칼뱅은 코프 연설의 실제 저자인가?

황정욱(Jeong-Uck Hwang) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2010 신학논단 Vol.61 No.-

멜리토와 초기 양태론

황정욱(Jeong-Uck Hwang) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2013 신학논단 Vol.72 No.-

It was thought that from the early Church there existed the trinitarian faith in the vague form, and the monarchianism could be regarded as some variation of the Judaism. However, as it has been described above, the Modalistic terms formulated by Melito was no speciality. He worked as the bishop of Sardes and left many writings and was praised as ‘star of Asia’ by Eusebius. If his modalistic expressions were regarded as different from the catholic faith of then, he must not have been praised. The bishops of Rome, Zephyrin and Callistus I, could not have supported the heretical faith. On the contrary, Hippolytus was accused of the ditheist who differentiated the father and the Son. Tertullian of Carthago complained that the Modalism was diffused among many Christians. The Modalism survived till the second half of the third century. Melito and Noetus found Jesus Christ the one God and didn’t distinguish him as the second God from God the Father. They laid the accent on the one God in order to oppose the docetism of Marcion and Gnosticism. They stressed the continuity of the Heilgeschichte, the oneness of God, the incarnation of the God himself, his true humanity, his true passion and his true death. Therefore they identified the creator God and the crucified on the Cross. They maintained the paradoxes as follows: the appearance of the invisible God, the incarnation of the unoriginate God, the passion of the unpassionable God, the death of the immortal God. Hippolytus accused they plagiarized Heraclitus. The modalism of the second century gave rise to the trinitarian debate. They maintained Jesus Christ was God and at the same time a human being and the true God became human being. This theory had its legitimacy by opposing the docetism of the gnostics and the ditheism of Marcion. Therefore the early modalism came into being from the confrontation with the gnosticism. It was thought that from the early Church there existed the trinitarian faith in the vague form, and the monarchianism could be regarded as some variation of the Judaism. However, as it has been described above, the Modalistic terms formulated by Melito was no speciality. He worked as the bishop of Sardes and left many writings and was praised as ‘star of Asia’ by Eusebius. If his modalistic expressions were regarded as different from the catholic faith of then, he must not have been praised. The bishops of Rome, Zephyrin and Callistus I, could not have supported the heretical faith. On the contrary, Hippolytus was accused of the ditheist who differentiated the father and the Son. Tertullian of Carthago complained that the Modalism was diffused among many Christians. The Modalism survived till the second half of the third century. Melito and Noetus found Jesus Christ the one God and didn’t distinguish him as the second God from God the Father. They laid the accent on the one God in order to oppose the docetism of Marcion and Gnosticism. They stressed the continuity of the Heilgeschichte, the oneness of God, the incarnation of the God himself, his true humanity, his true passion and his true death. Therefore they identified the creator God and the crucified on the Cross. They maintained the paradoxes as follows: the appearance of the invisible God, the incarnation of the unoriginate God, the passion of the unpassionable God, the death of the immortal God. Hippolytus accused they plagiarized Heraclitus. The modalism of the second century gave rise to the trinitarian debate. They maintained Jesus Christ was God and at the same time a human being and the true God became human being. This theory had its legitimacy by opposing the docetism of the gnostics and the ditheism of Marcion. Therefore the early modalism came into being from the confrontation with the gnosticism.

세계 교회사 속의 한국 교회

황정욱(Jeong-Uck Hwang) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2011 신학논단 Vol.66 No.-

Until the 18th century Korea remained, for the most part, unknown to Europeans for many reasons: First, Korea was acessible via the land route, but due to high mountains and wild beasts there the land journey was very dangerous. The journey by sea route was more dangerous than by land. Second, Korea was known as a barbaric country which neither permitted the foreigners to enter nor the shipwrecked strangers to return to their homeland. Third, Korea was said to make no dealings with countries except China and Japan. Missionaries thought that it was very difficult and dangerous to enter Korea. Therefore Korea was isolated internationally for a long time. Only the negative rumors about Korea were spreaded in Europe. Even into the first half of the 20th century Korea was not properly known to the Westerners. Martino Martini’s work had exerted a great influence on the later writers, before Dallet’s work was published. Although Martini’s informations on the Korean church relied completely on the hearsay in China and was, therefore, incorrect, they were often cited by writers before Dallet. They described Korea as the vassal country of China and the Korean missions as an appendix to those of China. Some writers of the 19th century believed that Korea was evangelized by the Japanese in the end of 16th century. Although the theory of the origins from Japan was refuted by Dallet, even some writers of the 20th century were inclined to think that Korea must have been evangelized by foreign missionaries in China or Japan. The above mentioned theory was embraced especially by those writers who wrote about the Korean church in the time of annexation by Japan (i. e. Pichon, Latourette, Laures). Since Dallet’s monograph appeared, most works written by the Westerners have dealt with Korean missions as a mere appendix to the Chinese or Japanese missions (Dallet’s work being the notable exception). Dallet relied mainly on reports, letters and the opinions of French missionaries. Writers after Dallet relied primarily on Dallet’s work and other reports by missionaries. Therefore their descriptions on the Korean church were necessarily swayed by the opinions of missionaries. All the missionaries who visited Korea from the end of the 19th until the first half of the 20th century, both Catholic and Protestant, were the representatives of the mission civilisatrice. The works written in European languages by the Koreans were rare, until L’erection du premier vicariat apostolique by A. Choi appeared. In 1927 R.-J. Paik submitted The History of Protestant mission in Korea, 1832-1919 as a doctorate thesis to the University Yale. But his work has been hardly noticed by the Western scholars. I as a Korean believe that our duty in the future is to write the church history of Korea in Western languages so that the Westerners may better understand their Korean brothers and sisters than before. The history is part of a deeper understanding of our fellow Christians and their experience through history. Until the 18th century Korea remained, for the most part, unknown to Europeans for many reasons: First, Korea was acessible via the land route, but due to high mountains and wild beasts there the land journey was very dangerous. The journey by sea route was more dangerous than by land. Second, Korea was known as a barbaric country which neither permitted the foreigners to enter nor the shipwrecked strangers to return to their homeland. Third, Korea was said to make no dealings with countries except China and Japan. Missionaries thought that it was very difficult and dangerous to enter Korea. Therefore Korea was isolated internationally for a long time. Only the negative rumors about Korea were spreaded in Europe. Even into the first half of the 20th century Korea was not properly known to the Westerners. Martino Martini’s work had exerted a great influence on the later writers, before Dallet’s work was published. Although Martini’s informations on the Korean church relied completely on the hearsay in China and was, therefore, incorrect, they were often cited by writers before Dallet. They described Korea as the vassal country of China and the Korean missions as an appendix to those of China. Some writers of the 19th century believed that Korea was evangelized by the Japanese in the end of 16th century. Although the theory of the origins from Japan was refuted by Dallet, even some writers of the 20th century were inclined to think that Korea must have been evangelized by foreign missionaries in China or Japan. The above mentioned theory was embraced especially by those writers who wrote about the Korean church in the time of annexation by Japan (i. e. Pichon, Latourette, Laures). Since Dallet’s monograph appeared, most works written by the Westerners have dealt with Korean missions as a mere appendix to the Chinese or Japanese missions (Dallet’s work being the notable exception). Dallet relied mainly on reports, letters and the opinions of French missionaries. Writers after Dallet relied primarily on Dallet’s work and other reports by missionaries. Therefore their descriptions on the Korean church were necessarily swayed by the opinions of missionaries. All the missionaries who visited Korea from the end of the 19th until the first half of the 20th century, both Catholic and Protestant, were the representatives of the mission civilisatrice. The works written in European languages by the Koreans were rare, until L’erection du premier vicariat apostolique by A. Choi appeared. In 1927 R.-J. Paik submitted The History of Protestant mission in Korea, 1832-1919 as a doctorate thesis to the University Yale. But his work has been hardly noticed by the Western scholars. I as a Korean believe that our duty in the future is to write the church history of Korea in Western languages so that the Westerners may better understand their Korean brothers and sisters than before. The history is part of a deeper understanding of our fellow Christians and their experience through history.