基督敎神學槪論 · Jeong Kyeong-ok Wroot Press · preview
序 · 1939 edition, pp. 4–6

Jeong's preface

Jeong's preface is preceded in the book by a foreword by another hand, whose signature falls on pages missing from the only accessible copy (pp. 2–3). It is withheld here until its author is identified.

p. 4

Some may think that my Introduction to Theology deliberately leaves out questions that have been much disputed in theology down to the present day: purgatory, angels, and demons, to name only those that catch the eye at a glance. But this is not because I think such questions unnecessary or unimportant. There was simply no fitting place for them in the system I devised, and an "introduction" meant only to present the principles of Christian theology briefly could not go into questions so involved.

I take the position of being "conservative in faith and liberal in theology."1 If someone were to divide theology into just two kinds, "natural theology" and "revealed theology," and put to me the awkward question of choosing one of them as my own, I would choose "revealed theology" on an evangelical footing,2 which I believe Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and Barth would all have chosen without hesitation.3 Yet I cannot think that this "revelation" is distinguished from human experience either in substance or in essence. Theologically I have learned a great deal from Ritschl, and so I am fond of Kant. But I am not a "Ritschlian" in any sense. Anyone who reads this book will easily find how much I agree with the fundamental spirit of Barth's theology.

Some may come away with the impression that an "empirical theology" has been rather awkwardly joined to a "theology of revelation," as if trying to hold two opposite poles at once. But if I have at any point stressed the absolute revelation of God and the finitude of man, it is not from the standpoint that "God is everything and man is nothing," but

p. 5

to express, in our actual religious life, the devout Christian consciousness4 in which our faith is gratitude, trust, and obedience toward the grace of God.5 I believe that revelation is history. And I believe that history, insofar as it stands under God's creation and providence, is revelation. To admit a "general revelation" in this way gives, I think, no reason whatever to deny a "special revelation."

I cannot forget the kindness of Dr. H. F. Rall,6 whose unceasing guidance and encouragement led me to bring out this book. Whatever he had written, I quoted without hesitation as though it were my own.7 Dr. Kal Hong-gi,8 professor at Yonhi College, read the whole manuscript and gave me many suggestions and references. I thank Mr. Yi Yun-jae9 of the Korean Language Society from my heart for proofreading the Hangul.

I do not know how far this book may go on to benefit our church community. With contents so meager I cannot hold great expectations. Still, I hope it may give some stimulus and some help to students who wish to learn theology.

1 March, Shōwa 14 [1939]10
The author, Jeong Kyeong-ok

p. 6

"He laid down his life for us;
by this we know love,
and we too ought to lay down our lives for the brothers."
(1 John 3:16)11

Notes

  1. 「信仰에 있어서 保守主義이요 神學에 있어서 自由主義」. The phrase became Jeong's best-known self-description. Keep the English wording fixed throughout the translation. ↩
  2. 福音主義的立場, "evangelical standpoint." In 1930s Korean, 福音主義 renders the German evangelisch: Reformation, gospel-centred Protestantism, not the later American movement. ↩
  3. Names are given in 1930s Hangul transliteration, some of it filtered through Japanese: 「슐라이얼마헬」 Schleiermacher, 「으릇첼」 Ritschl (initial 으 carries the word-initial R, which Korean avoids), 「빨트」 Barth, 「칸트」 Kant. ↩
  4. 基督敎意識, "Christian consciousness," the Schleiermacher/Ritschl term (das christliche Bewusstsein). ↩
  5. 하{나}님: in this copy a reader has written 나 by hand over the printed syllable, here and on p. 4 (last column). The same page prints 하느님 two lines later. Jeong's text evidently mixes 하나님 and 하느님; a reader "corrected" some instances in pen. Both are rendered "God"; the variation is recorded in the transcription, not the English. ↩
  6. 「에취·에푸·롤」博士 = Dr. H. F. Rall: Harris Franklin Rall (1870–1964), professor of systematic theology at Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, under whom Jeong studied. ↩
  7. This matters for the whole translation. Jeong says he quoted Rall freely and unattributed. Passages that read like Rall should be checked against Rall's English books (e.g. A Faith for Today, 1936; Christianity: An Inquiry into Its Nature and Truth, 1940). Where Jeong is rendering Rall, the English original may be recoverable, and the notes should say so. ↩
  8. 葛弘基 (Kal Hong-gi / Kal Hong-ki), Methodist theologian and professor at Yonhi College (延禧專門學校, forerunner of Yonsei University). ↩
  9. 李允宰 (Yi Yun-jae, 1888–1943), linguist of the Korean Language Society (朝鮮語學會). He was arrested in the Korean Language Society incident of 1942 and died in prison in 1943. ↩
  10. 昭和十四年三月一日, 1 March 1939, is the twentieth anniversary of the March First Movement of 1919. Whether the date is deliberate cannot be shown from the text. Record the date; do not interpret it. ↩
  11. Translated from Jeong's Korean (which follows the Korean Bible of his day), not from an English version. The Korean clause order ("He laid down his life…; by this we know love") differs from the KJV ("Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us"). ↩

The 1939 text, transcribed as printed: one line per printed column, set vertically and read right to left. [sic] marks a printing error, corrected in the notes.

p. 四
或 나의 「神學槪論」이 오늘날까지 神學에서 많이 問題가 되었던 問題를 짐짓 빼어놓은것같이 생각 하는 사람도 있을것이다。얼핏 눈에 떠우는것만으로라도 煉獄、天使、魔鬼等이 이것이다。그러나 나는 이러한 問題가 不必要하다든가 重要하지 않다는 뜻에서 나온것이 아니요 내가 考案한 體系에는 어 디다가 適當히 끼울 곳이 없었던것이요 또 基督敎神學의 原理만을 簡略하게 紹介하려는 「槪論」에 그 러한 複雜한 問題에까지 들어갈수가 없었기때문이다。 나는 「信仰에 있어서 保守主義이요 神學에 있어서 自由主義」란 立場을 取한다。神學을 구태여 「自 然神學」과 「啓示神學」의 두가지로 區分하고 나더러 그중에서 꼭 한가지만 내것으로 擇하라고 하는 군색한 質問을 한다면 나는 「슐라이얼마헬」이나 「으릇첼」이나 「빨트」가 躊躇할것 없이 取하였으리라고 생각되는바 福音主義的立場에 있어서의 「啓示神學」을 擇할것이다。그러나 나는 그 「啓示」가 人間의 經 驗과 實體上으로나 本質上으로 區分된다다[sic]고는 생각할수는 없다。나 自身은 神學上으로 보아서 「으릇 첼」을 많이 배웠다。따라서 「칸트」를 좋아한다。그러나 나는 어떠한 意味로 보든지 「으릇첼리안」이 아니다。이책을 읽어 보는 사람이면 내가 얼마나 「빨트」神學의 根本精神에 贊同하는것을 容易하게 發 見할것이다。或 「經驗論的神學」이 좀 어색하게 「啓示論的神學」과 結聯되어 反對되는 兩極을 한꺼번에 가지려고 한다는 印象을 얻을 사람이 있을것이다。그러나 내가 萬一 神의 絕對啓示와 人間의 有限 性을 强調한것이 있다면 이는 「모든것이 다 하{나}님이요 사람은 아무것도 아니라」는 立場에서가 아
p. 五
니요 우리의 實際宗敎生活에 있어서 우리의 信仰이 하{나}님의 恩寵에 對한 感激과 信賴와 服從의 敬 虔한 基督敎意識을 表示하려함이다。나는 啓示가 歷史인것을 믿는다。그리고 歷史는 그것이 하느님의 創造와 攝理아래 있는 以上 啓示인것을 믿는다。이와 같이 「一般的啓示」를 容認한다고 하여서 決코 「特殊的啓示」를 否定한다는 아무런 理由가 되지 못할것 같다。 이 책을 내어놓도록 間斷없는 指導와 激勵를 주신 「에취·에푸·롤」博士의 사랑을 잊을수가 없다。 先生의 글이면 무엇이나 서슴없이 내것과 같이 引用하였다。延禧專門學校 敎授 葛弘基博士는 이 原稿 를 다 읽고 많은 暗示와 參考를 提供하여 주었다。朝鮮語學會의 李允宰先生께서 한글 校正을 보아 주신것을 衷心으로 感謝한다。 이 책이 나아가 우리 敎界에 어느 程度까지 裨益을 줄는지 나는 알수 없다。貧弱한 內容으로 큰 企待를 가질수는 없을것이다。그러나 神學을 배우려고 하는 學徒들에게 多少의 刺戟과 參考가 되기를 바 라는것이다。 昭和十四年三月一日 著者 鄭景玉
p. [六]
『그가 우리를 위하야 목숨을 버리셨으니、 우리가 이로써 사랑을 알고、 우리도 형제를 위하여 목숨을 버리는것이 마땅하다。』 (요한 일서 三장 十六절)