Eternal Life 6. The Formula of the Covenant Common to both includes Eternal Life As we look at the Bible from Calvin’s perspective, the substance of the Bible is always Jesus the Messiah and His saving work. But the way that God explains what the Messiah was to do changed from the Old Testament to the New. In the Old Testament there were bloody sacrifices and there was a high priest and there was a tabernacle or temple. In the New Testament we don’t have those things. Things are administered differently now. Another helpful example is a building with its scaffolding. When a building is being built there are scaffolds set up around it. But when the building is complete, the scaffolds are taken down and removed since they are no longer needed. Thus the Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace was administered by animal sacrifices, rituals, dietary laws and high priests. All those things were the scaffolds used to bring the Messiah into the world. Now that He’s come, God administers His saving work differently and the Old Testament administration of the covenant has ended. Thus its visible signs and practices, its scaffolds, have been removed. V. While Christ Is The Heart Of The Bible There Is Continuity And Discontinuity In The Covenant. Another way to speak of the substance of the covenant is to see it summarized in the formula of the covenant, “I will be your God and you will be My people.” That has always been the heart of the Bible even though God’s administration of His covenant changes through time. Another phrase to describe this dual emphasis of unchanging substance with differing administrations is to emphasize the continuity and discontinuity of the Old and New Testaments. Thus from a Presbyterian perspective, we baptize the children of believers in the New Testament because the children of believers in the Old Testament were circumcised. Circumcision and baptism are very different in administration, but they are the same in substance. They both declare that God is in covenant with His people. The way the sacrament was administered before Christ came was different than after Christ because the shedding of human or animal blood was pointing to Christ’s saving sacrifice that alone could truly take away the sin of the world. But now that Christ has come and shed His blood, we no longer have need to shed sacrificial blood. Similarly, the Passover became the Lord’s Supper. The change was needed because there is no longer any shedding of blood. Thus Christians do not slay the Passover lamb. Jesus has fulfilled that picture. The Passover was always pointing to Him, the substance of the covenant. The diversity of the covenant is in its form. The continuity of the Covenant is in Christ, the Passover Lamb. We continue to have the bread and the cup of Passover pointing us to the fact that God takes His wrath away from His people because His Son has shed His blood for us and that blood has been placed upon the lentil of our hearts so that we might be saved. Calvin enumerates five differences between the covenants. They relate only to the externals and not to the substance of the covenant. Calvin’s View of the Differences In Administration Between the Old and New Covenants Old Covenant Before Christ New Covenant After Christ 1. Material and Temporal Blessings represent spiritual blessings 1. Direct Meditation upon spiritual blessings 2. Images & Ceremonies as types of Christ 2. Full Revelation of Christ in His Incarnation 3. The OT Law is letter that kills 3. The NT Gospel is spirit that makes alive a. The OT Law in the narrow sense condemns because it is the demand of Law without the Holy Spirit’s Aid a. In the New Covenant the Law is written upon the heart by the Spirit in the Gospel and is accompanied by the forgiveness of sins b. The OT Law in the broad sense includes the Gospel by borrowing from it the Promises of Christ b. The Gospel of the New Covenant has been the experience of God’s Children since the beginning of the World 4. The Old Covenant was characterized by bondage and fear 4. The New Covenant is characterized by freedom and trust 5. The Old Covenant was limited to Israel 5. The New Covenant is extended to all nations So as we learn to think covenantally, we discover the interconnectedness of the formula of the covenant, the substance and administration of the covenant, and the continuity and discontinuity of the covenant. The substance of the covenant unites the whole Bible emphasizing the continuity of the covenant even though the administration of the covenant differs through history emphasizing the discontinuity of the covenant. VI. God’s Promises Of Salvation In Christ Are Organically Present In The Old Testament: The Covenant Is The “DNA” Of The History Of Salvation. How do we understand the stories in the Bible and how do we understand our Christian lives? We must read the Bible as a history of salvation and not as a logically arranged systematic theology. God didn’t inspire a systematic theology of Jesus. He did not provide us with a Biblical book entitled, “The Doctrine of God” or “The Doctrine of the Church.” The Bible is a history of salvation. They Bible reveals the dramatic stories of what God did through redemptive history. The unfolding character of God’s story is a mystery until the whole story is done. Mysteries, surprises, twists and turns keep on coming as God’s organic plan is progressively unfolded. One of the great covenant teachers of the early twentieth century was Geerhardus Vos who taught at Princeton and impacted our professors at Westminster. He developed and emphasized the historic, organic unfolding of salvation in Scripture. What does “organic” mean? If someone plants a garden of flowers, he needs some seeds. When one looks at a seed, the seed already contains its blossom. But if one has never seen that seed before he would not be able to guess what it is. But because of the seed’s organic development, everything that the mature tree is to become is already present in its seed. And that’s the way the Bible is, right from its beginning. The whole story of the Bible is already present when God said, “He will crush his head and he will bruise his heel,” in Genesis 3:15. That is the story of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can go back and read it in light of the Gospel and realize that the Gospel was there all along. Initially, men did not understand that. It took the unfolding of the history of salvation until finally the wonderful resurrection and victory of Christ was clear. But it was always there because the whole Bible is about Christ. Consider Luke 24 where Jesus gives His first Bible study after His resurrection. Jesus speaks to two men on the road to Emmaus who were discussing the story of the crucifixion and the rumors that the tomb was empty. Luke 24:36ff says, While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at My hands and My feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, He asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in their presence. He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you. Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then He opened their minds so that they could understand the Scriptures. Now when Jesus refers “to everything that was written about Him in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,” He was identifying the three main divisions of the Canon of the Old Testament. That was the way the Jews divided the books of the Old Testament. In essence He was saying, “It matters not which Old Testament book you read, if your mind has been opened by My Spirit, you will discover that it all speaks of me.” That is the way Jesus wants His people to read the Bible; to see that it is all about Him. The Bible is the dramatic story of the history of redemption that organically unfolds Jesus’ saving work. Thus covenant theology rejects the Dispensational notion that the OT is for the Jewish people of God and the NT is for the Gentile people of God. Instead, covenant theology teaches that the whole Bible is about Christ who came to save all of God’s people who by faith become the true Israel whether they are Jews or Gentiles. VII. Boundary Disputes: The Covenantal Interpretation And the Dispensational Interpretation of the Old Testament Land Promises. It’s at this point where one of the greatest differences arises between Dispensationalism and covenant theology. Dispensationalists say the many land promises that God gave to Israel are yet to be fulfilled. This they claim will occur when the church is raptured, and when after the seven year tribulation, the kingdom finally comes, then all the land promises to Israel will be literally fulfilled. Covenant Theology believes Dispensationalists are misreading the Bible when they interpret the Bible in that way. Consider here 2 Corinthians 1:18-20. The apostle Paul is writing to the church in Corinth about the truthfulness of his ministry. He says in 1:18, But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No.” For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas and Timothy, was not “Yes” and “No” but in him it has always been “Yes.” The key verse is verse 20: For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God. What Paul is saying is that if one finds any promise in the Bible and if he interprets it without Christ, he’s misreading it. Every promise is “yes” and “amen” in Christ. If one does not read the Bible this way, it is as though Jesus becomes irrelevant to that promise. For Paul, then, every land promise and every other redemptive promise always finds its meaning in Christ. The point is that there is continuity and discontinuity in the covenant. The land promises are to be understood as though God had said, “I have redeemed you out of the world to be my people. Thus I’ve given you a heavenly land which is my true and ultimate promised land.” Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.” And at the conclusion of Revelation, when we are in Heaven, we have God dwelling with us. Then God says, “I will be your God and you will be My people, in a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness.” That is why the writer of the Hebrews teaches in Hebrews 11 that Abraham was not looking for real estate in Palestine when he left early Ur. Instead, he was looking for a city whose builder and maker is God. A covenant theologian can say “yes and amen” to that in Christ. Paul declares that that is how we are to read the Bible. If we don’t read the Bible in this way, we are misreading it. But Dispensationalism teaches that the Bible is to be read without seeing all of it promises fulfilled in the ultimate culmination of all things in Jesus Christ. VIII. Covenant Theology Teaches That The Kingdom Is Not Just Future, It Is Already But Not Yet. The formula of the covenant reflects the substance of the covenant, while the administration of the covenant was different before Christ came than its administration after Christ came and ascended to heaven. Having ascended to the right Hand of the Father, He poured out His Holy Spirit on His people inaugurating His kingdom. God’s Kingdom began at Pentecost. The kingdom is now here even though it is still not yet here fully. The Kingdom is already but not yet. Chuck Colson illustrated this by the D-Day invasion. When the Marines hit Omaha beach and took the cliffs they did the impossible. Having accomplished this, they were confident that one day they would conquer the Third Reich. They already had won but they had not yet won. There was still a long battle yet ahead even though they had secured that victory by doing the impossible. The incarnation of Jesus Christ and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and its birth of the New Testament era of covenant life are the beginning of the kingdom. One day Satan’s “Third Reich” is going to fall and the whole kingdom will be come even though it has already begun and we as believers are part of it. Jesus Kingdom is already here. (See Matthew 12:28; 13:40-43; Acts 1:3; 28:31; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:6.) Pastor Dr. Peter Lillback(피터 릴백 박사 목사)(Pennsylvania Proclamation Presbyterian Church(미국 펜실베이니어 선포장로교회))
A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic And Covenant Theology(칼빈의 언약적 성경해석과 언약신학으로부터 추론된 세대주의 비평)(2)/ Matthew 12:28(마12:28), Matthew 13:40-43(마13:40-43), Acts 1:3(행1:3), Acts 28:31(행28:
A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic And Covenant Theology(칼빈의 언약적 성경해석과 언약신학으로부터 추론된 세대주의 비평)(2)/ Matthew 12:28(마12:28), Matthew 13:40-43(마13:40-43), Acts 1:3(행1:3), Acts 28:31(행28:31), Col. 1:13(골1:13), Rev. 1:6(계1:6)/ Pastor Dr. Peter Lillback(피터 릴백 박사 목사)/ 2015-02-12 A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic And Covenant Theology(칼빈의 언약적 성경해석과 언약신학으로부터 추론된 세대주의 비평)(2)/ Matthew 12:28(마12:28), Matthew 13:40-43(마13:40-43), Acts 1:3(행1;3), Acts 28:31(행28:31), Col. 1:13(골1;13), Rev. 1:6(계1:6) A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenantal Hermeneutic And Covenant Theology(2) Lecture II. A Critique Of Dispensationalism Derived From Calvin’s Covenant Theology As we saw in the first lecture, Calvin interprets the Bible in a covenantal and Christocentric manner. He is firmly committed to the organic unity of the history of redemption that is explained in its continuity and discontinuity by God’s covenantal revelation. The eight points that we addressed in our first lecture are: I. The Differences Between Dispensationalism And Covenant Theology. II. The Differing Historical Origins Of Dispensationalism And Covenant Theology. III. Calvin’s Emphasis On The Unity Of The Bible Seen In The Formula of the Covenant. IV. Calvin’s Covenantal Dictum For Interpreting The Bible: The Covenant Is Always The Same In Substance, Yet It Is Distinct In Administration. V. While Christ Is The Heart Of The Bible There Is Continuity And Discontinuity In The Covenant. VI. God’s Promises Of Salvation In Christ Are Organically Present In The Old Testament: The Covenant Is The “DNA” Of The History Of Salvation. VII. Boundary Disputes: The Covenantal Interpretation And the Dispensational Interpretation of the Old Testament Land Promises. VIII. Covenant Theology Teaches That The Kingdom Is Not Just Future, It Is Already But Not Yet. Having seen Calvin’s covenantal hermeneutic and how its implications stand in contrast to the hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, let us now consider Calvin’s covenant theology that flows from his covenantal hermeneutic and see how it stands in critique of Dispensational theology. We will address the following six points in this second lecture: I. Covenant Theology Celebrates Christ’s Incarnation Because By Assuming Humanity, Christ Becomes The Covenant. II. The First Saving Benefit of the Covenant Of Grace Is Justification by Faith Alone. III. The Second Saving Benefit Of The Covenant Of Grace Is Sanctification By Faith and Obedience. IV. The Four-Fold Relationship Of Sanctification And Justification In Calvin’s Covenant Theology. V. The Different Ethical Tendencies Emerging From Covenantal Ethics And Dispensational Ethics. VI. The Corporate Character Of Calvin’s Covenant al Understanding Of Sacraments. Let us then look at the first of these six points. I. Covenant Theology Celebrates Christ’s Incarnation Because By Assuming Humanity, Christ Becomes The Covenant. Before Calvin began to write his theology, Heinrich Bullinger had already emphasized in his 1534 Of The One And Eternal Testament Or Covenant Of God that Christ Himself is the covenant due to His incarnation. Bullinger explains in his tenth section entitled, “Christ, the Seal and Living Confirmation of the Covenant”: What I am about to say of Christ the Lord is not the entire doctrine. Rather, it is that very point worthy of admiration due to His incarnation, namely, the eternal covenant of God with the race of men that covenant which He set forth and confirmed in an astonishing and living way. Indeed, when the true God assumed true humanity, immediately it [i.e., the covenant] was not treated with more words and arguments, rather, by this thing itself, that greatest mystery is attested to the whole world--that God admitted man into covenant and partnership. Further, He bound man to Himself by an indissoluble connection by the highest miracle of love, to be our God. Thus undoubtedly with Isaiah we too believe the name given to Christ (Isaiah 7:14). He is called Immanuel, just as if someone might say, “God with us.” Thus the Gospels review these innumerable miracles and great benefits of Christ with so many examples. By these indeed, Isaiah declared God to be kind, and therefore the Horn of Plenty, the Father, and Shaddai to the human race. To this name also the very death and resurrection of Christ are referred. They [i.e. the words that compose the name Immanuel] are indeed most certain testimonies of the divine mercy, justice, and restitution of life. By Christ, God Himself established and expounded for us all of Himself, before our eyes; blessing us and accepting us as cleansed by Christ, into partnership and the eternal kingdom. All of which John’s Gospel says embraced by the few but heavenly words, “In the beginning was the word, and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory; glory, I say, which was proper for the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. Indeed of His fullness, we have received grace for grace. Because the law was given by Moses, grace and truth have appeared by Jesus Christ” (John 1:1, 14, 16, 17). You hear this highest truth, that mystery that God has become a man, that is, He has become entirely of us, He Himself dwells among us. You hear that He has begun to shine His power and glory to the world, not for any other plan than that He may draw us to Himself by most beautiful benefits in His love, who is the fullness of our God Shaddai. For Paul also says, “In Christ dwells all the fullness of God bodily, and you are in Him complete and perfect” (Colossians 2:9, 10). In this way, therefore, the Lord Jesus Himself confirmed and displayed the first part of the covenant. The very incarnation shows that God is God--Shaddai, the blessing and eternal happiness of the seed of Abraham. (My translation.) To get at what Bullinger is saying, let us suppose that God said, “I so want you to know that I am your God and that you are My people, that I will give you a proof that you cannot possibly forget or overlook it.” God’s proof of His covenantal commitment is seen in His becoming a man. By Jesus’ incarnation, the God-Man becomes the union of God and man, thus mirroring the very covenant itself. The formula of the covenant says, “I will be your God and you will be My people.” By the incarnation God declared, “Because I am your God and because you are My people, I your God am becoming a human person like you, to be with you.” Isaiah 7:14 says, “The virgin will conceive and have a Son and you will name Him Immanuel”. Immanuel means, “With us is God” or “God with us”. The name Immanuel is the covenant name, meaning that “God is with us”. Jesus as the incarnate Covenant Savior and Lord permanently unites God to His people by taking on unfallen human nature and becoming a man. Thus Jesus’ incarnation physically manifests the formula of the covenant: “I will be your God and you will be My people.” By the incarnation, God in Christ declares, I am with you and you are with Me. Calvin’s emphasis on Christ as the very covenant of God is seen in his extensive Christ-centered development of the covenant of grace’s saving benefits. Consider the following: Let us then set forth the covenant that he once established as eternal and never perishing. Its fulfillment, by which it is finally confirmed and ratified, is Christ. Who, then, dares to separate the Jews from Christ, since with them we hear, was made the covenant of the gospel, the sole foundation of which is Christ? ...the apostle contends that it ought to be terminated and abrogated, to give place to Christ, the Sponsor and Mediator of a better covenant;... This is the new covenant that God in Christ has made with us, that he will remember our sins no more. The intimate relationship of Christ and the covenant for Calvin can be seen by their repeated juxtaposition. The covenant not only contains Christ, but He is its foundation. The promise of both of the Old and New Covenants have Christ as their foundation. Since the New Covenant is from the beginning, the Old Covenant is Christian. Thus the Old Testament fathers had Christ. The law includes Christ. The Old Covenant’s end was Christ and eternal life. In fact, the Old Covenant was an empty show unless Christ’s death and resurrection are part of it. Thus the ark of the Covenant, the Old Testament ceremonies, and the progressive revelation of the Old Covenant all point to Christ. Christ’s advent ushers in the New Covenant that stands in continuity with the Old. The Redeemer’s coming does not invalidate the Old Covenant. Instead, He renews and continues it. He causes it to be new and eternal. By fulfilling and confirming the Old Covenant, Christ brought an eternal and never perishing covenant. Christ’s redemptive work is fully integrated with the covenant. Accordingly, Christ is the Mediator, the Sponsor, the Redeemer, and testator of the covenant. The blood of the covenant in Christ’s atonement or redemptive death for sin is what ratifies the covenant. Thus the covenant is ratified with Christ and His members. Christ’s resurrection, intercession, priesthood, and Kingdom, are associated with the covenant. Indeed, Christ is the one who confirms, seals and sanctions the covenant. Calvin also sees a relationship of Christ and the covenant in the application of redemption in such areas as faith, sonship, union with God and Christ, good works, and the Sacraments. Clearly, Christ and covenant is a major strand in Calvin’s golden chain of salvation. The commentaries also relate Christ and the covenant on numerous points. Calvin further develops his emphasis on Christ as the very covenant of God when he explains the inseparability of the covenant of grace’s saving benefits in the very same manner in which he explains the inseparability of these same saving benefits in Christ Himself. We will consider this below in section IV of this lecture. II. The First Saving Benefit of the Covenant Of Grace Is Justification by Faith Alone. As we have seen, the word for covenant in Hebrew is berith, meaning to cut. In this context, consider Genesis 15. Childless Abram wanted a son. So the Lord brought Abram out to view a clear starry night’ sky. The Lord promised Abram that his children would be as numerous as the stars. We read in Genesis 15:6, Abram believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. We call this justification by faith. In fact, Paul uses this same text in his Epistle to the Romans to show that believers are justified by faith alone. Here God brings righteousness to Abram through faith by means of a covenant, a berith. To make this covenant sacrifice, Abram takes different kinds of animals and cuts them from the top of the head, through the nose, through the torso, all the way through the tail, and then the pieces are laid on the ground. This is indeed a berith, a cutting, a bloody sacrifice. This powerful image was an ancient custom by which one made a covenant. In making a covenant, one slew an animal and then walked between its parts and in essence promised, “If I don’t keep my promise, I will be just like the animals that we’ve just walked between.” To make a mortgage that way with your bank would be to sign it in blood! Here we see a promise joined with a sanction or punishment for disobedience. If the covenanter did not keep his word, he would be like the animal that was just slain. But the story doesn’t stop there. Next Abram watches the sun setting, he gets ready to enter into the covenant but instead he falls into a deep sleep. He is in effect paralyzed and he hears God speak. He sees a theophany, a manifestation of God. It is a smoking pot and a burning oven that alone passes through the middle of the animal parts, while Abram has no part in this covenant. The Lord in effect was saying, “Abram I alone establish the covenant. I alone can bring you righteousness. I alone can fulfill this promise. You cannot do it. But you will benefit by this covenant since you have been justified by faith.” Moreover, the Lord was also making a great promise. In effect He said, “If I don’t keep My promise, I will cease to exist.” But the Lord in essence was also saying even more: “So that you might be righteous, I will have to assume flesh and become the Lamb of God who is slain as a sacrifice for sinners to take away the sin of the world.” In this dramatic story of ancient covenant making by sacrifice, God alone guarantees the formula of the covenant: “I will be your God and you will be My people.” When one is justified by faith in Christ, he does absolutely nothing but receive Christ’s gift of His perfect righteousness before God. This righteousness is imputed to him by faith alone that he receives with a beggar’s hands of faith. Christians are in this covenant by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as seen in the Scriptures alone so that God alone receives the glory in our salvation. III. The Second Saving Benefit Of The Covenant Of Grace Is Sanctification By Faith and Obedience. But this is not where Abram’s story stops. We next turn to Genesis 17 where we find that the Lord makes a covenant with Abram by changing his name and giving him a new name. So Abram becomes Abraham. As this new name is given, another covenant is made that begins with the words, “Walk before me and be blameless.” In essence God says, “Remember you did not walk between the animal parts before, but were righteous by faith. But now you must walk before me and be blameless. In fact, you are going to have the covenant, the berith, cut in your own flesh. You are going to be the living sacrifice. Your very body is to be cut in the covenant of circumcision.” Thus it is no longer an animal, but Abram who is the covenant sacrifice. By extension, circumcision leads to the circumcision of the heart, the removing of the old nature. This is what Abraham is supposed to become as one who has been justified by faith. He is now to walk with God. This theologians have called sanctification. Those that are justified by faith are also those who are to learn to walk in holiness before God and become living sacrifices, as Paul called them in Romans 12:1-2. In covenant sacrifice, Abram was to give his body onto the Lord as a living sacrifice. Consider again Jeremiah 31. There God said He was going to make a new covenant with Israel, a new berith. It would not be like the covenant that He made with Israel where the law of God was written on tablets of stone and were broken because the people rebelled and worshiped the golden calf. This time God would write the law on Israel’s hearts, forgiving their sins. But notice that the new covenant presents a second great benefit. The first benefit of the covenant is forgiveness of sins which is called justification by faith. The second benefit of the covenant is sanctification in which the law of God is written on the hearts of God’s people so that they will live for Him. Thus the new covenant has two great blessings: justification and sanctification. Reflect again on the formula of the covenant: “I will be your God and you will be my people.” One can hear both the truths of justification and of sanctification in the formula of the covenant. Listen to the two emphases that the covenant formula can be given. The first emphasis says, I will be your God and you will be My people. Do you hear that wonderful promise? God says, “You are righteous through faith in Me. I’m giving you this.” This is the indicative or factual expression of the Covenant of Grace. Now let me read these same words again but accent them in a different way: I will be your God and you will be My people. Do you hear a different nuance in the same words? By emphasizing the words in this way, we move from the indicative to the imperative. In other words, what God has promised, He also demands. And what God demands, He also promises. God’s enabling us to keep His covenant is seen in the fact that He writes His law on our hearts. He has not only forgiven us, but now He also gives us the ability to become His people. This gracious gift is underscored by God’s revealed name in Genesis 17El Shaddai, the Almighty and All-Sufficient God. So justification and sanctification are the two great benefits of the covenant that come to us in God’s covenant of grace. And remember this formula of the covenant goes from Genesis all the way to Revelation and it’s the one people of God that participate in it. All too often Dispensational and evangelical theology separates sanctification from God’s saving grace. It is an expression of growth and maturity but not part of God’s redemptive plan. Covenant theology following Calvin’s emphasis on what he called the “duplex gratiae” or double graces declares that God saves His people by justifying and sanctifying them. IV. The Four-Fold Relationship Of Sanctification And Justification In Calvin’s Covenant Theology. These truths of the covenant must be taught to God’s people of all ages. Accordingly, we need an illustration that is useful for children and grown ups too. So allow me to offer such an illustration by asking you to look carefully at your hands. You have a right hand and a left hand. Your two hands will now stand for the two blessings of the New Covenant: sanctification, I will write my law on your hearts; justification, I will forgive your sins. Let your dominant hand be your justification hand. So if you are right handed, think of your right hand as your justification hand and your left hand as your sanctification hand. If you are left handed, let your left hand be your justification hand and your right hand be your sanctification hand. I want you to learn four important principles of the relationship of justification and sanctification from your two hands. These principles are: 1. Justification and sanctification, like your hands, must be distinguished. 2. Justification and sanctification, like your hands, are simultaneous given. 3. Justification and sanctification, like your hands, are inseparable. 4. Justification and sanctification, like your hands, must be logically ordered. Notice first that a person’s two hands are distinct. That is important to remember. If someone says, “Turn right,” and one turns left he will get into trouble or get lost. Early on, people learn to distinguish their right hands from their left. The point is this: justification and sanctification, the two benefits of the covenant, are distinct. We must distinguish them. The great mistake of Roman Catholicism is to say the way one is justified is by becoming sanctified. Catholicism teaches that if one does good works, God will declare such a one to be righteous. But that destroys justification by faith alone. In this illustration, that is to confuse one’s left hand with his right hand, or to identify his justification with his sanctification. But some evangelicals think of this in an opposite way from Roman Catholics. But still, they confuse their right and left hands, or confuse justification and sanctification. In this view, sometimes called, “easy-believism” one declares, “If I believe in Jesus that is how I become forgiven and holy. It doesn’t matter if I do anything else as long as I believe, because that’s all one needs before God.” This view teaches that one becomes sanctified by being justified. But that is to confuse one’s right hand with his left hand, or to identify one’s sanctification with his justification. This is the reverse of Catholicism, but like Catholicism, it confuses justification and sanctification. Calvin taught and the Reformed faith teaches that there are two great saving benefits of the covenant of grace, and we must never confuse them. We have two hands which are distinct and we must never confuse them. Notice secondly, that the two hands we have, were given to us simultaneously. Humans are born with a right and left hand that come simultaneously. So when God brings us the blessings of the New Covenant, He not only forgives our sins as a completed act and declares us to be righteous by clothing us in the righteousness of Christ, He also gives us the Holy Spirit to begin to make us holy. With this gift of the Holy Spirit, God starts the process of teaching us to become holy, to die to sin and to live to Christ. While the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit is a process that goes on and on, it starts at the same time as our forgiveness or justification in Christ. These two benefits of the covenant are simultaneous. Nevertheless, we must distinguish them for they are different. The third thing we need to realize about these two New Covenant blessings is that they are inseparable. No one decides to take off his left hand when in a hurry and says, “I don’t have time to mess with my left hand today”. If one’s left hand gets separated he uses his other hand to dial a doctor and pleads, “Could you reattach this hand? I don’t want them separated!” Nevertheless, there are people that spiritually speaking want to separate justification from sanctification. A libertine says, “I just want to be forgiven. I want a Jesus credit card so I can just do what I want and know I’m forgiven.” But one cannot do that. The puritans in essence used to say, “When you receive Jesus, you receive Him in all of His offices as prophet, priest, and king. Not just as a priest who gives you forgiveness and a sacrifice. But also as a king who rules over you and a prophet who teaches you His word. You cannot separate his offices.” The opposite of this is the legalist who says, “I don’t need to be forgiven, I will be good enough by my own moral reformation to please God.” This we would call a Pharisee. But the Pharisee is like the Libertine. The only difference is that they seek to cut off the opposite hand! But, the two hands of the covenant of grace are inseparable. Accordingly, Calvin assails those who claim only one benefit of the covenant at the expense of the other. Also, with the same effort these rascals, by canceling one section of it, tear apart God’s covenant, in which we see our salvation contained, and topple it from its foundation. Not only are they guilty of sacrilege in separating things till now joined.... Because Christ and the covenant are so intertwined, there are those who not only try to “tear apart God’s covenant” but who also attempt to “tear Christ in pieces”. Thirdly, he calls him our sanctification, by which he means, that we who are otherwise unholy by nature, are by his Spirit renewed unto holiness, that we may serve God. From this, also, we infer, that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks to be justified through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness, consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctification, or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life. Calvin repeatedly uses the image of tearing Christ in pieces to underscore the inseparableness of justification and sanctification. It is indeed true, that we are justified in Christ through the mercy of God alone; but it is equally true and certain, that all who are justified are called by the Lord, that they may live worthy of their vocation. Let then the faithful learn to embrace him, not only for justification, but also for sanctification, as he has been given to us for both these purposes, lest they rend him asunder by their mutilated faith. ...as Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable--namely, righteousness and sanctification. Whomever, therefore, God receives into grace, on them he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption, by whose power he remakes them to his own image. But since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [I Corinthians 1:13]. Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness. The covenant therefore helps to organize the benefits of salvation. The two covenantal benefits of justification and sanctification are distinct, yet they are inseparably related and simultaneously received in Christ. Thus Christ and the covenant are essentially identified since both are the source of these great redemptive benefits. This doctrine gives Calvin a two edged sword to wield against his theological opponents. The Romanist, who thought his works merited salvation, was confronted with the fact that good works without Christ’s righteousness were still impure. The Libertine, who thought that Christ’s death made him spiritually pure regardless of his personal life, was confronted with the inseparability of the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration and Christ’s righteousness. The three ideas from Calvin we have considered so far concerning the relationship of the two benefits of the covenant are: 1. Justification and Sanctification must be distinguished. 2. Justification and Sanctification are simultaneous given. 3. Justification and Sanctification are inseparable. Now let us consider the fourth idea of the relationship of justification and sanctification in Calvin: 4. Justification and Sanctification must be logically ordered. Or to put it in Calvin’s terms, what is subordinate is not contrary. The fourth point, then, that Calvin makes is that the two benefits of the covenant of grace are to be logically ordered. Or to put it another way, one benefit of the covenant is dominant and the other is subordinate. This too is like our two hands. If one is right handed, the right hand is the dominant hand over the left hand. The point that we must see here is that justification is always dominant over sanctification and sanctification is always dependent upon and subordinate to justification. So if one is right handed, it means his right hand, his justification hand, is the primary hand and the left hand, his sanctification hand, is dependent upon and subordinate to the right hand. Theologically speaking, this means that one can never say, “I know I’m forgiven because I’m doing so many good things.” This is to confuse the gospel. Instead, one must say, “Because I am forgiven and righteous in Christ, I can and will live for Him by the Holy Spirit.” Calvin compared justification to the foundation of a house, and he likened sanctification to the superstructure built upon that foundation. Thus the house of sanctification is always dependent upon the foundation of justification. Calvin actually uses an important dictum that comes from the medieval tradition, namely, “What is subordinate is not contrary.” What he meant in this context is that the righteousness of the believer’s obedience, which is real righteousness before God, does not present an alternate or contrary way of salvation. This is because sanctification is under or subordinate to the greater righteousness of Christ’s obedience in justification. Sanctification righteousness although graciously produced by the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the believer is nevertheless subordinate to Christ’s righteousness bestowed in justification. So sanctification is not a competing way of salvation for the believer since it is always inferior to the righteousness of Christ. Indeed, sanctification righteousness honors justification righteousness and by its very existence manifests the superior righteousness of Christ in justification. Accordingly, sanctification does not produce justification or have any role in justification’s work of forgiveness or of imputing the perfect righteousness of Christ. One must never depend on his own new obedience or sanctification. Instead, he must always depend upon Christ. To return to our analogy, the dependent hand of sanctification must always rely on the superior hand of justification that lays hold of Christ by faith. Thus Calvin’s covenant doctrine does not permit the law to be in opposition to the gospel after the blessings of the covenant are bestowed upon a believer. Justification and sanctification are necessary components of the divine benefits of salvation. They are bestowed “at the same time”. Yet a logical order exists between them which must not be overlooked. Since the “spirit” is added to the “letter” of the law, the believer has a true righteousness of obedience. But, It is a subordinate righteousness to the righteousness of Christ. Yet it is not a contrary righteousness. Calvin affirms this principle in his Antidote to the Council of Trent. We, indeed, willingly acknowledge, that believers ought to make daily increase in good works, and that the good works wherewith they are adorned by God, are sometimes distinguished by the name of righteousness. But since the whole value of works is derived from no other foundation than that of gratuitous acceptance, how absurd were it to make the former overthrow the latter! Why do they not remember what they learned when boys at school, that what is subordinate is not contrary? (Emphasis mine.) I say that it is owing to free imputation that we are considered righteous before God; I say that from this also another benefit proceeds, viz., that our works have the name of righteousness, though they are far from having the reality of righteousness. In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified; and the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause. Therefore, it is necessary that the righteousness of faith alone so precede in order, and be so preeminent in degree, that nothing can go before it or obscure it. In his The True Method of Giving Peace and Reforming the Church, Calvin again explains the subordination of the Christian’s works righteousness to the righteousness of faith. In order that ambiguities may be removed, it is necessary that the Righteousness which we obtain by faith, and which is freely bestowed upon us, should be placed in the highest rank, so that, as often as the conscience is brought before the tribunal of God, it alone may shine forth. In this way the righteousness of works, to whatever extent it may exist in us, being reduced to its own place, will never come, as it were, into conflict with the other; and certainly it is just, that as righteousness of works depends on righteousness of faith, it should be made subordinate to it, (Emphasis mine.) so as to leave the latter in full possession of the salvation of man. Thus for Calvin, the covenant is a powerful concept because it establishes that we are justified by faith alone, yet by a faith that is never alone, but is always accompanied by all of God’s saving graces. Thus the Gospel teaches us that Jesus is both Savior and Lord.” The indicative of our union with Christ is in justification (we are righteous) and the imperative of our union with Christ is in sanctification (we are to be righteous). As we have seen, both of these emphases are implied in the formula of the covenant. The following chart helps us to capture Calvin’s covenantal thought in terms of the two savings benefits of the covenant of grace. The Relationship of the Two Parts of the Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Thought Justification Sanctification 1. Through the Covenant of Grace in Union with Christ 1. Through the Covenant of Grace in Union with Christ 2. Simultaneous with Sanctification 2. Simultaneous with justification 3. Inseparable from Sanctification 3. Inseparable from Justification 4. Distinguishable from Sanctification 4. Distinguishable from Justification 5. By Faith Alone in Christ 5. By Faith and Obedience to the Law through Enablement of the Holy Spirit 6. A Superior righteousness that is not contrary to Sanctification Righteousness 6. An Inferior Righteousness not contrary to Justification Righteousness 7. Faith Alone Justifies and is the Superior Cause of Salvation 7. But Faith is Never Alone in the Justified Person, so sanctification’s works are Inferior Causes of Salvation 8. Imputed Righteousness 8. Inherent Righteousness V. The Different Ethical Tendencies Emerging From Covenantal Ethics And Dispensational Ethics. What difference does the covenantal rather than the dispensational reading of the Bible really make in the Christian life? First, we should see that covenant theology declares that the kingdom of Christ has already begun and is not completely future. If one believes that the kingdom is yet to come but is not yet here, it is possible for the church to see itself as a group of people that should retreat from the world, to care mainly about themselves. The Church’s primary task then is to invite others to join them in their retreat from culture. This approach often asserts that the world is going to get worse and worse and there is nothing anyone can do about it. All one can hope for is for Jesus to come and rapture the Church out of this fallen world and only then everything will be right. Allow me here to give a personal experience. When I left Dallas Seminary in 1978 to go to Westminster Seminary, it was at the time of the first great oil crisis caused by the oil embargoes. I vividly remember being in those long lines of cars at the gas station. In Philadelphia I received word from friends in Dallas that the Seminary had decided to take out an ad in the local newspaper declaring that this was the last call for the rapture. It is clear that there have been a several more opportunities for Dispensational interpreters to call for the rapture! The best-selling Left Behind series hadn’t yet been written. This was when I realized I could no longer be a Dispensationalistnot if Dispensationalism focused on reading newspapers to figure out when Jesus would come. I began to understand that the question we should have been asking was, “How does one live for Christ if there’s no gasoline?” There is a different ethic created by Dispensationalism and by Covenant Theology. Dispensationalism asks one to live in light of the raptureno gasoline means the rapture is coming. Covenant Theology, however, asks one to reflect on what it means to be a Christian when one can no longer pump gas. Jesus taught in Matthew 5, “You are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.” He was not talking only to the Old Testament people of Israel. He was talking to Christians. In essence, He was saying: “You are to make a difference. You are to be salty salt that purifies a fallen world and you are to be radiant light that dispels the darkness of unbelief that surrounds the believer. You are to touch the world with what you believe and in what you do.” Covenant Theology declares that believers are to influence their cultures for Christ’s sake. Light shines and dispels darkness. Light makes its presence known. So the Christian is to be the light of the world wherever he goes, whether into a family, into a school, into a political party, into a university or into a business. He is to shine the light of the kingdom of Christ everywhere and make a difference. An adherent of covenant theology must understand that he is to demonstrate that the kingdom of Christ is present. The Christian should be able to say, “I will make a difference for His name wherever I ameverywhere I go, in everything I do, in everything I say.” That is the vision of the ethics of covenant theology, rather than looking to the future trying to ascertain the dates and times of Christ’s return. Covenant Theology accepts Jesus’ agnosticism about the time of His return. Our Lord taught us that, “No man knows the day or the hour or the time or the season that’s appointed by the Father.” Instead of figuring out the time of Christ’s return, one is to be occupied in service to Christ until He comes. We are to be busy in the world, seeking to reach the world for Christ’s sake. Christ’s Kingdom has irrupted or broken into the space and time of human existence. Thus Jesus taught that His gospel of the kingdom had to be preached in the entire world and only then would the end come. Thus believers are called to be missionaries and evangelists engaging our changing world with God’s unchanging Word so that his kingdom will make progress. VI. The Corporate Character Of Calvin’s Covenant al Understanding Of Sacraments. Finally, I will offer a few observations about the sacraments as they are differently viewed from the Dispensational perspective and from the vantage point of Covenant Theology. This vast topic could encompass the nature, meaning and practice of the sacraments in terms of the Eucharist, Baptism and Infant Baptism. But to state the matter simply, let us note that Dispensationalism tends to see the sacraments in a more individualistic sense, whereas Covenant Theology insists that the sacraments are to impact the entire community of God’s people. Dispensationalism’s individualistic tendency parallels its belief that the world will grow worse and worse. But as long as one believes in Christ as Savior, everything will ultimately be all right since the individual believer will go to heaven. In contrast, without diminishing the joyful hope of the individual’s salvation, covenant theology affirms with Joshua, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Covenant Theology recognizes the corporate nature of God’s covenant promise, as seen in the intergenerational expression of the formula of the covenant from the Old Testament, “I will be your God and the God of your children after you” and “To a thousand generations of those that love me and keep my commandments.” On the basis of these Old Testament promises that are held to be still valid in the New Testament era, Calvin and covenant theology have affirmed the corporate character of the covenant as expressed especially in infant baptism. Calvin is so adamant that the covenant with the Jews continues into the New Covenant era that he asserts that to deny this is nothing less than blasphemy! For Calvin, such denial implies that Christ’s coming actually narrowed God’s grace rather than expanding it: Yet Scripture opens to us a still surer knowledge of the truth. Indeed, it is most evident that the covenant which the Lord once made with Abraham is no less in force today for Christians than it was of old for the Jewish people, and that this work relates no less to Christians than it then related to the Jews. Unless perhaps we think that Christ by his coming lessened or curtailed the grace of the Father--but this is nothing but execrable blasphemy! Accordingly, the children of the Jews also, because they had been made heirs of his covenant and distinguished from the children of the impious, were called a holy seed. For this same reason the children of Christians are considered holy; and even though born with only one believing parent, by the apostle’s testimony they differ from the unclean seed of idolaters. Now seeing that the Lord immediately after making the covenant with Abraham commanded it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament what excuse will Christians give for not testifying and sealing it in their children today? Children in the Old Testament and in the New are a holy seed by virtue of the same covenantal promise made by God with Abraham. Accordingly, infant baptism bears the same force of command as circumcision. Nor does Calvin accept the evasion that Abraham’s children in the Old Testament Covenant simply foreshadow believers in the New Covenant era. This cannot be, because God’s covenant established with Abraham includes the Christian believer and their children too. In the use of the term “children” they find this difference: those who had their origin from his seed were called children of Abraham under the Old Testament; now, those who imitate his faith are called by this name. They therefore say that that physical infancy which was engrafted into the fellowship of the covenant through circumcision foreshadowed the spiritual infants of the New Testament, who were regenerated to immortal life by God’s Word. In these words, indeed, we see a feeble spark of truth. But those fickle spirits gravely sin in seizing upon whatever first comes to hand where they ought to proceed further, and in stubbornly clinging to one word where they ought to compare many things together....We should, accordingly, aim at a better target, to which we are directed by the very sure guidance of Scripture. Therefore, the Lord promises Abraham that he will have offspring in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and at the same time assures him that he will be his God and the God of his descendants. All those who by faith receive Christ as author of the blessing are heirs of this promise, and are therefore called children of Abraham. Calvin’s point is that while there is an element of truth in the objection, it does not fully explain all of the salient Scriptural data. It is true that the offspring of Abraham’s flesh foreshadowed the future offspring of Abraham by faith. Yet this fact does not remove the promise that God made to Abraham’s physical offspring. God assured Abraham “that he will be his God and the God of his descendants.” Calvin’s response is not an either/or, but a both/and. The implication for the practice of baptism is that the offspring of Abraham are heirs of the promise, even those who became his offspring by faith. Thus the children of Abraham’s offspring by faith are also made full partakers of the promise, since they are now part of his family. The covenant with Abraham continues to operate in the New Covenant era. A criticism of Calvin’s argument for paedobaptism is that the only sign of the covenant was circumcision, and it has ceased. Therefore, the covenant of circumcision is of no value because its sign is abolished. Calvin’s retort is that the changing of the sign does not change the covenant. And let no one object against me that the Lord did not command that his covenant be confirmed by any other symbol than circumcision, which has long since been abolished. There is a ready answer that for the time of the Old Testament he instituted circumcision, to confirm his covenant, but that after circumcision was abolished, the same reason for confirming his covenant (which we have in common with the Jews) still holds good. Consequently, we must always diligently consider what is common to both, and what they have apart from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. Only the manner of confirmation is different--what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism. If it is true that there is no replacement for circumcision, then in Calvin’s mind, Christ’s coming actually obscured God’s grace rather than increasing it: Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their posterity is taken away from us, Christ’s coming would have the effect of making God’s grace more obscure and less attested for us than it had previously been for the Jews. Now, this cannot be said without grievously slandering Christ, through whom the Father’s infinite goodness was more clearly and liberally poured out upon the earth and declared to men than ever before. As covenantal theologians in the New Testament era, following in the covenantal hermeneutic of Calvin, we are to be concerned in our sacramental lives with the corporate character of the covenant community just as the people of the Old Testament era understood the corporate character of God’s covenantal promises to them. These covenantal promises are not merely individual, but they encompass the importance of the whole family and the coming generations as we personally and collectively grow in Christ. Conclusion: There are several other areas of covenantal thought in Calvin that could be pursued. But we shall conclude having seen that for Calvin, biblical interpretation, the saving benefits of Christ, Christian ethics and the Church’s sacramental life are all important expressions of God’s one and eternal saving covenant of grace revealed throughout the history of redemption from Old Testament to New Testament. Although Calvin never encountered Dispensationalism per se, his understanding of the covenant was directly opposed to the foundational premises of Dispensationalism. So with pun intended, in this New Testament dispensation of God’s one covenant of grace in Christ, which includes the 500th anniversary of Calvin, let us maintain the covenant as a central element in our biblical and theological labors. For as Calvin himself declared as he commented on Psalm 25:10, “We have no reason to be afraid that God will deceive us if we persevere in His covenant.” Pastor Dr. Peter Lillback(피터 릴백 박사 목사)(Pennsylvania Proclamation Presbyterian Church(미국 펜실베이니어 선포장로교회))
A Survey Of Christian Epistemology(반틸의기독교인식론 서론)/ 2002-11-12 10:27:38 read : 10 내용넓게보기. 프린트하기 Guide Number: 1969.F A Survey Of Christian Epistemology Volume 2 of the series In Defense of Biblical Christianity Presbyterian And Reformed Publishi
반틸의기독교인식론서론 2002-11-12 10:27:38 read : 10 내용넓게보기. 프린트하기 Guide Number: 1969.F A Survey Of Christian Epistemology Volume 2 of the series In Defense of Biblical Christianity Presbyterian And Reformed Publishing Co. Phillipsburg, New Jersey 08865 Copyright 1969 By den Dulk Christian Foundation Preface The first edition of this syllabus was written in 1932. The title then used was The Metaphysics of Apologetics. How ancient and out of date such a title seems to be now. Was I, perhaps, at that 뱎re-historic?time unaware of the fact that Hegel had slain the Alte Metaphysik? Did I not see the drift toward the positivism of the new day? The answer is that then, as now, I was convinced that only if one begins with the self-identifying Christ of Reformation theology, can one bring the 밼acts?of the space-time world into intelligible relation to the 뱇aws?of this world. Science, philosophy and theology find their intelligible contact only on the presupposition of the self-revelation of God in Christ뾲hrough Scripture understood properly by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Apologetics had always been unbiblical and therefore inadequate. What needed to be done was to point out that man himself, the subject of knowledge, must interpret himself as the creature of God, as a sinner in the sight of God, and as forgiven through the work of Christ and his Spirit. All men know God, but all men as sinners seek to suppress their knowledge of God. They do this particularly by means of their various philosophical systems. This fact must be pointed out. Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? It was not till later years that I received much help in my understanding of philosophy from D. H. Th. Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd. The syllabus is offered in this second edition for the consideration of those who are interested in the spread of the 뱖hole counsel of God.? Table Of Contents Introduction The subject of a Christian View of Life must be studied historically and systematically in order to understand it comprehensively. If we study it thus we find that we face an ultimate choice between Christian and non-Christian epistemology. Especially because of the modern emphasis on the Immanence of God, it is necessary to become clearly aware of the deep antithesis between the two main types of epistemology. Chapter 1 Epistemological Terminology A preliminary survey of epistemological terminology brings out that this terminology itself has grown out of a milieu which has colored its connotation. It will not do to speak of the inductive and deductive methods as though theists and non-theists meant the same things when they use these terms. The term induction means one thing for a theist who presupposes God and another thing for a non-theist who does not presuppose God. For a theist induction is the implication into God-centered 밼acts?by a God-centered mind; for a non-theist it means the implication into self-centered facts by a self-centered mind. The same difference prevails in the case of such terms as analysis and synthesis, correspondence and coherence, objectivity and subjectivity, a priori and a posteriori, implication and linear inference and transcendental versus syllogistic reasoning. A non-theist uses all these terms univocally, while a theist may use any or all of them analogically. Chapter 2 Historical Survey A. Greek Epistemology: Its Starting Point The question we must ask constantly is how anyone has conceived of the relation of the human mind to the divine mind. It is on this point that the greatest difference obtains between the theistic and the non-theistic position. The former cannot think of the human mind as functional at all except when it is in contact with God; the latter presupposes it to be possible that the human mind function normally whether or not God exists. For this reason it is fair and necessary to emphasize the fact that Greek speculation was at the outset antitheistic and not neutral as is often said. It is necessary too to keep in mind that the long argument about the relation of the finite subject to the finite object is quite subsidiary to the main question of the relation of the finite mind to God. Chapter 3 Historical Survey B. Greek Epistemology: Its Climax When due consideration has been given to the differences among Greek thinkers, it may still be said that they present a united front. Accordingly, we study Plato뭩 thought as typical of the Greek position. There is a special value in studying Greek epistemology since it has not been brought into any contact with Christianity: antitheistic epistemology appears here without intermixture of theistic elements. Moreover, Plato뭩 views may be taken as a fair sample of all antitheistic speculation to the present day. We may say that Plato first tried to interpret reality in terms of the sense world. Then he tried to interpret reality in terms of the Ideal world. Finally he tried to interpret reality in terms of a mixture of temporal and eternal categories. In this way Plato exhausted the antitheistic possibilities. Modern epistemology presents no more than variations on these themes. Chapter 4 Historical Survey C. Mediaeval Epistemology: Its Starting Point As we took Plato for a representative of Greek epistemology, so we may take Augustine for a representative of early Christian epistemology. We would note that Augustine뭩 thought, though in many ways Platonic, is fundamentally the polar opposite of Plato뭩 thought. Plato assumed that the human mind can function independently of God; Augustine held that man뭩 thought is a thinking of God뭩 thoughts after him. Accordingly, Augustine did not seek to interpret reality by any of the three Platonic methods. He sought rather to give a philosophy of history in terms of the counsel of God. Augustine found in the conception of the Trinity the union of the logical principles of identity and difference, while Plato had sought for the origin of diversity in the sense world. Chapter 5 Historical Survey D. Mediaeval Epistemology: Its Climax Instead of developing further the great differences between the two main types of epistemology, Scholasticism attempts to harmonize the Greek and the theistic traditions. The problem of the 뱔niversals?was treated by the Scholastics with an underestimation of the fact that epistemological terminology is not a neutral something. Accordingly, the main question in epistemology, i.e., that of the relation of the finite to the divine mind, was subordinated to the less important question of the relation of the finite mind to finite laws and 밼acts.?The result was that though there was much valuable discussion of details, the main issue between theism and antitheism was not clarified but obscured by Scholasticism. The issue remains obscure in the Roman Catholic church to this day. Chapter 6 Historical Survey E. Modern Epistemology: Lutheranism The Reformation as a whole was a great advance in the direction of the clarification of the issue between theism and non-theism. This advance was possible because the theologians of the Reformation period developed Christian doctrine on its subjective side. This helped to bring Christianity into an indissoluble union with theism so that it was seen that the one cannot be defended without the other. This in turn helped to do away with the distinction between the 뱓hat?and the 뱖hat?in the field of theistic argument. Slowly it dawned on Christian apologetics that the existence of God must not be separated from the character of God, and the character of God must not be separated from the redemptive plan of God in its objective element, the Scriptures, and in its subjective element, regeneration. Lutheranism, however, retained some of Scholastic thought and was not able, on that account, to carry the Reformation principle as far as it otherwise would have carried it. In the Lutheran conception of the sacraments the difference between the divine and the human is not clearly seen to be metaphysically absolute. Accordingly, there is in Lutheranism a remnant of impersonalism. The human consciousness is at some points thought of as being surrounded by something else than the personal God. Chapter 7 Historical Survey F. Modern Epistemology: Arminianism The impersonalism spoken of in connection with Lutheranism appears more clearly in Arminian epistemology. Its theological position with respect to the human will makes it especially liable to attack from non-theistic epistemology. Instead of developing the Reformation doctrine that the human consciousness cannot function independently of God, Arminianism has to an extent compromised with the enemy on this point. Watson, Miley and Curtis maintain positions which indicate that if one yields on the non-theistic point of the independence of the finite consciousness there is no stopping till one lands in the impersonalism of 뱎ersonalism.? Chapter 8 Historical Survey G. Modern Epistemology: Calvinism In Calvinism the issue between theistic and non-theistic epistemology came to the clearest and fullest expression. Calvin developed the real Reformation doctrines spoken of above. He recognized clearly that main principle that the finite consciousness must from the outset be set in contact with the consciousness of God. Accordingly, he used the 뱓heistic arguments?more theistically than they had been used before. He did not separate the 뱖hat?from the 뱓hat.?He took into his purview the absolute God, the absolute Christ, the absolute Scripture and absolute regeneration, and maintained that all of this must be taken or nothing can be taken. He cleared Christian theistic thought from much of the Platonism that clung to it till his time. Chapter 9 Historical Survey H. Modern Epistemology: Antitheistic Modern antitheistic epistemology is but a continuation of the arguments of Plato on the assumptions of Plato. Descartes founded the whole knowledge scheme upon the independent activity of the finite consciousness in its relation to objects that are independent of God. Kant maintained that the finite consciousness can have knowledge of the phenomenal world even if it has no knowledge of the noumenal world. The Pragmatist school has consistently worked out the Kantian principle and has boldly proclaimed the sufficiency of temporal categories for the interpretation of reality. The Idealist school has been inconsistent on this point, but is built upon the same Kantian presuppositions. Chapter 10 The Starting Point Of Christian Epistemology A. The Object Of Knowledge After the historical survey we come to a more thetical statement. In it we must seek to bring the theistic and the non-theistic positions face to face with one another on the central issue of the relation of the finite consciousness to God. We may begin the argument by discussing what is involved in the ordinary knowledge transaction of man. Christian theism claims that finite consciousness can know nothing about anything except upon the presupposition of the absolute self-consciousness of God. The non-theistic position holds to the opposite of this. We try then to show that non-theism has taken its position for granted instead of proving it. In the first place non-theism has done this with respect to the object of knowledge. It has assumed the existence of the objects of knowledge and the possibility of their having a meaning apart from God. Similarly it has taken for granted that error is a natural thing, so that it cannot be said that Scripture is necessary in order that the object of knowledge may appear for what it is. Chapter 11 The Starting Point Of Christian Epistemology B. The Subject Of Knowledge: Extreme Antitheism The main question in dispute between Christians and their opponents comes out most clearly when the subject of knowledge is discussed. It is then that we must give an answer to the question whether the human mind is able in itself to interpret reality. On this important point we note that the opponents of Christian theism have taken for granted that which they ought to have proved, namely, the independence and therefore the ultimacy of the human mind. We point out this fact in the case of those who have reasoned after the fashion of Plato뭩 first method. Of these we mention especially the 밻xperience?philosophers and theologians. In the second place we point out this fact in the case of those who have reasoned after the fashion of Plato뭩 second method of explaining reality in exclusively logical or eternal categories. B. Russell, J. E. McTaggart and F. H. Bradley may serve as illustrations here. Finally we point out this fact in the case of those who have reasoned after the fashion of Plato뭩 third method of reasoning. Of these Bosanquet is given special consideration because he has more fully than any other worked out the problems of logic and the theory of judgment. It appears that in its most thorough expression antitheism has taken for granted what it should have proved. Chapter 12 The Starting Point Of Christian Epistemology C. The Subject Of Knowledge: Milder Antitheism There is a special reason for fearing what seem to be approaches to a theistic epistemology on the part of those whose philosophy is built upon the Idealist theory of judgment. So the philosophy of A. Seth Pringle-Pattison seems to be more theistic than that of Bosanquet. In reality it is just as antitheistic as that of Bosanquet, inasmuch as the human mind is still thought of as functioning in independence of God. The same judgment must be passed on the methods of the philosophy of religion schools of modern philosophy. C. C. J. Webb shows that even a great emphasis on personalism does not make one a theist. Modern psychology is also based upon the antitheistic assumption of the ultimacy of the human mind. The psychology of James Ward proves this claim. Finally we note that even the strong emphasis upon the personality of God as maintained by such men as A. H. Rashdall, J. Lindsay, J. Royce and E. Hocking cannot place one in the theistic camp if one뭩 philosophy is built upon the assumption of the truth of the antitheistic epistemology. Chapter 13 The Starting Point Of Christian Epistemology D. The Subject Of Knowledge: Idealism And Christianity Having begun the consideration of movements on philosophy that work in the direction of theism, we must now turn to some writers who, though building upon the Idealist system of logic, approach Christianity in the statement of their philosophy. A. E. Taylor may be taken as an example of those philosophers who try to make room for Christianity upon the basis of the assumed correlativity of time and eternity, but who must necessarily fail because Christianity presupposes the conception of God as self-sufficient. B. P. Bowne뭩 philosophy may serve to illustrate the fact that if one rejects what seems to be such a minor matter as biblical infallibility, one cannot stop till he has rejected theism as well as Christianity. Chapter 14 The Starting Point Of Christian Epistemology E. The Subject-Subject Relation If it is true that the difference between Christian and antitheistic epistemology is as fundamental as we have contended that it is, and if it is true that the antitheist takes his position for granted at the outset of his investigations, and if it is true that the Christian expects his opponent to do nothing else inasmuch as according to Scripture the 뱊atural man?cannot discern the things of the Spirit, we must ask whether it is then of any use for the Christian to reason with his opponent. The answer to this question must not be sought by toning down the dilemma as is easily and often done by the assumption that epistemological terminology means the same thing for theists and non-theists alike. The answer must rather be sought in the basic concept of Christian theism, namely, that God is absolute. If God is absolute man must always remain accessible to him. Man뭩 ethical alienation plays upon the background of his metaphysical dependence. God may therefore use our reasoning or our preaching as a way by which he presents himself to those who have assumed his non-existence. Chapter 15 The Method Of Christian Epistemology After we have asked the question whether Christians should seek to reason with non-theists, and have answered that question in the affirmative, we must now ask how Christians should argue with the opponents. Our answer must once more be that the method of reasoning employed must be consistent with and flow out of the position defended. Non-theists always reason univocally. Christians must always reason analogically. They may and must use the same terminology as their opponents, but while using this terminology they cannot afford to forget for a fraction of a second the presupposition of the absolute self-consciousness of God, which alone gives meaning to the terminology they employ. If this fundamental canon of Christian reasoning be always kept in mind, we can begin reasoning with our opponents at any point in heaven or earth and may for arguments sake present Christian theism as one hypothesis among many, and may for argument뭩 sake place ourselves upon the ground of our opponent in order to see what will happen. In all this it will remain our purpose to seek to reduce the non-theistic position, in whatever form it appears, to an absurdity. In our preaching we say that those who do not accept Christ are lost. Our reasoning can do nothing less. Chapter 16 A Sample Of Christian Argument It was useful to seek to apply the method of reasoning discussed in the previous chapters to the various schools of philosophy about us. However, since we have constantly sought to bring out that all forms of antitheistic thinking can be reduced to one, and since the issue is fundamentally that of the acceptance or the rejection of the concept of God, it may suffice to apply the analogical method of reasoning in an argument with those who hold to the 뱒cientific method?of the day. That scientific method is agnostic. It claims to be willing to accept any fact that may appear, but unwilling to start with the idea of God. Reasoning analogically with this type of thought, we seek to point out that it is psychologically, epistemologically and morally self-contradictory. It is psychologically self-contradictory because it claims to be making no judgment of any sort at the outset of its investigation, while as a matter of fact a universal negative judgment is involved in this effort to make no judgment. It is epistemologically self-contradictory because it starts by rejecting theism on the ground that its conception of the relation of God to the universe involves the contradiction that a God all-glorious can have glory added unto him. By this rejection of God, agnosticism has embraced complete relativism. Yet this relativism must furnish a basis for the rejection of the absolute. Accordingly, the standard of self-contradiction taken for granted by antitheistic thought presupposes the absolute for its operation. Antitheism presupposes theism. One must stand upon the solid ground of theism to be an effective antitheist. Finally, agnosticism is morally self-contradictory since it pretends to be very humble in its insistence that it makes no sweeping conclusions, while as a matter of fact it has made a universal negative conclusion in total reliance upon itself. The 뱊atural man?is at enmity against God. Introduction What we are concerned with in this syllabus is, first of all, a broad survey, and secondly, a method of defense of the Christian philosophy of life. We shall not attempt to give the survey first, and the defense afterward. On the contrary, we shall try to make the defense as we make the survey, and make the survey as we make the defense. We shall have to approach the matter of a Christian world-and-life view from an historical point of view. Yet after we have dealt with our subject historically, we must deal with it systematically. Only after we have gained a survey of the field by an historical review, are we in a position to deal more systematically with any subject. The real point of the problems of philosophy that confront the human race today cannot be understood if they have not been observed in their growth. The problems of philosophy are today more pointed and more specific than they have ever been. But we cannot deal with the more pointed and the more specific until we have dealt with the more general. On the other hand, our final interest is very definitely in the systematic development of our subject. We do not study history just for the sake of a certain amount of interesting information. As Christians we have a very definite philosophy of history. For us history is the realization of the purposes and plans of the all-sufficient God revealed through Christ in Scripture. And if this is the case we are naturally persuaded that in history lies the best proof of our philosophy of human life. The core of our system of philosophy is our belief in the triune God of Scripture, and in what he has revealed concerning himself and his purposes for man and his world. 1. Divisions Of The Subject We shall deal with our subject in two main divisions; the first is epistemology, and the second is metaphysics. In these two divisions the various divisions of any system of philosophy can be treated. Every system of philosophy must tell us whether it thinks true knowledge to be possible. Or if a system of philosophy thinks it impossible for man to have a true knowledge of the whole of reality or even of a part of reality, it must give good reasons for thinking so. From these considerations, it follows that if we develop our reasons for believing that a true knowledge of God and, therefore, also of the world, is possible because actually given in Christ, we have in fact given what goes in philosophy under the name of epistemology. It will then be possible to compare the Christian epistemology with any and with all others. And being thus enabled to compare them all, we are in a position and placed before the responsibility of choosing between them. And this choosing can then, in the nature of the case, no longer be a matter of artistic preference. We cannot choose epistemologies as we choose hats. Such would be the case if it had been once for all established that the whole thing is but a matter of taste. But that is exactly what has not been established. That is exactly the point in dispute. In the second place, every system of philosophy has a theory of metaphysics. The term metaphysics is often used to define a rather narrow discipline in the field of human knowledge. The term is then used in distinction from psychology, physics, etc., to indicate that in metaphysics we deal with the most ultimate concepts of reality only. In distinction from this narrow use of the term metaphysics, there is a broader use. In that broader sense we employ the term in this syllabus. We mean by metaphysics, then, a complete theory of reality. The mistake should not be made, however, of thinking that we shall attempt to give a detailed philosophy of all branches of human knowledge. On the contrary, as the word metaphysics suggests when used in the narrower sense, we shall have to do only with the most ultimate concepts of human thought. We shall even limit ourselves, almost exclusively, to the concept of God. But the definite understanding will be that our concept of God has specific implications for every branch of human knowledge. Therefore, when we have established our belief in the Christian conception of God, we have, in principle at least, also established our belief in a definite theory of the universe and of man. This point is forgotten again and again in our day. People all too thoughtlessly accept theories of man and of the universe that are altogether out of harmony with their own theory about God. They forget that a Christian conception of God demands a Christian conception of the universe. It should be noted further that, as in epistemology so in metaphysics, the matter of a choice comes up again. We shall find that the Christian theory of metaphysics is the only one that really takes the matter of metaphysics seriously. For the others it has really become a question of taste. The one takes to one type of thing, and the other takes to another type of thing, they say, and it really does not make much difference which one you hold to. The conviction at the basis of such an attitude must be that it is rationally impossible for man to have any knowledge of ultimate things. It will be necessary for us to insist that our opponents make reasonable to us this claim that man can have no knowledge of ultimate things. Unless they are able to do this they have no right to their attitude of carelessness. So then, we are necessarily led once more into a dialogue. We may further observe that in these two divisions of epistemology and metaphysics we deal from a philosophical point of view with that which theology deals with from a theological point of view. The six divisions of systematic theology뾲heology, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology뾞re all included in our theory of reality or metaphysics. Philosophy deals with no concepts that theology does not deal with. It is but a matter of terminology. We emphasize this point because a minister of the gospel should not be in jeopardy every hour lest his theological structure crumble to the ground because of advances in the fields of science and philosophy of which he knows nothing or very little. He should rather realize that in his presentation of biblical truth he has dealt with all the concepts that any human being can possibly deal with. Not as though he can pose as a scientist or a philosopher in the technical sense of the term. It is not necessary for him to be able to do so. He has a right to feel confident that there are no unknown trenches from which the enemy may suddenly pounce upon him. Now this is exactly what may be one of the chief benefits of a course in metaphysics for a theological student. In it he ought to learn that his opponents have exhausted themselves in trying to find a solution for the problems with which he is dealing, and have found no such solution. He ought to see the limits of their thought. He ought to examine the tools with which they labor. He ought to survey the field upon which they operate. If he does this thoroughly he will return with confidence to the propagation of his own position, or if he should feel inclined to reject it, he would at least do it intelligently. Chapter 1: Epistemological Terminology 1. Revelation According to Scripture, God has created the 뱔niverse.?God has created time and space. God has created all the 밼acts?of science. God has created the human mind. In this human mind God has laid the laws of thought according to which it is to operate. In the facts of science God has laid the laws of being according to which they function. In other words, the impress of God뭩 plan is upon his whole creation. We may characterize this whole situation by saying that the creation of God is a revelation of God. God revealed himself in nature and God also revealed himself in the mind of man. Thus it is impossible for the mind of man to function except in an atmosphere of revelation. And every thought of man when it functioned normally in this atmosphere of revelation would express the truth as laid in the creation by God. We may therefore call a Christian epistemology a revelational epistemology. 2. Analysis And Synthesis We must now seek to define this revelational epistemology more closely by relating it still more definitely to the conception of him who gives the revelation. The all-important question is what kind of a God reveals himself. Pantheistic thinkers also speak of God revealing himself and might therefore also speak of a revelational epistemology if they desired. But for the sake of clearness, the term revelation should really be reserved for biblical thought. According to this view God has been, and is, eternally self-conscious. There is no fringe of ignorance or darkness in him. 3. Correspondence It is this concept of a completely self-conscious God that is all-important in epistemology. This appears at once from the implications of such a concept for the fact of human knowledge. True human knowledge corresponds to the knowledge which God has of himself and his world. Suppose that I am a scientist investigating the life and ways of a cow. What is this cow? I say it is an animal. But that only pushes the question back. What is an animal? To answer that question I must know what life is. But again, to know what life is I must know how it is related to the inorganic world. And so I may and must continue till I reach the borders of the universe. And even when I have reached the borders of the universe, I do not yet know what the cow is. Complete knowledge of what a cow is call be had only by an absolute intelligence, i.e., by one who has, so to speak, the blueprint of the whole universe. But it does not follow from this that the knowledge of the cow that I have is not true as far as it goes. It is true if it corresponds to the knowledge that God has of the cow. From this presentation of the matter, it is clear that what we mean by correspondence is not what is often meant by it in epistemological literature. In the literature on the subject, correspondence usually means a correspondence between the idea I have in my mind and the 뱋bject out there.?In the struggle between the 뱑ealists?and the 뱒ubjective idealists?this was the only question in dispute. They were not concerned about the question uppermost in our minds, i.e., whether or not God has to be taken into the correspondence. We may call our position in epistemology a Correspondence Theory of Truth, if only we keep in mind that it is opposed to what has historically been known under that name. 4. Coherence In opposition to the historical correspondence theory of truth there arose in the Kant-Hegel tradition the so-called Coherence Theory of Truth. The Idealists argued in the way that we have argued above about the cow. They said that true knowledge cannot be obtained by a mere correspondence of an idea of the mind to all object existing apart from the mind. The mind and the object of which it seeks knowledge are parts of one great system of reality and one must have knowledge of the whole of this reality before one has knowledge of any of its parts. Accordingly, the Idealists said that the thing that really counted in knowledge was the coherence of any fact with all other facts. To know the place of a fact in the universe as a whole is to have true knowledge. This position, as we shall see more fully later, approaches, in form, what we are after in our position. Yet it is only in form that it approaches our position. That this is true can be seen from the determining fact that the Absolute to which the Idealist seeks to relate all knowledge is not the completely self-conscious God of Christianity. We cannot prove this point here. We only state it as our conviction here in order to clear the ground. The Absolute of Idealism, we believe, is not really an absolute because he exists as merely correlative to the space-time world. Accordingly there are new facts arising for him as well as for us. God becomes a primus inter pares, a One among others. He can no longer be the standard of human knowledge. It is our contention that only the Christian can obtain real coherence in his thinking. If all of our thoughts about the facts of the universe are correspondence with God뭩 ideas of these facts, there will naturally be coherence in our thinking because there is a complete coherence in God뭩 thinking. On the other hand we hold that the Idealistic coherence theory of truth cannot lead to coherence because it omits the source of all coherence, namely, God. In a way it might be well for us to call our position the Coherence Theory of Truth because we claim to have true coherence. Whether we call our position a correspondence theory or whether we call it a coherence theory, we have in each case to distinguish it sharply from the theories that have historically gone by these names. Accordingly, the determining factor must be a consideration of that which is most fundamental in our theory of correspondence or of coherence. Now this depends upon the question whether we have God뭩 knowledge in mind first of all, or whether we begin with human knowledge. For God, coherence is the term that comes first. There was coherence in God뭩 plan before there was any space-time fact to which his knowledge might correspond, or which might correspond to his knowledge. On the other hand, when we think of human knowledge, correspondence is of primary importance. If there is to be true coherence in our knowledge there must be correspondence between our ideas of facts and God뭩 ideas of these facts. Or rather we should say that our ideas must correspond to God뭩 ideas. Now since we are dealing with opponents who speak of human knowledge almost exclusively, we can perhaps best bring out the distinctiveness of our position by calling it the Correspondence Theory of Truth. An additional reason for this choice is that at the present time the old correspondence theory has pretty well died down, leaving the coherence theory in control of the field. Hence we have the advantage of a different name from the current name, since we are interested in making it clear that we really have a different theory from the current theory. 5. Objectivity Another term that needs description before we can proceed with our historical survey is that of 뱋bjectivity.?In ordinary speech we understand by an 뱋bject?anything that exists 뱋ut there,?that is, independently of the human mind. We then claim to have objective knowledge of something if the idea that we have in our minds of that thing corresponds to the thing as it exists independently of the mind. We may have false ideas about a thing. In that case we say that it is only subjective and does not correspond to reality. The controversy between Berkeley and his opponents hinged on the point whether or not there are objects 뱋ut there?to which our knowledge corresponds. Berkeley said that to be is to be perceived. He said, therefore, that all knowledge is subjective only. His opponents maintained the contrary. Johnson is said to have tried to refute Berkeley by kicking against a stone. The coherence theory of truth implied a new conception of objectivity. For it, objectivity no longer was the correspondence of an idea to a certain object supposed to exist in total independence of the mind. For it, objectivity meant a significant reference to the whole system of truth. One would have a true idea of a cow not by having a replica of the cow in one뭩 mind, but by understanding the place of the cow in the universe. Now it will be readily understood that as far as the form of the matter is concerned the Christian conception of objectivity stands closer to the latter than to the former position. For us, too, the primary question is not that of the out-thereness of the cow. What we are chiefly concerned about is that our idea of the cow shall correspond to God뭩 idea of the cow. If it does not, our knowledge is false and may be called subjective. But the exact difference between the Idealistic conception of objectivity and ours should be noted. The difference lies just here, that, for the Idealist, the system of reference is found in the Universe inclusive of God and man, while for us, the point of reference is found in God alone. When therefore we examine the various epistemological views with regard to their 뱋bjectivity,?we are interested most of all in knowing whether or not these views have sought the knowledge of an object by placing it into its right relation with the self-conscious God. The other questions are interesting enough in themselves but are comparatively speaking not of great importance. Even if one were not anxious about the truth of the matter, it ought still to be plain to him that there can be no more fundamental question in epistemology than the question whether or not facts can be known without reference to God. Suppose for argument뭩 sake that there is such a God. And surely the possibility of it anybody ought to be willing to grant unless he has proved the impossibility of God뭩 existence. Suppose then the existence of God. Then it would be a fact that every fact would be known truly only with reference to him. If then one did not place a fact into relation with God, he would be in error about the fact under investigation. Or suppose that one would just begin his investigations as a scientist, without even asking whether or not it is necessary to make reference to such a God in his investigations, such a one would be in constant and in fundamental ignorance all the while. And this ignorance would be culpable ignorance, since it is God who gives him life and all good things. It ought to be obvious then that one should settle for himself this most fundamental of all epistemological questions, whether or not God exists. Christ says that as the Son of God, he will come to judge and condemn all those who have not come to the Father by him. 6. Method Finally we must discuss the question of method. At this stage we are interested only in seeing what sort of method of investigation is involved in Christianity. At the outset it ought to be clearly observed that every system of thought necessarily has a certain method of its own. Usually this fact is overlooked. It is taken for granted that everybody begins in the same way with an examination of the facts, and that the differences between systems come only as a result of such investigations. Yet this is not actually the case. It could not actually be the case. In the first place, this could not be the case with a Christian. His fundamental and determining fact is the fact of God뭩 existence. That is his final conclusion. But that must also be his starting point. If the Christian is right in his final conclusion about God, then he would not even get into touch with any fact unless it were through the medium of God. And since man has, through the fall in Adam, become a sinner, man cannot know and therefore love God except through Christ the Mediator. And it is in Scripture alone that he learns about this Mediator. Scripture is the Word of Christ, the Son of God and Son of man. No sinner knows anything truly except he knows Christ, and no one knows Christ truly unless the Holy Ghost, the Spirit sent by the Father and the Son, regenerates him. If all things must be seen 밿n God?to be seen truly, one could look ever so long elsewhere without ever seeing a fact as it really is. If I must look through a telescope to see a distant star, I cannot first look at the star to see whether there is a telescope through which alone I could see it. If I must look through a microscope to see a germ, I cannot first look at the germ with the naked eye to see if there is a microscope through which alone I can see it. If it were a question of seeing something with the naked eye and seeing the same object more clearly through a telescope or a microscope, the matter would be different. We may see a landscape dimly with the naked eye and then turn to look at it through a telescope and see it more clearly. But such is not the case with the Christian position. According to it, nothing at all can be known truly of any fact unless it be known through and by way of man뭩 knowledge of God. But if it be readily granted that a Christian begins with a bias, it will not so readily be granted that his opponents also begin with a bias. Yet this is no less the case. And the reason for this is really the same as that given above in the case of the Christian. We may again illustrate with our telescope analogy. The antitheist is one who has made up his mind in advance that he will never look through a telescope. He maintains steadfast in his conviction that there are some facts that can be known truly without looking through a telescope. This much is implied in the very idea of starting to see whether there is a God. It will be observed that even to say that there are some facts that can be known without reference to God, is already the very opposite of the Christian position. It is not necessary to say that all facts can be known without reference to God in order to have a fiat denial of the Christian position. The contention of Christianity is exactly that there is not one fact that can be known without God. Hence if anyone avers that there is even one fact that can be known without God, he reasons like a non-Christian. It follows then that such a person in effect rejects the whole of the Christian position, the final conclusions as well as the starting point. And that means that such a person has at the outset taken for granted that there is no God in whom alone 밼acts?can be known. In other words, such a person has taken for granted that God is at least not such a 밼act?that he is related to every other 밼act?so that no other fact can be understood without reference to the 밼act?of God. It was needful to make this point that every human being must necessarily begin with a 밷ias?clear, at this stage, because it is often assumed that the real difference between the traditionally Christian position and the ordinary philosophical and scientific methods exists in the fact that the traditional position alone is prejudiced, while all others are open-minded. It was necessary, too, to emphasize the universality of 뱎rejudice?at this point because it will thus become clear that when the Christian and his opponent use the same terminology they do not mean the same things. Both speak of inductive, deductive and transcendental methods, but each of them presupposes his own starting point, when he uses these terms, and the fact gives these terms a different meaning in each case. It follows from this too that what the Christian is opposing is not these methods, as such, but the anti-Christian presuppositions at the base of them. 7. Knowledge Which method fits with a certain system of thought depends upon the idea of knowledge a system has. For the Christian system, knowledge consists in understanding the relation of any fact to God as revealed in Scripture. I know a fact truly to the extent that I understand the exact relation such a fact sustains to the plan of God. It is the plan of God that gives any fact meaning in terms of the plan of God. The whole meaning of any fact is exhausted by its position in and relation to the plan of God. This implies that every fact is related to every other fact. God뭩 plan is a unit. And it is this unity of the plan of God, founded as it is in the very being of God, that gives the unity that we look for between all the finite facts. If one should maintain that one fact can be fully understood without reference to all other facts, he is as much antitheistic as when he should maintain that one fact can be understood without reference to God. 8. Implication From this conception of knowledge it will appear which method a Christian would naturally be bound to use. That method we may perhaps best designate as the method of implication. What we seek to do in our search for understanding the universe is to work ourselves ever more deeply into the relations that the facts of the universe sustain to God. That is, we seek to implicate ourselves more deeply into a comprehension of God뭩 plan in and with every fact that we investigate. Suppose that I am a biologist, studying the color of certain frogs. In order to do so, I must seek to know all about flogs in general. I must have some conception about the species as a whole, before I can intelligently study the individual. Or if I am studying some animal about which no information is available from the records of science, it is still necessary that I have a theory about animal life in general, in order to engage in fruitful research. Thus in starting any investigation the general precedes the particular. No one without any general notion about animal life would ever think of investigating a point of detail. Then when I continue my investigation, I must seek to relate this particular frog to other frogs, then the frogs to other animal life, and then animal life as such to human life, and human life to the conception of God that I have. Now this approach from the bottom to the top, from the particular to the general is the inductive aspect of the method of implication. The greater the amount of detailed study and the more carefully such study is undertaken, the more truly Christian will the method be. It is important to bring out this point in order to help remove the common misunderstanding that Christianity is opposed to factual investigation. That the opponents of Christianity are still seeking to spread this misunderstanding may be seen, for instance, from such a book as that of Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism. Throughout the book it is stated time and again that the believers in the traditionally Christian position are opposed to the spread of the knowledge of all the facts discovered by science. Now it were a great deal better for Liberalism itself if it were willing to fight openly and admit that the whole fight is one about two mutually opposite philosophies of life, instead of about the hiding or non-hiding of certain facts. 9. Deduction And Induction Then, corresponding to the inductive aspect of the method of implication is the deductive aspect. We may define this as the control of the general over the particular. Our conception of God controls the investigation of every fact. We are certain, as certain as our conviction of the truth of the entire Christian position, that certain 밼acts?will never be discovered. One of these, for example, is 뱓he missing link.?The term 뱈issing link?we take in its current meaning of a gradual transition from the non-rational to the rational. As such, it is an anti-Christian conception, inasmuch as it implies that the non-rational is more ultimate than the rational. At least the anti-Christian wants to leave the question of the relative ultimacy of the rational to the non-rational an open question, while the Christian can never afford to do this. For the Christian, it is a settled and not an open question. And this difference between the Christian and his opponents comes to the lore in the method of investigation of facts. The anti-Christian holds that any sort of fact may appear. He thinks this to be one of the most important requirements of a truly scientific attitude. On the other hand, the Christian holds that no fact will appear that could disprove the ultimacy of the fact of God, and therefore of what he has revealed of himself and his plan for the world through Christ in the Scriptures. We may illustrate this point by the example of a mathematician who finds that three points are related to one another by the arc of a circle. Then when he proceeds to draw the circle he follows a definitely 뱎rescribed?course, even if he has made no mark on his paper yet. If it is the circle that relates the points, and if the circle exhausts the relation of the points, the mathematician cannot reasonably expect to find other points on a tangent to the circle that are nevertheless related to the points of the circle. Now we may compare the circle of the mathematician to the Christian concept of God. We hold that the meaning of any one finite fact is exhausted by its relation to the plan of God. Hence this same thing will hold tot any two or three facts. And it follows that no other facts can stand in any possible relation to these facts unless they too are related to this one comprehensible plan of God. In other words, only Christian facts are possible. For any fact to be a fact at all, it must be what Christ in Scripture says it is. This is the main point in dispute between Christians and non-Christians. The difference between the two does not only appear in the interpretation of facts after they have been found, but even in the question what facts one may expect to find. And it does not go without saying, as is all too often assumed, that the non-Christian is right in looking for any kind of fact. If the Christian position should prove to be right in the end, then the anti-Christian position was wrong, not only at the end, but already at the beginning. From the description given of the deductive and the inductive aspects of the method of implication, it will now appear that what has historically been known by the deductive and inductive methods are both equally opposed to the Christian method. By the deductive method as exercised, e.g., by the Greeks, was meant that one begins his investigations with the assumption of the truth and ultimacy of certain axioms, such as, for example, that of causal relation. The question whether these axioms rest in God or in the universe was in that case not considered to be of great importance. Not as though the question was not raised. Plato did consider the question whether God was back of the ideas or whether the ideas were back of God. Yet this question was not given the importance that we give to it. We must put the point more strongly. The question was, in effect, given the wrong answer. It was assumed that the true, the beautiful and the good rest in themselves, and that God is subordinate to them. For us the question is all-important. If the axioms on which science depends are thought of as resting in the universe, the opposite of the Christian position is in effect maintained. The only rationality they know of in the universe is then the mind of man. Hence the alternative may be stated by saying that according to the Christian position, the basis of human investigation is in God, while for the antitheistic position the basis of human investigation is in man. Similarly with the more modern method of induction. What is meant by induction as a method of science is the gathering of facts without reference to any axioms, in order to find to what these facts may lead us. Many scientists claim this method to be the method of science. But we have already seen that the usual assumption underlying this method is the antitheistic one, that there may be any kind of fact. Hence the difference between the prevalent method of science and the method of Christianity is not that the former is interested in finding the facts and is ready to follow the facts wherever they may lead, while the latter is not ready to follow the facts. The difference is rather that the former wants to study the facts without God, while the latter wants to study the facts in the light of the revelation God gives of himself in Christ. Thus the antithesis is once more that between those for whom the final center of reference in knowledge lies in man, and those for whom the final center of reference for knowledge lies in God, as this God speaks in Scripture. Accordingly, we pay scant attention to the historic quarrel between the apostles of deduction and the apostles of induction. Our quarrel is not with either of them in particular but with both of them in general. To us the only thing of great significance in this connection is that it is often found to be more difficult to distinguish our method from the deductive method than from the inductive method. But the favorite charge against us is that we are still bound to the past and are therefore employing the deductive method. Our opponents are thoughtlessly identifying our method with the Greek method of deduction. For this reason it is necessary for us to make the difference between these two methods as clear as we can. From our discussion it will also appear that even the method of implication, as employed by Idealistic philosophy, is quite the opposite of ours. Here especially it is of paramount importance to distinguish clearly. We have purposely chosen the name implication for our method because we believe that it really fits in with the Christian scheme, while it fits in with no other scheme. Hence we must take particular pains to note that the method of implication as advocated especially by B. Bosanquet and other Idealists, is really as fundamentally opposed to our method as is the method of ancient deductivism and of modern inductivism. The difference is once more that we believe the Idealists to have left God out of consideration. 10. A Priori And A Posteriori Closely related to the terms inductive and deductive are the terms a posteriori and a priori. The literal meaning of these terms is 밼rom that which follows or is subsequent,?and 밼rom that which is before,?respectively. An a posteriori method is one that is practically identical with the empirical or inductive method. The a priori method is usually identified with the deductive method. We need only observe that a priori reasoning, and a posteriori reasoning, are equally anti-Christian, if these terms are understood in their historical sense. As such they contemplate man뭩 activity in the universe but do not figure with the significance of God above the universe. 11. Transcendental One more point should be noted on the question of method, namely, that from a certain point of view, the method of implication may also be called a transcendental method. We have already indicated that the Christian method uses neither the inductive nor the deductive method as understood by the opponents of Christianity, but that it has elements of both induction and of deduction in it, if these terms are understood in a Christian sense. Now when these two elements are combined, we have what is meant by a truly transcendental argument. A truly transcendental argument takes any fact of experience which it wishes to investigate, and tries to determine what the presuppositions of such a fact must be, in order to make it what it is. An exclusively deductive argument would take an axiom such as that every cause must have an effect, and reason in a straight line from such an axiom, drawing all manner of conclusions about God and man. A purely inductive argument would begin with any fact and seek in a straight line for a cause of such an effect, and thus perhaps conclude that this universe must have had a cause. Both of these methods have been used, as we shall see, for the defense of Christianity. Yet neither of them could be thoroughly Christian unless they already presupposed God. Any method, as was pointed out above, that does not maintain that not a single fact can be known unless it be that God gives that fact meaning, is an anti-Christian method. On the other hand, if God is recognized as the only and the final explanation of any and every fact, neither the inductive nor the deductive method can any longer be used to the exclusion of the other. That this is the case can best be realized if we keep in mind that the God we contemplate is an absolute God. Now the only argument for an absolute God that holds water is a transcendental argument. A deductive argument as such leads only from one spot in the universe to another spot in the universe. So also an inductive argument as such can never lead beyond the universe. In either case there is no more than an infinite regression. In both cases it is possible for the smart little girl to ask, 밒f God made the universe, who made God??and no answer is forthcoming. This answer is, for instance, a favorite reply of the atheist debater, Clarence Darrow. But if it be said to such opponents of Christianity that, unless there were an absolute God their own questions and doubts would have no meaning at all, there is no argument in return. There lie the issues. It is the firm conviction of every epistemologically self-conscious Christian that no human being can utter a single syllable, whether in negation or in affirmation, unless it were for God뭩 existence. Thus the transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is. It does not seek to find whether the house has a foundation, but it presupposes that it has one. We hold that the anti-Christian method, whether deductive or inductive, may be compared to a man who would first insist that the statue of William Penn on the city hall of Philadelphia can be intelligently conceived of without the foundation on which it stands, in order afterwards to investigate whether or not this statue really has a foundation. It should be particularly noted, therefore, that only a system of philosophy that takes the concept of an absolute God seriously can really be said to be employing a transcendental method. A truly transcendent God and a transcendental method go hand in hand. It follows then that if we have been correct in our contention that Hegelian Idealism does not believe in a transcendent God, it has not really used the transcendental method as it claims that it has. Now at this juncture it may be well to insert a brief discussion of the place of Scripture in all this. The opponent of Christianity will long ago have noticed that we are frankly prejudiced, and that the whole position is 밷iblicistic.?On the other hand, some fundamentalists may have feared that we have been trying to build up a sort of Christian philosophy without the Bible. Now we may say that if such be the case, the opponent of Christianity has sensed the matter correctly. The position we have briefly sought to outline is frankly taken from the Bible. And this applies especially to the central concept of the whole position, viz., the concept of an absolute God. Nowhere else in human literature, we believe, is the concept of an absolute God presented. And this fact is once more intimately related to the fact that nowhere else is there a conception of sin, such as that presented in the Bible. According to the Bible, sin has set man at enmity against God. Consequently it has been man뭩 endeavor to get away from the idea of God, that is, a truly absolute God. And the best way to do this was to substitute the idea of a finite God. And the best way to accomplish this subordinate purpose was to do it by making it appear as though an absolute God were retained. Hence the great insistence on the part of those who are really anti-Christian, that they are Christian. It thus appears that we must take the Bible, its conception of sin, its conception of Christ, and its conception of God and all that is involved in these concepts together, or take none of them. So also it makes very little difference whether we begin with the notion of an absolute God or with the notion of an absolute Bible. The one is derived from the other. They are together involved in the Christian view of life. Hence we defend all or we defend none. Only one absolute is possible, and only one absolute can speak to us. Hence it must always be the same voice of the same absolute, even though he seems to speak to us at different places. The Bible must be true because it alone speaks of an absolute God. And equally true is it that we believe in an absolute God because the Bible tells us of one. 1{ 1 In some of his recent publications뾭articularly in his work De Heilige Schrift, 1966?967뾆r. G. C. Berkouwer warns orthodox Christians against having a formal view of Scripture. He stresses the fact that the content of biblical teaching and the idea of the Bible are involved in one another. It is this point that the syllabus made in 1939.} And this brings up the point of circular reasoning. The charge is constantly made that if matters stand thus with Christianity, it has written its own death warrant as far as intelligent men are concerned. Who wishes to make such a simple blunder in elementary logic, as to say that we believe something to be true because it is in the Bible? Our answer to this is briefly that we prefer to reason in a circle to not reasoning at all. We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man. The method of implication as outlined above is circular reasoning. Or we may call it spiral reasoning. We must go round and round a thing to see more of its dimensions and to know more about it, in general, unless we are larger than that which we are investigating. Unless we are larger than God we cannot reason about him any other way, than by a transcendental or circular argument. The refusal to admit the necessity of circular reasoning is itself an evident token of opposition to Christianity. Reasoning in a vicious circle is the only alternative to reasoning in a circle as discussed above. In a rough general way we have in this chapter sought to define the terminology to be used, and have therewith also sought to give something of a preliminary outline of the Christian epistemology. It was necessary that we should do this before entering upon our historical review so that we might have some standard by which to judge of history. For even those who begin with the avowed purpose of letting history produce its own standard, have in reality begun with a philosophy of history, namely, one that maintains that history is in itself apart from God able to produce such a standard. Beside this, it was necessary that we should justify our choice of historical material. We have said that, for us, the question of the place given to the concept of God determines the value of a theory of epistemology. Hence it is this question chiefly that we seek to answer in our historical survey. But our opponents will think such a procedure an evident token of perdition. To them the question of the position is not of primary importance. Accordingly, even this is a controversial point on which one has to take sides at the outset. It is in itself a merit to become aware at the outset of the intensely controversial character of every effort at constructing a life-and-world view. Chapter 2: Historical Survey: A: Greek Epistemology: Its Starting Point From a general point of view Greek philosophy always remains important. It is there that the human mind has for the first time given systematic expression to its deepest thought. Accordingly, any individual seeking to acquaint himself with an understanding, even of modern philosophy, can well afford to spend a good share of the time at his disposal on Greek philosophy. From a more definite point of view, Greek philosophy is important to the student of Christian theism. 1{ 1 We now allow the terms theism, Christian theism, and the like to stand as they were used in the 밼irst edition.?They then stood for what God in his revelation through Christ in the Scriptures tells about himself and his plan for man and his world.} In Greek philosophy, and in Greek philosophy only, has the antitheistic mind fully expressed itself without the intermixture of semi-Christian elements. It is of course true that the most comprehensive expositions of antitheistic thought are found in such modern philosophers as Kant and Hegel. But it remains a fact that in these and in all other writers an influence direct or indirect is felt that is foreign to the genius of antitheistic thought. Hence the pivotal importance of Greek philosophy for our purpose. Still more important does Greek philosophy become for us if we remember that one of the points of hottest debate between the theist and the antitheist is the question of a starting point. Now it is in Greek philosophy alone that we can observe the way in which all antitheist begins his investigations in the field of epistemology. We are, moreover, especially fortunate in the fact that Greek speculation came to one grand expression in the philosophy of one or two men, Plato and Aristotle. By common consent no greater minds than these have arisen in the history of the human race.
Akkadian Myths and Epics
Akkadian Myths and Epics 2002-08-05 15:39:12 read : 2 TRANSLATOR: E. A. SPEISER   The material here offered is intended to be representative rather than exhaustive. It is not always possible to draw a sharp line between Akkadian compositions devoted to myths and related material, and those that concern other types of religious literature, not to mention special categories of historical nature. Furthermore, considerations of space and time have tended to exclude sundry literary remains whose bearing on the purpose of this work is not immediately apparent. It is hoped, however, that nothing of genuine relevance has been omitted. As regards the order of the individual subjects, it was deemed advisable to present in succession the two major survivals of this group of texts, namely, The Creation Epic and The Epic of Gilgamesh. The alternative procedure would have been to group some of the minor subjects with the one epic, and some with the other. The present arrangement has a sound biblical precedent in the order of the books of the Prophets.   In translating material which has come down to us in poetic form, there arises the inevitable conflict between adherence to the force and flavor of the original idiom-as that idiom is understood-and adherence to the given poetic form. In the present instance, preference was given to the demands of meaning, whenever necessary. Elsewhere slight exceptions have been made in an effort to reflect the measures of the Akkadian versenormally a unit of two distinct halves with two beats in each half. Where the text presents an overlong line as a result of a mechanical combination of two verses, the added verse has been indented in the translation so as not to alter the line count of the text. In lines grown unwieldy for other reasons-such as theological addition in the original, or the helplessness of the translator when confronted with the economy or the elusiveness of the Akkadian idiom-indentation has likewise proved to be a convenient device. The strong temptation to indicate logical transitions in the context by means of paragraphing has been resisted on the ground that such divisions might be regarded as arbitrary. Where, however, the text suggests paragraphing by means of horizontal lines (as in The Epic of Gilgamesh), the translation has followed suit by resorting to added spacing. Virtually all of the material included under this heading has had the benefit of painstaking study over a period of many years. The principal editions of the texts and the latest discussions and translations arc listed in the respective introductions to the individual subjects. Each revision is indebted to some extent to its various predecessors. My own debt to my colleagues, past-and present, is too great to be acknowledged in detail. I have tried, however, to note explicitly such appropriated improvements and observations as may not as yet have become the common property of Assyriological scholarship. In fairness to others, it was necessary also to call attention to the occasional departures for which I alone must bear the responsibility. The existing gaps in the texts, at any rate, and the lacunae in our understanding of what is extant, are still much too formidable for anything like a definitive translation.       The Creation Epic   The struggle between cosmic order and chaos was to the ancient Mesopotamians a fateful drama that was renewed at the turn of each new year. The epic which deals with these events was therefore the most significant expression of the religious   literature of Mesopotamia. The work, consisting of seven tablets, was known in Akkadian as Enfima elil "When on high," after its opening words. It was recited with due solemnity on the fourth day of the New Year's festival. Portions of this work were first made available in modern times by George Smith, in The Chaldean 4ccount of Genesis (i876). The flow of material has continued intermittently ever since. We owe these texts to three main sources: (a) The British excavations at Nineveh; the relevant texts have been published in CT, xiii (iooi) and in L. W. King's The Seven Tablets of Creation (2 V@S.,'1902). (b) Ile German excavations at Ashur; texts in E. Ebeling's Keilschrifttexte aus 4ssur religibsen Inhalts (1915 ff-)- (c) 'Me British-American excavations at Kish; texts in S. Lang@o'n's Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts (1923 ff-; Vol. vi). Scattered fragments have appeared in the periodical publications. A convenient compilation of the texts has been given by A. Deimcl in his Enuma Elil (2nd ed., 1936). This book contains a useful textual apparatus, but it does not altogether eliminate the need for comparison with the basic publications. In recent years, large gaps in Tablet VIT have been filled by E. Ebeling in M,40G, xit (1939), part 4, and these additions have been supplemented and elucidated by W. von Soden in Z,4, xlvii (i942), 1-26. The only part that still is largely unknown is Tablet V. The various studies and translations of this epic are too numerous for a complete survey. The more recent ones include: S. Langdon, The Babylonian Epic of Creation (1923); E. Ebeling, 40T, io8 ff.; R. Labat, Le po@me babylonien de la creation (1935); and A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (1942). For the sake of ready reference, I have retained the line count employed by Labat. Heidel's careful translation could scarcely be overestimated in its usefulness. Except for the portions of Tablet VII, which have appeared since, it constituted the fullest rendering possible at the time of its publication. Attention should also be called to W. von Soden's grammatical study, Der hymnischepische Dialckt des Akkadischen, ZA, XL-XLI (1932 f.), and to A. L Oppcnheim's notes on Mesopotamian Mythology 1, Orient-   alia, xvi (I947), 207-38. There is as yet no general agreement as regards the date of composition. None of the extant texts antedates the first millennium B.C. On the internal evidence, however, of the context and the linguistic criteria, the majority of the scholars would assign the epic to the Old Babylonian period, i.e. the early part of the second millennium B.C. 'Mere does not appear to be any convincing reason against this earlier dating. The poem is cast in metric form. One seventh-century copy of Tablet IV, for instance, still shows plainlv the division of lines into halves, thus bringing out the two beats of each half. Theological, political, and exegetical considerations have led to various chanies and additions, but these are readily recognized for the most part thanks to the underlying metric framework.' Unfortunately, a translation cannot make use of this type of evidence, however obvious it may be. In general, the successive revisions have marred the poetic effect of the whole. Nevertheless, enough passages have come down intact to bear witness to a genuine literary inspiration in many instances.   Tablet I   When on high the heaven had not been named,   I A metric rendering of Tablet I into Dutch has been published by F. M. Th. B6hl in IEOL, 11 (1944), 145 ff.     Firm ground below had not been called by name, Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter, (And) Mummu'-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their' waters commingling as a single body; No reed hut' had been matted, no marsh land had appeared, When no gods whatever had been brought into being, Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined- Then it was that the gods were formed within them.' Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called. (Io) Before they had grown in age and stature. Anshar and Kishar were formed, surpassing the others. They prolonged the days, added on the years.' Anu was their heir, of his fathers the rival; Yea, Anshar's first-born, Anu, was his equal. Anu begot in his image Nudimmud.' This Nudimmud was of his fathers the master, Of broad wisdom, understanding, mighty in strength, Mightier by far than his grandfather, Anshar. He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.' (20) The divine brothers banded together, They disturbed Tiamat as they surged back and forth," Yea, they troubled the mood" of Tiamat By their hilarity" in the Abode of Heaven. Apsu could not lessen their clamor And Tiamat was speechless at their [uays]. Their doings were loathsome unto [... ]. Unsavory were their ways; they were overbearing." Then Apsu, the begetter of the great gods,   Cried out, addressing Mummu, his vizier: (30) "O Mumrnu, my vizier, who rejoicest my spirit," Come hither and let us go to Tiamat!" They went and sat down before Tiamat, Exchanging counsel about the gods, their first-born. Apsu, opening his mouth, Said unto resplendent" Tiamat:   PC   2 Not to be confused with the vizier Mummu, for grammatical reasons. .rhaps an epithet in the sense of "mother," as has long bcen suspected. On the various meanings of the term see now A. Heidet in INES, vit (1948), 98-105. 11 -C. se: i the fresh watcrs of Apsii and the marine watcrs of Tiamat "the " In this epic gipiru indkates both the primitive building material-as in this passage; cf. E. Douglas Van Buren, Orientatia, xiii (r944), 32-4nd a cult hut (Tablct I, 77). Both meanings can be reconciled on the basis of W. Andrac's researches into the origin of Mesopotamian shrine architecture; cf. his Das Gotteshaus und die Urformen des Bauens im alien Orient (I 930). Note, however, that the initial gi of this word is not to be confused with Sumerian gi "reed." 5 The waters of Apsri and Tiamat. 6 i.e. a long time elapsed. 7 One of the names of Ea, the earth- and water-god. 8 Reading with one Ashur text, for a-lid "begetter." 9 Var. "fathers." 10 Reading na-mul-lu-nu, with a number of interpreters. Others read the ambiguous second sign as -;ir-, thus obtaining the sense "assaulted their keeper"; cf. Hcidel, BG, 9. 11 Lit. "belly." 12 Cf. W. v. Soden, Z,4, XLIV (1938), 38- 13 For the approximate sense cf. A. L. Oppenheim, Orientalia, xvi (1947), 21o, n' 2. 14 Lit. "liver." 15 This translation ignores a minor grammatical difficulty; the alternative (spoke) with r2ised voice" (cf. Tablet 111, 125) would have to contend with etymological objections.   "Their ways are verily loathsome unto me. By day I find no relief," nor repose by night. I will destroy, I will wreck their ways,   That quiet may be restored. Let us have rest!" (40) As soon as Tiamat heard this, She was wroth and called out to her husband. She cried out aggrieved, as she raged all alone, Injecting woe into her mood: "What? Should we destroy that which we have built? Their ways indeed are most troublesome, but let us attend" kindly!" Then answered Mummu, giving counsel to Apsu; [III-tvishing] and ungracious was Mummu's advice: "Do destroy, my father, the mutinous ways. Then shalt thou have relief by day and   rest by night!" (50) When Apsu heard this, his face grew radiant Because of the evil he planned against the gods, his sons. As for Mummu, by the neck he embraced him As (that one) sat down on his knees to kiss him." (Now) whatever they had plotted between them, Was repeated unto the gods, their first-born. When the gods heard (this)," they were astir, (Then) lapsed into silence and remained speechless. Surpassing in wisdom, accomplished, resourceful, Ea, the all-wise, saw through their" scheme. (6o) A master design against it he devised and set up, Made artful his spell against it, surpassing and holy. He recited it and made it subsist in the deep," As he poured sleep upon him. Sound asleep he lay." When Apsu he had made prone, drenched with sleep, Mummu, the adviser," was powerless to stir" He loosened his band, tore off his tiara, Removed his halo" (and) put it on himself." Having fettered Apsu, he slew him. Mummu he bound and left behind lock. (70)   Having thus upon Apsu established his dwelling, He laid hold on Mummu, holding him by the nose-ropc. After Ea had vanquished and trodden down his foes, Had secured his triumph over his enemies, In his sacred chamber in profound peace had rested, He named it "Apsu," for shrines he assigned (it). In that same place his cult hut" he founded.   · 16 Not mcrely "rest," because of the "clative" force of the prefix I-, function as yet ignored in Akkadian grammars. 17 For this value of ladddu cf. Gilg. XI', 32 and the semantic range of the terms listed in Deimel, SL, 371, 73. 18 The Akkadian appears ambiguous as to subject and object. It would seem, however, that as Mummu came down to his knees, Apsri embraced him by the neck. 19 Var. "ne gods were in tears." 20 That of Apsii and Mummu. 21 Lit. "caused it to be in the waters," viz. those of Apsa. 22 cf. F. W. Geers, INES, Iv (I 945), 66. 23 Reading tam-la-ka with Heidel, BG, io, n. 22. 24 Cf. ICS, v (1951), 65 and n. 15- 25 Following the interpret2tion of A. L. Oppenheim, 1,40S, LXIII (1943),3I ff- 26 The rich crop of variant readings which the Akkadian versions furnish for this passagc, and the consequent V2riCty Of interpretations, appear to be due to the use of an archaic pronomin2l form (lua); cf. W. v. Soden, ZA, XL (1932), 182. 27 See above, notc 4.     Ea and Damkina," his wife, dwelled (there) in splendor. In the chamber of fates, the abode of destinies, A god was engendered, most able and wisest of gods. (8o) In the heart of At)su" was Marduk" created, In the heart of h@ly Apsu was Marduk created. He who begot him was Ea, his father; She who bore him was Damkina, his mother. The breast of goddesses he did suck." The nurse that nursed him filled him with awesomeness. Alluriniz was his figure, sparkling the lift of his eyes. Lordly was his gait, commanding from of old. When Ea saw him, the father who begot him, He exulted and glowed, his heart filled with gladness. (go) He rendered him perfect" and endowed him with a double godhead." Greatly exalted was he above them, exceeding throughout. Perfect were his members beyond comprehension, Unsuited for understanding, difficult to perceive. Four were his eyes, four were his ears; When he moved his lips, fire blazed forth. Large were all four" hearing organs, And the eyes, in like number, scanned all things. He was the loftiest of the gods, surpassing was his stature; His members were enormous, he was exceeding tall.   "My little son, my little son!" (100)   My son, the Sun! Sun of the heavens! Clothed with the halo of ten gods, he was strong to the utmost, As their awesome flashes were heaped upon him. Anu brought forth and begot the fourfold wind Consigning to its power the leader of the host. He fashioned . . . , station[ed] the whirlwind," He produced streams to disturb Tiamat. The gods, given no rest, sufifer in the storm. Their heart(s) having plotted evil, To Tiamat, their mother," said: "When they slew Apsu, thy consort, Thou didst not aid him but remainedst still.   28 The Assyrian versions substitute here and elsewhere @hmu and Labimu for the Babylonian Ea and Damkina; similarly, Anshar-@shur replaces Marduk. 29 "The Deep.,, 30 Var. "Ashur" here and in the next line. 31 Var. "she caused him to suck." 32 The technical term lutelba refers priM2rily to the final inspection of their work by craftsmen before it is pronounced ready for use. cf. also Th. Bauer, Dac Inschrittenwerk Afsarban;pals (Leipzig, 1933), 11, 84. 33 cf. Oppenheim, Orientalia, xvi (I 947), 21 !. 34 Ile word play of'the Akkadian irbo7 erba cannot readily be reflected. 35 Akkadian mdri(ya)titu reflects a double pun: cf. Orientalia, xv (1946), 380, n. 6; Z,4, xxxv (1923), 239, and ZA, xxxvi (1924), 77-79. Grammatically, "Our son, our sont" is also possible. 36 New texts (LX.4, 3 and AnSt ii, 32 f.@f. Addenda) have fillcd. in gaps in lines 104 iff., adding the new linc io6a. Space precludes detailcd comment on various points. In LKI, 3, io6 read qa-tui!-Iu. 31 Ilus LKA, 3-   When the dread fourfold wind he" created, Thy vitals were diluted and so we can have no rest. Let Apsu, thy consort, be in thy mind" And Mummu, who has been vanquished! Thou art left alone ! [] thou pacest about distraught, [without ce]ase. Thou dost not love us! [] pinched are our eyes, (120) []without cease. Let us have rest! [to batt]le. Do thou avenge them! [] and render (them) as the wind!" [When] Tiamat [heard] (these) words, she was pleased:"40 [] you have given. Let us make monsters, [] and the gods in the mid [St ... ]. [let s do] battle and against the gods[]!" They thronged nd marched at the side of Tiamat.   Enraged, they plot without cease night and day, They are set for combat, growling, raging, (130) They form a council to prepare for the fight. Mother Hubur," she who fashions all things, Added matchless weapons, bore monster-serpents, Sharp of tooth, unsparing of tang. [With venom] for blood she has filled their bodies. Roaring dragons she has clothed with terror, Has crowned them with haloes, making them like gods, So that he who beholds them shall perish abjectly, (And) that, with their bodies reared up, none might turn [them back]." She set up the Viper, the Dragon, and the Sphinx, (I40) The Great-Lion, the Mad-Dog, and the Scorpion-Man, Mighty lion-demons, the Dragon-Fly, the Centaur- Bearing weapons that spare not, fearless in battle. Firm were her decrees, past withstanding were they. Withal eleven of this kind she brought [forth]. From among the gods, her first-born, who formed [her Assembly],   She elevated Kin , made him chief amoiig them.   gu The leading of the ranks, command of the Assembly, The raising of weapons for the encounter, advancing to combat, In battle the command-in-chief- (150) These" to his hand she entrusted as she seated him in the Council: "I have cast for thee the spell, exalting thee in the Assembly of the gods. To counsel all the gods I have given thee full power." Verily, thou art supreme, my only consort art thou!   38 Apparently Anu, to judge from LK,4, 339 Lit. "heart." 40 Reading i-lib with F. Delitzsch, 4fO, vi (I 930-31), 222. 41 For this term, which in its application to a goddess represents in effect a female counterpart of Ea, cf. 1. J. Gelb, Hu@ns and Subarians (z944), 92 ff. and E. A. Speiser, 1,40S, LXVIII (1948), 12. 42 Lit. "turn back their breasts." Anodier possibility is "they will not turn back." For lines 132-139, which recur several times later on, cf. Th. Jacobsen, in The Intellectual Adventure of 4@ent Man (1946), 175-6. The entire epic is reviewed, and various passages are translated, ib;d. 172 ff. 43 Rcndering in this f2shion the particle -ma. 44 Ile literal translation of this idiomatic phr2se is "Into thy hand (s) I have chargcd (filled)."   63 Thy utterance shall prevail over all the Anunnaki!" She gave him the Tablets of Fate, fastened on his breast: "As for thee, thy command shall be unchangeable, [Thy word] shall endure!" As soon as Kingu was elevated, possessed of [the rank of Anu], For the gods, his" sons, [they" decreed] the fate: "Your word shall make the fire subside, (i6o) Shall humble the 'Power-Weapon,' so potent in (its) sweep!""   Tablet II   When Tiamat had thus lent import to her handiwork, She prepared for battle against the gods, her offspring. To avenge Apsu, Tiamat wrought evil. That she was girding for battle, was divulged to Ea. As soon as Ea heard of this matter, He lapsed into dark silence and sat right still. Then, on further thought, his anger subsided, To Anshar, his (fore) father he betook himself. When he came before his grandfather, Anshar, All that Tiamat had plotted to him he repeated: (IO) "My father, Tiamat, she who bore us, detests US. She has set up the Assembly" and is furious with rage. All the gods have rallied to her; Even those whom you brought forth march at her side. They throng and march at the side of Tiamat, Enraged, they plot without cease night and day. They are set for combat, growling, raging, They have formed a council to prepare for the fight. Mother Hubur, she who fashions all things, Has added matchless weapons, has born monster-serpents, Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang. With venom for blood she has filled their bodies. Roaring dragons she has clothed with terror, Has crowned them with haloes, making them like gods, So that he who beholds them shall perish abjectly, (And) that, with their bodies reared up, none might turn them back. She has set up the Viper, the Dragon, and the Sphinx, The Great-Lion, the Mad-Dog, and the Scorpion-Man, Mighty lion-demons, the Dragon-Fly, the CentaurBearing weapons that spare not, fearless in battle. (30) Firm are her decrees, past withstanding are they. Withal eleven of this kind she has brought forth. From among the gods, her first-born, who formed her Assembly,   45 Var. "her." 46 Tiamat and Kingu. 47 The word play of the original galru : maglaru is difficult to reproduc For this passage see A. L Oppenheim, Orientalia, xvi (1947), 2 1 9. I retain, however, kit-mu-ru iri place of Oppenheim's lit-mu-ru. 48 For the all-important placc of the pubrum or "assembly" in Mesopotamian society, celestial as well as human, cf. Th. Jacobsen, Primitive Democracy in Mesopotamia, INES, 11 (1943), 159 ff., and my remarks on Some Sources of Intellectual and Social Progress in the Ancient Near East, Studies in the History of Culture (I942), 51 ff. When used in its technical scnse, the word has been capit2lized in this transla6on.   She has elevated Kingu, has made him chief among them. The leading of the ranks, command of the Assembly, The raising of weapons for the encounter, advancing to combat, In battle the cominand-in-chief- These" to his hands [she entrusted] as she seated him in the Council: '[1 have cast the spell] for thee, exalting thee in the Assembly of the gods. [To counsel all the] gods [I have given thee] full power." (40) [Verily, thou art supreme, my only consort] art thou! [Thy utterance shall prevail over all the Anun]naki!' [She has given him the Tablets of Fate, fastened on his breast]: '[As for thee, thy command shall be unchangeable], They word shall endure!' [As soon as Kingu was elevated], possessed of the rank of Anu, [For the gods, her" sons, they decreed the fate: '[Your word] shall make the fire subside, Shall humble the "Power-Weapon," [so potent in (its) sweep! ] ' " [When Anshar heard that Tiamat] was sorely troubled, [He smote his loins" and] bit his lips. (50) [Gloomy was his heart], restless his mood. [He covered] his [mouth] to stifle his outcry:" "f ] battle. [The weapon thou hast made], up, bear thou! [Lo, Mummu and] Apsu thou didst slay. [Now, slay thou Kin]gu, who marches before her. f ] wisdom." [Answered the counselor of] the gods, Nudimmud. (The reply of Ea-Nudimmud is lost in the break. Apparently, Ea had no remedy, for Anshar next turns to Anu:) [To Anu,] his son, ra word] he addressed: "[ ] this, the most puissant of heroes, Whose strength [is outstanding], past resisting his onslaught. [Go] and stand thou up to Tiamat, That her mood [be calmed], that her heart expand. rlf ] she will not hearken to thy word, Then tell her our [word], that she might be calmed." When [he heard] the command of his father, Anshar, [He made straight] for her way, following the road to her. (8o) [But when Anu was near (enough) I to see the plan of Tiamat, [He was not able to face her and] he turned back. [He came abjectly to his father], Anshar. [As though he uere Tiamat" thus he] addressed him:   49 cf. note 47. 50 Tablet 1, 159 has "his." 51 As a sign of distress. 52 Cf. Oppenheim, loc. Cit., 220, n.i. Note also the intransitive forms ofthis verb in the Legend ol Zu (below), A 23, B 52. 53 The suffix -@i in the next line makes it apparent that the statement addressed to Anshar is an cxact quotation of Anu's previous speech to Tiamat. The context bears out this interpretation.     "My hand [suffi]ces not for me to subdue thee." Speechless was Anshar as he stared at the ground, Hair on edge, shaking his head at Ea. All the Anunnaki gathered at that place; Their lips closed tight, [they sat] in silence. "No god" (thought they) "can go [to battle and], (90) Facing Tiamat, escape [with his life]." Lord Anshar, father of the gods, [rose up] in grandeur, And having pondered in his heart, he [said to the Anunnaki]: "He whose [strength] is potent shall be [our] avenger, He who is keen in battle, Marduk, the hero I" Ea called [Marduk] to his place of seclusion. [Givling counsel, he told him what was in his heart:" "O Marduk, consider my advice. Hearken to thy father, For thou art my son who comforts his" heart. When facing Anshar, approach as though in combat; (loo) Stand up as thou speakest; seeing thee, he will grow restful." The lord rejoiced at the word of his father; He approached and stood up facing Anshar. When Anshar saw him, his heart filled with joy. He kissed his lips, his (own) gloom dispelled. "[Ansharl, be not muted; open wide thy lips. I will go and attain thy heart's desire. [Ansharl, be not muted; open wide thy lips. I will go and attain thy heart's desire! What male is it who has pressed his fight against thee? [It is but] Tiamat, a woman, that flies at thee witn   weapons! [O my father-]creator, be glad and rejoice; The neck of Tiamat thou shalt soon tread upon! [O my father-]creator, be glad and rejoice; [The neck] of Tiamat thou shalt soon tread upon!" "My son, (thou) who knowest all wisdom, Calm [Tiamat] with thy holy spell. On the storm-ch[ariot] proceed with al speed. From her [presence] @ey shall not drive (thee)! Turn (them) back!" The lord [rejoiced] at the word of his father. (120) His heart exulting, he said to his father: "Creator of the gods, destiny of the great gods, If I indeed, as your avenger, Am to vanquish Tiamat and save your lives, Set up the Assembly, proclaim supreme my destiny! When jointly in Ubshukinna" you have sat down re-   joicing, Let my word, instead of you, determine the fates. Unalterable shall be what I may bring into being; Neither recalled nor changed shall be the command of my lips." Tablet III   Anshar opened his mouth and   54 Reading: (iml -li-ka-ma ak lib-bi-la i-ta-mi-lu. 55 i.e. his father's. 56'Me Assembly Hall.   (I lo?   To Gaga, his vizier, a word he addressed: "O Gaga, my vizier, who gladdenest my spirit, To Lahmu and Lahamu I will dispatch thee. Thou knowest discernment, art adept at fine talk; The gods, thy fathers, produce thou before me! Let all the gods proceed hither, Let them hold converse, sit down to a banquet, Let them eat festive bread, poured" wine; For Marduk, their avenger, let them fix the decrees. (Io) Be on thy way, Gaga, take the stand before them, And that which I shall tell thee repeat thou unto them: 'Anshar, your son, has sent me hither, Charging me to give voice to [the dictates] of his heart, [Saying]: "Tiamat, she who bore us, detests us. She has set up the [Assembly] and is furious with rage. All the gods have rallied to her; Even those whom you brought forth march at her side. They throng and march at the side of Tiamat. Enraged, they plot without cease night and day. (20) They are set for combat, growling, raging, They have formed a council to prepare for the fight. Mother Hubur, she who fashions all things, Has added matchless weapons, has born monstcr-serpents, Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang. With venom for blood she has filled their bodies. Roaring dragons she has clothed with terror, Has crowned them with haloes, making them like gods, So that he who beholds them shall perish abjectly, (And) that, with their bodies reared up, none might turn them back. (30) She has set up the Viper, the Dragon, and the Sphinx, The Great-Lion, thelMad-Dog, and the Scorpion-Man, Mighty lion-demons, the Dragon-Fly, the Centaur- Bearing weapons that spare not, fearless in battle. Firm are her decrees, past withstanding are they. Withal eleven of this kind she has brought forth. From among the gods, her first-born, who formed [her Assembly], She has elevated Kingu, has made [him] chief among them. The leading of the ranks, [command of the Assembly], The raising of weapons for the encounter, ad[vancing to combat], (40) In battle the comm[andl-in-chief- These to his hands [she entrusted] as she se[ated him in the Council]: '[1 have] cast the spell for thee, [exalting thee] in the Assembly of the gods. To counsel all the gods [I have given thee full power]. [Verily], thou art supreme, my [only consort art thou] I Thy utterance shall prevail over all the [Anunnakil!' She has given him the Tablets of Fate, [fastened on his] breast:   57 This usc of patdqu is attestcd for metallurgy.     'As for thee, thy command shall be unchangeable, Thy word shall endure!' As soon as Kingu was elevated, possessed of the rank of Anu,   For the gods, her sons, they decreed the fate: (50) 'Your word shall make the fire subside, Shall humble the "Power-Weapon," so potent in (its) sweep I' I sent forth Anu; he could not face her. Nudimmud was afraid and turned back. Forth came Marduk, the wisest of gods, your son, His heart having prompted him to set out to face Tiamat. He opened his mouth, saying unto me: 'If I indeed, as your avenger, Am to vanquish Tiamat and save your lives, Set up the Assembly, proclaim supreme my destiny! (6o) When jointly in Ubshukinna you have sat down rejoicing, Let my word, instead of you, determine the fates. Unalterable shall be what I may bring into being; Neither recalled nor changed shall be the command of my lips l' Now hasten hither and promptly fix for him your decrees, That he may go forth to face your mighty foe!" Gaga departed, proceeding on his way. Before Lahmu and Lahamu, the gods, his fathers, He made obeisance, kissing the ground at their feet. He bowed low as he took his place to address them: (7o) "It was Anshar, your son, who has sent me hither, Charging me to give voice to the dictates of his heart, Saying: 'Tiamat, she who bore us, detests us. She has set up the Assembly and is furious with rage. All the gods have rallied to her Even those whom you brought forth march at her side. They throng and march at the side of Tiamat. Enraged, they plot without cease night and day. They are set for combat, growling, raging, They have formed a council to prepare for the fight. (8o) Mother Hubur, she who fashions all things, Has added matchless weapons, has bom monster-serpents, Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang. With venom for blood she has filled their bodies, Roaring dragons she has clothed with terror, Has crowned them with haloes, making them like gods, So that he who beholds them shall perish abjcctly, (And) that, with their bodies reared up, none might turn them back. She has set up vipers," dragons, and sphinxes,   Great-lions, mad-dogs, and scorpion-men, (9) Mighty lion-demons, dragon-flies, and centaurs-   58 In view of the plurals in this passage (one text, however, retains the singulars), the names of the moiisters are this time given in lower case.   Bearing weapons that spare not, fearless in battle. Firm are decrees, past withstanding are they. Withal eleven of this kind she has brought forth. From among the gods, her first-born, who formed her Assembly, She has elevated Kingu, has made him chief among them. The leading of the ranks, command of the Assembly, The raising of weapons for the encounter, advancing to combat, In battle the command-in-chief- These to his hands she has entrusted as she seated him in the Council: (100)   'I have cast the spell for thee, exalting thee in the Assembly of the gods. To counsel all the gods I have given thee full power. Verily, thou art supreme, my only consort art thou! Thy utterance shall prevail over all the Anunnaki!' She has given him the Tablets of Fate, [fastened on his breast]: 'As for thee, thy command shall be unchangeable, Thy word shall endure] I' As soon as Kingu was elevated, [possessed of the rank of Anul, For the gods, her sons, [they decreed the fate]: 'Your word shall make the fire subside,   [Shall humble the "Power-]Weapon," so potent in (its) sweep!'   I sent forth Anu; he could not [face her]. Nudimmud was afraid [and turned back]. Forth came Marduk, the wisest [of gods, your son], [His heart having prompted him to set out] to face Tiamat. He opened his mouth, [saying unto me]: 'If I indeed, [as your avenger], Am to vanquish Tiamat [and save your lives], Set up the Assembly, [proclaim supreme my destiny]! When in Ubshukinna [jointly you sit down rejoicing], Let my word, instead of [you, determine the fates].   Unalterable shall be what [I] may bring into being; Neither recalled nor changed shall be the command [of my lips]!' Now hasten hither and promptly [fix for him] your decrees, That he may go forth to face your mighty foe!" When Lahmu and Lahamu heard this, they cried out aloud, All the Igigi" wailed in distress: "How strange" that they should have made [this] de-   cision!   We cannot fathom the doings of Tiamat!" They made ready" to leave on their journey,   All the great gods who decree the fates. (1130)   They entered before Anshar, filling [Ubshukinnal. They kissed one another in the Assembly.   59 The heavenly deities. 60 Lit. "What has turned strange?" 61 cf. Oppenheim, Oyie@ia, xvi (1947), 223.       They held converse as they [sat down] to the banquet. They ate festive bread, poured [the wine], They wetted their drinking-tubes" with sweet mtoxicant. As thev drank the strong drink, [their] bodies swelled. They @ecame very languid as their spirits rose. For Marduk, their avenger, they fixed the decrees. Tablet IV They erected for him a princely throne. Facing his fathers, he sat down, presiding." "Thou art the most honored of the great gods, Thy decree is unrivaled, thy command is Anu." Thou, Marduk, art the most honored of the great gods, Thy decree is unrivaled, thy word is Anu. From this day unchangeable shall be thy pronouncement. To raise or bring low-these shall be (in) thy hand. Thy utterance shall be true, thy command shall be unimpeachable. No one among the gods shall transgress thy bounds! (Io) Adornment being wanted for the seats of the gods, Let the place of their shrines ever be in thy place. 0 Marduk, thou art indeed our avenger. We have granted thee kingship over the universe entire. When in Assembly thou sittest, thy word shall be supreme. Thy weapons shall not fail; they shall smash thy foes! 0 lord, spare the life of him who trusts thee, But pour out the life of the god who seized evil." Having placed in their midst a piece of cloth, They addressed themselves to Marduk, their first-born: (20) "Lord, truly thy decree is first among gods. Say but to wreck or create; it shall be. Open thy mouth: the cloth will vanish! Speak again, and the cloth shall be whole!" At the word of his mouth the cloth vanished. He spoke again, and the cloth was restored. 65 When the gods, his fathers, saw the fruit of his word, joyfully they did homage: "Marduk is king!"   They conferred on him scepter, throne, and vestment; They gave him matchless weapons that ward off the foes: (30) "Go and cut off the life of Tiamat. May the winds bear her blood to places undisclosed." Bel's destiny thus fixed, the gods, his fathers, Caused him to go the way of success and attainment. He constructed a bow, marked it as his weapon, Attached thereto the arrow, fixed its bow-cord. He raised the mace, made his right hand grasp it; Bow and quiver he hung at his side. In front of him he set the lightning,   62 The term r,#um "tube, pipe" refers here obviously to the drinking-tubes Which are pictured commonly in representations of banquets. 63 Lit. "for advising."   64 i.e. it has the authority of the sky-god Anu. 65 Lit. "outcome of his mouth."   With a blazing flame he filled his body. (40) He then made a net to enfold Tiamat therein. The four winds he stationed that nothing of her might escape, The South Wind, the North Wind, the East Wind, the West Wind. Close to his side he held the net, the gift of his father, Anu. He brought forth Imhullu "the Evil Wind," the Whirlwind, the Hurricane, The Fourfold Wind, the Sevenfold Wind, the Cyclone, the Matchless Wind; Then he sent forth the winds he had brought forth, the seven of them. To stir up the inside of Tiamat they rose up behind him. Then the lord raised up the flood-storm, his mighty weapon. He mounted the storm-chariot irresistible land] terrifying. (50) He harnessed (and) yoked to it a team-of-four, The Killer, the Relentless, the Trampler, the Swift. Sharp were their teeth, hearing poison. They were versed in ravage, in destruction skilled. On his right he posted the Smiter, fearsome in battle, On the left the Combat, which repels all the zealous." For a cloak he was wrapped in an armor of terror;" With his fearsome halo his head was turbaned. The lord went forth and followed his course, Towards the raging Tiamat he set his face. (6o) in his lips he held a spell;" A plant to put out poison was grasped in his hand. Then they milled about him, the gods milled about him, The gods, his fathers, milled about him, the gods milled about him. e lord approached to scan the inside of Tiamat, (And) of Kingu, her consort, the scheme to perceive. As he looks on, his course becomes upset, His will is distracted and his doings are confused. And when the gods, his helpers, who marched at his side, Saw the valiant hero, blurred became their vision. (70) Tiamat emitted [a cry]," without turning her neck, Framing" savage" defiance in her lips:" "Too [implortant art thou [for]" the lord of the gods to rise up against thee!   66 These two lines, hitherto obscured by breaks, havc been filled out and clarified by the fragment transliterated in 4natolian Studies, ii (1952), 27; cf. LK,4, 6. 61 The assonance of the original, viz. nablapti aplubti pulhdti halipma, cannot be readily reproduced; for the passagc cf. LK,4, 6. 68 Sce now 4natolian Studies, ii, 28.   69 cf. E. Weidner, AIO, iii (1926), 123 for the reading [rigmla, although [tdlla "her incantation" is not impossible. For lines 64-83 see the fragment published by Weidncr, ibid., 122-24.   TO For a close semantic parallel cf. judg. i2:6.   71 To give lullfi the same sense as in Tablet VI, 6-7, and Gilg. 1, iv 7. 72 Tiamat's taunt, as rccorded in the next two lines, is not transparently   clear.   73 Reading (kalb-ta-tta a?-nla la, cf. CT, xiii, x7; the third sign does not appear to be adequately reproduced in Deimel, Enuma Eli!, 17, and the fifth sign cannot be read Iii (for fnla) as is done by Labat, PBC, I28.     Is it in their place that they have gathered, (or) in thy place?" Thereupon the lord, having [raised) the flood-storm, his mighty weapon, [TO] enraged [Tiamat] he sent word as follows: "Why art thou risen," art haughtily exalted, Thou hast charged thine own heart to stir up conflict, ... sons reject their own fathers, Whilst thou who hast born them, hast foresworn love! (8o) Thou hast appointed Kingu as thy consort, Conferring upon him the rank of Anu, not rightfully his." Against Anshar, king of the gods, thou seekest evil; [Against] the gods, my fathers, thou hast confirmed thy wickedness. [Though] drawn up be thy forces, girded on thy weapons, Stand thou up, that I and thou meet in single combat!" When Tiamat heard this She was like one possessed; she took leave of her senses. In fury Tiamat cried out aloud. To the roots her legs shook both together." (90) She recites a charm, keeps casting her spell, While the gods of battle sharpen their weapons. Then joined issue Tiamat and Marduk, wisest of gods. They strove" in single combat, locked in battle. The lord spread out his net to enfold her, The Evil Wind, which followed behind, he let loose in her face.   When Tiamat opened her mouth to consume him, He drove in the Evil Wind that she close not her lips. As the fierce winds charged her belly, Her body was distended" and her mouth was wide open. He released the arrow, it tore her belly, It cut through her insides, splitting the heart. Having thus subdued her, he extinguished her life. He cast down her carcass to stand upon it. After he had slain Tiamat, the leader, Her band was shattered, her troupe broken up; And the gods, her helpers who marched at her side, Trembling with terror, turned their backs about, In order to save and preserve their lives. Tightly encircled, they could not escape. He made them captives and he smashed their weapons. Thrown into the net, they found themselves ensnared; Placed in cells, they were filled with wailing; Bearing his wrath, they were held imprisoned.   74 For line' 76-83 cf. now Anatolian StUdieS, 11, 28 as wcll as the Wcidner fragment cited in n. 69. The first (Gurncy fragment) Supplies the part, which were missing in the Weidner fragment@orrecting some of the guesses of modern interpreters. 11 The correction of -ya to -lu, which I proposed in the first edition of ,4NET, is borne out by the Gurney fragment. 16 For malmaiii cf. J. Lewy, Qrientalia, xi (1942), 336, n.i; H. G. Giiterbock, AIO, xiii (1939), 48-- 1 77 Reading id-lu-bu, with Heidel, BG, 3o, n-84, but translating the verb in the scnse established in ICS, v (zg5z), 64 ff. 78 cf. Heidel, BG, 3o, n.85.   And the eleven creatures which she had charged with awe, The band of demons that marched before her, He cast into fetters, their hands f... For all their resistance, he trampled @them) underfoot. And Kingu, who had been made chief among them, He bound and accounted him to Uggae.7" (120) He took from him the Tablets of Fate, not rightfully his, Sealed (them) with a seal" and fastened (them) on his breast. When he had vanquished and subdued his adversaries, Had . . . the vainglorious foe, Had wholly established Anshar's triumph over the foe, Nudimmud's desire had achieved, valiant Marduk Strengthened his hold on the vanquished gods, And turned back to Tiamat whom he had bound. The lord trod on the legs of Tiamat, With his unsparing mace he crushed her skull. (130) When the arteries of her blood he had severed, The North Wind bore (it) to places undisclosed. On seeing this, his fathers were jovful and jubilant, They brought gifts of homage, they to him. Then the lord paused to view her dead body, That he might divide the monster and do artful works. He split her like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky, Pulled down the bar and posted guards. He bade them to allow not her waters to escape. (140) He crossed the heavens and surveyed the regions. He squared Apsu's quarter,"' the abode of Nudimmud, As the lord measured the dimensions of Apsu. The Great Abode, its likeness, he fixed as Esharra, The Great Abode, Esharra, which he made as the firmament. Anu, Enlil, and Ea he made occupy their places.   Tablet V   He constructed stations for the great gods, Fixing their astral likenesses as constellations. He determined the year by designating the zones: He set up three constellations for each of the twelve months. After defining the days of the year [by means] of (heavenly) figures, He founded the station of Nebiru" to determine their (heavenly) bands, That none might transgress or fall short. Alongside it he set up the stations of Enlil and Ea. Having opened up the gates on both sides, He strengthened the locks to the left and the right. (10)   79 God of death. 80 This was an essential act of attestation in Mesopotamian society. 81 For this rendering cf. A. Schott, ZA, XLII (I934), 137. 82 i.e. the planet Jupiter. This station was taken to lie between the band (riksu; cf. 1. 6) of the north, which belonged to Enlil, and the band of the south, which belonged to Ea.       In her" belly he established the zenith. The Moon he caused to shine, the night (to him) entrusting. He appointed him a creature of the night to signify the days: "Monthly, without cease, form designs with a crown. At the month's very start, rising over the land, Thou shalt have luminous horns to signify six days, On the seventh day reaching a [half ]-crown. At full moon" stand in opposition" in mid-month. When the sun [overtakes] thee at the base of heaven, Diminish [thy crown] and retrogress in light. (20) [At the time of disappearance] approach thou the course of the sun, And [on the twenty-ninth] thou shalt again stand in opposition to the sun."   (The remainder of this tablet is broken away or too fragmentary for translation.)   Tablet VI   When Marduk hears the words of the gods, His heart prompts (him) to fashion artful works. Opening @is mouth, he addresses Ea To impart the plan he had conceived in his heart: "Blood I will mass and cause bones to be. I will establish a savage," 'man' shall be his name. Verily, savage-man I will create. He shall be charged with the service of the gods That they might be at case! The ways of the gods I will artfully alter. Though alike revered, into two (groups) they shall be divided." (IO)   Ea answered him, speaking a word to him, Giving him another plan for the relief of the gods: "Let but one of their brothers be handed over; He alone shall perish that mankind may be fashioned." Let the eat gods be here in Assembly, Letthe over that they may endure." Marduk e great gods to Assembly; Presiding" graciously, he issues instructions. To his utterance the gods pay heea." The king addresses a word to the Anunnaki: (20) "If your former statement was true,   83 Tiamat's. 84 Akkadian lopattu, the prototype of the "Sabbath" in so far as the injunctions against all types of activity are concerned. 85 i.e. with regard to the sun. This vcrb was a technical term in Baby- lonian astronomy.   86.For this value of the term, probably a derivative of the ethnic name LU8161U,Ocf. B. Landsbcrger, Klei@atische Forschungen, 1 (1929) ' 321-334 and MAOG, iv (1928), 32o, n. 2; also E. A. Speiser, Mesopotamian Oligins (1930), 95, n. 35. Tlat the Lullu were linkcd by Akkadian sources with th remote and dim past may be gathered from the evidence which I listed inel.40S, Lxviii (1948), 8, as well as from the fact that the flood ship (Gilg., XI, I 40) lands on Mount Nisir, in Lullu country. : 87 out of his blood.   88 Lit. "ordering."   89 Reading u-paq-qu-ul! (var. -lul), with W. von Soden, Z   (1942), 3. Von Soden's notes on the remainder of Tablct VI and on Tablet VII, together with his translation of the hitherto unknown or obscure parts of Tablet VII-based on new fragments and on corrected readings of the text published by E. Ebcling in MAOG, xii (x939), part 4-(See loc. cit., 1-26) have proved very illuminating, as may be seen from the numerous references below; see now LX.4, 7 and 8.     Do (now) the truth on oath by me declare!" Who was it that contrived the uprising, And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle Let him be handed over who contrived the uprising. His guilt I will make him bear. You shall dwell in peacel" The Igigi, the great gods, replied to him, To Lugaldimmerankia," counselor of the gods, their lord:" "It was Kingu who contrived the uprising, And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle." (30) They bound him, holding him before Ea. They imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels). Out of his blood they fashioned mankind. He" imposed the service and let free the gods. After Ea, the wise, had created mankind, Had imposed upon it the service of the god&That work was beyond comprehension; As artfully planned by Marduk, did Nudimmud create it- Marduk, the king of the gods divided All the Anunnaki above and below." (40) He assigned (them) to Anu to guard his instructions. Three hundred in the heavens he stationed as a guard. In like manner the ways of the earth he defined. In heaven and on earth six hundred (thus) he settled. After he had ordered all the instructions, To the Anunnaki of heaven and earth had allotted their portions, The Anunnaki opened their mouths And said to Marduk, their lord: "Now," 0 lord, thou who hast caused our deliverance, What shall be our homage to thee? (50) Let us build a shrine whose name shall be called 'Lo' a chamber for our nightly rese; let us repose in itl Let us build a throne, a recess for his abode!" On the day that we arrive" we shall repose in it." When Marduk heard this, Brightly glowed his features, like the day: "Like that of lofty Babylon, whose building you have requested, Let its brickwork be fashioned. You shall name ie"The Sanctuary."' The Anunnaki applied the implement; For one whole year they molded bricks. (6o) When the second year arrived,   90 cf. Oppenheim, Orientalia, xvl (I947), 234.   91 "The king of the gods of heaven and earth." 92 For lines 28-50 see the fragment published by E. Weidner in .410, xi (1936) 72-74. This material was not available to Labat; von Soden's additions (cf. note 89) came too late to be utilized by Heidel. 93 Ea. 94 Here and elsewhere in this epic the Anunnaki are understood to be the celestial gods (normally Igigi) as well as those of the lower regions. 1 95 Not "O Nannar," as translated by some. For this rebus writing signify-   ing inanna "now" cf. lfO, xi (1936), 73- . 91, Reading a-larl-lu, with v. Soden, lOc- at-, 4, For the New Year's fcstival.   98 For this and the preceding line cf. v. Soden, loc. cit.     They raised high the head" of Esagila equaling Apsu." Having built a stage-tower as high as Apsu, They set up in it an abode for Marduk, Enlil, (and) Ea In their presence he adorned (it) in grandeur."' To the base of Esharra... its horns look down. After they had achieved the building of Esagila, The Anunnaki themselves erected their shrines. all of them gathered, they had built as his dwelling. (70) The gods, his fathers, at his banquets' he seated: "This is Babylon, the place that is your home!'O' Make merry in its precincts occupy its broad [places]."" The great gods took their seats, They set up festive drink, sat down to a banquet. After they had made merry within it,   In Esagila, the splendid, had erformed their rites,'O' p   The norms had been fixed (and) all [their] portents, All the gods apportioned the stations of heaven and earth.'O' The fifty great gods took their seats. (8o) The seven gods of destiny set up the three hundred [in heaven]."' Enlil raised the bo[w, his wea]pon,"' and laid (it) before them. The gods, his fathers, saw the net he had made. When they beheld the bow, how skillful its shape, His fathers praised the work he had wrought.   Raising (it), Anu s oke up in the Assembly of the gods,   p As he kissed the bow: "This is my daughter!" He named the names of the bow as follows: "Longwood is the first, the second is [... ] ; Its third name is Bow-Star, in heaven I have made (go) it shine." (Lines 86-i 12, hitherto largely or wholly destroyed, have now been filled in by another Sultantepe duplicate; cf. Gurney, 4natolian Studies, 11, 33. A translation of lines gi-io4 will be found in the Addenda. Labat's assumed line 98 is to be deleted, following von Soden, Z,4, XL (i932), i6q, but his line count has been retained for convenience.) "Most exalted be the Son, our avenger; Let his sovereignty be surpassing, having no rival. May he shepherd the black-headed ones,"' his creatures. To the end of days, without forgetting, let them acclaim his ways. May he establish for his fathers the great food-offerings; Their support they shall furnish, shall tend their sanctuaries.     99 A play on the sense of Sumerian "Esagila." 100 Meaning 2pparently that the height of Esagila coupon to the depth of Apsii's waters. 101 cf. v' Soden, loc. cii. 102 ib;d. 103 ibid. 104 Var. "which you love," a virtual homonym of "your homc" in Akkadian. 105 V. Soden, 1". cit., 6. 106 ibid. 107 iba. 108 ibid. 109 ibid.   110 A common Akkadian metaphor for "the human race." In the preceding line the term enfita has been taken to reflect the primary sense of Sumerian c n 'lord" r2ther th2n "high priesl"           May he cause incense to be smelled, . . . their spells, A likeness on earth of what he has wrought in heaven. May he order the black-headed to re[ vere him], May the subjects ever bear in mind their god, And may they at his word.pay heed... to the goddess. May food-offerings be home for their gods and goddesses. Without fail let them support their gods! Their lands let them improve, build their shrines, Let the black-headed wait on their gods. (120) As for us, by however many names we pronounce, he is our god! Let us then proclaim his fifty names:...   'He whose ways are orious, whose deeds are likewise, 91   (1) MARDUK, as Ann, his father,"' called him from his birth;... Who provides grazing and drinking places, enriches their stalls, Who with the flood-storm, his weapon, vanquished the detractors, (And) who the gods, his fathers, rescued from distress. Truly, the Son of the Sun,"' most radiant of gods is he. In his brilliant light may they walk forever! On the people he brought forth, endowed with li[fe],   (1@30) The service of the gods he imposed that these may have ease. Creation, destruction, deliverance, grace- Shall be by his command."' They shall look up to him! (2) MARUKKA verily is the god, creator of all, Who gladdens the heart of the Anunnaki, appeases their [spirits]. (3) MARUTUKKU verily is the refuge of the land, proftection of its people]. Unto him shall the' people give praise. (4) BARASHAKUSHU... stood up and took hold of its... reins; Wide is his heart, warm his sympathy. (5) LUCALDIMMFRANKIA is his name which we proclaimed in our Assembly. (140) His commands we have exalted above the gods, his fathers. Verily, he is lord of all the gods of heaven and earth, The king at whose discipline the gods above and below are in mourning.""   111 v. Soden, loc. cit., 7 reads i-piq-qu; but note Gurney, ad loc. 112 A penetrating discussion of these names has been furnished by F. M. Th. B6hl in 410, xl (1936), 191-2z8. The text etymologizes the names in a manner made familiar by the Bible; the etymol<)gies, which accompany virtually evcry name on the long list are meant to be cabalistic and symbolic rather than strictly linguistic, although some of thcm happen to be linguistically sound. The name count has in each casc been indicated in parentheses.   113 Here and elsewhere "father" is used for "grandfather" or "ancestor." 114 Lit. "emergence." 115 cf. T2blet 1, 101-02. 116 Reading ba!-Ii-ma in this line and a-bal-lu in the line above, with V. Soden, loc. c*., 7. For nanna "command" see Z,4, XLIV (1938), 42. 117 Var. SHUDUNSHAKUSHE. 118 i.e. thosc of the land. 119 For the remainder of this tablet cf. the new fragment published by E. Ebcling in U,40G, xii (1939), part 4 and the rcmarks of W. v. Soden in Z-4, XLVII (1942), 7-8. cf. now LK.4, 7-     (6) NARI-LUGALDIMM@NKIA is the name of him Whom we have called the monitor"' of the gods; Who in heaven and on earth founds for us retreats"' in trouble, And who allots stations to the Igigi and Anunnaki. At his name the gods shall tremble and quake in retreat. (7) ASARULUDU is that name of his Which Amu, his father, proclaimed for him. He is truly the light of the gods, the mighty leader, Who, as the protecting deities"' of gods and land, (I5o) In fierce single combat saved our retreats in distress. Asaruludu, secondly, they have named (8) NAMTILLAKU, The god who maintains life,"' Who restored the lost gods, as though his own creation; The lord who revives the dead gods by his pure incantation, Who destroys the wayward foes. Let us praise his prowess!... Asaruludu, whose name was thirdly called (9) NAMRU, The shining god who illumines our ways.11 Three each @f his names"' have Anshar, Lahmu, and Lahamu proclaimed; Unto the gods, their sons, they did utter them: "We have proclaimed three each of his names. (i6o) Like us, do you utter his names!" joyfully the gods did heed their command, As in Ubshukinna their exchanged counsels: "Of the heroic son, our avenger, Of our supporter we will exalt the name!" They sat down in their Assembly to fashion"' destinies, All of them uttering his names in the sanctuary.   Tablet VII   (io) AsARu, bestower of cultivation, who established water letels; Creator of grain and herbs, who causes [vegetation to sprout]."' (II) ASARUALIM, who is honored in the place of counsel, [who excels in counsel]; To whom the gods hope,"' when pos[sessed of fear]. (I2) ASARUALIMNUNNA, the gracious, light of [the father, his begetter], Who directs the decrees of Anu, Enlil, [and Eal. He is their provider who assigns [their portions], Whose horned cap"" is plenty, multiply[ing ... Who banishes consternation from the body of the gods,   (I3) TUTU [is hel, who effects their restoration.   120 This vcrse confirms the equation of alir with Sumerian n a r i made by S. N. Kramer, BASOR, 79 (1940), 25, n. 25. The meaning "monitor" for this form 2nd "admonition, instruction" for alirta would seem to fit all known instances.     121 Lit. "seats."
Akkadian Myths and Epics/ 2002-08-05
Akkadian Myths and Epics The material here offered is intended to be representative rather than exhaustive. It is not always possible to draw a sharp line between Akkadian compositions devoted to myths and related material, and those that concern other types of religious literature, not to mention special categories of historical nature. Furthermore, considerations of space and time have tended to exclude sundry literary remains whose bearing on the purpose of this work is not immediately apparent. It is hoped, however, that nothing of genuine relevance has been omitted. As regards the order of the individual subjects, it was deemed advisable to present in succession the two major survivals of this group of texts, namely, The Creation Epic and The Epic of Gilgamesh. The alternative procedure would have been to group some of the minor subjects with the one epic, and some with the other. The present arrangement has a sound biblical precedent in the order of the books of the Prophets.   In translating material which has come down to us in poetic form, there arises the inevitable conflict between adherence to the force and flavor of the original idiom-as that idiom is understood-and adherence to the given poetic form. In the present instance, preference was given to the demands of meaning, whenever necessary. Elsewhere slight exceptions have been made in an effort to reflect the measures of the Akkadian versenormally a unit of two distinct halves with two beats in each half. Where the text presents an overlong line as a result of a mechanical combination of two verses, the added verse has been indented in the translation so as not to alter the line count of the text. In lines grown unwieldy for other reasons-such as theological addition in the original, or the helplessness of the translator when confronted with the economy or the elusiveness of the Akkadian idiom-indentation has likewise proved to be a convenient device. The strong temptation to indicate logical transitions in the context by means of paragraphing has been resisted on the ground that such divisions might be regarded as arbitrary. Where, however, the text suggests paragraphing by means of horizontal lines (as in The Epic of Gilgamesh), the translation has followed suit by resorting to added spacing. Virtually all of the material included under this heading has had the benefit of painstaking study over a period of many years. The principal editions of the texts and the latest discussions and translations arc listed in the respective introductions to the individual subjects. Each revision is indebted to some extent to its various predecessors. My own debt to my colleagues, past-and present, is too great to be acknowledged in detail. I have tried, however, to note explicitly such appropriated improvements and observations as may not as yet have become the common property of Assyriological scholarship. In fairness to others, it was necessary also to call attention to the occasional departures for which I alone must bear the responsibility. The existing gaps in the texts, at any rate, and the lacunae in our understanding of what is extant, are still much too formidable for anything like a definitive translation.       The Creation Epic   The struggle between cosmic order and chaos was to the ancient Mesopotamians a fateful drama that was renewed at the turn of each new year. The epic which deals with these events was therefore the most significant expression of the religious   literature of Mesopotamia. The work, consisting of seven tablets, was known in Akkadian as Enfima elil "When on high," after its opening words. It was recited with due solemnity on the fourth day of the New Year's festival. Portions of this work were first made available in modern times by George Smith, in The Chaldean 4ccount of Genesis (i876). The flow of material has continued intermittently ever since. We owe these texts to three main sources: (a) The British excavations at Nineveh; the relevant texts have been published in CT, xiii (iooi) and in L. W. King's The Seven Tablets of Creation (2 V@S.,'1902). (b) Ile German excavations at Ashur; texts in E. Ebeling's Keilschrifttexte aus 4ssur religibsen Inhalts (1915 ff-)- (c) 'Me British-American excavations at Kish; texts in S. Lang@o'n's Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts (1923 ff-; Vol. vi). Scattered fragments have appeared in the periodical publications. A convenient compilation of the texts has been given by A. Deimcl in his Enuma Elil (2nd ed., 1936). This book contains a useful textual apparatus, but it does not altogether eliminate the need for comparison with the basic publications. In recent years, large gaps in Tablet VIT have been filled by E. Ebeling in M,40G, xit (1939), part 4, and these additions have been supplemented and elucidated by W. von Soden in Z,4, xlvii (i942), 1-26. The only part that still is largely unknown is Tablet V. The various studies and translations of this epic are too numerous for a complete survey. The more recent ones include: S. Langdon, The Babylonian Epic of Creation (1923); E. Ebeling, 40T, io8 ff.; R. Labat, Le po@me babylonien de la creation (1935); and A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (1942). For the sake of ready reference, I have retained the line count employed by Labat. Heidel's careful translation could scarcely be overestimated in its usefulness. Except for the portions of Tablet VII, which have appeared since, it constituted the fullest rendering possible at the time of its publication. Attention should also be called to W. von Soden's grammatical study, Der hymnischepische Dialckt des Akkadischen, ZA, XL-XLI (1932 f.), and to A. L Oppcnheim's notes on Mesopotamian Mythology 1, Orient-   alia, xvi (I947), 207-38. There is as yet no general agreement as regards the date of composition. None of the extant texts antedates the first millennium B.C. On the internal evidence, however, of the context and the linguistic criteria, the majority of the scholars would assign the epic to the Old Babylonian period, i.e. the early part of the second millennium B.C. 'Mere does not appear to be any convincing reason against this earlier dating. The poem is cast in metric form. One seventh-century copy of Tablet IV, for instance, still shows plainlv the division of lines into halves, thus bringing out the two beats of each half. Theological, political, and exegetical considerations have led to various chanies and additions, but these are readily recognized for the most part thanks to the underlying metric framework.' Unfortunately, a translation cannot make use of this type of evidence, however obvious it may be. In general, the successive revisions have marred the poetic effect of the whole. Nevertheless, enough passages have come down intact to bear witness to a genuine literary inspiration in many instances.   Tablet I   When on high the heaven had not been named,   I A metric rendering of Tablet I into Dutch has been published by F. M. Th. B6hl in IEOL, 11 (1944), 145 ff.     Firm ground below had not been called by name, Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter, (And) Mummu'-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their' waters commingling as a single body; No reed hut' had been matted, no marsh land had appeared, When no gods whatever had been brought into being, Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined- Then it was that the gods were formed within them.' Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called. (Io) Before they had grown in age and stature. Anshar and Kishar were formed, surpassing the others. They prolonged the days, added on the years.' Anu was their heir, of his fathers the rival; Yea, Anshar's first-born, Anu, was his equal. Anu begot in his image Nudimmud.' This Nudimmud was of his fathers the master, Of broad wisdom, understanding, mighty in strength, Mightier by far than his grandfather, Anshar. He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.' (20) The divine brothers banded together, They disturbed Tiamat as they surged back and forth," Yea, they troubled the mood" of Tiamat By their hilarity" in the Abode of Heaven. Apsu could not lessen their clamor And Tiamat was speechless at their [uays]. Their doings were loathsome unto [... ]. Unsavory were their ways; they were overbearing." Then Apsu, the begetter of the great gods,   Cried out, addressing Mummu, his vizier: (30) "O Mumrnu, my vizier, who rejoicest my spirit," Come hither and let us go to Tiamat!" They went and sat down before Tiamat, Exchanging counsel about the gods, their first-born. Apsu, opening his mouth, Said unto resplendent" Tiamat:   PC   2 Not to be confused with the vizier Mummu, for grammatical reasons. .rhaps an epithet in the sense of "mother," as has long bcen suspected. On the various meanings of the term see now A. Heidet in INES, vit (1948), 98-105. 11 -C. se: i the fresh watcrs of Apsii and the marine watcrs of Tiamat "the " In this epic gipiru indkates both the primitive building material-as in this passage; cf. E. Douglas Van Buren, Orientatia, xiii (r944), 32-4nd a cult hut (Tablct I, 77). Both meanings can be reconciled on the basis of W. Andrac's researches into the origin of Mesopotamian shrine architecture; cf. his Das Gotteshaus und die Urformen des Bauens im alien Orient (I 930). Note, however, that the initial gi of this word is not to be confused with Sumerian gi "reed." 5 The waters of Apsri and Tiamat. 6 i.e. a long time elapsed. 7 One of the names of Ea, the earth- and water-god. 8 Reading with one Ashur text, for a-lid "begetter." 9 Var. "fathers." 10 Reading na-mul-lu-nu, with a number of interpreters. Others read the ambiguous second sign as -;ir-, thus obtaining the sense "assaulted their keeper"; cf. Hcidel, BG, 9. 11 Lit. "belly." 12 Cf. W. v. Soden, Z,4, XLIV (1938), 38- 13 For the approximate sense cf. A. L. Oppenheim, Orientalia, xvi (1947), 21o, n' 2. 14 Lit. "liver." 15 This translation ignores a minor grammatical difficulty; the alternative (spoke) with r2ised voice" (cf. Tablet 111, 125) would have to contend with etymological objections.   "Their ways are verily loathsome unto me. By day I find no relief," nor repose by night. I will destroy, I will wreck their ways,   That quiet may be restored. Let us have rest!" (40) As soon as Tiamat heard this, She was wroth and called out to her husband. She cried out aggrieved, as she raged all alone, Injecting woe into her mood: "What? Should we destroy that which we have built? Their ways indeed are most troublesome, but let us attend" kindly!" Then answered Mummu, giving counsel to Apsu; [III-tvishing] and ungracious was Mummu's advice: "Do destroy, my father, the mutinous ways. Then shalt thou have relief by day and   rest by night!" (50) When Apsu heard this, his face grew radiant Because of the evil he planned against the gods, his sons. As for Mummu, by the neck he embraced him As (that one) sat down on his knees to kiss him." (Now) whatever they had plotted between them, Was repeated unto the gods, their first-born. When the gods heard (this)," they were astir, (Then) lapsed into silence and remained speechless. Surpassing in wisdom, accomplished, resourceful, Ea, the all-wise, saw through their" scheme. (6o) A master design against it he devised and set up, Made artful his spell against it, surpassing and holy. He recited it and made it subsist in the deep," As he poured sleep upon him. Sound asleep he lay." When Apsu he had made prone, drenched with sleep, Mummu, the adviser," was powerless to stir" He loosened his band, tore off his tiara, Removed his halo" (and) put it on himself." Having fettered Apsu, he slew him. Mummu he bound and left behind lock. (70)   Having thus upon Apsu established his dwelling, He laid hold on Mummu, holding him by the nose-ropc. After Ea had vanquished and trodden down his foes, Had secured his triumph over his enemies, In his sacred chamber in profound peace had rested, He named it "Apsu," for shrines he assigned (it). In that same place his cult hut" he founded.   · 16 Not mcrely "rest," because of the "clative" force of the prefix I-, function as yet ignored in Akkadian grammars. 17 For this value of ladddu cf. Gilg. XI', 32 and the semantic range of the terms listed in Deimel, SL, 371, 73. 18 The Akkadian appears ambiguous as to subject and object. It would seem, however, that as Mummu came down to his knees, Apsri embraced him by the neck. 19 Var. "ne gods were in tears." 20 That of Apsii and Mummu. 21 Lit. "caused it to be in the waters," viz. those of Apsa. 22 cf. F. W. Geers, INES, Iv (I 945), 66. 23 Reading tam-la-ka with Heidel, BG, io, n. 22. 24 Cf. ICS, v (1951), 65 and n. 15- 25 Following the interpret2tion of A. L. Oppenheim, 1,40S, LXIII (1943),3I ff- 26 The rich crop of variant readings which the Akkadian versions furnish for this passagc, and the consequent V2riCty Of interpretations, appear to be due to the use of an archaic pronomin2l form (lua); cf. W. v. Soden, ZA, XL (1932), 182. 27 See above, notc 4.     Ea and Damkina," his wife, dwelled (there) in splendor. In the chamber of fates, the abode of destinies, A god was engendered, most able and wisest of gods. (8o) In the heart of At)su" was Marduk" created, In the heart of h@ly Apsu was Marduk created. He who begot him was Ea, his father; She who bore him was Damkina, his mother. The breast of goddesses he did suck." The nurse that nursed him filled him with awesomeness. Alluriniz was his figure, sparkling the lift of his eyes. Lordly was his gait, commanding from of old. When Ea saw him, the father who begot him, He exulted and glowed, his heart filled with gladness. (go) He rendered him perfect" and endowed him with a double godhead." Greatly exalted was he above them, exceeding throughout. Perfect were his members beyond comprehension, Unsuited for understanding, difficult to perceive. Four were his eyes, four were his ears; When he moved his lips, fire blazed forth. Large were all four" hearing organs, And the eyes, in like number, scanned all things. He was the loftiest of the gods, surpassing was his stature; His members were enormous, he was exceeding tall.   "My little son, my little son!" (100)   My son, the Sun! Sun of the heavens! Clothed with the halo of ten gods, he was strong to the utmost, As their awesome flashes were heaped upon him. Anu brought forth and begot the fourfold wind Consigning to its power the leader of the host. He fashioned . . . , station[ed] the whirlwind," He produced streams to disturb Tiamat. The gods, given no rest, sufifer in the storm. Their heart(s) having plotted evil, To Tiamat, their mother," said: "When they slew Apsu, thy consort, Thou didst not aid him but remainedst still.   28 The Assyrian versions substitute here and elsewhere @hmu and Labimu for the Babylonian Ea and Damkina; similarly, Anshar-@shur replaces Marduk. 29 "The Deep.,, 30 Var. "Ashur" here and in the next line. 31 Var. "she caused him to suck." 32 The technical term lutelba refers priM2rily to the final inspection of their work by craftsmen before it is pronounced ready for use. cf. also Th. Bauer, Dac Inschrittenwerk Afsarban;pals (Leipzig, 1933), 11, 84. 33 cf. Oppenheim, Orientalia, xvi (I 947), 21 !. 34 Ile word play of'the Akkadian irbo7 erba cannot readily be reflected. 35 Akkadian mdri(ya)titu reflects a double pun: cf. Orientalia, xv (1946), 380, n. 6; Z,4, xxxv (1923), 239, and ZA, xxxvi (1924), 77-79. Grammatically, "Our son, our sont" is also possible. 36 New texts (LX.4, 3 and AnSt ii, 32 f.@f. Addenda) have fillcd. in gaps in lines 104 iff., adding the new linc io6a. Space precludes detailcd comment on various points. In LKI, 3, io6 read qa-tui!-Iu. 31 Ilus LKA, 3-   When the dread fourfold wind he" created, Thy vitals were diluted and so we can have no rest. Let Apsu, thy consort, be in thy mind" And Mummu, who has been vanquished! Thou art left alone ! [] thou pacest about distraught, [without ce]ase. Thou dost not love us! [] pinched are our eyes, (120) []without cease. Let us have rest! [to batt]le. Do thou avenge them! [] and render (them) as the wind!" [When] Tiamat [heard] (these) words, she was pleased:"40 [] you have given. Let us make monsters, [] and the gods in the mid [St ... ]. [let s do] battle and against the gods[]!" They thronged nd marched at the side of Tiamat.   Enraged, they plot without cease night and day, They are set for combat, growling, raging, (130) They form a council to prepare for the fight. Mother Hubur," she who fashions all things, Added matchless weapons, bore monster-serpents, Sharp of tooth, unsparing of tang. [With venom] for blood she has filled their bodies. Roaring dragons she has clothed with terror, Has crowned them with haloes, making them like gods, So that he who beholds them shall perish abjectly, (And) that, with their bodies reared up, none might turn [them back]." She set up the Viper, the Dragon, and the Sphinx, (I40) The Great-Lion, the Mad-Dog, and the Scorpion-Man, Mighty lion-demons, the Dragon-Fly, the Centaur- Bearing weapons that spare not, fearless in battle. Firm were her decrees, past withstanding were they. Withal eleven of this kind she brought [forth]. From among the gods, her first-born, who formed [her Assembly],   She elevated Kin , made him chief amoiig them.   gu The leading of the ranks, command of the Assembly, The raising of weapons for the encounter, advancing to combat, In battle the command-in-chief- (150) These" to his hand she entrusted as she seated him in the Council: "I have cast for thee the spell, exalting thee in the Assembly of the gods. To counsel all the gods I have given thee full power." Verily, thou art supreme, my only consort art thou!   38 Apparently Anu, to judge from LK,4, 339 Lit. "heart." 40 Reading i-lib with F. Delitzsch, 4fO, vi (I 930-31), 222. 41 For this term, which in its application to a goddess represents in effect a female counterpart of Ea, cf. 1. J. Gelb, Hu@ns and Subarians (z944), 92 ff. and E. A. Speiser, 1,40S, LXVIII (1948), 12. 42 Lit. "turn back their breasts." Anodier possibility is "they will not turn back." For lines 132-139, which recur several times later on, cf. Th. Jacobsen, in The Intellectual Adventure of 4@ent Man (1946), 175-6. The entire epic is reviewed, and various passages are translated, ib;d. 172 ff. 43 Rcndering in this f2shion the particle -ma. 44 Ile literal translation of this idiomatic phr2se is "Into thy hand (s) I have chargcd (filled)."   63 Thy utterance shall prevail over all the Anunnaki!" She gave him the Tablets of Fate, fastened on his breast: "As for thee, thy command shall be unchangeable, [Thy word] shall endure!" As soon as Kingu was elevated, possessed of [the rank of Anu], For the gods, his" sons, [they" decreed] the fate: "Your word shall make the fire subside, (i6o) Shall humble the 'Power-Weapon,' so potent in (its) sweep!""   Tablet II   When Tiamat had thus lent import to her handiwork, She prepared for battle against the gods, her offspring. To avenge Apsu, Tiamat wrought evil. That she was girding for battle, was divulged to Ea. As soon as Ea heard of this matter, He lapsed into dark silence and sat right still. Then, on further thought, his anger subsided, To Anshar, his (fore) father he betook himself. When he came before his grandfather, Anshar, All that Tiamat had plotted to him he repeated: (IO) "My father, Tiamat, she who bore us, detests US. She has set up the Assembly" and is furious with rage. All the gods have rallied to her; Even those whom you brought forth march at her side. They throng and march at the side of Tiamat, Enraged, they plot without cease night and day. They are set for combat, growling, raging, They have formed a council to prepare for the fight. Mother Hubur, she who fashions all things, Has added matchless weapons, has born monster-serpents, Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang. With venom for blood she has filled their bodies. Roaring dragons she has clothed with terror, Has crowned them with haloes, making them like gods, So that he who beholds them shall perish abjectly, (And) that, with their bodies reared up, none might turn them back. She has set up the Viper, the Dragon, and the Sphinx, The Great-Lion, the Mad-Dog, and the Scorpion-Man, Mighty lion-demons, the Dragon-Fly, the CentaurBearing weapons that spare not, fearless in battle. (30) Firm are her decrees, past withstanding are they. Withal eleven of this kind she has brought forth. From among the gods, her first-born, who formed her Assembly,   45 Var. "her." 46 Tiamat and Kingu. 47 The word play of the original galru : maglaru is difficult to reproduc For this passage see A. L Oppenheim, Orientalia, xvi (1947), 2 1 9. I retain, however, kit-mu-ru iri place of Oppenheim's lit-mu-ru. 48 For the all-important placc of the pubrum or "assembly" in Mesopotamian society, celestial as well as human, cf. Th. Jacobsen, Primitive Democracy in Mesopotamia, INES, 11 (1943), 159 ff., and my remarks on Some Sources of Intellectual and Social Progress in the Ancient Near East, Studies in the History of Culture (I942), 51 ff. When used in its technical scnse, the word has been capit2lized in this transla6on.   She has elevated Kingu, has made him chief among them. The leading of the ranks, command of the Assembly, The raising of weapons for the encounter, advancing to combat, In battle the cominand-in-chief- These" to his hands [she entrusted] as she seated him in the Council: '[1 have cast the spell] for thee, exalting thee in the Assembly of the gods. [To counsel all the] gods [I have given thee] full power." (40) [Verily, thou art supreme, my only consort] art thou! [Thy utterance shall prevail over all the Anun]naki!' [She has given him the Tablets of Fate, fastened on his breast]: '[As for thee, thy command shall be unchangeable], They word shall endure!' [As soon as Kingu was elevated], possessed of the rank of Anu, [For the gods, her" sons, they decreed the fate: '[Your word] shall make the fire subside, Shall humble the "Power-Weapon," [so potent in (its) sweep! ] ' " [When Anshar heard that Tiamat] was sorely troubled, [He smote his loins" and] bit his lips. (50) [Gloomy was his heart], restless his mood. [He covered] his [mouth] to stifle his outcry:" "f ] battle. [The weapon thou hast made], up, bear thou! [Lo, Mummu and] Apsu thou didst slay. [Now, slay thou Kin]gu, who marches before her. f ] wisdom." [Answered the counselor of] the gods, Nudimmud. (The reply of Ea-Nudimmud is lost in the break. Apparently, Ea had no remedy, for Anshar next turns to Anu:) [To Anu,] his son, ra word] he addressed: "[ ] this, the most puissant of heroes, Whose strength [is outstanding], past resisting his onslaught. [Go] and stand thou up to Tiamat, That her mood [be calmed], that her heart expand. rlf ] she will not hearken to thy word, Then tell her our [word], that she might be calmed." When [he heard] the command of his father, Anshar, [He made straight] for her way, following the road to her. (8o) [But when Anu was near (enough) I to see the plan of Tiamat, [He was not able to face her and] he turned back. [He came abjectly to his father], Anshar. [As though he uere Tiamat" thus he] addressed him:   49 cf. note 47. 50 Tablet 1, 159 has "his." 51 As a sign of distress. 52 Cf. Oppenheim, loc. Cit., 220, n.i. Note also the intransitive forms ofthis verb in the Legend ol Zu (below), A 23, B 52. 53 The suffix -@i in the next line makes it apparent that the statement addressed to Anshar is an cxact quotation of Anu's previous speech to Tiamat. The context bears out this interpretation.     "My hand [suffi]ces not for me to subdue thee." Speechless was Anshar as he stared at the ground, Hair on edge, shaking his head at Ea. All the Anunnaki gathered at that place; Their lips closed tight, [they sat] in silence. "No god" (thought they) "can go [to battle and], (90) Facing Tiamat, escape [with his life]." Lord Anshar, father of the gods, [rose up] in grandeur, And having pondered in his heart, he [said to the Anunnaki]: "He whose [strength] is potent shall be [our] avenger, He who is keen in battle, Marduk, the hero I" Ea called [Marduk] to his place of seclusion. [Givling counsel, he told him what was in his heart:" "O Marduk, consider my advice. Hearken to thy father, For thou art my son who comforts his" heart. When facing Anshar, approach as though in combat; (loo) Stand up as thou speakest; seeing thee, he will grow restful." The lord rejoiced at the word of his father; He approached and stood up facing Anshar. When Anshar saw him, his heart filled with joy. He kissed his lips, his (own) gloom dispelled. "[Ansharl, be not muted; open wide thy lips. I will go and attain thy heart's desire. [Ansharl, be not muted; open wide thy lips. I will go and attain thy heart's desire! What male is it who has pressed his fight against thee? [It is but] Tiamat, a woman, that flies at thee witn   weapons! [O my father-]creator, be glad and rejoice; The neck of Tiamat thou shalt soon tread upon! [O my father-]creator, be glad and rejoice; [The neck] of Tiamat thou shalt soon tread upon!" "My son, (thou) who knowest all wisdom, Calm [Tiamat] with thy holy spell. On the storm-ch[ariot] proceed with al speed. From her [presence] @ey shall not drive (thee)! Turn (them) back!" The lord [rejoiced] at the word of his father. (120) His heart exulting, he said to his father: "Creator of the gods, destiny of the great gods, If I indeed, as your avenger, Am to vanquish Tiamat and save your lives, Set up the Assembly, proclaim supreme my destiny! When jointly in Ubshukinna" you have sat down re-   joicing, Let my word, instead of you, determine the fates. Unalterable shall be what I may bring into being; Neither recalled nor changed shall be the command of my lips." Tablet III   Anshar opened his mouth and   54 Reading: (iml -li-ka-ma ak lib-bi-la i-ta-mi-lu. 55 i.e. his father's. 56'Me Assembly Hall.   (I lo?   To Gaga, his vizier, a word he addressed: "O Gaga, my vizier, who gladdenest my spirit, To Lahmu and Lahamu I will dispatch thee. Thou knowest discernment, art adept at fine talk; The gods, thy fathers, produce thou before me! Let all the gods proceed hither, Let them hold converse, sit down to a banquet, Let them eat festive bread, poured" wine; For Marduk, their avenger, let them fix the decrees. (Io) Be on thy way, Gaga, take the stand before them, And that which I shall tell thee repeat thou unto them: 'Anshar, your son, has sent me hither, Charging me to give voice to [the dictates] of his heart, [Saying]: "Tiamat, she who bore us, detests us. She has set up the [Assembly] and is furious with rage. All the gods have rallied to her; Even those whom you brought forth march at her side. They throng and march at the side of Tiamat. Enraged, they plot without cease night and day. (20) They are set for combat, growling, raging, They have formed a council to prepare for the fight. Mother Hubur, she who fashions all things, Has added matchless weapons, has born monstcr-serpents, Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang. With venom for blood she has filled their bodies. Roaring dragons she has clothed with terror, Has crowned them with haloes, making them like gods, So that he who beholds them shall perish abjectly, (And) that, with their bodies reared up, none might turn them back. (30) She has set up the Viper, the Dragon, and the Sphinx, The Great-Lion, thelMad-Dog, and the Scorpion-Man, Mighty lion-demons, the Dragon-Fly, the Centaur- Bearing weapons that spare not, fearless in battle. Firm are her decrees, past withstanding are they. Withal eleven of this kind she has brought forth. From among the gods, her first-born, who formed [her Assembly], She has elevated Kingu, has made [him] chief among them. The leading of the ranks, [command of the Assembly], The raising of weapons for the encounter, ad[vancing to combat], (40) In battle the comm[andl-in-chief- These to his hands [she entrusted] as she se[ated him in the Council]: '[1 have] cast the spell for thee, [exalting thee] in the Assembly of the gods. To counsel all the gods [I have given thee full power]. [Verily], thou art supreme, my [only consort art thou] I Thy utterance shall prevail over all the [Anunnakil!' She has given him the Tablets of Fate, [fastened on his] breast:   57 This usc of patdqu is attestcd for metallurgy.     'As for thee, thy command shall be unchangeable, Thy word shall endure!' As soon as Kingu was elevated, possessed of the rank of Anu,   For the gods, her sons, they decreed the fate: (50) 'Your word shall make the fire subside, Shall humble the "Power-Weapon," so potent in (its) sweep I' I sent forth Anu; he could not face her. Nudimmud was afraid and turned back. Forth came Marduk, the wisest of gods, your son, His heart having prompted him to set out to face Tiamat. He opened his mouth, saying unto me: 'If I indeed, as your avenger, Am to vanquish Tiamat and save your lives, Set up the Assembly, proclaim supreme my destiny! (6o) When jointly in Ubshukinna you have sat down rejoicing, Let my word, instead of you, determine the fates. Unalterable shall be what I may bring into being; Neither recalled nor changed shall be the command of my lips l' Now hasten hither and promptly fix for him your decrees, That he may go forth to face your mighty foe!" Gaga departed, proceeding on his way. Before Lahmu and Lahamu, the gods, his fathers, He made obeisance, kissing the ground at their feet. He bowed low as he took his place to address them: (7o) "It was Anshar, your son, who has sent me hither, Charging me to give voice to the dictates of his heart, Saying: 'Tiamat, she who bore us, detests us. She has set up the Assembly and is furious with rage. All the gods have rallied to her Even those whom you brought forth march at her side. They throng and march at the side of Tiamat. Enraged, they plot without cease night and day. They are set for combat, growling, raging, They have formed a council to prepare for the fight. (8o) Mother Hubur, she who fashions all things, Has added matchless weapons, has bom monster-serpents, Sharp of tooth, unsparing of fang. With venom for blood she has filled their bodies, Roaring dragons she has clothed with terror, Has crowned them with haloes, making them like gods, So that he who beholds them shall perish abjcctly, (And) that, with their bodies reared up, none might turn them back. She has set up vipers," dragons, and sphinxes,   Great-lions, mad-dogs, and scorpion-men, (9) Mighty lion-demons, dragon-flies, and centaurs-   58 In view of the plurals in this passage (one text, however, retains the singulars), the names of the moiisters are this time given in lower case.   Bearing weapons that spare not, fearless in battle. Firm are decrees, past withstanding are they. Withal eleven of this kind she has brought forth. From among the gods, her first-born, who formed her Assembly, She has elevated Kingu, has made him chief among them. The leading of the ranks, command of the Assembly, The raising of weapons for the encounter, advancing to combat, In battle the command-in-chief- These to his hands she has entrusted as she seated him in the Council: (100)   'I have cast the spell for thee, exalting thee in the Assembly of the gods. To counsel all the gods I have given thee full power. Verily, thou art supreme, my only consort art thou! Thy utterance shall prevail over all the Anunnaki!' She has given him the Tablets of Fate, [fastened on his breast]: 'As for thee, thy command shall be unchangeable, Thy word shall endure] I' As soon as Kingu was elevated, [possessed of the rank of Anul, For the gods, her sons, [they decreed the fate]: 'Your word shall make the fire subside,   [Shall humble the "Power-]Weapon," so potent in (its) sweep!'   I sent forth Anu; he could not [face her]. Nudimmud was afraid [and turned back]. Forth came Marduk, the wisest [of gods, your son], [His heart having prompted him to set out] to face Tiamat. He opened his mouth, [saying unto me]: 'If I indeed, [as your avenger], Am to vanquish Tiamat [and save your lives], Set up the Assembly, [proclaim supreme my destiny]! When in Ubshukinna [jointly you sit down rejoicing], Let my word, instead of [you, determine the fates].   Unalterable shall be what [I] may bring into being; Neither recalled nor changed shall be the command [of my lips]!' Now hasten hither and promptly [fix for him] your decrees, That he may go forth to face your mighty foe!" When Lahmu and Lahamu heard this, they cried out aloud, All the Igigi" wailed in distress: "How strange" that they should have made [this] de-   cision!   We cannot fathom the doings of Tiamat!" They made ready" to leave on their journey,   All the great gods who decree the fates. (1130)   They entered before Anshar, filling [Ubshukinnal. They kissed one another in the Assembly.   59 The heavenly deities. 60 Lit. "What has turned strange?" 61 cf. Oppenheim, Oyie@ia, xvi (1947), 223.       They held converse as they [sat down] to the banquet. They ate festive bread, poured [the wine], They wetted their drinking-tubes" with sweet mtoxicant. As thev drank the strong drink, [their] bodies swelled. They @ecame very languid as their spirits rose. For Marduk, their avenger, they fixed the decrees. Tablet IV They erected for him a princely throne. Facing his fathers, he sat down, presiding." "Thou art the most honored of the great gods, Thy decree is unrivaled, thy command is Anu." Thou, Marduk, art the most honored of the great gods, Thy decree is unrivaled, thy word is Anu. From this day unchangeable shall be thy pronouncement. To raise or bring low-these shall be (in) thy hand. Thy utterance shall be true, thy command shall be unimpeachable. No one among the gods shall transgress thy bounds! (Io) Adornment being wanted for the seats of the gods, Let the place of their shrines ever be in thy place. 0 Marduk, thou art indeed our avenger. We have granted thee kingship over the universe entire. When in Assembly thou sittest, thy word shall be supreme. Thy weapons shall not fail; they shall smash thy foes! 0 lord, spare the life of him who trusts thee, But pour out the life of the god who seized evil." Having placed in their midst a piece of cloth, They addressed themselves to Marduk, their first-born: (20) "Lord, truly thy decree is first among gods. Say but to wreck or create; it shall be. Open thy mouth: the cloth will vanish! Speak again, and the cloth shall be whole!" At the word of his mouth the cloth vanished. He spoke again, and the cloth was restored. 65 When the gods, his fathers, saw the fruit of his word, joyfully they did homage: "Marduk is king!"   They conferred on him scepter, throne, and vestment; They gave him matchless weapons that ward off the foes: (30) "Go and cut off the life of Tiamat. May the winds bear her blood to places undisclosed." Bel's destiny thus fixed, the gods, his fathers, Caused him to go the way of success and attainment. He constructed a bow, marked it as his weapon, Attached thereto the arrow, fixed its bow-cord. He raised the mace, made his right hand grasp it; Bow and quiver he hung at his side. In front of him he set the lightning,   62 The term r,#um "tube, pipe" refers here obviously to the drinking-tubes Which are pictured commonly in representations of banquets. 63 Lit. "for advising."   64 i.e. it has the authority of the sky-god Anu. 65 Lit. "outcome of his mouth."   With a blazing flame he filled his body. (40) He then made a net to enfold Tiamat therein. The four winds he stationed that nothing of her might escape, The South Wind, the North Wind, the East Wind, the West Wind. Close to his side he held the net, the gift of his father, Anu. He brought forth Imhullu "the Evil Wind," the Whirlwind, the Hurricane, The Fourfold Wind, the Sevenfold Wind, the Cyclone, the Matchless Wind; Then he sent forth the winds he had brought forth, the seven of them. To stir up the inside of Tiamat they rose up behind him. Then the lord raised up the flood-storm, his mighty weapon. He mounted the storm-chariot irresistible land] terrifying. (50) He harnessed (and) yoked to it a team-of-four, The Killer, the Relentless, the Trampler, the Swift. Sharp were their teeth, hearing poison. They were versed in ravage, in destruction skilled. On his right he posted the Smiter, fearsome in battle, On the left the Combat, which repels all the zealous." For a cloak he was wrapped in an armor of terror;" With his fearsome halo his head was turbaned. The lord went forth and followed his course, Towards the raging Tiamat he set his face. (6o) in his lips he held a spell;" A plant to put out poison was grasped in his hand. Then they milled about him, the gods milled about him, The gods, his fathers, milled about him, the gods milled about him. e lord approached to scan the inside of Tiamat, (And) of Kingu, her consort, the scheme to perceive. As he looks on, his course becomes upset, His will is distracted and his doings are confused. And when the gods, his helpers, who marched at his side, Saw the valiant hero, blurred became their vision. (70) Tiamat emitted [a cry]," without turning her neck, Framing" savage" defiance in her lips:" "Too [implortant art thou [for]" the lord of the gods to rise up against thee!   66 These two lines, hitherto obscured by breaks, havc been filled out and clarified by the fragment transliterated in 4natolian Studies, ii (1952), 27; cf. LK,4, 6. 61 The assonance of the original, viz. nablapti aplubti pulhdti halipma, cannot be readily reproduced; for the passagc cf. LK,4, 6. 68 Sce now 4natolian Studies, ii, 28.   69 cf. E. Weidner, AIO, iii (1926), 123 for the reading [rigmla, although [tdlla "her incantation" is not impossible. For lines 64-83 see the fragment published by Weidncr, ibid., 122-24.   TO For a close semantic parallel cf. judg. i2:6.   71 To give lullfi the same sense as in Tablet VI, 6-7, and Gilg. 1, iv 7. 72 Tiamat's taunt, as rccorded in the next two lines, is not transparently   clear.   73 Reading (kalb-ta-tta a?-nla la, cf. CT, xiii, x7; the third sign does not appear to be adequately reproduced in Deimel, Enuma Eli!, 17, and the fifth sign cannot be read Iii (for fnla) as is done by Labat, PBC, I28.     Is it in their place that they have gathered, (or) in thy place?" Thereupon the lord, having [raised) the flood-storm, his mighty weapon, [TO] enraged [Tiamat] he sent word as follows: "Why art thou risen," art haughtily exalted, Thou hast charged thine own heart to stir up conflict, ... sons reject their own fathers, Whilst thou who hast born them, hast foresworn love! (8o) Thou hast appointed Kingu as thy consort, Conferring upon him the rank of Anu, not rightfully his." Against Anshar, king of the gods, thou seekest evil; [Against] the gods, my fathers, thou hast confirmed thy wickedness. [Though] drawn up be thy forces, girded on thy weapons, Stand thou up, that I and thou meet in single combat!" When Tiamat heard this She was like one possessed; she took leave of her senses. In fury Tiamat cried out aloud. To the roots her legs shook both together." (90) She recites a charm, keeps casting her spell, While the gods of battle sharpen their weapons. Then joined issue Tiamat and Marduk, wisest of gods. They strove" in single combat, locked in battle. The lord spread out his net to enfold her, The Evil Wind, which followed behind, he let loose in her face.   When Tiamat opened her mouth to consume him, He drove in the Evil Wind that she close not her lips. As the fierce winds charged her belly, Her body was distended" and her mouth was wide open. He released the arrow, it tore her belly, It cut through her insides, splitting the heart. Having thus subdued her, he extinguished her life. He cast down her carcass to stand upon it. After he had slain Tiamat, the leader, Her band was shattered, her troupe broken up; And the gods, her helpers who marched at her side, Trembling with terror, turned their backs about, In order to save and preserve their lives. Tightly encircled, they could not escape. He made them captives and he smashed their weapons. Thrown into the net, they found themselves ensnared; Placed in cells, they were filled with wailing; Bearing his wrath, they were held imprisoned.   74 For line' 76-83 cf. now Anatolian StUdieS, 11, 28 as wcll as the Wcidner fragment cited in n. 69. The first (Gurncy fragment) Supplies the part, which were missing in the Weidner fragment@orrecting some of the guesses of modern interpreters. 11 The correction of -ya to -lu, which I proposed in the first edition of ,4NET, is borne out by the Gurney fragment. 16 For malmaiii cf. J. Lewy, Qrientalia, xi (1942), 336, n.i; H. G. Giiterbock, AIO, xiii (1939), 48-- 1 77 Reading id-lu-bu, with Heidel, BG, 3o, n-84, but translating the verb in the scnse established in ICS, v (zg5z), 64 ff. 78 cf. Heidel, BG, 3o, n.85.   And the eleven creatures which she had charged with awe, The band of demons that marched before her, He cast into fetters, their hands f... For all their resistance, he trampled @them) underfoot. And Kingu, who had been made chief among them, He bound and accounted him to Uggae.7" (120) He took from him the Tablets of Fate, not rightfully his, Sealed (them) with a seal" and fastened (them) on his breast. When he had vanquished and subdued his adversaries, Had . . . the vainglorious foe, Had wholly established Anshar's triumph over the foe, Nudimmud's desire had achieved, valiant Marduk Strengthened his hold on the vanquished gods, And turned back to Tiamat whom he had bound. The lord trod on the legs of Tiamat, With his unsparing mace he crushed her skull. (130) When the arteries of her blood he had severed, The North Wind bore (it) to places undisclosed. On seeing this, his fathers were jovful and jubilant, They brought gifts of homage, they to him. Then the lord paused to view her dead body, That he might divide the monster and do artful works. He split her like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky, Pulled down the bar and posted guards. He bade them to allow not her waters to escape. (140) He crossed the heavens and surveyed the regions. He squared Apsu's quarter,"' the abode of Nudimmud, As the lord measured the dimensions of Apsu. The Great Abode, its likeness, he fixed as Esharra, The Great Abode, Esharra, which he made as the firmament. Anu, Enlil, and Ea he made occupy their places.   Tablet V   He constructed stations for the great gods, Fixing their astral likenesses as constellations. He determined the year by designating the zones: He set up three constellations for each of the twelve months. After defining the days of the year [by means] of (heavenly) figures, He founded the station of Nebiru" to determine their (heavenly) bands, That none might transgress or fall short. Alongside it he set up the stations of Enlil and Ea. Having opened up the gates on both sides, He strengthened the locks to the left and the right. (10)   79 God of death. 80 This was an essential act of attestation in Mesopotamian society. 81 For this rendering cf. A. Schott, ZA, XLII (I934), 137. 82 i.e. the planet Jupiter. This station was taken to lie between the band (riksu; cf. 1. 6) of the north, which belonged to Enlil, and the band of the south, which belonged to Ea.       In her" belly he established the zenith. The Moon he caused to shine, the night (to him) entrusting. He appointed him a creature of the night to signify the days: "Monthly, without cease, form designs with a crown. At the month's very start, rising over the land, Thou shalt have luminous horns to signify six days, On the seventh day reaching a [half ]-crown. At full moon" stand in opposition" in mid-month. When the sun [overtakes] thee at the base of heaven, Diminish [thy crown] and retrogress in light. (20) [At the time of disappearance] approach thou the course of the sun, And [on the twenty-ninth] thou shalt again stand in opposition to the sun."   (The remainder of this tablet is broken away or too fragmentary for translation.)   Tablet VI   When Marduk hears the words of the gods, His heart prompts (him) to fashion artful works. Opening @is mouth, he addresses Ea To impart the plan he had conceived in his heart: "Blood I will mass and cause bones to be. I will establish a savage," 'man' shall be his name. Verily, savage-man I will create. He shall be charged with the service of the gods That they might be at case! The ways of the gods I will artfully alter. Though alike revered, into two (groups) they shall be divided." (IO)   Ea answered him, speaking a word to him, Giving him another plan for the relief of the gods: "Let but one of their brothers be handed over; He alone shall perish that mankind may be fashioned." Let the eat gods be here in Assembly, Letthe over that they may endure." Marduk e great gods to Assembly; Presiding" graciously, he issues instructions. To his utterance the gods pay heea." The king addresses a word to the Anunnaki: (20) "If your former statement was true,   83 Tiamat's. 84 Akkadian lopattu, the prototype of the "Sabbath" in so far as the injunctions against all types of activity are concerned. 85 i.e. with regard to the sun. This vcrb was a technical term in Baby- lonian astronomy.   86.For this value of the term, probably a derivative of the ethnic name LU8161U,Ocf. B. Landsbcrger, Klei@atische Forschungen, 1 (1929) ' 321-334 and MAOG, iv (1928), 32o, n. 2; also E. A. Speiser, Mesopotamian Oligins (1930), 95, n. 35. Tlat the Lullu were linkcd by Akkadian sources with th remote and dim past may be gathered from the evidence which I listed inel.40S, Lxviii (1948), 8, as well as from the fact that the flood ship (Gilg., XI, I 40) lands on Mount Nisir, in Lullu country. : 87 out of his blood.   88 Lit. "ordering."   89 Reading u-paq-qu-ul! (var. -lul), with W. von Soden, Z   (1942), 3. Von Soden's notes on the remainder of Tablct VI and on Tablet VII, together with his translation of the hitherto unknown or obscure parts of Tablet VII-based on new fragments and on corrected readings of the text published by E. Ebcling in MAOG, xii (x939), part 4-(See loc. cit., 1-26) have proved very illuminating, as may be seen from the numerous references below; see now LX.4, 7 and 8.     Do (now) the truth on oath by me declare!" Who was it that contrived the uprising, And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle Let him be handed over who contrived the uprising. His guilt I will make him bear. You shall dwell in peacel" The Igigi, the great gods, replied to him, To Lugaldimmerankia," counselor of the gods, their lord:" "It was Kingu who contrived the uprising, And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle." (30) They bound him, holding him before Ea. They imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels). Out of his blood they fashioned mankind. He" imposed the service and let free the gods. After Ea, the wise, had created mankind, Had imposed upon it the service of the god&That work was beyond comprehension; As artfully planned by Marduk, did Nudimmud create it- Marduk, the king of the gods divided All the Anunnaki above and below." (40) He assigned (them) to Anu to guard his instructions. Three hundred in the heavens he stationed as a guard. In like manner the ways of the earth he defined. In heaven and on earth six hundred (thus) he settled. After he had ordered all the instructions, To the Anunnaki of heaven and earth had allotted their portions, The Anunnaki opened their mouths And said to Marduk, their lord: "Now," 0 lord, thou who hast caused our deliverance, What shall be our homage to thee? (50) Let us build a shrine whose name shall be called 'Lo' a chamber for our nightly rese; let us repose in itl Let us build a throne, a recess for his abode!" On the day that we arrive" we shall repose in it." When Marduk heard this, Brightly glowed his features, like the day: "Like that of lofty Babylon, whose building you have requested, Let its brickwork be fashioned. You shall name ie"The Sanctuary."' The Anunnaki applied the implement; For one whole year they molded bricks. (6o) When the second year arrived,   90 cf. Oppenheim, Orientalia, xvl (I947), 234.   91 "The king of the gods of heaven and earth." 92 For lines 28-50 see the fragment published by E. Weidner in .410, xi (1936) 72-74. This material was not available to Labat; von Soden's additions (cf. note 89) came too late to be utilized by Heidel. 93 Ea. 94 Here and elsewhere in this epic the Anunnaki are understood to be the celestial gods (normally Igigi) as well as those of the lower regions. 1 95 Not "O Nannar," as translated by some. For this rebus writing signify-   ing inanna "now" cf. lfO, xi (1936), 73- . 91, Reading a-larl-lu, with v. Soden, lOc- at-, 4, For the New Year's fcstival.   98 For this and the preceding line cf. v. Soden, loc. cit.     They raised high the head" of Esagila equaling Apsu." Having built a stage-tower as high as Apsu, They set up in it an abode for Marduk, Enlil, (and) Ea In their presence he adorned (it) in grandeur."' To the base of Esharra... its horns look down. After they had achieved the building of Esagila, The Anunnaki themselves erected their shrines. all of them gathered, they had built as his dwelling. (70) The gods, his fathers, at his banquets' he seated: "This is Babylon, the place that is your home!'O' Make merry in its precincts occupy its broad [places]."" The great gods took their seats, They set up festive drink, sat down to a banquet. After they had made merry within it,   In Esagila, the splendid, had erformed their rites,'O' p   The norms had been fixed (and) all [their] portents, All the gods apportioned the stations of heaven and earth.'O' The fifty great gods took their seats. (8o) The seven gods of destiny set up the three hundred [in heaven]."' Enlil raised the bo[w, his wea]pon,"' and laid (it) before them. The gods, his fathers, saw the net he had made. When they beheld the bow, how skillful its shape, His fathers praised the work he had wrought.   Raising (it), Anu s oke up in the Assembly of the gods,   p As he kissed the bow: "This is my daughter!" He named the names of the bow as follows: "Longwood is the first, the second is [... ] ; Its third name is Bow-Star, in heaven I have made (go) it shine." (Lines 86-i 12, hitherto largely or wholly destroyed, have now been filled in by another Sultantepe duplicate; cf. Gurney, 4natolian Studies, 11, 33. A translation of lines gi-io4 will be found in the Addenda. Labat's assumed line 98 is to be deleted, following von Soden, Z,4, XL (i932), i6q, but his line count has been retained for convenience.) "Most exalted be the Son, our avenger; Let his sovereignty be surpassing, having no rival. May he shepherd the black-headed ones,"' his creatures. To the end of days, without forgetting, let them acclaim his ways. May he establish for his fathers the great food-offerings; Their support they shall furnish, shall tend their sanctuaries.     99 A play on the sense of Sumerian "Esagila." 100 Meaning 2pparently that the height of Esagila coupon to the depth of Apsii's waters. 101 cf. v' Soden, loc. cii. 102 ib;d. 103 ibid. 104 Var. "which you love," a virtual homonym of "your homc" in Akkadian. 105 V. Soden, 1". cit., 6. 106 ibid. 107 iba. 108 ibid. 109 ibid.   110 A common Akkadian metaphor for "the human race." In the preceding line the term enfita has been taken to reflect the primary sense of Sumerian c n 'lord" r2ther th2n "high priesl"           May he cause incense to be smelled, . . . their spells, A likeness on earth of what he has wrought in heaven. May he order the black-headed to re[ vere him], May the subjects ever bear in mind their god, And may they at his word.pay heed... to the goddess. May food-offerings be home for their gods and goddesses. Without fail let them support their gods! Their lands let them improve, build their shrines, Let the black-headed wait on their gods. (120) As for us, by however many names we pronounce, he is our god! Let us then proclaim his fifty names:...   'He whose ways are orious, whose deeds are likewise, 91   (1) MARDUK, as Ann, his father,"' called him from his birth;... Who provides grazing and drinking places, enriches their stalls, Who with the flood-storm, his weapon, vanquished the detractors, (And) who the gods, his fathers, rescued from distress. Truly, the Son of the Sun,"' most radiant of gods is he. In his brilliant light may they walk forever! On the people he brought forth, endowed with li[fe],   (1@30) The service of the gods he imposed that these may have ease. Creation, destruction, deliverance, grace- Shall be by his command."' They shall look up to him! (2) MARUKKA verily is the god, creator of all, Who gladdens the heart of the Anunnaki, appeases their [spirits]. (3) MARUTUKKU verily is the refuge of the land, proftection of its people]. Unto him shall the' people give praise. (4) BARASHAKUSHU... stood up and took hold of its... reins; Wide is his heart, warm his sympathy. (5) LUCALDIMMFRANKIA is his name which we proclaimed in our Assembly. (140) His commands we have exalted above the gods, his fathers. Verily, he is lord of all the gods of heaven and earth, The king at whose discipline the gods above and below are in mourning.""   111 v. Soden, loc. cit., 7 reads i-piq-qu; but note Gurney, ad loc. 112 A penetrating discussion of these names has been furnished by F. M. Th. B6hl in 410, xl (1936), 191-2z8. The text etymologizes the names in a manner made familiar by the Bible; the etymol<)gies, which accompany virtually evcry name on the long list are meant to be cabalistic and symbolic rather than strictly linguistic, although some of thcm happen to be linguistically sound. The name count has in each casc been indicated in parentheses.   113 Here and elsewhere "father" is used for "grandfather" or "ancestor." 114 Lit. "emergence." 115 cf. T2blet 1, 101-02. 116 Reading ba!-Ii-ma in this line and a-bal-lu in the line above, with V. Soden, loc. c*., 7. For nanna "command" see Z,4, XLIV (1938), 42. 117 Var. SHUDUNSHAKUSHE. 118 i.e. thosc of the land. 119 For the remainder of this tablet cf. the new fragment published by E. Ebcling in U,40G, xii (1939), part 4 and the rcmarks of W. v. Soden in Z-4, XLVII (1942), 7-8. cf. now LK.4, 7-     (6) NARI-LUGALDIMM@NKIA is the name of him Whom we have called the monitor"' of the gods; Who in heaven and on earth founds for us retreats"' in trouble, And who allots stations to the Igigi and Anunnaki. At his name the gods shall tremble and quake in retreat. (7) ASARULUDU is that name of his Which Amu, his father, proclaimed for him. He is truly the light of the gods, the mighty leader, Who, as the protecting deities"' of gods and land, (I5o) In fierce single combat saved our retreats in distress. Asaruludu, secondly, they have named (8) NAMTILLAKU, The god who maintains life,"' Who restored the lost gods, as though his own creation; The lord who revives the dead gods by his pure incantation, Who destroys the wayward foes. Let us praise his prowess!... Asaruludu, whose name was thirdly called (9) NAMRU, The shining god who illumines our ways.11 Three each @f his names"' have Anshar, Lahmu, and Lahamu proclaimed; Unto the gods, their sons, they did utter them: "We have proclaimed three each of his names. (i6o) Like us, do you utter his names!" joyfully the gods did heed their command, As in Ubshukinna their exchanged counsels: "Of the heroic son, our avenger, Of our supporter we will exalt the name!" They sat down in their Assembly to fashion"' destinies, All of them uttering his names in the sanctuary.   Tablet VII   (io) AsARu, bestower of cultivation, who established water letels; Creator of grain and herbs, who causes [vegetation to sprout]."' (II) ASARUALIM, who is honored in the place of counsel, [who excels in counsel]; To whom the gods hope,"' when pos[sessed of fear]. (I2) ASARUALIMNUNNA, the gracious, light of [the father, his begetter], Who directs the decrees of Anu, Enlil, [and Eal. He is their provider who assigns [their portions], Whose horned cap"" is plenty, multiply[ing ... Who banishes consternation from the body of the gods,   (I3) TUTU [is hel, who effects their restoration.   120 This vcrse confirms the equation of alir with Sumerian n a r i made by S. N. Kramer, BASOR, 79 (1940), 25, n. 25. The meaning "monitor" for this form 2nd "admonition, instruction" TRANSLATOR: E. A. SPEISER
Calgary Korean Research Institute for the Reformed Faith
Calgary Korean Research Institute for the Reformed Faith Calgary Korean Research Institute for the Reformed Faith was established on November 18, 2007 for the purpose of researching and providing Biblically sound doctrine and faith to the Korean community in and around the Calgary area of Canada. The term “Reformed” refers to the faith which is of Reformed Theology of the 16th and 17th century Protestant Reformation in which we affirm to be the most faithful reflection of the traditional church faith. The desire of the Reformation was not to change God\'s word but rather to bring the church back into accord with it. Led by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin, the Reformation churches split off from the errors of the medieval Roman church and began what we know today as Protestantism. Thus, we are able to reflect on the faith of the apostles and the reformers, and the teachings they have preserved for us in history. So even at our present age, we have hope for the true church, recovery of the true faith, and revival. Reformed faith seeks to be a biblical church proclaiming true faith in principle and content. In an age where “not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord” (Amos 8:11), Calgary Korean Research Institute for the Reformed Faith seeks to be “guardian” of the truth through the proclaiming of the reformed doctrine and faith, seeking to awaken the church and fellow Christians. ▲ The Assertion of Liberty of Conscience(at the Westminster Assembly of Divines)
CALVIN'S TRAINING AS AN
CALVIN'S TRAINING AS AN 2003-12-25 10:26:20 read : 11 INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE Prof. Dr. Myung Jun Ahn (Pyongtaek University) I. INTRODUCTION John Calvin was not born a great interpreter. But by God's providence he became one of the great interpreters of Scripture in the history of Christianity. In this article I shall investigate John Calvin as a great interpreter, and deal with how the young Calvin trod the path of learning, what, before his sudden conversion (subita conversio), he learned from the humanists and his masters at the colleges which he attended, and how he applied the humanistic methods to the interpretation of Scripture. 2. Calvin's Training Calvin was the greatest theologian among the Reformers, one of the foremost leaders in the history of Christianity, and among the most influential scholars in world history. Robert M. Kingdon introduces the Reformer to us as follows: John Calvin, a French theologian and ecclesiastical statement, was one of the most important leaders of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Theological, ecclesiastical, and political ideas that he advanced in many publications, a model church that he created and many publications, a model church that he created and directed in the city of Geneva, and the assistance he provided to the political and intellectual leaders of several countries profoundly influenced the development of Protestantism in many parts of Europe and in North America. In order to illuminate Calvin's position as one of the greatest interpreters of Scripture, we first have to take cognisance of his educational background. John Calvin was born at Noyon, a celebrated town in Picardy in north eastern France, on July 10th in 1509. Noyon was once famous as the place where bishops like St. Merdad and St. Eloi lived, and where Charlemagne (later Holy Roman emperor) was crowned king of the western Frankish kingdom of Neustria in 768 and Hugh Capet, king of France and founder of the Capetian dynasty (which ruled directly until 1328), was also crowned in 987. Will Durant, an historian, relating Noyon to Calvin's idea of theocracy, says, "It was an ecclesiastical city, dominated by its cathedral and its bishop; here at the outset he had an example of theocracy - the rule of a society by clergymen in the name of God." The name of his father was Gerard Cauvin ("whose surname, latinized as 'Calvinus', became Calvin in French"), who was a man of hard and severe character. His mother, Joan Franc (Jeanne Lefrane), was noted for her personal beauty and great religious fervor and strictness. Both of them were persons of good repute in this town. Gerard had "a prominent position as apostolic secretary to the bishop of Noyon, proctor in the Chapter of the diocese, and fiscal procurator of the county." He was highly esteemed by the noble families in Noyon and had a good relationship with them. This close connection offered Calvin good circumstances to develop as a great exegete, as he did not have to worry about money. There were two important elements in his early training. First, the starting point of his illustrious career was the great ambition and the sacrificial support of his father. Although he never knew that his youngest son Calvin would become a great exegete, Gerard Cauvin, having ambition for his sons, made his son study the courses of the college of the Capettes in Noyon. It has not been known what courses Calvin studied in the college of his hometown. One would probably suppose that because the college had only a few professors, there were not academic courses like law, philosophy, rhetoric, and the original languages including Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. But not being satisfied with Calvin's attending this college, his father sent Calvin to the college of La Marche in Paris in 1523 when he was just fourteen years old. At that time, like other European cities, Paris also was buzzing with the fire of the Reformation set off by Luther in Wittenberg and Zwingli in Zurich. His father devoted his life to the education of Calvin, giving him a cathedral benefice. The devoted support of his father offered Calvin a great blessing. The fact that, unlike Luther, who had as a father, a miner, who did not want his son to be a monk, Calvin could live in good circumstances provided by his parents, gives us an important key to understanding the process of the life of Calvin as preparation for developing into a great interpreter of Scripture. Secondly, in the process of his becoming a great interpreter, the essential influence upon young Calvin was his friendships at the college of the Capettes in his hometown. At that time his native town, Noyon, was ruled by Charles de Hangest. From his childhood Calvin had come in touch with the sons of this family, especially with the sons of Montmor. In 1523, with three young men of the Hangest family, Calvin was sent to Paris. One of them was Claude de Hangest, Abbot of St. Eloi's at Noyon, to whom Calvin dedicated his commentary on the De Clementia of Seneca in Paris on April 4 in 1532. Calvin called him the most saintly and most wise prelate in his day. Williston Walker describes the situation in the hometown and the friendships of Calvin with them as follows: Quite as influential in the development of the boy's life as this instruction in the schoolroom of the Capettes were the friendships which he formed with his contemporaries among the sons of the noble family of Hangest, notably with those of Louis de Hangest, lord of Montmor, and of his brother, Adrien, lord of Genlis. To Claude, son of the nobleman last named, Calvin was, years later, to dedicate his first book, when Claude had become abbot of Saint-Eloi at Noyon. With Joachim and Ives, and a brother of theirs whose name is now lost, sons of the seigneur of Montmor, Calvin stood in intimate school fellowship; and his relations to these households of Montmor and Gelis seem indeed, to have been much closer than merely those of the schoolroom. Gerard's relationship with the noble family explains the fact that the young Calvin was "from a boy very liberally educated in the family of the Mommors, one of the most distinguished in that quarter." Afterwards a son of de Mommor followed Calvin to Geneva. Calvin's friendships played an important role in developing his humanistic study before his sudden conversion. This background of Calvin's education helped him to make rapid progress in learning, and let him acquire "a refinement of manners and a certain aristocratic air, which distinguished him from Luther and Zwingli." In an attempt to understand Calvin's intellectual development, one should keep in mind that before his theological studies, he first studied law with leading humanists. Therefore his hermeneutical method was influenced by his humanistic learning. Then Calvin learned from the humanists rhetoric, philosophy, and philology skills needed by a great interpreter of Scripture. The first steps in Calvin's development as an interpreter were set when he went to the college of La Marche. This college was imbued with a humanistic spirit with which Calvin now came into contact. Calvin fortunately had a chance to meet a famous professor in the college of La Marche. His name was Mathurin Cordier, the best Latin teacher in the country and one of the founders of modern pedagogy. He had a great influence upon Calvin who learned to read and to write Latin from him. He was also the first master who introduced Calvin to the philosophy of humanism and Christian piety. T. F. Torrance points out correctly that M. Cordier "not only laid the foundation of Calvin's education and taught Calvin the true method of learning, but imbued him with such a taste for literary studies that Calvin could trace the progress he made in later years to Cordier's instruction." When Calvin founded the Academy of Geneva in 1559, he provided Cordier with the position to instruct Latin. There he died at the age of eighty-five in the same year as Calvin did in 1564. Cordier's influence upon Calvin was demonstrated when Calvin dedicated to his old teacher his Commentary on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians on February 17th, 1550. Here Calvin called him "a man of eminent piety and learning, principal of the college Lausanne." Calvin expressed his heartfelt thanks as follows: It is befitting that you should come in for a share in my labors, inasmuch as, under your auspices, having entered on a course of study, I made proficiency at least so far as to be prepared to profit in some degree the Church of God. When my father sent me, while yet a boy, to Paris, after I had simply tasted the first elements of the Latin tongue, Providence so ordered it that I had, for a short time, the privilege of having you as my instructor, that I might be taught by you the true method of learning, in such a way that I might be prepared afterwards to make somewhat better proficiency. According to John T. McNeill, it was Cordier who let Calvin discover the delights of good learning and acquire that unfailing sense of style and diction that marked all his writings. Then under him Calvin learned "in large measure something that was to be one of his greatest assets: his style, so that Calvin could be both an excellent Latinist and a writer with the capability of expressing an elegant French." Later his Latin study made it possible that he could read the Fathers' writings and the rhetorical writings of Cicero and Quintilian. In Latin Calvin probably began to have a chance to understand the theological thoughts of the Fathers. From the writings of Cicero and Quintilian, Calvin also was able to learn the terms and the concepts of brevitas et facilitas, which had long been used by Plato and Aristotle in their rhetorical writings. Generally speaking, rhetoric is closely connected with the interpretation of Scripture because Scripture itself employs many rhetorical devices. C. J. Labuschagne writes, for instance, that there are many rhetorical questions in the Old Testament. As an example he indicates that especially when the author of Scripture expresses Yahweh's incomparability, such questions are employed. He writes as follows: Rhetorical questions are frequently used in the Old Testament to express the absolute power, uniqueness, singularity and incomparability of a person. The rhetorical question is one of the most forceful and effectual ways employed in speech for driving home some idea or conviction. Because of its impressive and persuasive effect the hearer is not merely listener: he is forced to frame the expected answer in his mind, and by doing so he actually becomes a co-expressor of the speaker's conviction. Some scholars argue that Paul's rhetoric was a focus of the Reformers like Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin. The Reformers influenced by the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla employed a rhetorical approach in their commentaries on the New Testament. On rhetorical method H. D. Betz argues that Paul's epistles had "classical categories of invention, arrangement, and style in mind." He also regards these as "an interpretive tool." Kennedy maintains that Matthew employed "rhetoric in the most comprehensive way, attending to invention, arrangement, style, and amplification." I shall have the opportunity later on to investigate rhetoric as one of the sources of Calvin's ideal of brevitas et facilitas. From the college of La Marche, Calvin was transferred by his father, for reasons we do not know, to the college of Montaigu at the end of 1523. Calvin made great progress in the formation of his intellect during his stay in this college. A. Ganoczy writes on Calvin's studies there: At Montaigau his studies probably consisted of logic, metaphysics, ethics, rhetoric and science, all of which were taught on the basis of Aristotle with the teachers drawing inspiration from authorities like Ockham, Buridan, Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. These studies were intended as prolegomena to theology and Calvin finished them at eighteen without having been able to begin the sacred sciences which consisted of a commentary on the Bible and the Sentences of Peter Lombard. He thus escaped the scholastic strait-jacket and kept his intellectual virginity for a humanist and soon a Lutheran interpretation of Catholic tradition. At the college of Montaigu there were a few famous scholars such as Beda, Antonio Coronel, and John Major. Probably Calvin began to hear of the Reformation of Luther and the humanistic school from them. A Spaniard, Antonio Coronel, taught Calvin the grammar course of Latin as well as philosophy. Through Antonio Coronel's Latin tuition, Calvin, therefore, having already learned Latin from Cordier, became one of the great Latin scholars in the 16th century. This did not only enable him to read the writings of philosophers, rhetoricians, and the Fathers, but also later on to write his Institutes of the Christian Religion and his commentaries in Latin. Here at Montaigu Calvin came into contact with Luther's thought albeit in the negative evaluation that Beda gave of it. Here also Calvin experienced the influence of John Major who taught him "direct knowledge of the Sentences of Peter Lombard and of the Occamist interpretation that he put upon them." Following F. Wendel, J. T. McNeill writes: It is highly likely that he came under the instruction of the celebrated Scot, John Major, or Mair, who returned to Paris in 1525 after a period of teaching in his native country. He was a very learned scholastic philosopher of the Ockhamist persuasion. Among his works were a valuable History of Greater Britain (1521) and a commentary on the Gospels (1529), in which he assailed the writings of Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther. It may be reasonably inferred that Calvin heard from his lips some of the material of the latter book before its publication; Major's lectures may indeed have given him his first substantial knowledge of Luther. In 1963 Karl Reuter on this issue dared to put forward the hypothesis that Major had a decisive influence on Calvin's intellectual development; that he introduced Calvin to a new conception of anti-Pelagian, Scotist theology, a renewed Augustinianism, and positivism in regard to Scripture. In contrast to him, A. Ganoczy and A. E. McGrath argue that Major's direct influence on Calvin's theology cannot be proved. It is, however, certain that Calvin knew a little of the theology of John Major. The period in the college of Montaigu was very important for Calvin because he could have a chance to master Latin, rhetoric, and philosophy. This training of Calvin was clearly expressed in his commentary on the De Clementia of Seneca and, after his conversion, in his interpretation of Scripture. The period in the college of Montaigu was significant, not as preparation for his role as a Reformer, but in that it exposed him to humanist thinking which had an impact on the method used by him for the exegesis of Scripture. Later his father, who originally intended him to study theology, changed his mind and ordered Calvin to study law because he expected Calvin to become a person with wealth and honor. But this second plan of his father to make him a good lawyer for a secure life, providentially turned out to be the best possible way for his future as an interpreter of the Bible. In order to be a lawyer, Calvin studied law and rhetoric from Peter De l'Etoile in the university of Orleans and from Andreas Alciati in the university of Bourges. By studying law, Calvin as a humanist learned the necessary method for the interpretation of an original text. A. E. McGrath argues that the sources of the hermeneutical method of Calvin was found in his study of law in the advanced atmosphere of Orleans and Bourges Calvin's legal training prepared him to accurately establish the intent of the author of Scripture and the genuine meaning of the text, and to consider the historical background. Donald K. McKim relates Calvin's studying law to his hermeneutical method as follows: As we have observed, humanist legal scholars were seeking direct access to the corpus of Roman law, not via learned authorities or traditions, but through the study of the history and social customs of ancient Rome. Such study gave them a direct understanding of the intentions and meanings of the legal texts. Calvin applied a similar concern for context to his work with Scripture. Circumstances and culture are always main ingredients to be understood as one seeks to interpret the Bible. . . . Concern for context led Calvin to seek the divine intention revealed in Scripture. His studies in legal exegesis showed him that the intent of the author is more important than the etymology of words. Thus the knowledge obtained through Calvin's study of law became an important tool for his becoming a great interpreter. After his sudden conversion Calvin often interpreted the meaning of the passages with the concepts of law when he explained to his readers the justice of God, the atonement of Christ, and the judgment of the wicked. With these terms of law Calvin dealt with the sense of the text clearly, briefly, simply, and practically. Consequently Calvin's studying of law which his father wanted him to follow made a contribution to Calvin's becoming a great interpreter of the Bible and a Christian politician who influenced the Genevan legal reform. In the college of Montaigu Calvin had contact with the humanists in Paris. For example, he was closely associated with his scholarly cousin, Pierre Robert Olivier, who had favored the Reformation and showed a great interest in the humanism then in fashion. Olivier (Olivetan) had two friends, Guillaume Cop who was the chief physician of King Francis, and Guillaume Bude who was "the most learned Hellenist of France, and the most effective liberal opponent of Buda." While Calvin criticized the views of Erasmus in the interpretation of Scripture, he always respected the views of Bude, and in his commentaries never contradicted him. Bude especially had a great influence upon Calvin's hermeneutical method. We shall have the opportunity later on to examine the influence of Bude upon Calvin's method of hermeneutics. Through Olivier, Cop and Bude Calvin probably came into contact with the writings of Luther, Melanchthon, and Lefevre d'Etaples. But Calvin's knowledge of the writings of Luther does not give us any decisive proof that Calvin's conversion was related to the thought of Luther. On his conversion he did not mention Luther, but only God. Calvin confessed as follows: "since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame." In 1528 Calvin, in obedience to his father's order, left Montaigu to study law at the university of Orleans. At the univerity of Orleans Calvin met many friends like the German Hellenist Melchior Wolmar of Rothweil, Francois Daniel, Francois de Connan, and Nicolas Duchemin. Calvin's friend, Wolmar taught him Greek so that Calvin could use the grammatical method of interpretation of Scripture. However the hypothesis that he as a convinced Lutheran had a great role in converting Calvin has not been proved because Calvin nowhere in any of his writings mentioned the influence of Wolmar. Then Calvin came strongly under the influence of humanism. He began to open his eyes to enlightened up-to-date teaching and method. In 1532 Calvin, after indulging in humanism, wrote his commentary of the De Clementia of Seneca. In this work Calvin demonstrated his ability to make use of philosophy, philology, and rhetoric. There were two reasons why Calvin wrote this book. First, Erasmus published the second work of Seneca in 1529, but he was not satisfied with that, and appealed to the readers to do better. This appeal probably challenged Calvin's ambition to surpass Erasmus, the leader of humanism. Secondly, another reason why Calvin chose to write about Seneca was that against Epicurean hedonistic tendencies, Christian humanists like Erasmus, Zwingli, and Calvin felt that they found an effective counter position in Stoicism. In his study of the De Clementia Calvin realized that Christianity and Stoicism were "at one in affirming the existence of a supernatural providence which excludes chance and overrules princes." Wendel insists that the significance Calvin afterwards attributed to this idea of God's providence was "at least partly of Stoic origin." For Calvin the doctrine of God's providence is important not only for the system of his theology, but also for his exegetical work. Especially the Commentary on the Psalms in which he discussed the experience of his sudden conversion by God's providence shows us that in numerous places Calvin tried to interpret the meaning of the passages from the perspective of God's providence. The Stoic ethic, which was highly regarded by Calvin's contemporaries, "defined virtue as the end or goal of life. A virtuous person is one who lives in accordance with nature or the logos." From the early church, many fathers like Tertullian and Lactantius used subjects or principles from Stoicism in defense of Christian doctrine. After the death of his father in 1531, Calvin as a freeman and a humanist went to the college of Fortel in Paris, where the Royal Readers, an illustrious body of humanist scholars recently instututed by Francis I, were teaching the courses. Having already studies some Greek under Wolmar, Calvin pursued Hellenic studies by following the courses of Pierre Danes, one of the most illustrious of the new Royal Readers. Calvin began to learn the elements of Hebrew under Francois Vatable, "although the traditional view is that his real learning in that language was gained at Basle and at Strasburg." Although Calvin was a humanist, by mastering the original languages of Scripture he began to prepare himself for his role as an influential interpreter of the Bible which he assumed after his conversion. Especially Erasmus, the symbol of the humanists, who first employed the grammatical-historical method and first tried textual criticism, was surpassed by Calvin who showed the correct interpretation of the passage in using that method rigorously. Calvin pointed out in many places the mistakes made by Erasmus' textual criticism - the method of inserting words and changing the word of the original text. I shall examine Calvin's criticism against Erasmus later. In 1534 Calvin joined the Reformation. This event was reflected in the preface of his Commentary on the Psalms. He commented on his sudden conversion as follows: I was as yet a very boy, my father had destined me forthe study of theology. But afterward, when he considered that the legal profession commonly raised those who followed it to wealth, this prospect induced him suddenly to change his purpose. Thus it came to pass, that I was withdrawn from the study of philosophy, and was put to the study of law. To this pursuit I endeavored faithfully to apply myself, in obedience to the will of my father; but God, by the secret guidance of his providence, at length gave a different direction to my course. And first, since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life. Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not altogether leave off other studies, I yet pursued them with less ardour. Recently Hieko A. Oberman interpreted the sudden conversion (subita conversio) with reference to other writings of Calvin. On the phrase sudden conversion in the preface of Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms Oberman annotates: In the phrase subita conversio, conversion means mutatio (this can also happen to impii: CO 31. 475 C); the suddenness of subita, subito (adverb), or repente refers to an event praeter spem, beyond all expectation (CO 31. 78 B; 459 C; 311 B; cf. CO 48. 141 C), at times also applicable to the secure us (as already in the sermon of the 2nd of April, 1553, on Ps. 119) en une minute de temps (CO 32. 614 C). Calvin's conversion from a humanist to one of the great Reformers means the new change of God's calling. One of the workings of God's calling is to interpret and teach Scripture for God's people. The fundamental motive of Calvin's interpreting Scripture was to edify the church. "I have felt nothing to be of more importance than to have a regard to the edification of the Church." 3. Conclusion Calvin was not born a great interpreter, but his humanistic training made him not only the great theologian of the Reformation, but also made him one of the great interpreters in the history of Christianity. His humanistic training helped him develop his biblical interpretation. His conversion from a humanist led him to contribute his calling into interpreting and teaching Scripture correctly. Calvin's task ultimately edified Christian community in the world. We, therefore. can get an important message from this paper. The academical training for understanding Scripture correctly is necessary for a sound interpreter. An interpreter with having this process can edify the 21th century church. In fact, the many problems of Christianity have come from the wrong handling of Scripture without the legitimate method of understanding it. It is necessary for a sound interpreter to require the more through hermeneutical disciple. If Korean churches facing many problems are interested in understanding Scripture correctly, they can be helped in overcoming the negative things. Bibliography 국내 안명준, "21세기를 위한 해석자: 칼빈의 해석학에 있어서 성령과 해석의 관계를 중심으로." 복음과 신학 2 (1999): 164-210. 외국 Ahn, Myung Jun. "Current Theological Issues in Korea." Theological Forum 23 (1998):23-26. ________. "The Influences on Calvin's Hermeneutics and the Development of his Method." Hervormde Teologiese Studies 55 (1999): 228-239. Augustijn, C. "Calvin und der Humanismus." In Calvinus Servus Christi, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, Budapest: Presseabteilung des Raday-Kollegiums, 1988. Battles, Ford Lewis. "The Sources of Calvin's Seneca Commentary." In Courtney Studies in Reformation Theology I: John Calvin. Appleford: Sutton Courtney Press, 1966. Baumgartner, Ant. J. Calvin Hebraisant et interprete de l' Ancient Testament. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1889. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Beza, Theodore, "Life of John Calvin." In Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, vol. 1, ed. by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983. Bohatec, Josef. Calvin und das Recht. Graz: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus Nachf., Ges. M.B.H., 1934. _______. Calvins Vorsehungslehre." In Calvinstudien. Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins. Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt, 1909. _______. Bude und Calvin: Studien zur Gedankenwelt des franzosischen, Fruhhumanismus. Graz: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus Nachf., Ges. M.B.H., 1950. Botha, J. "On the 'Reinvention' of Rhetoric." Scriptura: Journal of Bible and Theology 31 (1989): 14-31. Bouwsma, William J. "The Spirituality of John Calvin." In Christian Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation, ed. Jill Raitt. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1987. Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Breen, Quirinus. John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931. Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentary on Seneca's De Clementia, ed. Ford Lewis Battles and Andre Malan Hugo. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969. Charles, Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. Combrink, H. J. Bernard. "The Rhetoric of Sacred Scripture." In Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. de Greef, W. The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide. trans. Lyle D. Bierma. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993. De Long, I. H. "Calvin as an Interpreter of the Bible." Reformed Church Review 13 (1990). 162-182. Doumergue, Emile. Jean Calvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps. Geneve: Slatkine, 1969. Durant, Will. The Reformation: A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin: 1300-1564, The Story of Civilization: Part VI. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957. Engelbrecht, Barend Jacobus. "Calvyn as die grondlegger van die Reformatoriese leer." Die Hervormer 50 (1959): 12-17. Farley, Benjamin Wirt. The Providence of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988. Farrar, F. W. History of Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Floor, L. "The Hermeneutics of Calvin." In Calvinus Reformator: His Contribution to Theology, Church and Society. ed., B. J. van der Walt. Potchefstroom: University for Christian Higher Education. Gadamer, H. G. "Rhetorik, Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik: Metakritische Eroerterungen zu Wahrheit und Methode." In Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik. ed. K. Apel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971. Ganoczy, Alexandre. "Calvin." In The Reformation. ed. Pierre Chaunu. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1985. _______. The Young Calvin, trans. David Foxgrover and Wade Provo. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Ganoczy, Alexandre und Scheld, Stefan. Herrschaft-Tugend-Vorsehung: Hermeneutische deutung und veroffentlichung handschriflicher annotationen Calvins zu sieben Senecatragodien und der Pharsalia Lucas. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1982. Girardin, Benoit. Rhetorique et Theologique: Calvin, Le commentaire de l'epitre aux Romains, Theologie Historique 54. Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979. Hauck, Wilhelm Albert. Vorsehung und Freiheit nach Calvin. Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1947. Higman, Francis M. The Style of John Calvin in His French Polemical Treatises. London: Oxford University, 1967. Hyde, M. J. and Smith C. R. "Hermeneutics and Rhetoric: A Seen but Unobserved Relationship." Quarterly Journal of Speech 65 (1979): 347-63. Jones, Lynda Serene. "Fulfilled in your hearing: Rhetoric and Doctrine in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion." Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1991. Kingdon, Robert M. "John Calvin." The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th. Koch, Ernst. "Erwagungen zum Bekehrungsbericht Calvins." Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 61 (1981): 185-197. Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental Series, vol. 5, ed. A Van Selms. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. Lane, A. N. S. "Calvin's Use of the Fathers and the Medieval." Calvin Theological Journal 16 (1981): 149-205. Lerch, David. "Calvin und Humanismus: Ein Buch von Josef Bohatec uber Bude und Calvin." Theologische Zeitschrift 7 (1971): 284-300. Linder. Robert D. "Calvinism and Humanism: The First Generation." Church History 44 (1975): 167-181. Malicious, S. "Rhetorical Hermeneutics." Critical Inquiry 11 (1985): 620-41. Marie, C. P. "Calvin's God and Humanism." In Our Reformational Tradition: A Rich Heritage and Lasting Vocation, ed. B. J. van der Walt. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for CHE, 1984. McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. McKane, W. "Calvin as an Old Testament Commentator." Ned Geref Teologiese Tydskrif 25 (1984): 25-259. McKee, Dean Greer. "The Contribution of John Calvin to New Testament Exegesis." S.T.D. diss., Biblical Seminary in New York, 1931. McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. London: Oxford University, 1954. Miller, A. B. "Rhetorical exegesis." Philosophy and Rhetoric 5 (1972): 111-18. Most, G. W. "Rhetorik und Hermeneutik: Zur Konstitution der Neuzeitlichkeit." Antike und Abendland 30 (1984): 62-79. Niesel, Wilhelm. The Theology of Calvin. ed. Harold Knight. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956. Nijenhuis, Willem. "Calvijns 'subita conversio': Notities bij een hypothese." Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift 26 (1972): 248-269. Oberman, Heiko A. "Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin's Reformation." In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Palmer, Timothy Pavitt. "John Calvin's view of the Kingdom of God." Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1988. Parker, T. H. L. "Calvin in His Age." Reformed and Presbyterian World 25 (1959): 300-07. _______. John Calvin. Batavia: Lion Publishing Corporation, 1987. _______. "Calvin the Bible Expositor." The Churchman 78 (1964): 23-32. Partee, Charles. "Farel's Influence on Calvin: A Prolusion." In Actes du Colloque Guillaume Farel, eds. Pierre Barthel, Remy Scheurer and Richard Stauffer. New Haven: Yale University, 1983. Plattard, J. "L'Institution Chrestienne de Calvin, premier monument de l'eloquence francaise." Revue des Cours et Conferences 37 (1935-6): 495-510, Pont, A. D. "Calyvn: 'n lewensskets." Die Hervormer 52 (1962): 5-19. Potgieter, F. J. M. De Verhouding tussen die teologie en die filosofie by Calvyn. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1939. Potgieter, Pieter C. "The Providence of God in Calvin's Correspondence." In Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag, ed. Willem van't Spijker. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1991. Reid, W. Stanford. "John Calvin, Lawyer and Legal Reformer." In Through Christ's Word, eds. W. Robert Godfrey and Jesse L. Boyd. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1985. Reuter, Karl. Das Grundverstandnis der Theologie Calvins unter Hinbeziehung ihrer geschichtlichen Abhangigkeiten. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1963. Reuter, Karl. Vom Scholaren bis zum jungen Reformator: Studien zum Werdegang Johannes Calvins. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Rickman, H. P. "Rhetoric and Hermeneutics." Philosophy and Rhetoric 14 (1981): 15-25. Robertson, A. T. "Calvin as an Interpreter of Scripture." The Review and Expositor 6 (1909): 577-578. Rogers, Jack B. & McKim, Donald K. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Saxer, Ernst , Vorsehung und Verheissung Gottes: Vier theologische Modelle. (Calvin, Schleiermacher, Barth, Solle) und ein systematischer Versuch. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1980. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, vol., 8 Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. _______. "Calvin as a Commentator." The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3 (1892): 462-469. Schreiner, Susan E. The Theater of His Glory: Nature and Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995. Sprener, Paul. Das Ratsel um die Bekehrung Calvins. Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1960. Stander, Hendrik F. "Stoicism." Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson. New York: Garland Publishg, Inc., 1990. Stauffer, Richard. "Calvin." In International Calvinism: 1541-1715, ed. Menna Prestwich, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Stauffer, Richard, Dieu, la creation et la providence dans la predication de Calvin. Berne: Peter Lang, 1978. Stob, R. "Stoicism and Christianity." Classical Journal 30 (1934-1935): 217-224. Stutterheim, J. F. "Die bekering van Calvyn." Die Brug 13 (1964): 5-6. Tibiletti, C. "Stoicism and the Fathers." Encyclopedia of the Early Church. ed. Angelo Di Berardino. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1992. Torrance, Thomas F. The Hermeneutics of John Calvin, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988. Traugott, Fuhrman Paul. "Calvin the Expositor." Interpretation 6 (1952): 188-209. Walker, Williston. John Calvin: The Organizer of Reformed Protestantism 1509-1564. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. Wallace, R. S. Calvin, Geneva and the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. Warfield, Benjamin B. "John Calvin: The Man and his Work." Methodist Review 58 (1909): 642-663. Watson, Duane F. and Alan, Hauser J. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method, Biblical Interpretation Series, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and Rolf Rendtorff. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Wendel, Francois. Calvin et l'humanism. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1976. _______. Calvin: Origins and Development of his Relgious Thought. Translated by Philip Mairet. Durham: The Labyrinth Press. 1963. Wierenga, Robert. "Calvin the Commentator." Reformed Review 39 (1978): 4-13. Willis, David E. "Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin's Theology." In The Context of Contemporary Theology, eds. Alexander J. McKelway and E. David Willis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974.
CALVIN'S TRAINING AS AN
CALVIN'S TRAINING AS AN 2003-12-25 10:26:20 read : 12 INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE Prof. Dr. Myung Jun Ahn (Pyongtaek University) I. INTRODUCTION John Calvin was not born a great interpreter. But by God's providence he became one of the great interpreters of Scripture in the history of Christianity. In this article I shall investigate John Calvin as a great interpreter, and deal with how the young Calvin trod the path of learning, what, before his sudden conversion (subita conversio), he learned from the humanists and his masters at the colleges which he attended, and how he applied the humanistic methods to the interpretation of Scripture. 2. Calvin's Training Calvin was the greatest theologian among the Reformers, one of the foremost leaders in the history of Christianity, and among the most influential scholars in world history. Robert M. Kingdon introduces the Reformer to us as follows: John Calvin, a French theologian and ecclesiastical statement, was one of the most important leaders of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Theological, ecclesiastical, and political ideas that he advanced in many publications, a model church that he created and many publications, a model church that he created and directed in the city of Geneva, and the assistance he provided to the political and intellectual leaders of several countries profoundly influenced the development of Protestantism in many parts of Europe and in North America. In order to illuminate Calvin's position as one of the greatest interpreters of Scripture, we first have to take cognisance of his educational background. John Calvin was born at Noyon, a celebrated town in Picardy in north eastern France, on July 10th in 1509. Noyon was once famous as the place where bishops like St. Merdad and St. Eloi lived, and where Charlemagne (later Holy Roman emperor) was crowned king of the western Frankish kingdom of Neustria in 768 and Hugh Capet, king of France and founder of the Capetian dynasty (which ruled directly until 1328), was also crowned in 987. Will Durant, an historian, relating Noyon to Calvin's idea of theocracy, says, "It was an ecclesiastical city, dominated by its cathedral and its bishop; here at the outset he had an example of theocracy - the rule of a society by clergymen in the name of God." The name of his father was Gerard Cauvin ("whose surname, latinized as 'Calvinus', became Calvin in French"), who was a man of hard and severe character. His mother, Joan Franc (Jeanne Lefrane), was noted for her personal beauty and great religious fervor and strictness. Both of them were persons of good repute in this town. Gerard had "a prominent position as apostolic secretary to the bishop of Noyon, proctor in the Chapter of the diocese, and fiscal procurator of the county." He was highly esteemed by the noble families in Noyon and had a good relationship with them. This close connection offered Calvin good circumstances to develop as a great exegete, as he did not have to worry about money. There were two important elements in his early training. First, the starting point of his illustrious career was the great ambition and the sacrificial support of his father. Although he never knew that his youngest son Calvin would become a great exegete, Gerard Cauvin, having ambition for his sons, made his son study the courses of the college of the Capettes in Noyon. It has not been known what courses Calvin studied in the college of his hometown. One would probably suppose that because the college had only a few professors, there were not academic courses like law, philosophy, rhetoric, and the original languages including Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. But not being satisfied with Calvin's attending this college, his father sent Calvin to the college of La Marche in Paris in 1523 when he was just fourteen years old. At that time, like other European cities, Paris also was buzzing with the fire of the Reformation set off by Luther in Wittenberg and Zwingli in Zurich. His father devoted his life to the education of Calvin, giving him a cathedral benefice. The devoted support of his father offered Calvin a great blessing. The fact that, unlike Luther, who had as a father, a miner, who did not want his son to be a monk, Calvin could live in good circumstances provided by his parents, gives us an important key to understanding the process of the life of Calvin as preparation for developing into a great interpreter of Scripture. Secondly, in the process of his becoming a great interpreter, the essential influence upon young Calvin was his friendships at the college of the Capettes in his hometown. At that time his native town, Noyon, was ruled by Charles de Hangest. From his childhood Calvin had come in touch with the sons of this family, especially with the sons of Montmor. In 1523, with three young men of the Hangest family, Calvin was sent to Paris. One of them was Claude de Hangest, Abbot of St. Eloi's at Noyon, to whom Calvin dedicated his commentary on the De Clementia of Seneca in Paris on April 4 in 1532. Calvin called him the most saintly and most wise prelate in his day. Williston Walker describes the situation in the hometown and the friendships of Calvin with them as follows: Quite as influential in the development of the boy's life as this instruction in the schoolroom of the Capettes were the friendships which he formed with his contemporaries among the sons of the noble family of Hangest, notably with those of Louis de Hangest, lord of Montmor, and of his brother, Adrien, lord of Genlis. To Claude, son of the nobleman last named, Calvin was, years later, to dedicate his first book, when Claude had become abbot of Saint-Eloi at Noyon. With Joachim and Ives, and a brother of theirs whose name is now lost, sons of the seigneur of Montmor, Calvin stood in intimate school fellowship; and his relations to these households of Montmor and Gelis seem indeed, to have been much closer than merely those of the schoolroom. Gerard's relationship with the noble family explains the fact that the young Calvin was "from a boy very liberally educated in the family of the Mommors, one of the most distinguished in that quarter." Afterwards a son of de Mommor followed Calvin to Geneva. Calvin's friendships played an important role in developing his humanistic study before his sudden conversion. This background of Calvin's education helped him to make rapid progress in learning, and let him acquire "a refinement of manners and a certain aristocratic air, which distinguished him from Luther and Zwingli." In an attempt to understand Calvin's intellectual development, one should keep in mind that before his theological studies, he first studied law with leading humanists. Therefore his hermeneutical method was influenced by his humanistic learning. Then Calvin learned from the humanists rhetoric, philosophy, and philology skills needed by a great interpreter of Scripture. The first steps in Calvin's development as an interpreter were set when he went to the college of La Marche. This college was imbued with a humanistic spirit with which Calvin now came into contact. Calvin fortunately had a chance to meet a famous professor in the college of La Marche. His name was Mathurin Cordier, the best Latin teacher in the country and one of the founders of modern pedagogy. He had a great influence upon Calvin who learned to read and to write Latin from him. He was also the first master who introduced Calvin to the philosophy of humanism and Christian piety. T. F. Torrance points out correctly that M. Cordier "not only laid the foundation of Calvin's education and taught Calvin the true method of learning, but imbued him with such a taste for literary studies that Calvin could trace the progress he made in later years to Cordier's instruction." When Calvin founded the Academy of Geneva in 1559, he provided Cordier with the position to instruct Latin. There he died at the age of eighty-five in the same year as Calvin did in 1564. Cordier's influence upon Calvin was demonstrated when Calvin dedicated to his old teacher his Commentary on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians on February 17th, 1550. Here Calvin called him "a man of eminent piety and learning, principal of the college Lausanne." Calvin expressed his heartfelt thanks as follows: It is befitting that you should come in for a share in my labors, inasmuch as, under your auspices, having entered on a course of study, I made proficiency at least so far as to be prepared to profit in some degree the Church of God. When my father sent me, while yet a boy, to Paris, after I had simply tasted the first elements of the Latin tongue, Providence so ordered it that I had, for a short time, the privilege of having you as my instructor, that I might be taught by you the true method of learning, in such a way that I might be prepared afterwards to make somewhat better proficiency. According to John T. McNeill, it was Cordier who let Calvin discover the delights of good learning and acquire that unfailing sense of style and diction that marked all his writings. Then under him Calvin learned "in large measure something that was to be one of his greatest assets: his style, so that Calvin could be both an excellent Latinist and a writer with the capability of expressing an elegant French." Later his Latin study made it possible that he could read the Fathers' writings and the rhetorical writings of Cicero and Quintilian. In Latin Calvin probably began to have a chance to understand the theological thoughts of the Fathers. From the writings of Cicero and Quintilian, Calvin also was able to learn the terms and the concepts of brevitas et facilitas, which had long been used by Plato and Aristotle in their rhetorical writings. Generally speaking, rhetoric is closely connected with the interpretation of Scripture because Scripture itself employs many rhetorical devices. C. J. Labuschagne writes, for instance, that there are many rhetorical questions in the Old Testament. As an example he indicates that especially when the author of Scripture expresses Yahweh's incomparability, such questions are employed. He writes as follows: Rhetorical questions are frequently used in the Old Testament to express the absolute power, uniqueness, singularity and incomparability of a person. The rhetorical question is one of the most forceful and effectual ways employed in speech for driving home some idea or conviction. Because of its impressive and persuasive effect the hearer is not merely listener: he is forced to frame the expected answer in his mind, and by doing so he actually becomes a co-expressor of the speaker's conviction. Some scholars argue that Paul's rhetoric was a focus of the Reformers like Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin. The Reformers influenced by the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla employed a rhetorical approach in their commentaries on the New Testament. On rhetorical method H. D. Betz argues that Paul's epistles had "classical categories of invention, arrangement, and style in mind." He also regards these as "an interpretive tool." Kennedy maintains that Matthew employed "rhetoric in the most comprehensive way, attending to invention, arrangement, style, and amplification." I shall have the opportunity later on to investigate rhetoric as one of the sources of Calvin's ideal of brevitas et facilitas. From the college of La Marche, Calvin was transferred by his father, for reasons we do not know, to the college of Montaigu at the end of 1523. Calvin made great progress in the formation of his intellect during his stay in this college. A. Ganoczy writes on Calvin's studies there: At Montaigau his studies probably consisted of logic, metaphysics, ethics, rhetoric and science, all of which were taught on the basis of Aristotle with the teachers drawing inspiration from authorities like Ockham, Buridan, Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. These studies were intended as prolegomena to theology and Calvin finished them at eighteen without having been able to begin the sacred sciences which consisted of a commentary on the Bible and the Sentences of Peter Lombard. He thus escaped the scholastic strait-jacket and kept his intellectual virginity for a humanist and soon a Lutheran interpretation of Catholic tradition. At the college of Montaigu there were a few famous scholars such as Beda, Antonio Coronel, and John Major. Probably Calvin began to hear of the Reformation of Luther and the humanistic school from them. A Spaniard, Antonio Coronel, taught Calvin the grammar course of Latin as well as philosophy. Through Antonio Coronel's Latin tuition, Calvin, therefore, having already learned Latin from Cordier, became one of the great Latin scholars in the 16th century. This did not only enable him to read the writings of philosophers, rhetoricians, and the Fathers, but also later on to write his Institutes of the Christian Religion and his commentaries in Latin. Here at Montaigu Calvin came into contact with Luther's thought albeit in the negative evaluation that Beda gave of it. Here also Calvin experienced the influence of John Major who taught him "direct knowledge of the Sentences of Peter Lombard and of the Occamist interpretation that he put upon them." Following F. Wendel, J. T. McNeill writes: It is highly likely that he came under the instruction of the celebrated Scot, John Major, or Mair, who returned to Paris in 1525 after a period of teaching in his native country. He was a very learned scholastic philosopher of the Ockhamist persuasion. Among his works were a valuable History of Greater Britain (1521) and a commentary on the Gospels (1529), in which he assailed the writings of Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther. It may be reasonably inferred that Calvin heard from his lips some of the material of the latter book before its publication; Major's lectures may indeed have given him his first substantial knowledge of Luther. In 1963 Karl Reuter on this issue dared to put forward the hypothesis that Major had a decisive influence on Calvin's intellectual development; that he introduced Calvin to a new conception of anti-Pelagian, Scotist theology, a renewed Augustinianism, and positivism in regard to Scripture. In contrast to him, A. Ganoczy and A. E. McGrath argue that Major's direct influence on Calvin's theology cannot be proved. It is, however, certain that Calvin knew a little of the theology of John Major. The period in the college of Montaigu was very important for Calvin because he could have a chance to master Latin, rhetoric, and philosophy. This training of Calvin was clearly expressed in his commentary on the De Clementia of Seneca and, after his conversion, in his interpretation of Scripture. The period in the college of Montaigu was significant, not as preparation for his role as a Reformer, but in that it exposed him to humanist thinking which had an impact on the method used by him for the exegesis of Scripture. Later his father, who originally intended him to study theology, changed his mind and ordered Calvin to study law because he expected Calvin to become a person with wealth and honor. But this second plan of his father to make him a good lawyer for a secure life, providentially turned out to be the best possible way for his future as an interpreter of the Bible. In order to be a lawyer, Calvin studied law and rhetoric from Peter De l'Etoile in the university of Orleans and from Andreas Alciati in the university of Bourges. By studying law, Calvin as a humanist learned the necessary method for the interpretation of an original text. A. E. McGrath argues that the sources of the hermeneutical method of Calvin was found in his study of law in the advanced atmosphere of Orleans and Bourges Calvin's legal training prepared him to accurately establish the intent of the author of Scripture and the genuine meaning of the text, and to consider the historical background. Donald K. McKim relates Calvin's studying law to his hermeneutical method as follows: As we have observed, humanist legal scholars were seeking direct access to the corpus of Roman law, not via learned authorities or traditions, but through the study of the history and social customs of ancient Rome. Such study gave them a direct understanding of the intentions and meanings of the legal texts. Calvin applied a similar concern for context to his work with Scripture. Circumstances and culture are always main ingredients to be understood as one seeks to interpret the Bible. . . . Concern for context led Calvin to seek the divine intention revealed in Scripture. His studies in legal exegesis showed him that the intent of the author is more important than the etymology of words. Thus the knowledge obtained through Calvin's study of law became an important tool for his becoming a great interpreter. After his sudden conversion Calvin often interpreted the meaning of the passages with the concepts of law when he explained to his readers the justice of God, the atonement of Christ, and the judgment of the wicked. With these terms of law Calvin dealt with the sense of the text clearly, briefly, simply, and practically. Consequently Calvin's studying of law which his father wanted him to follow made a contribution to Calvin's becoming a great interpreter of the Bible and a Christian politician who influenced the Genevan legal reform. In the college of Montaigu Calvin had contact with the humanists in Paris. For example, he was closely associated with his scholarly cousin, Pierre Robert Olivier, who had favored the Reformation and showed a great interest in the humanism then in fashion. Olivier (Olivetan) had two friends, Guillaume Cop who was the chief physician of King Francis, and Guillaume Bude who was "the most learned Hellenist of France, and the most effective liberal opponent of Buda." While Calvin criticized the views of Erasmus in the interpretation of Scripture, he always respected the views of Bude, and in his commentaries never contradicted him. Bude especially had a great influence upon Calvin's hermeneutical method. We shall have the opportunity later on to examine the influence of Bude upon Calvin's method of hermeneutics. Through Olivier, Cop and Bude Calvin probably came into contact with the writings of Luther, Melanchthon, and Lefevre d'Etaples. But Calvin's knowledge of the writings of Luther does not give us any decisive proof that Calvin's conversion was related to the thought of Luther. On his conversion he did not mention Luther, but only God. Calvin confessed as follows: "since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame." In 1528 Calvin, in obedience to his father's order, left Montaigu to study law at the university of Orleans. At the univerity of Orleans Calvin met many friends like the German Hellenist Melchior Wolmar of Rothweil, Francois Daniel, Francois de Connan, and Nicolas Duchemin. Calvin's friend, Wolmar taught him Greek so that Calvin could use the grammatical method of interpretation of Scripture. However the hypothesis that he as a convinced Lutheran had a great role in converting Calvin has not been proved because Calvin nowhere in any of his writings mentioned the influence of Wolmar. Then Calvin came strongly under the influence of humanism. He began to open his eyes to enlightened up-to-date teaching and method. In 1532 Calvin, after indulging in humanism, wrote his commentary of the De Clementia of Seneca. In this work Calvin demonstrated his ability to make use of philosophy, philology, and rhetoric. There were two reasons why Calvin wrote this book. First, Erasmus published the second work of Seneca in 1529, but he was not satisfied with that, and appealed to the readers to do better. This appeal probably challenged Calvin's ambition to surpass Erasmus, the leader of humanism. Secondly, another reason why Calvin chose to write about Seneca was that against Epicurean hedonistic tendencies, Christian humanists like Erasmus, Zwingli, and Calvin felt that they found an effective counter position in Stoicism. In his study of the De Clementia Calvin realized that Christianity and Stoicism were "at one in affirming the existence of a supernatural providence which excludes chance and overrules princes." Wendel insists that the significance Calvin afterwards attributed to this idea of God's providence was "at least partly of Stoic origin." For Calvin the doctrine of God's providence is important not only for the system of his theology, but also for his exegetical work. Especially the Commentary on the Psalms in which he discussed the experience of his sudden conversion by God's providence shows us that in numerous places Calvin tried to interpret the meaning of the passages from the perspective of God's providence. The Stoic ethic, which was highly regarded by Calvin's contemporaries, "defined virtue as the end or goal of life. A virtuous person is one who lives in accordance with nature or the logos." From the early church, many fathers like Tertullian and Lactantius used subjects or principles from Stoicism in defense of Christian doctrine. After the death of his father in 1531, Calvin as a freeman and a humanist went to the college of Fortel in Paris, where the Royal Readers, an illustrious body of humanist scholars recently instututed by Francis I, were teaching the courses. Having already studies some Greek under Wolmar, Calvin pursued Hellenic studies by following the courses of Pierre Danes, one of the most illustrious of the new Royal Readers. Calvin began to learn the elements of Hebrew under Francois Vatable, "although the traditional view is that his real learning in that language was gained at Basle and at Strasburg." Although Calvin was a humanist, by mastering the original languages of Scripture he began to prepare himself for his role as an influential interpreter of the Bible which he assumed after his conversion. Especially Erasmus, the symbol of the humanists, who first employed the grammatical-historical method and first tried textual criticism, was surpassed by Calvin who showed the correct interpretation of the passage in using that method rigorously. Calvin pointed out in many places the mistakes made by Erasmus' textual criticism - the method of inserting words and changing the word of the original text. I shall examine Calvin's criticism against Erasmus later. In 1534 Calvin joined the Reformation. This event was reflected in the preface of his Commentary on the Psalms. He commented on his sudden conversion as follows: I was as yet a very boy, my father had destined me forthe study of theology. But afterward, when he considered that the legal profession commonly raised those who followed it to wealth, this prospect induced him suddenly to change his purpose. Thus it came to pass, that I was withdrawn from the study of philosophy, and was put to the study of law. To this pursuit I endeavored faithfully to apply myself, in obedience to the will of my father; but God, by the secret guidance of his providence, at length gave a different direction to my course. And first, since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life. Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not altogether leave off other studies, I yet pursued them with less ardour. Recently Hieko A. Oberman interpreted the sudden conversion (subita conversio) with reference to other writings of Calvin. On the phrase sudden conversion in the preface of Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms Oberman annotates: In the phrase subita conversio, conversion means mutatio (this can also happen to impii: CO 31. 475 C); the suddenness of subita, subito (adverb), or repente refers to an event praeter spem, beyond all expectation (CO 31. 78 B; 459 C; 311 B; cf. CO 48. 141 C), at times also applicable to the secure us (as already in the sermon of the 2nd of April, 1553, on Ps. 119) en une minute de temps (CO 32. 614 C). Calvin's conversion from a humanist to one of the great Reformers means the new change of God's calling. One of the workings of God's calling is to interpret and teach Scripture for God's people. The fundamental motive of Calvin's interpreting Scripture was to edify the church. "I have felt nothing to be of more importance than to have a regard to the edification of the Church." 3. Conclusion Calvin was not born a great interpreter, but his humanistic training made him not only the great theologian of the Reformation, but also made him one of the great interpreters in the history of Christianity. His humanistic training helped him develop his biblical interpretation. His conversion from a humanist led him to contribute his calling into interpreting and teaching Scripture correctly. Calvin's task ultimately edified Christian community in the world. We, therefore. can get an important message from this paper. The academical training for understanding Scripture correctly is necessary for a sound interpreter. An interpreter with having this process can edify the 21th century church. In fact, the many problems of Christianity have come from the wrong handling of Scripture without the legitimate method of understanding it. It is necessary for a sound interpreter to require the more through hermeneutical disciple. If Korean churches facing many problems are interested in understanding Scripture correctly, they can be helped in overcoming the negative things. Bibliography 국내 안명준, "21세기를 위한 해석자: 칼빈의 해석학에 있어서 성령과 해석의 관계를 중심으로." 복음과 신학 2 (1999): 164-210. 외국 Ahn, Myung Jun. "Current Theological Issues in Korea." Theological Forum 23 (1998):23-26. ________. "The Influences on Calvin's Hermeneutics and the Development of his Method." Hervormde Teologiese Studies 55 (1999): 228-239. Augustijn, C. "Calvin und der Humanismus." In Calvinus Servus Christi, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, Budapest: Presseabteilung des Raday-Kollegiums, 1988. Battles, Ford Lewis. "The Sources of Calvin's Seneca Commentary." In Courtney Studies in Reformation Theology I: John Calvin. Appleford: Sutton Courtney Press, 1966. Baumgartner, Ant. J. Calvin Hebraisant et interprete de l' Ancient Testament. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1889. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Beza, Theodore, "Life of John Calvin." In Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, vol. 1, ed. by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983. Bohatec, Josef. Calvin und das Recht. Graz: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus Nachf., Ges. M.B.H., 1934. _______. Calvins Vorsehungslehre." In Calvinstudien. Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins. Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt, 1909. _______. Bude und Calvin: Studien zur Gedankenwelt des franzosischen, Fruhhumanismus. Graz: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus Nachf., Ges. M.B.H., 1950. Botha, J. "On the 'Reinvention' of Rhetoric." Scriptura: Journal of Bible and Theology 31 (1989): 14-31. Bouwsma, William J. "The Spirituality of John Calvin." In Christian Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation, ed. Jill Raitt. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1987. Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Breen, Quirinus. John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931. Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentary on Seneca's De Clementia, ed. Ford Lewis Battles and Andre Malan Hugo. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969. Charles, Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. Combrink, H. J. Bernard. "The Rhetoric of Sacred Scripture." In Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. de Greef, W. The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide. trans. Lyle D. Bierma. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993. De Long, I. H. "Calvin as an Interpreter of the Bible." Reformed Church Review 13 (1990). 162-182. Doumergue, Emile. Jean Calvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps. Geneve: Slatkine, 1969. Durant, Will. The Reformation: A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin: 1300-1564, The Story of Civilization: Part VI. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957. Engelbrecht, Barend Jacobus. "Calvyn as die grondlegger van die Reformatoriese leer." Die Hervormer 50 (1959): 12-17. Farley, Benjamin Wirt. The Providence of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988. Farrar, F. W. History of Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Floor, L. "The Hermeneutics of Calvin." In Calvinus Reformator: His Contribution to Theology, Church and Society. ed., B. J. van der Walt. Potchefstroom: University for Christian Higher Education. Gadamer, H. G. "Rhetorik, Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik: Metakritische Eroerterungen zu Wahrheit und Methode." In Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik. ed. K. Apel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971. Ganoczy, Alexandre. "Calvin." In The Reformation. ed. Pierre Chaunu. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1985. _______. The Young Calvin, trans. David Foxgrover and Wade Provo. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Ganoczy, Alexandre und Scheld, Stefan. Herrschaft-Tugend-Vorsehung: Hermeneutische deutung und veroffentlichung handschriflicher annotationen Calvins zu sieben Senecatragodien und der Pharsalia Lucas. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1982. Girardin, Benoit. Rhetorique et Theologique: Calvin, Le commentaire de l'epitre aux Romains, Theologie Historique 54. Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979. Hauck, Wilhelm Albert. Vorsehung und Freiheit nach Calvin. Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1947. Higman, Francis M. The Style of John Calvin in His French Polemical Treatises. London: Oxford University, 1967. Hyde, M. J. and Smith C. R. "Hermeneutics and Rhetoric: A Seen but Unobserved Relationship." Quarterly Journal of Speech 65 (1979): 347-63. Jones, Lynda Serene. "Fulfilled in your hearing: Rhetoric and Doctrine in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion." Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1991. Kingdon, Robert M. "John Calvin." The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th. Koch, Ernst. "Erwagungen zum Bekehrungsbericht Calvins." Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 61 (1981): 185-197. Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental Series, vol. 5, ed. A Van Selms. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. Lane, A. N. S. "Calvin's Use of the Fathers and the Medieval." Calvin Theological Journal 16 (1981): 149-205. Lerch, David. "Calvin und Humanismus: Ein Buch von Josef Bohatec uber Bude und Calvin." Theologische Zeitschrift 7 (1971): 284-300. Linder. Robert D. "Calvinism and Humanism: The First Generation." Church History 44 (1975): 167-181. Malicious, S. "Rhetorical Hermeneutics." Critical Inquiry 11 (1985): 620-41. Marie, C. P. "Calvin's God and Humanism." In Our Reformational Tradition: A Rich Heritage and Lasting Vocation, ed. B. J. van der Walt. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for CHE, 1984. McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. McKane, W. "Calvin as an Old Testament Commentator." Ned Geref Teologiese Tydskrif 25 (1984): 25-259. McKee, Dean Greer. "The Contribution of John Calvin to New Testament Exegesis." S.T.D. diss., Biblical Seminary in New York, 1931. McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. London: Oxford University, 1954. Miller, A. B. "Rhetorical exegesis." Philosophy and Rhetoric 5 (1972): 111-18. Most, G. W. "Rhetorik und Hermeneutik: Zur Konstitution der Neuzeitlichkeit." Antike und Abendland 30 (1984): 62-79. Niesel, Wilhelm. The Theology of Calvin. ed. Harold Knight. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956. Nijenhuis, Willem. "Calvijns 'subita conversio': Notities bij een hypothese." Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift 26 (1972): 248-269. Oberman, Heiko A. "Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin's Reformation." In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Palmer, Timothy Pavitt. "John Calvin's view of the Kingdom of God." Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1988. Parker, T. H. L. "Calvin in His Age." Reformed and Presbyterian World 25 (1959): 300-07. _______. John Calvin. Batavia: Lion Publishing Corporation, 1987. _______. "Calvin the Bible Expositor." The Churchman 78 (1964): 23-32. Partee, Charles. "Farel's Influence on Calvin: A Prolusion." In Actes du Colloque Guillaume Farel, eds. Pierre Barthel, Remy Scheurer and Richard Stauffer. New Haven: Yale University, 1983. Plattard, J. "L'Institution Chrestienne de Calvin, premier monument de l'eloquence francaise." Revue des Cours et Conferences 37 (1935-6): 495-510, Pont, A. D. "Calyvn: 'n lewensskets." Die Hervormer 52 (1962): 5-19. Potgieter, F. J. M. De Verhouding tussen die teologie en die filosofie by Calvyn. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1939. Potgieter, Pieter C. "The Providence of God in Calvin's Correspondence." In Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag, ed. Willem van't Spijker. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1991. Reid, W. Stanford. "John Calvin, Lawyer and Legal Reformer." In Through Christ's Word, eds. W. Robert Godfrey and Jesse L. Boyd. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1985. Reuter, Karl. Das Grundverstandnis der Theologie Calvins unter Hinbeziehung ihrer geschichtlichen Abhangigkeiten. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1963. Reuter, Karl. Vom Scholaren bis zum jungen Reformator: Studien zum Werdegang Johannes Calvins. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Rickman, H. P. "Rhetoric and Hermeneutics." Philosophy and Rhetoric 14 (1981): 15-25. Robertson, A. T. "Calvin as an Interpreter of Scripture." The Review and Expositor 6 (1909): 577-578. Rogers, Jack B. & McKim, Donald K. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Saxer, Ernst , Vorsehung und Verheissung Gottes: Vier theologische Modelle. (Calvin, Schleiermacher, Barth, Solle) und ein systematischer Versuch. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1980. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, vol., 8 Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. _______. "Calvin as a Commentator." The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3 (1892): 462-469. Schreiner, Susan E. The Theater of His Glory: Nature and Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995. Sprener, Paul. Das Ratsel um die Bekehrung Calvins. Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1960. Stander, Hendrik F. "Stoicism." Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson. New York: Garland Publishg, Inc., 1990. Stauffer, Richard. "Calvin." In International Calvinism: 1541-1715, ed. Menna Prestwich, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Stauffer, Richard, Dieu, la creation et la providence dans la predication de Calvin. Berne: Peter Lang, 1978. Stob, R. "Stoicism and Christianity." Classical Journal 30 (1934-1935): 217-224. Stutterheim, J. F. "Die bekering van Calvyn." Die Brug 13 (1964): 5-6. Tibiletti, C. "Stoicism and the Fathers." Encyclopedia of the Early Church. ed. Angelo Di Berardino. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1992. Torrance, Thomas F. The Hermeneutics of John Calvin, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988. Traugott, Fuhrman Paul. "Calvin the Expositor." Interpretation 6 (1952): 188-209. Walker, Williston. John Calvin: The Organizer of Reformed Protestantism 1509-1564. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. Wallace, R. S. Calvin, Geneva and the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. Warfield, Benjamin B. "John Calvin: The Man and his Work." Methodist Review 58 (1909): 642-663. Watson, Duane F. and Alan, Hauser J. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method, Biblical Interpretation Series, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and Rolf Rendtorff. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Wendel, Francois. Calvin et l'humanism. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1976. _______. Calvin: Origins and Development of his Relgious Thought. Translated by Philip Mairet. Durham: The Labyrinth Press. 1963. Wierenga, Robert. "Calvin the Commentator." Reformed Review 39 (1978): 4-13. Willis, David E. "Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin's Theology." In The Context of Contemporary Theology, eds. Alexander J. McKelway and E. David Willis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974.
Calvin's Training as an Interpreter of Scripture/ 2003-12-25
Calvin's Training as an Interpreter of Scripture I. INTRODUCTION John Calvin was not born a great interpreter. But by God's providence he became one of the great interpreters of Scripture in the history of Christianity. In this article I shall investigate John Calvin as a great interpreter, and deal with how the young Calvin trod the path of learning, what, before his sudden conversion (subita conversio), he learned from the humanists and his masters at the colleges which he attended, and how he applied the humanistic methods to the interpretation of Scripture. 2. Calvin's Training Calvin was the greatest theologian among the Reformers, one of the foremost leaders in the history of Christianity, and among the most influential scholars in world history. Robert M. Kingdon introduces the Reformer to us as follows: John Calvin, a French theologian and ecclesiastical statement, was one of the most important leaders of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Theological, ecclesiastical, and political ideas that he advanced in many publications, a model church that he created and many publications, a model church that he created and directed in the city of Geneva, and the assistance he provided to the political and intellectual leaders of several countries profoundly influenced the development of Protestantism in many parts of Europe and in North America. In order to illuminate Calvin's position as one of the greatest interpreters of Scripture, we first have to take cognisance of his educational background. John Calvin was born at Noyon, a celebrated town in Picardy in north eastern France, on July 10th in 1509. Noyon was once famous as the place where bishops like St. Merdad and St. Eloi lived, and where Charlemagne (later Holy Roman emperor) was crowned king of the western Frankish kingdom of Neustria in 768 and Hugh Capet, king of France and founder of the Capetian dynasty (which ruled directly until 1328), was also crowned in 987. Will Durant, an historian, relating Noyon to Calvin's idea of theocracy, says, "It was an ecclesiastical city, dominated by its cathedral and its bishop; here at the outset he had an example of theocracy - the rule of a society by clergymen in the name of God." The name of his father was Gerard Cauvin ("whose surname, latinized as 'Calvinus', became Calvin in French"), who was a man of hard and severe character. His mother, Joan Franc (Jeanne Lefrane), was noted for her personal beauty and great religious fervor and strictness. Both of them were persons of good repute in this town. Gerard had "a prominent position as apostolic secretary to the bishop of Noyon, proctor in the Chapter of the diocese, and fiscal procurator of the county." He was highly esteemed by the noble families in Noyon and had a good relationship with them. This close connection offered Calvin good circumstances to develop as a great exegete, as he did not have to worry about money. There were two important elements in his early training. First, the starting point of his illustrious career was the great ambition and the sacrificial support of his father. Although he never knew that his youngest son Calvin would become a great exegete, Gerard Cauvin, having ambition for his sons, made his son study the courses of the college of the Capettes in Noyon. It has not been known what courses Calvin studied in the college of his hometown. One would probably suppose that because the college had only a few professors, there were not academic courses like law, philosophy, rhetoric, and the original languages including Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. But not being satisfied with Calvin's attending this college, his father sent Calvin to the college of La Marche in Paris in 1523 when he was just fourteen years old. At that time, like other European cities, Paris also was buzzing with the fire of the Reformation set off by Luther in Wittenberg and Zwingli in Zurich. His father devoted his life to the education of Calvin, giving him a cathedral benefice. The devoted support of his father offered Calvin a great blessing. The fact that, unlike Luther, who had as a father, a miner, who did not want his son to be a monk, Calvin could live in good circumstances provided by his parents, gives us an important key to understanding the process of the life of Calvin as preparation for developing into a great interpreter of Scripture. Secondly, in the process of his becoming a great interpreter, the essential influence upon young Calvin was his friendships at the college of the Capettes in his hometown. At that time his native town, Noyon, was ruled by Charles de Hangest. From his childhood Calvin had come in touch with the sons of this family, especially with the sons of Montmor. In 1523, with three young men of the Hangest family, Calvin was sent to Paris. One of them was Claude de Hangest, Abbot of St. Eloi's at Noyon, to whom Calvin dedicated his commentary on the De Clementia of Seneca in Paris on April 4 in 1532. Calvin called him the most saintly and most wise prelate in his day. Williston Walker describes the situation in the hometown and the friendships of Calvin with them as follows: Quite as influential in the development of the boy's life as this instruction in the schoolroom of the Capettes were the friendships which he formed with his contemporaries among the sons of the noble family of Hangest, notably with those of Louis de Hangest, lord of Montmor, and of his brother, Adrien, lord of Genlis. To Claude, son of the nobleman last named, Calvin was, years later, to dedicate his first book, when Claude had become abbot of Saint-Eloi at Noyon. With Joachim and Ives, and a brother of theirs whose name is now lost, sons of the seigneur of Montmor, Calvin stood in intimate school fellowship; and his relations to these households of Montmor and Gelis seem indeed, to have been much closer than merely those of the schoolroom. Gerard's relationship with the noble family explains the fact that the young Calvin was "from a boy very liberally educated in the family of the Mommors, one of the most distinguished in that quarter." Afterwards a son of de Mommor followed Calvin to Geneva. Calvin's friendships played an important role in developing his humanistic study before his sudden conversion. This background of Calvin's education helped him to make rapid progress in learning, and let him acquire "a refinement of manners and a certain aristocratic air, which distinguished him from Luther and Zwingli." In an attempt to understand Calvin's intellectual development, one should keep in mind that before his theological studies, he first studied law with leading humanists. Therefore his hermeneutical method was influenced by his humanistic learning. Then Calvin learned from the humanists rhetoric, philosophy, and philology skills needed by a great interpreter of Scripture. The first steps in Calvin's development as an interpreter were set when he went to the college of La Marche. This college was imbued with a humanistic spirit with which Calvin now came into contact. Calvin fortunately had a chance to meet a famous professor in the college of La Marche. His name was Mathurin Cordier, the best Latin teacher in the country and one of the founders of modern pedagogy. He had a great influence upon Calvin who learned to read and to write Latin from him. He was also the first master who introduced Calvin to the philosophy of humanism and Christian piety. T. F. Torrance points out correctly that M. Cordier "not only laid the foundation of Calvin's education and taught Calvin the true method of learning, but imbued him with such a taste for literary studies that Calvin could trace the progress he made in later years to Cordier's instruction." When Calvin founded the Academy of Geneva in 1559, he provided Cordier with the position to instruct Latin. There he died at the age of eighty-five in the same year as Calvin did in 1564. Cordier's influence upon Calvin was demonstrated when Calvin dedicated to his old teacher his Commentary on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians on February 17th, 1550. Here Calvin called him "a man of eminent piety and learning, principal of the college Lausanne." Calvin expressed his heartfelt thanks as follows: It is befitting that you should come in for a share in my labors, inasmuch as, under your auspices, having entered on a course of study, I made proficiency at least so far as to be prepared to profit in some degree the Church of God. When my father sent me, while yet a boy, to Paris, after I had simply tasted the first elements of the Latin tongue, Providence so ordered it that I had, for a short time, the privilege of having you as my instructor, that I might be taught by you the true method of learning, in such a way that I might be prepared afterwards to make somewhat better proficiency. According to John T. McNeill, it was Cordier who let Calvin discover the delights of good learning and acquire that unfailing sense of style and diction that marked all his writings. Then under him Calvin learned "in large measure something that was to be one of his greatest assets: his style, so that Calvin could be both an excellent Latinist and a writer with the capability of expressing an elegant French." Later his Latin study made it possible that he could read the Fathers' writings and the rhetorical writings of Cicero and Quintilian. In Latin Calvin probably began to have a chance to understand the theological thoughts of the Fathers. From the writings of Cicero and Quintilian, Calvin also was able to learn the terms and the concepts of brevitas et facilitas, which had long been used by Plato and Aristotle in their rhetorical writings. Generally speaking, rhetoric is closely connected with the interpretation of Scripture because Scripture itself employs many rhetorical devices. C. J. Labuschagne writes, for instance, that there are many rhetorical questions in the Old Testament. As an example he indicates that especially when the author of Scripture expresses Yahweh's incomparability, such questions are employed. He writes as follows: Rhetorical questions are frequently used in the Old Testament to express the absolute power, uniqueness, singularity and incomparability of a person. The rhetorical question is one of the most forceful and effectual ways employed in speech for driving home some idea or conviction. Because of its impressive and persuasive effect the hearer is not merely listener: he is forced to frame the expected answer in his mind, and by doing so he actually becomes a co-expressor of the speaker's conviction. Some scholars argue that Paul's rhetoric was a focus of the Reformers like Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin. The Reformers influenced by the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla employed a rhetorical approach in their commentaries on the New Testament. On rhetorical method H. D. Betz argues that Paul's epistles had "classical categories of invention, arrangement, and style in mind." He also regards these as "an interpretive tool." Kennedy maintains that Matthew employed "rhetoric in the most comprehensive way, attending to invention, arrangement, style, and amplification." I shall have the opportunity later on to investigate rhetoric as one of the sources of Calvin's ideal of brevitas et facilitas. From the college of La Marche, Calvin was transferred by his father, for reasons we do not know, to the college of Montaigu at the end of 1523. Calvin made great progress in the formation of his intellect during his stay in this college. A. Ganoczy writes on Calvin's studies there: At Montaigau his studies probably consisted of logic, metaphysics, ethics, rhetoric and science, all of which were taught on the basis of Aristotle with the teachers drawing inspiration from authorities like Ockham, Buridan, Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. These studies were intended as prolegomena to theology and Calvin finished them at eighteen without having been able to begin the sacred sciences which consisted of a commentary on the Bible and the Sentences of Peter Lombard. He thus escaped the scholastic strait-jacket and kept his intellectual virginity for a humanist and soon a Lutheran interpretation of Catholic tradition. At the college of Montaigu there were a few famous scholars such as Beda, Antonio Coronel, and John Major. Probably Calvin began to hear of the Reformation of Luther and the humanistic school from them. A Spaniard, Antonio Coronel, taught Calvin the grammar course of Latin as well as philosophy. Through Antonio Coronel's Latin tuition, Calvin, therefore, having already learned Latin from Cordier, became one of the great Latin scholars in the 16th century. This did not only enable him to read the writings of philosophers, rhetoricians, and the Fathers, but also later on to write his Institutes of the Christian Religion and his commentaries in Latin. Here at Montaigu Calvin came into contact with Luther's thought albeit in the negative evaluation that Beda gave of it. Here also Calvin experienced the influence of John Major who taught him "direct knowledge of the Sentences of Peter Lombard and of the Occamist interpretation that he put upon them." Following F. Wendel, J. T. McNeill writes: It is highly likely that he came under the instruction of the celebrated Scot, John Major, or Mair, who returned to Paris in 1525 after a period of teaching in his native country. He was a very learned scholastic philosopher of the Ockhamist persuasion. Among his works were a valuable History of Greater Britain (1521) and a commentary on the Gospels (1529), in which he assailed the writings of Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther. It may be reasonably inferred that Calvin heard from his lips some of the material of the latter book before its publication; Major's lectures may indeed have given him his first substantial knowledge of Luther. In 1963 Karl Reuter on this issue dared to put forward the hypothesis that Major had a decisive influence on Calvin's intellectual development; that he introduced Calvin to a new conception of anti-Pelagian, Scotist theology, a renewed Augustinianism, and positivism in regard to Scripture. In contrast to him, A. Ganoczy and A. E. McGrath argue that Major's direct influence on Calvin's theology cannot be proved. It is, however, certain that Calvin knew a little of the theology of John Major. The period in the college of Montaigu was very important for Calvin because he could have a chance to master Latin, rhetoric, and philosophy. This training of Calvin was clearly expressed in his commentary on the De Clementia of Seneca and, after his conversion, in his interpretation of Scripture. The period in the college of Montaigu was significant, not as preparation for his role as a Reformer, but in that it exposed him to humanist thinking which had an impact on the method used by him for the exegesis of Scripture. Later his father, who originally intended him to study theology, changed his mind and ordered Calvin to study law because he expected Calvin to become a person with wealth and honor. But this second plan of his father to make him a good lawyer for a secure life, providentially turned out to be the best possible way for his future as an interpreter of the Bible. In order to be a lawyer, Calvin studied law and rhetoric from Peter De l'Etoile in the university of Orleans and from Andreas Alciati in the university of Bourges. By studying law, Calvin as a humanist learned the necessary method for the interpretation of an original text. A. E. McGrath argues that the sources of the hermeneutical method of Calvin was found in his study of law in the advanced atmosphere of Orleans and Bourges Calvin's legal training prepared him to accurately establish the intent of the author of Scripture and the genuine meaning of the text, and to consider the historical background. Donald K. McKim relates Calvin's studying law to his hermeneutical method as follows: As we have observed, humanist legal scholars were seeking direct access to the corpus of Roman law, not via learned authorities or traditions, but through the study of the history and social customs of ancient Rome. Such study gave them a direct understanding of the intentions and meanings of the legal texts. Calvin applied a similar concern for context to his work with Scripture. Circumstances and culture are always main ingredients to be understood as one seeks to interpret the Bible. . . . Concern for context led Calvin to seek the divine intention revealed in Scripture. His studies in legal exegesis showed him that the intent of the author is more important than the etymology of words. Thus the knowledge obtained through Calvin's study of law became an important tool for his becoming a great interpreter. After his sudden conversion Calvin often interpreted the meaning of the passages with the concepts of law when he explained to his readers the justice of God, the atonement of Christ, and the judgment of the wicked. With these terms of law Calvin dealt with the sense of the text clearly, briefly, simply, and practically. Consequently Calvin's studying of law which his father wanted him to follow made a contribution to Calvin's becoming a great interpreter of the Bible and a Christian politician who influenced the Genevan legal reform. In the college of Montaigu Calvin had contact with the humanists in Paris. For example, he was closely associated with his scholarly cousin, Pierre Robert Olivier, who had favored the Reformation and showed a great interest in the humanism then in fashion. Olivier (Olivetan) had two friends, Guillaume Cop who was the chief physician of King Francis, and Guillaume Bude who was "the most learned Hellenist of France, and the most effective liberal opponent of Buda." While Calvin criticized the views of Erasmus in the interpretation of Scripture, he always respected the views of Bude, and in his commentaries never contradicted him. Bude especially had a great influence upon Calvin's hermeneutical method. We shall have the opportunity later on to examine the influence of Bude upon Calvin's method of hermeneutics. Through Olivier, Cop and Bude Calvin probably came into contact with the writings of Luther, Melanchthon, and Lefevre d'Etaples. But Calvin's knowledge of the writings of Luther does not give us any decisive proof that Calvin's conversion was related to the thought of Luther. On his conversion he did not mention Luther, but only God. Calvin confessed as follows: "since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame." In 1528 Calvin, in obedience to his father's order, left Montaigu to study law at the university of Orleans. At the univerity of Orleans Calvin met many friends like the German Hellenist Melchior Wolmar of Rothweil, Francois Daniel, Francois de Connan, and Nicolas Duchemin. Calvin's friend, Wolmar taught him Greek so that Calvin could use the grammatical method of interpretation of Scripture. However the hypothesis that he as a convinced Lutheran had a great role in converting Calvin has not been proved because Calvin nowhere in any of his writings mentioned the influence of Wolmar. Then Calvin came strongly under the influence of humanism. He began to open his eyes to enlightened up-to-date teaching and method. In 1532 Calvin, after indulging in humanism, wrote his commentary of the De Clementia of Seneca. In this work Calvin demonstrated his ability to make use of philosophy, philology, and rhetoric. There were two reasons why Calvin wrote this book. First, Erasmus published the second work of Seneca in 1529, but he was not satisfied with that, and appealed to the readers to do better. This appeal probably challenged Calvin's ambition to surpass Erasmus, the leader of humanism. Secondly, another reason why Calvin chose to write about Seneca was that against Epicurean hedonistic tendencies, Christian humanists like Erasmus, Zwingli, and Calvin felt that they found an effective counter position in Stoicism. In his study of the De Clementia Calvin realized that Christianity and Stoicism were "at one in affirming the existence of a supernatural providence which excludes chance and overrules princes." Wendel insists that the significance Calvin afterwards attributed to this idea of God's providence was "at least partly of Stoic origin." For Calvin the doctrine of God's providence is important not only for the system of his theology, but also for his exegetical work. Especially the Commentary on the Psalms in which he discussed the experience of his sudden conversion by God's providence shows us that in numerous places Calvin tried to interpret the meaning of the passages from the perspective of God's providence. The Stoic ethic, which was highly regarded by Calvin's contemporaries, "defined virtue as the end or goal of life. A virtuous person is one who lives in accordance with nature or the logos." From the early church, many fathers like Tertullian and Lactantius used subjects or principles from Stoicism in defense of Christian doctrine. After the death of his father in 1531, Calvin as a freeman and a humanist went to the college of Fortel in Paris, where the Royal Readers, an illustrious body of humanist scholars recently instututed by Francis I, were teaching the courses. Having already studies some Greek under Wolmar, Calvin pursued Hellenic studies by following the courses of Pierre Danes, one of the most illustrious of the new Royal Readers. Calvin began to learn the elements of Hebrew under Francois Vatable, "although the traditional view is that his real learning in that language was gained at Basle and at Strasburg." Although Calvin was a humanist, by mastering the original languages of Scripture he began to prepare himself for his role as an influential interpreter of the Bible which he assumed after his conversion. Especially Erasmus, the symbol of the humanists, who first employed the grammatical-historical method and first tried textual criticism, was surpassed by Calvin who showed the correct interpretation of the passage in using that method rigorously. Calvin pointed out in many places the mistakes made by Erasmus' textual criticism - the method of inserting words and changing the word of the original text. I shall examine Calvin's criticism against Erasmus later. In 1534 Calvin joined the Reformation. This event was reflected in the preface of his Commentary on the Psalms. He commented on his sudden conversion as follows: I was as yet a very boy, my father had destined me forthe study of theology. But afterward, when he considered that the legal profession commonly raised those who followed it to wealth, this prospect induced him suddenly to change his purpose. Thus it came to pass, that I was withdrawn from the study of philosophy, and was put to the study of law. To this pursuit I endeavored faithfully to apply myself, in obedience to the will of my father; but God, by the secret guidance of his providence, at length gave a different direction to my course. And first, since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life. Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not altogether leave off other studies, I yet pursued them with less ardour. Recently Hieko A. Oberman interpreted the sudden conversion (subita conversio) with reference to other writings of Calvin. On the phrase sudden conversion in the preface of Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms Oberman annotates: In the phrase subita conversio, conversion means mutatio (this can also happen to impii: CO 31. 475 C); the suddenness of subita, subito (adverb), or repente refers to an event praeter spem, beyond all expectation (CO 31. 78 B; 459 C; 311 B; cf. CO 48. 141 C), at times also applicable to the secure us (as already in the sermon of the 2nd of April, 1553, on Ps. 119) en une minute de temps (CO 32. 614 C). Calvin's conversion from a humanist to one of the great Reformers means the new change of God's calling. One of the workings of God's calling is to interpret and teach Scripture for God's people. The fundamental motive of Calvin's interpreting Scripture was to edify the church. "I have felt nothing to be of more importance than to have a regard to the edification of the Church." 3. Conclusion Calvin was not born a great interpreter, but his humanistic training made him not only the great theologian of the Reformation, but also made him one of the great interpreters in the history of Christianity. His humanistic training helped him develop his biblical interpretation. His conversion from a humanist led him to contribute his calling into interpreting and teaching Scripture correctly. Calvin's task ultimately edified Christian community in the world. We, therefore. can get an important message from this paper. The academical training for understanding Scripture correctly is necessary for a sound interpreter. An interpreter with having this process can edify the 21th century church. In fact, the many problems of Christianity have come from the wrong handling of Scripture without the legitimate method of understanding it. It is necessary for a sound interpreter to require the more through hermeneutical disciple. If Korean churches facing many problems are interested in understanding Scripture correctly, they can be helped in overcoming the negative things. Bibliography 국내 안명준, "21세기를 위한 해석자: 칼빈의 해석학에 있어서 성령과 해석의 관계를 중심으로." 복음과 신학 2 (1999): 164-210. 외국 Ahn, Myung Jun. "Current Theological Issues in Korea." Theological Forum 23 (1998):23-26. ________. "The Influences on Calvin's Hermeneutics and the Development of his Method." Hervormde Teologiese Studies 55 (1999): 228-239. Augustijn, C. "Calvin und der Humanismus." In Calvinus Servus Christi, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, Budapest: Presseabteilung des Raday-Kollegiums, 1988. Battles, Ford Lewis. "The Sources of Calvin's Seneca Commentary." In Courtney Studies in Reformation Theology I: John Calvin. Appleford: Sutton Courtney Press, 1966. Baumgartner, Ant. J. Calvin Hebraisant et interprete de l' Ancient Testament. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1889. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Beza, Theodore, "Life of John Calvin." In Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, vol. 1, ed. by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983. Bohatec, Josef. Calvin und das Recht. Graz: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus Nachf., Ges. M.B.H., 1934. _______. Calvins Vorsehungslehre." In Calvinstudien. Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins. Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt, 1909. _______. Bude und Calvin: Studien zur Gedankenwelt des franzosischen, Fruhhumanismus. Graz: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus Nachf., Ges. M.B.H., 1950. Botha, J. "On the 'Reinvention' of Rhetoric." Scriptura: Journal of Bible and Theology 31 (1989): 14-31. Bouwsma, William J. "The Spirituality of John Calvin." In Christian Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation, ed. Jill Raitt. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1987. Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Breen, Quirinus. John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931. Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentary on Seneca's De Clementia, ed. Ford Lewis Battles and Andre Malan Hugo. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969. Charles, Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. Combrink, H. J. Bernard. "The Rhetoric of Sacred Scripture." In Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. de Greef, W. The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide. trans. Lyle D. Bierma. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993. De Long, I. H. "Calvin as an Interpreter of the Bible." Reformed Church Review 13 (1990). 162-182. Doumergue, Emile. Jean Calvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps. Geneve: Slatkine, 1969. Durant, Will. The Reformation: A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin: 1300-1564, The Story of Civilization: Part VI. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957. Engelbrecht, Barend Jacobus. "Calvyn as die grondlegger van die Reformatoriese leer." Die Hervormer 50 (1959): 12-17. Farley, Benjamin Wirt. The Providence of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988. Farrar, F. W. History of Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Floor, L. "The Hermeneutics of Calvin." In Calvinus Reformator: His Contribution to Theology, Church and Society. ed., B. J. van der Walt. Potchefstroom: University for Christian Higher Education. Gadamer, H. G. "Rhetorik, Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik: Metakritische Eroerterungen zu Wahrheit und Methode." In Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik. ed. K. Apel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971. Ganoczy, Alexandre. "Calvin." In The Reformation. ed. Pierre Chaunu. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1985. _______. The Young Calvin, trans. David Foxgrover and Wade Provo. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Ganoczy, Alexandre und Scheld, Stefan. Herrschaft-Tugend-Vorsehung: Hermeneutische deutung und veroffentlichung handschriflicher annotationen Calvins zu sieben Senecatragodien und der Pharsalia Lucas. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1982. Girardin, Benoit. Rhetorique et Theologique: Calvin, Le commentaire de l'epitre aux Romains, Theologie Historique 54. Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979. Hauck, Wilhelm Albert. Vorsehung und Freiheit nach Calvin. Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1947. Higman, Francis M. The Style of John Calvin in His French Polemical Treatises. London: Oxford University, 1967. Hyde, M. J. and Smith C. R. "Hermeneutics and Rhetoric: A Seen but Unobserved Relationship." Quarterly Journal of Speech 65 (1979): 347-63. Jones, Lynda Serene. "Fulfilled in your hearing: Rhetoric and Doctrine in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion." Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1991. Kingdon, Robert M. "John Calvin." The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th. Koch, Ernst. "Erwagungen zum Bekehrungsbericht Calvins." Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 61 (1981): 185-197. Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental Series, vol. 5, ed. A Van Selms. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. Lane, A. N. S. "Calvin's Use of the Fathers and the Medieval." Calvin Theological Journal 16 (1981): 149-205. Lerch, David. "Calvin und Humanismus: Ein Buch von Josef Bohatec uber Bude und Calvin." Theologische Zeitschrift 7 (1971): 284-300. Linder. Robert D. "Calvinism and Humanism: The First Generation." Church History 44 (1975): 167-181. Malicious, S. "Rhetorical Hermeneutics." Critical Inquiry 11 (1985): 620-41. Marie, C. P. "Calvin's God and Humanism." In Our Reformational Tradition: A Rich Heritage and Lasting Vocation, ed. B. J. van der Walt. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for CHE, 1984. McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. McKane, W. "Calvin as an Old Testament Commentator." Ned Geref Teologiese Tydskrif 25 (1984): 25-259. McKee, Dean Greer. "The Contribution of John Calvin to New Testament Exegesis." S.T.D. diss., Biblical Seminary in New York, 1931. McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. London: Oxford University, 1954. Miller, A. B. "Rhetorical exegesis." Philosophy and Rhetoric 5 (1972): 111-18. Most, G. W. "Rhetorik und Hermeneutik: Zur Konstitution der Neuzeitlichkeit." Antike und Abendland 30 (1984): 62-79. Niesel, Wilhelm. The Theology of Calvin. ed. Harold Knight. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956. Nijenhuis, Willem. "Calvijns 'subita conversio': Notities bij een hypothese." Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift 26 (1972): 248-269. Oberman, Heiko A. "Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin's Reformation." In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Palmer, Timothy Pavitt. "John Calvin's view of the Kingdom of God." Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1988. Parker, T. H. L. "Calvin in His Age." Reformed and Presbyterian World 25 (1959): 300-07. _______. John Calvin. Batavia: Lion Publishing Corporation, 1987. _______. "Calvin the Bible Expositor." The Churchman 78 (1964): 23-32. Partee, Charles. "Farel's Influence on Calvin: A Prolusion." In Actes du Colloque Guillaume Farel, eds. Pierre Barthel, Remy Scheurer and Richard Stauffer. New Haven: Yale University, 1983. Plattard, J. "L'Institution Chrestienne de Calvin, premier monument de l'eloquence francaise." Revue des Cours et Conferences 37 (1935-6): 495-510, Pont, A. D. "Calyvn: 'n lewensskets." Die Hervormer 52 (1962): 5-19. Potgieter, F. J. M. De Verhouding tussen die teologie en die filosofie by Calvyn. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1939. Potgieter, Pieter C. "The Providence of God in Calvin's Correspondence." In Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag, ed. Willem van't Spijker. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1991. Reid, W. Stanford. "John Calvin, Lawyer and Legal Reformer." In Through Christ's Word, eds. W. Robert Godfrey and Jesse L. Boyd. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1985. Reuter, Karl. Das Grundverstandnis der Theologie Calvins unter Hinbeziehung ihrer geschichtlichen Abhangigkeiten. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1963. Reuter, Karl. Vom Scholaren bis zum jungen Reformator: Studien zum Werdegang Johannes Calvins. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Rickman, H. P. "Rhetoric and Hermeneutics." Philosophy and Rhetoric 14 (1981): 15-25. Robertson, A. T. "Calvin as an Interpreter of Scripture." The Review and Expositor 6 (1909): 577-578. Rogers, Jack B. & McKim, Donald K. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Saxer, Ernst , Vorsehung und Verheissung Gottes: Vier theologische Modelle. (Calvin, Schleiermacher, Barth, Solle) und ein systematischer Versuch. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1980. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, vol., 8 Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. _______. "Calvin as a Commentator." The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3 (1892): 462-469. Schreiner, Susan E. The Theater of His Glory: Nature and Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995. Sprener, Paul. Das Ratsel um die Bekehrung Calvins. Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1960. Stander, Hendrik F. "Stoicism." Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson. New York: Garland Publishg, Inc., 1990. Stauffer, Richard. "Calvin." In International Calvinism: 1541-1715, ed. Menna Prestwich, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Stauffer, Richard, Dieu, la creation et la providence dans la predication de Calvin. Berne: Peter Lang, 1978. Stob, R. "Stoicism and Christianity." Classical Journal 30 (1934-1935): 217-224. Stutterheim, J. F. "Die bekering van Calvyn." Die Brug 13 (1964): 5-6. Tibiletti, C. "Stoicism and the Fathers." Encyclopedia of the Early Church. ed. Angelo Di Berardino. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1992. Torrance, Thomas F. The Hermeneutics of John Calvin, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988. Traugott, Fuhrman Paul. "Calvin the Expositor." Interpretation 6 (1952): 188-209. Walker, Williston. John Calvin: The Organizer of Reformed Protestantism 1509-1564. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. Wallace, R. S. Calvin, Geneva and the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. Warfield, Benjamin B. "John Calvin: The Man and his Work." Methodist Review 58 (1909): 642-663. Watson, Duane F. and Alan, Hauser J. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method, Biblical Interpretation Series, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and Rolf Rendtorff. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Wendel, Francois. Calvin et l'humanism. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1976. _______. Calvin: Origins and Development of his Relgious Thought. Translated by Philip Mairet. Durham: The Labyrinth Press. 1963. Wierenga, Robert. "Calvin the Commentator." Reformed Review 39 (1978): 4-13. Willis, David E. "Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin's Theology." In The Context of Contemporary Theology, eds. Alexander J. McKelway and E. David Willis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974. Prof. Dr. Myung Jun Ahn(Pyongtaek University)