Turbulent times and golden years. The first twenty five years of the New Testament Society of South...

Neotestamenica 39.1 (2005) 75-110 © New Testament Society of South Africa

TURBULENT TIMES AND GOLDEN YEARS The First Twenty Five Years of the New Testament Society of

South Africa (1965-1990)-Part One1

Pieter G.R. de Villiers University of the Free State

Abstract

This essay discusses the history of the first 25 years of the New Testament Society of South Africa. It investigates the role and place of the Society within the broader study of the NT, its name, origins, beginnings, inaugural meeting, membership, leadership and proceedings.

Introduction In 1990 The New Testament Society of South Africa (NTSSA) celebrated its 25th anniversary as professional society for scholars in NT Studies and related subjects in this country. Founded on Tuesday 30 March 1965 at the then University of Potchefstroom, it grew from a small, intimate group with an initial membership of 11 dedicated and visionary scholars into one of the most prestigious professional societies in the country with a huge and inclusive membership.

1 Although this historical overview is written some time after the actual anniversary of the

society, the time that passed since that event hopefully has allowed for a clearer perspective on the first 25 years of the Society. I thank the Society for inviting me to contribute this historical perspective. The contents represent my perspective on the history of an important academic body in a crucial period of this country. This overview is therefore necessarily selective and thus cannot do justice to the many aspects of the Society’s activities and the work of its dedicated members. Failure to refer to specific names or contributions should not be seen as a reflection on persons and the quality of their research. This historical overview relies primarily on minutes, letters, private notes and other correspondence, as well as on papers published in Neotestamentica. I refer to the New Testament Society of South Africa either as the NTSSA or the Society (capitalized S), depending on stylistic or contextual considerations. In the light of time and space constraints, a third article on the history of Neotestamentica, the journal of the NTSSA will appear later.

76 Neotestamentica 39.1 (2005)

1. The NTSSA and the Study of the NT in South Africa The history of NT as a discipline in this country is inextricably linked to this Society, as will become clear in this essay. This history reveals how research and teaching at tertiary institutions were decisively determined by the activities of this professional body. It also offers interesting insights in some of the dynamics that drove the tragic and turbulent years of the apartheid era and its eventual demise. The first 25 years of the Society coincided with the time in which this ideology was developed and consolidated, often in the name of the Bible. Strong Christian beliefs and a conservative, mostly fundamentalist, interpretation of the Bible characterized the social and ecclesiastical settings in which the Society functioned. This history thus raises the question how Biblical scholars trained students at theological faculties for their future task in churches, educational institutions and in society generally, where they had to provide leadership on important societal and political issues—and, therefore, on the indirect role of the NTSSA in this matter.

At the same time, though, it should be stressed that any attempt to present a history of the NTSSA as a history of the discipline in this country, would be wrong. Despite the seminal role of the NTSSA in the study of the Bible, it is clear that research in NT Studies cannot be regarded as identical with what happened in the NTSSA.

This is, obviously, true merely from a historical point of view: The NT was studied in many different academic contexts for a long time before the Society began. This happened at such older Dutch / Afrikaans institutions as the University of Stellenbosch (1866 onwards),2 Pretoria, Potchefstroom and at others such as the Universities of Fort Hare and the University of South Africa (Unisa). There were also theological seminaries of churches, such as, amongst others, Lutheran or Moravian centers in Namibia, the Cape and Natal, Roman Catholic seminaries in Pretoria and Cedara, Anglican seminaries,3 Fedsem and the ecumenical training at Rhodes University

2 The University of Stellenbosch grew out of the Theological Seminary that was established

there by the Dutch Reformed Church. 3 A large number of priests were trained at the well known and influential theological

colleges of St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s and St. Bede’s. Draper and West (1989) offered stimulating insights on the training there and showed how a historical-critical investigation of the Bible established itself for most of their history. It is interesting, and

DE VILLIERS Turbulent Times and Golden Years 77

where the NT was researched and NT scholars were trained. This work on, and research into, the NT had an abiding influence on theological groups and churches in this country.

But even after the Society was established, the discipline was studied and researched in other contexts, mostly within seminaries that functioned independently of universities and that focused on the practical needs of the ministry. What is true to some extent is that these ongoing activities outside the ambit of the NTSSA did not produce advanced studies and postgraduate research. The influential work of Albert Nolan and the provocative, important work done by Black Theologians in this country, for example, will provide the researcher with material that proves that groundbreaking work on the Bible was being produced in institutions and by researchers without links to the NTSSA and related societies or disciplines.4

It is equally true, though, that over the years the Society would bring some coherence to a rather disjointed picture of different, unrelated locations for the study of the discipline. Gradually it became the setting where scholars from many tertiary institutions and seminaries met regularly, exchanged views, participated in debate, planned co-operation, shared resources and speakers or just simply enjoyed mutual friendship and fellowship (cf. further below). Over the years the Society would play a major role as an important meeting place where NT research could be evaluated and promoted.

2. Name Before more detail is given about the history of the Society, a short note must be made about its name. The name of the Society was originally formulated in Afrikaans as “Die Nuwe-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika.” Initially this was translated into English as The South African Society for the Study of the New Testament (Du Toit 1967, 7). Later on it became known simply as the New Testament Society of South Africa (NTSSA).

telling, to note how this approach was questioned by an anti-intellectual enthusiasm for a while during the sixties and the seventies.

4 The Institute for Contextual Theology in Johannesburg produced documents that are of seminal importance to determine in what way the Bible was understood by those who radically opposed the apartheid system. This is an institution, closely linked with the work of Nolan, that deserves further research.


“Werkgemeenskap” is not a common word in Afrikaans, even though most of the theological societies that were formed in those times, took it over as part of their names. “Society” is in any case also not normally its translation. “Werkgemeenskap” (Arbeitsgemeinschaft in German) is, however, often used in a West European context where it refers to a research team or study group. It refers to a group of professionals who promote the research in their field by meeting regularly to discuss research presentations and by promoting the study of the field in their context. It thus communicates the notion of advanced research and scientific discussions that were so important for those who initiated it and that are unfortunately not communicated in its prosaic translation as “society.”

Having said this, it is clear that the name of the Society already reflects something of the roots of the members who set it up. It indicates that they were part of a theological tradition with firm roots in especially the Netherlands and Germany.

3. Origins Several issues are important in connection with the origins of the Society, relating to the influences on it and the context in which it was established.

3.1 The theological context It is not normally appreciated how closely the beginnings of the Society are linked with especially The Old Testament Society of South Africa (OTSSA).5 The history of the OTSSA can be traced back to a meeting held in December 1957 by a group of OT scholars with the well-known A.van Selms of the University of Pretoria6 and A.H.van Zyl of the University of

5 The close link between academics from different disciplines in these times is evident from

the meeting that took place at Potchefstroom on 28-29 January 1969 where the Classical Association of South Africa, the Old Testament Society of South Africa and the Southern African Missiological Society met concurrently. It reveals how close the community of theologians was at that stage.

6 The significance of Van Selms, appointed to teach Semitic Languages at the University of Pretoria in 1938 is spelled out briefly by Du Toit 1993, 512. For more information, cf the literature and remarks in Obberholzer 1992. The leadership of the Northern parts of the country in academic life was firmly established by outstanding figures like Gemser, Van Selms and Geyser. This was always rather striking, if not puzzling, since the other well known institution in these times, the University of Stellenbosch, was then numerically and politically speaking, the stronger force in the reformed tradition (the University of


South Africa as leaders.7 The aim was “to promote the study of the Old Testament and related subjects” (Van Selms and van Zyl 1959, s.p.)8—an aim that would be identical to that of the NTSSA when it was established a few years later. The OTSSA was already in its eighth year of existence at the time that the NTSSA was established in 1965 (Du Toit 1967, 7).9 By that time, it had proven itself as a podium for discussions and debate in the field and, as a result, as a model to be emulated by other theological disciplines.

The NTSSA thus was patterned after the OTSSA in both its structures and activities. Both had the same unusual Afrikaans name (“Werkgemeenskap”). Both societies had a Secretary that administered activities, an annual meeting at various universities as its main activity that focused on a particular topic (initially Biblical books)10 and both had similarly structured business meetings and constitutions. Both also

Potchefstroom served a much smaller community). It is only when one considers this more vibrant nature of academic life in the North as it is expressed in the beginnings of academic societies like the OTSSA and NTSSA, that one realizes how high a price was paid by the South because of the sad and destructive heresy trial of the NT scholar, J. du Plessis. This trial lead to his dismissal from the Theological Seminary (later set aside in a court case). This traumatic history decisively determined the teaching of NT Studies, if not theology generally, in the following years (cf. the apt remarks by Du Toit 1993, 506). For an interesting overview of Du Plessis, cf. De Beer 1992. His trial and victimization are comparable to that of the Anglican Colenso, another tragic example of the lot of a dissenting NT scholar in this country (cf. Draper & West 1989). There is good reason to believe that the fundamentalist thinking that replaced Du Plessis’ open approach, provided fertile ground for the promotion of the apartheid ideology.

7 They wrote the prefaces to the publications of the proceedings until 1962. 8 And, interestingly enough, “to meet once a year”! 9 The founding meeting of the Society is well documented in minutes noted by the first

secretary, A.B. du Toit. The title page of Neotestamentica 1 (1967) reads: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of “Die Nuwe-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika” held at the University of Pretoria, 4th-5th July, 1967 (to which is added one paper read at the first meeting of this Society in March, 1965). The paper mentioned was that of S.P.J.J. van Rensburg on “Sanctification according to the New Testament.” Cf. also A.H. van Zyl, Preface, in Biblical Essays (1966, 7) who also mentions 1965 as the founding date. The next or second meeting took place (in the days preceding the annual meeting of the OTSSA) at the University of Stellenbosch in July 1966 as part of the much celebrated centenary celebrations of that university.

10 Van Selms and Van Zyl (1959, s.p.) wrote explicitly that the OTSSA wanted to focus their annual meetings on a particular topic: “By former agreement most of the subjects were chosen from the Book of Judges,” they noted in their introduction to the publication of the congress papers in that year. By 1965 Judges, Samuel, Ezekiel, the Psalms, Hosea and Amos had all been topics of annual meetings.


published the papers presented at annual meetings in following years as official proceedings.11 They even published them together. The papers of the second meeting, for example, were published as “Biblical Research—1966” (Du Toit 1967, 7). It was only after the third meeting of the Society in 1967 that papers were published separately in the first volume of Neotestamentica, the new journal of the Society.

A reference in the Minutes of the founding meeting reveals that this was not merely a matter of chance. The presence of A.H. van Zyl, who was secretary of the OTSSA at that stage, was explicitly noted. The Minutes recorded that he gave valuable advice, confirming the careful way in which the members at that meeting wanted to model their new society on the OTSSA.

3.2 The socio-political context There is something significant in the fact that members of the Society felt attracted to the model of the OTSSA. There thus seems to have been a common dynamic at work in the different disciplines: theologians felt the need to share resources and advance their field in this particular way. This dynamic was the result of a specific socio-political context that existed then.

The middle sixties of the previous century saw the consolidation of intellectual life in the Afrikaans speaking community after its political empowerment in 1948. Education was a significant element in this process. In the fifties many Afrikaans schools were established throughout the country, often only after and through bitter struggles. Afrikaans Churches played a seminal role in this quest for educational empowerment.

As a result of this, Afrikaans universities, supported by a sympathetic government, bloomed. As is to be expected in a first generation, the study of the humanities benefited a lot from this progress. The cream of Afrikaans youth entered the ministry, attracted, amongst others, by the status of the ministry and the church in society at that time. They received training with a thorough academic character over a period of seven years, following an established approach to theological education in the reformed tradition.12 All

11 In both cases the publication was regarded as a journal, though it was strictly speaking

more of a congress volume. This only changed in 1987 when, in the case of Neotestamentica, the journal was published in two parts per volume, of which one part then contained conference papers.

12 This included an initial B.A. degree comprising, amongst others, a compulsory two year course in both biblical languages. Only after this three year program were students


this would set in motion a process that would eventually lead to strong growth in postgraduate training of students. A significant number of students for the ministry moved on to do advanced research in the field of the NT and the classics.13

As a result of all these developments, the strong focus on education and the important place of the Bible / Christian faith in the political system, it happened within a matter of years that almost every university and college in the country would establish a theological faculty or a Department of Biblical Studies where these promising young scholars taught and researched the discipline. One of the prime examples of this growth is the University of South Africa’s Department of New Testament where a large number of excellent researchers were appointed and participated actively in the activities of the Society.14 They, in turn, trained a vast number of students-also on postgraduate level. This department, as well as the fast growing university staff in the country generally, contributed decisively to the strong growth in the numbers of members of the NTSSA that would take place in the seventies and eighties.15

allowed to continue with their theological degree (of four years duration). As a result of this structure, many students majored in one of the two biblical languages and continued with postgraduate studies in them. Because a significant number of students were gifted and because some members of the staff at the theological faculties were experienced as either dull, patronizing or fundamentalist teachers, subjects like Semitic Languages, Classics, Philosophy and Psychology with their often more open and academic nature, drew some of these theological students into their postgraduate programs. Quite a few of these students became academics in those disciplines. This was especially the case in the seventies and eighties of the previous century, as dissatisfaction with the apartheid state and the church intensified on campuses and students became more critical of the system.

13 Du Toit (1993, 787) notes that there was an explosion in postgraduate numbers after 1970 with more than 70 doctorates in the following 20 years. This strong growth began 5 years after the NTSSA was established, illuminating the context and intellectual climate in which this took place even more.

14 Massive numbers of students studied Biblical Studies and did some form of postgraduate research. As a result of this explosion of numbers, the South African Society for Biblical Studies (focusing on teaching of Biblical Studies in schools) was established in the early seventies and at one time had a membership almost equal in numbers to that of the NTSSA.

15 This is so important in terms of the reverse situation that took place in the nineties (discussed later on in this overview).


It is this educational empowerment, together with the intellectual nature of Reformed theological training,16 that created the climate in which the NTSSA came into being. It is in this context and more or less in the same period that other professional bodies like the Classical Association, the Missiological Society and the Old Testament Society were also established. Within a short period of time there were increasing numbers of scholars who realized that they had accumulated the skills and the resources that enabled them to create a podium for discussing and promoting research in various theological fields. They realized that they needed such a space in order to continue developing these skills and research.17 The history of the NTSSA in its first 25 years can be characterized as truly golden years of growth and strength.

It is of vital importance to note to what extent this empowering experience was characterized by an outward movement. It was observed above that scholars from abroad like Van Selms and Gemser were actively involved in establishing and running the OTSSA. Inevitably their work exposed their students to high quality research. But local theology was not only enriched by the input of theologians from abroad who taught here for many years. It is important to keep in mind that many young students went abroad to study there in the late fifties and sixties (cf further below). They returned with insights that were on the cutting edge of theological thinking or that were shaped by intense debate on seminal issues. One should also keep in mind that they studied in Europe in the time of reflection on World War 2 with all its theological intensity and its awareness of racist anti-Semitism. They could not have been left uninfluenced by the foundational issues that were discussed in Europe after this devastating war. The fact that it was a world war further meant that they were experiencing the beginnings of globalization. Already it was clear that a community of nations had begun to be formed in which no nation or group could live unaffected by what was happening elsewhere. No person was an island any more. The cold war was

16 The Reformed (and to some extent the Lutheran) tradition is traditionally strongly

academic in nature. The Roman Catholic training of its priests equaled the Dutch Reformed model of a seven year training.

17 On the Classical Association of South Africa, cf. Smuts 1976. He writes insightful comments about the origins of this society. The classics also had a long history in this country, with some earlier attempts to set up a society to promote research in the field. It was, however, only in the fifties and sixties that the Association was established as a sustainable society.


already in full swing, with the division of Europe in west and east an everyday reality and the nuclear race a stark, threatening danger. It was a world separated by a huge divide, but, ironically, also strongly linked by it.

All this would create an awareness of decisive importance for the nature of academic research. It comes as no surprise that the new societies wanted to relate themselves to what happened internationally in their discipline. They understood that they were product of this larger world and that their activities per definition integrated them into this larger context. As such, these outward dynamics worked against isolation and exclusivism, moving away from narrow denominationalism, tribalism and sectarianism. The NTSSA and its international focus would increasingly reflect these deeper structures in this country. The nature and function of the NTSSA can only be judged adequately against this socio-political context.

4. Preparation The more direct and practical steps leading to the establishment of the Society were taken by three young NT scholars together with and under the chairmanship of their Pretoria teacher in NT Studies, Prof. E.P. Groenewald.18 They met at the home and “under the leadership” of Groenewald on Thursday 17 December 1964 where practicalities for inaugurating the Society were discussed. One of them, Du Toit, sent out a letter on 11 February 1965 stressing the need for greater co-operation and contact in the field of NT Studies and inviting addresses to the meeting. The scene was set for what was to happen later that year in Potchefstroom.

5. Inaugural Meeting The inaugural meeting (“stigtingsbyeenkoms”) of the Society finally took place at the University of Potchefstroom (the then home turf of the smaller

18 They were A.B. du Toit, J.H. Roberts and F.J. Botha—all former students of the Faculty

of Theology at the University of Pretoria. Two of them pursued their postgraduate studies abroad-Du Toit under Cullmann in Switzerland and Roberts under Ridderbos in the Netherlands. Botha, who taught at Unisa, later at the University of Pretoria, wrote his thesis on Revelation under Groenewald. Groenewald was one of the few amongst the older generation who studied in Europe. World War 2 prevented many others from doing so.


“Gereformeerde” [Reformed] Church of South Africa).19 Groenewald was “provisionally” in the chair, whilst Du Toit was the “provisional” secretary as the one who had sent out invitations to possible members. He, given his organizational skills and practical mindset, would become the first elected secretary.20

The following 11 academics were present and thus became founding members of the society:

S.P.J.J. van Rensburg, H.L.N. Joubert, W.J. Snyman, E.P.Groenewald, F.J.Botha, J.C. Coetzee, P.J. du Plessis, J.H. Roberts, W.J.van der Merwe, Tj. van der Walt, A.B.du Toit.

At the meeting the following persons were proposed as future members: J.J. Müller, J.L. de Villiers, S.J. du Plessis, L. Floor, F.C. Fensham, D.J.

Bosch, A.J.F. Dreyer, J.P. Louw, Dr. Postma, I.J. du Plessis.21

The inaugural meeting already reflected the research activism of the Society, so to speak, when three papers were presented. They were read, in Afrikaans, by W.J. Snyman on “Die prediking van Paulus-‘n openbaringshistoriese benadering,” (The proclamation of Paul-a revelation historical approach), Prof. H.L.N. Joubert on “Verklaring van die Nuwe-Testamentiese gelykenis”, (Interpretation of NT parables) and Prof S.P.J.J. van Rensburg on “Heiliging in die Nuwe Testament” (Sanctification in the NT). These speakers represented each of the three main groups in Reformed theology in the country (“Gereformeerd”/ “Nederduits Gereformeerd” / “Hervormd”). It is significant that these first papers were selected in terms of an ecumenical perspective.

6. The Nature of the Society The aim of the Society was described in its constitution as “to promote the research of the New Testament and related subjects.”22 This was to happen through meetings, presentations, communications, correspondence with

19 Probably because the OTSSA had a scheduled meeting there. The location is not, though,

quite without significance, as will be evident below where the “ecumenical” nature of the inaugural group is pointed out.

20 The first fifteen years of the society saw strong and conscientious leadership by Du Toit. 21 J.H. Roberts, Tj. van der Walt, A.B. du Toit. J.L. de Villiers, J.P. Louw and I.J. du Plessis

are the surviving members of this group. 22 “Die bevordering van navorsing op die gebied van die N.T.Wetenskap en aanverwante

vakgebiede.”


similar societies abroad and invitations to foreign academics to present papers in South Africa. Du Toit thus remarked in his preface to Neotestamentica (1967, 7), “The members of the (S)ociety have found the preparatory study, the being together, the listening to and especially the discussion inspired by the papers at the various meetings most stimulating and rewarding. It is as regrettable as it is obvious that these discussions cannot be reflected here” (that is, in the publication).

The NTSSA was thus in nature, first and foremost, an academic society of professionals in the field who wanted to advance their discipline. It was, from the outset, elitist in its approach and it would continue to nurture this elitism consistently over many years. Several aspects that qualify this academic nature more closely, deserve closer scrutiny.

6.1 A homogenous group The New Testament Society was established by scholars from the Reformed tradition, as is now abundantly clear from the previous remarks. The Society thus comprised a male, white and Afrikaans speaking group of ordained ministers of religion and university academics when it was formed. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that a proposal was made at the inaugural meeting that the Society should have a confessional nature. It is more telling that this was not accepted, thereby establishing a structure that would gradually become theologically, politically, socially and ethnically more and more inclusive. Du Toit, in his unpublished comments on the first years of the Society, wrote in 1990 that the proposal for a confessional foundation was rejected and that “the rules or constitution contained only one requirement, that is, expertise in NT scholarship.23 He adds that this principle determined

23 “Aan die ander kan(t) (sic) het die reglement van die NTWSA van die begin af slegs een

vereiste vir lidmaatskap gestel: die nodige kundigheid op die gebied van die Nuwe-Testamentiese Wetenskap. Die konsekwente toepassing van laasgenoemde beginsel het die deurslag gegee en mettertyd is die karakter van die NTWSA as ekumeniese en nie-rassige organisasie stewig gevestig. In die hele geskiedenis van die NTWSA is nog nooit iemand lidmaatskap op grond van geloofsverband of kleur geweier nie.” Du Toit used the word ecumenical to describe the different affiliations of those who proposed the establishment of the Society in Potchefstroom in his minutes of 1965 and again used the word in his historical overview 25 years later. At this later stage he more openly (it was still only in 1989/1990!) added the notion of non-racialism to that of ecumenicity. The Minutes of the inaugural meeting and a copy of his unpublished overview of the Society’s history were kindly made available to the author by Du Toit for the writing of this essay. On the veracity of Du Toit’s remarks, cf also the remarks below.


from early on the ecumenical and non-racial nature of the NTSSA as an ecumenical society.24 This observation of Du Toit reflects perhaps best what was quietly and diplomatically hidden in the hearts of those who drove the establishment of the Society and were its members in the first 25 years of its existence.

The Minutes of the inaugural meeting are short and simple. For members of the Society who, over the years, grew used to the complete irrelevance of denominational affiliations, race and gender in proceedings of the society, it may be interesting to note that it was explicitly and quaintly noted at this meeting that the proposal for establishing the society was made by Snyman of the Reformed (Gereformeerde) Church before Groenewald of the Dutch Reformed Church as chair, and seconded by Van Rensburg of the Hervormde Church. This is then followed by the remark (in brackets), “nie net ‘n historiese nie, maar ook ‘n ‘ekumeniese’ oomblik” (“not only a historical, but also an ‘ecumenical’ moment”).

It is a remark like this that allows a glimpse in the “real” life context of church and academy in the middle sixties when the Society was established. At that time there were two reformed theological sections of the theological faculty at the University of Pretoria, with complete duplication of all disciplines. The strong sentiments that were already prevalent then are indicated by the fact that these churches are still separate today.25 This historical divide explains the significance of the “ecumenical” meeting a bit more. The founders and later members of the society unassumingly lived beyond such historical sensitivities. It had a mindset that was evidently inclusive in nature and it was an inclusiveness that would grow stronger in the subsequent history of the society.

24 Du Toit is recognised as a person without any record of racist thinking. Next to him the

figure of Roberts stands out as someone who appreciated an open approach to academic work. He was one of the pioneers of the Department of New Testament at Unisa, where research was conducted without consideration of race, gender and denominational affiliation—not only in terms of students where they had people of colour long before the other universities could allow such students, but also politically. He clearly kept a distance from the apartheid system. The same can be said of many other younger members of that department who were also active members of the Society (cf. further below).

25 The Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria is undergoing change in so far as the two sections are no longer as rigidly separated as earlier on. The churches, though, are still separated.


6.2 Inclusivity in the context of an exclusivist society At this stage a further short and rather sketchy note must be made about the political context in which the Society functioned, since it will shed further light on its nature. The NTSSA was established in 1965, the year before the assassination of Dr. H.F. Verwoerd, prime minister of the Republic of South Africa in the House of Assembly in Cape Town on 6 September 1966, sending shock waves through the country. Despite the civil uprisings in the early sixties, the increasing international isolation during his tenure and his violent end, support of his policies grew and apartheid structures were increasingly consolidated.

Verwoerd, often regarded as the main architect of the apartheid ideology, is an important figure in terms of church and academic life. He is best known in this respect for his active role in suppressing the decisions of the Cottesloe Meeting of 1960-organized by the World Council of Churches in Johannesburg and attended by a large number of leaders from the Reformed churches (a.o. also E.P.Groenewald). This meeting questioned the apartheid ideology in a major way. The ensuing uproar and campaign against the Cottesloe decisions, driven by Verwoerd, the Nationalist media and conservative elements in the churches, contributed in no mean way to the domestication of the Dutch Reformed Church and the ostracizing of critics of the regime for the next few decades.

The successor to Verwoerd in 1966 was B.J. Vorster who had intimate links with Dutch Reformed church leaders, especially in the South. His brother was D.J. Vorster, a Cape Town minister of the Dutch Reformed Church and incumbent of several influential leadership positions in the church. His close friend and trusted mentor was the then well known Stellenbosch minister of religion, Dr. J.S. Gericke—later also Vice Chancellor of the University. Gericke exercised a major influence in the church, politics and academic life.

This information about the close link between church and political leaders is significant, as will become clear later on, because it indirectly reveals more of the nature of the NTSSA whose members, though from the same Dutch Reformed tradition, did not have intimate connections with these political and ecclesiastical figures—unlike their colleagues in the church.26 The exception among NT scholars in this respect, however, was

26 Except for Groenewald, the only exception later on was to be Prof. Johan Heyns,

systematic theologian at the University of Pretoria who was a confidant of several political


Prof. E.P. Groenewald who, together with Prof. F.J.M Potgieter, systematic theologian at Stellenbosch University, was among the most ardent supporters of the apartheid ideology.27 Groenewald has been described in more than one publication as the theologian who provided the first and comprehensive biblical legitimization of apartheid, as the following remarks by a commission of the Dutch Reformed Church indicates:28

In 1947—the year before the watershed House of Assembly election—an important report on this matter came before the Council of Churches. This document, drawn up by Prof EP Groenewald, was the first comprehensive attempt to link pure principles from God’s Word with the reality of a practical historical situation in South Africa (see PB van der Watt: Die Ned Geref Kerk 1905-1975, p 88). Groenewald emphasized that (1) the Scriptures taught the unity of the human race; (2) the dividing up of the human race was a conscious act by God; (3) the Lord wished separate peoples to maintain their separateness (“apartheid”); (4) apartheid extended over every aspect of

leaders-mostly since his days as minister of religion at the Rondebosch congregation of the Dutch Reformed church where many of these political figures were members. Heyns was a contemporary of scholars like Du Toit and Roberts. He was by times asked by theologians to intervene when visiting scholars had been denied visa’s to enter the country (cf. below). Heyns played a key role in the dismantling of the apartheid system until his tragic death by assassination.

27 Du Toit (1993, 510-512) outlines a social context within which he thinks the New Testament scholar Groenewald must be understood. According to Du Toit, the heresy trial of Prof. J. du Plessis of Stellenbosch contributed in no small manner to the fact that Groenewald was not outspokenly liberal in theological matters (e.g. by expressing reservations about historical-critical research). He writes, “Die stryd van die Afrikaner teen die Britse oorheersing, wat nog tot diep in hierdie eeu voortgeduur het, het eersgenoemde tot ‘n soliede, grootliks homogene eenheid saamgesmee. Daarom was dit byna ondenkbaar dat ‘n prominente teoloog polities konserwatief maar tegelyk teologies liberaal of andersom kon wees, laat staan nog liberaal in albei opsigte.” The intriguing figure of Prof. F.C. Fensham of Stellenbosch, who was politically a conservative person (an influential and executive member of the Broederbond and certainly not a critic of the apartheid ideology), but theologically a much more open theologian than Groenewald, shows that this explanation is unconvincing. Fensham, despite his theological openness, was offered a position at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria, but did not accept it, indicating that theological openness was not necessarily risky. The complex figure of Groenewald, his family situation, his relationship with his colleague at the Faculty of Theology, the politically more open Prof. Ben Marais, are all indications that more than external matters held him from revealing a more open position.

28 Cf. The story of the Dutch Reformed Church's JOURNEY WITH APARTHEID 1960-1994. A testimony and a confession, produced by order of the General Synodal Commission of the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk).


a people’s life-national, social and religious; (5) respect for the principles of apartheid enjoyed God’s blessing; (6) in Christ a higher spiritual unity would come about; (7) the stronger had a calling in relation to the weaker (Van Rooyen, op.cit., p 54). The Council of Churches adopted Groenewald’s report without problems, as did the Natal and Free State Synods subsequently, but the Transvaal Synod did not. Dr (later Prof) BJ Marais seriously questioned the Scriptural grounds advanced by the report. It was his view that apartheid could probably be supported for practical reasons, but that the Bible did not present apartheid as a fixed prescription for the regulation of society. After initially not wishing to adopt the report, the Transvaal Synod did, in fact, affirm the Scriptural basis of racial apartheid two days later, after further debate on the matter.29

It says much for those students of Groenewald who became NT scholars in their own right (e.g. Du Toit and Roberts) and strong leaders in the NTSSA that they never showed any sign of sharing their teacher’s ideological views. Quite the opposite would be true. Roberts staunchly distanced himself from the ideology and Du Toit consistently and increasingly criticized it. Remarkably then, Groenewald’s views never spilled over into the NTSSA, its proceedings and its publications, despite the fact that he chaired the inaugural meeting and determined its research activities to some extent during the first years (cf. further below). Following Cottesloe and the authoritarian leadership of prime minister Vorster, it remains striking that the Society, despite the presence of someone like Groenewald and a few lesser known supporters, never in any way applied racist criteria for membership or activities. Exactly the opposite was the case, as some examples, mentioned below, will indicate.

More need to be said, though. The inclusive approach of the Society can only be appreciated fully in the light of the growing repression that marked the late sixties and the seventies of the apartheid regime and that formed the context in which the society began and operated. The apartheid ideology was then being implemented increasingly in a deliberate and comprehensive manner, engulfing the whole of society—including the media, the church, the judiciary and social activities like sport and entertainment. This makes it more noteworthy that the Society refrained from any exclusivist requirements for membership.

29 It is known that the relationship between Groenewald and Marais was in many respects

strained, and that Groenewald made life difficult for Marais.


6.3 Examples of inclusivism The first 25 years of the history of the NTSSA confirm that the observations of Du Toit about its ecumenical thrust are not empty words. These examples will not only illustrate the nature of the Society, but will also illuminate some fascinating aspects of its history.

It remains, first of all, one of the most striking aspects of the history of the Society that A.S. Geyser30 who was severely victimized because of his political opposition to the apartheid system and had a high profile in the country during these years, remained a member of the Society. Geyser became famous for revealing Broederbond documents of the Rev. Beyers Naude to the largest Sunday newspaper in South Africa. Week after week the names of members (including theologians and church ministers) of the secret society were revealed—to its deepest chagrin. He was much hated and ostracized as a result of this. In the NTSSA, though, there was little, if any, sign of antipathy to him.31 For many years after these tragic events, he co-chaired one of the groups in the society, the background group (a.o. with P.G.R. de Villiers) until shortly before his death. He also attended meetings regularly, despite the fact that he was not really interested in methodological issues that were so often and extensively discussed at meetings of the Society. He was appreciated for his articulate contribution to discussions, for his warm personality and for his sometimes remarkable and creative papers.

Already in 1984 Geyser was honoured by the NTSSA as the first living person to whom an issue of Neotestamentica was dedicated (Van Unnik was thus honoured after his death with a dedication in Neotestamentica 12). One of the most beautifully designed editions of Neotestamentica, produced by the acclaimed typographer, Willem Jordaan, the issue contained articles on 1 Enoch that were read as papers at the annual meeting of 1983. The dedication included the remark that the journal is

30 Geyser was appointed as professor in NT Studies at the Faculty of Theology (section A-

the “Hervormde” section) of the University of Pretoria in 1946. He left the University of Pretoria to teach at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg in 1961. He was a gifted scholar who received international recognition by being appointed on the editorial board of the Journal, Novum Testamentum and the editorial board of its Supplements. He was also the first South African that was invited to become a member of the SNTS and a member of its executive committee.

31 It should not be left unmentioned that there were members of the Society that opposed him and his views strongly. They did not attempt, however, to exclude him from any activities or from membership.


.... presented to him as a token of gratitude for his contribution to the activities of the Society, especially as leader of the group responsible for research into the intertestamental period. This group was responsible for the presentation of papers at the annual meeting in 1983. This year (1984) also marks the retirement of Prof. Geyser as Head of the Department of Biblical and Religious Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand.

It was also noted that the Society received an anonymous grant to cover the expenses of that edition of Neotestamentica.32

The open, inclusive nature of the Society during this first phase is further illustrated by the fact that one of its earliest office bearers was W.S.Vorster, who was at some stage a controversial figure because of his theological views—especially on the historical nature of the NT. Despite the controversy, something that caused him and his family much hurt, Vorster was always popular in the Society and supported by many colleagues. Though this gifted scholar was in some ways persona non grata to many of the traditionalists in the church and in church leadership, the NTSSA elected him to become its general secretary (until 1985). In times of a hegemonic society with its authoritarianism and its intolerance and persecution of dissidents, whether political or theological in nature, this was noteworthy.

Inclusivity was not only a matter of personal relations and personalities, though. A final example of the way in which members simply moved beyond existing borders in their research presented to the Society, is to be found in the climate of thought in which the earliest members located themselves. It makes interesting reading to trace literature and authors that were their sources and discussion partners. This research material reveals the way in which members transcended traditional exclusivist boundaries. On the one hand members still read Reformed sources, as is clear, for example, from papers read at the third meeting of the NTSSA. Roberts (1967, 14-15), I.J. Du Plessis (1967, 26-27), and P.J. du Plessis (1967, 28-34) quoted scholars like Wurth, Grosheide and Ridderbos. On the other hand, though, they also referred, perhaps more often, to a wide variety of German scholars like Schlier, Schniewind, Bornkamm, Schmauch, Stauffer, Delling and Oepke. No ideological position kept these authors from reading

32 The donor was the University of Witwatersrand who requested anonymity at that time

because it considered the grant exceptional. It supported the gesture strongly because of the appreciation for Geyser, but wanted to avoid setting a precedent for other such requests.


and quoting far beyond their own restricting affiliations.33 The basic inclusive thrust of the Society is thus reflected not only in its constitution and membership, but also in the intellectual climate that it nurtured and pursued.

6.4 Inclusivism in the making History, being selective and relative to its creator, has an inherent tendency to be portrayed in such a way that it reminds one more of its creator than of the history under discussion. The chronicling of the history of the NTSSA in 2005, in a democratic country after traumatic years of authoritarianism, by someone who was part of that history, is even more prone to suffer from this. One has to beware, especially of subtle, unintended whitewashing. It is, therefore necessary to look for the gaps in this specific historical text that allows for the text to be deconstructed and that will allow the reader to move with his or her imagination into spaces that accompany these years and that reflect the huge complexities of events, institutions and times during this phase.

In this regard, there is once again a particular example that is most interesting. Earlier on a statement of Du Toit (from his unpublished overview of the first years of the Society in 1990) was quoted extensively. A seminal sentence in that statement is, “In die hele geskiedenis van die NTWSA is nog nooit iemand lidmaatskap op grond van geloofsverband of kleur geweier nie.”

This statement, that in the whole of the history of the Society, no one was refused membership because of their denomination or colour, is, however, problematic. In a letter addressed to Paul Decock, a Roman Catholic priest, dated December 2, 1970, the Secretary (Du Toit) wrote,

Concerning membership I am sorry to inform you that it will not be possible to enroll you as a member since membership is restricted to persons endorsing the three Formularies of Unity, the classic confessional formularies of the churches of the reformed tradition.

This letter was written five years after the society was established. It seems to contradict Du Toit’s recollection of historical events and it suggests that the remarks in the Minutes of the inaugural meeting about the

33 More information about the type of literature that was read in these times is discussed

below.


“ecumenical” nature of the Society, at that stage evidently had only a Protestant meaning.

It is difficult to understand why, given that the constitution indeed had no explicit confessional requirement for membership, it was possible to restrict membership in practice only to reformed scholars. It seems as if discussions at a business meeting may have ended in a decision that contradicted the constitution. The matter is not that simple, though. The rejection of Decock’s membership was followed in Du Toit’s letter to Decock by the remark that, “You are, however, very welcome to attend our meetings...”

From this remark it is abundantly clear that the proceedings of the Society were open for people beyond the Protestant traditions—even if it meant that they could not become members.

Paul Decock, gracious a person as he is, did not take offense when he received this letter. He comments that he indeed attended the meeting in July 1971 and “felt really welcome.” There are other indications that Decock was indeed well received by reformed academics. He recalls that he also attended the meeting of the OTSSA in Stellenbosch in January 1971, invited by Prof. I. Eybers, a leading and senior scholar in OT Studies.34 Eybers and Decock had earlier on communicated about the dated way in which lecture notes at Unisa portrayed Catholic biblical studies in terms of studies published in the 1930’s. It is rather striking that Eybers35 followed up the comments of the young Decock by drawing him into the circle of South African scholars through an invitation to the OTSSA.36

This valuable piece of information obviously reveals something of the complexities of the situation in which the Society and its members functioned. The fact that Du Toit did not recall this letter to Decock when he reflected on the history of the Society, could very well be because it slipped his mind, or, even more probable, that in his mind the later inclusivity of the Society was the more dominant trend in it. Or else, his invitation to Decock

34 He was also a member of the NTSSA. 35 Decock notes that Eybers appreciated to meet Catholic exegetes. 36 By 1976, Decock recalls, conditions for membership of the NTSSA were changed so that

it would be sufficient for members to accept the authority of Scripture. “The Society was satisfied that as a Catholic I was fulfilling that requirement (reference was made to specific texts in the documents of Vatican II, specifically to Verbum Dei 11.)” This was disclosed in a personal communication to the author. I thank Decock for this information that he communicated to me only after I invited him to comment on this essay.


to attend meetings may have been to him evidence enough that the Society practically functioned in an open, inclusive way.37

From this episode, it is clear that the inclusive nature of the Society was something that was in progress. It was not simply there, but it developed gradually over years as a basic scientific paradigm, characterized by inclusivity, consolidated itself. It was this paradigm that united members of the Society across the strong denominational boundaries and prejudices that existed in those times.

In 1981 Paul Decock read a paper at the University of Potchefstroom on “The understanding of Isaiah 53:7-8 in Acts 8:32-33”. That something important had been changing in the Society by the time when it met at the University of Potchefstroom (1980), where it was established 15 years earlier, and when Decock read this paper, is clearly indicated by the striking fact that Decock’s colleague at the St. John Vianney Seminary in Pretoria, Father U. McCaffrey, also read a paper on Psalm quotations in the Passion Narratives of the Gospels at this same meeting.38

6.5 Support There are, obviously, trends that characterize different phases and aspects of any society, reflecting its dynamics as progress takes place. Such change is perhaps best illustrated by the way in which annual meetings were organized at different phases in its history. That the Society was inclusive in nature was illustrated in various ways in the preceding sections. Its inclusive nature is illustrated in still another rather concrete way by the manner in which

37 This episode is further so significant because it illustrates how theologians in this country

experienced Vatican 2 as a groundbreaking moment in the history of ecumenism. At the same time it reveals how the initiative of young scholars like Decock was not met by ideological rejection by people like Eybers and Du Toit, but how they opened doors to him. Decock read his first paper at the NTSSA in 1980.

38 I remember vividly a humorous discussion after a day of heavy papers at the annual meeting, between Decock, myself and Jurie le Roux on the campus of the university, next to the statue of the founder of the Unversity, about the presence of a Roman catholic priest there. McCaffrey completed a Master’s degree in NT Studies at the Unversity of South Africa in 1979-once again illustrating the important role of this university and its Department of New Testament Studies in the history of the Society. It must also be kept in mind that Celia Kourie, who is one of the few woman members of the Society, is Roman Catholic. She taught New Testament at Unisa for many years. Patrick Hartin and Wilfred Sebothoma also were Roman Catholic members of the Society, were both also teaching at Unisa.


members went out of their way to involve everyone who belonged to the Society in its annual meeting. In order to help members who wanted to attend annual meetings, but did not always receive funding, it was arranged that they stayed at homes of their colleagues and ministers in the location where the annual meeting was held. In addition, all members contributed to a travel fund that covered the traveling expenses of those who were not involved in institutions that could pay for their attendance (normally the price of a second class train ticket). This was a useful and considerate ruling in a country like South Africa with its vast distances.

It was only when the society became too large and institutions subsidized the attendance of conferences of their staff members more regularly, that this practice came to an end. In the latest circular to members of the Society (2005), for example, members were sent a list of hotels in Bloemfontein in order to organize their own accommodation for the annual meeting that is to take place there. This more businesslike approach had become the common practice by the time of the 25th anniversary, underlining something of the more intimate and supportive nature of the early phase.

6.6 Academic partners The academic focus and the intention of the Society to promote research in NT Studies were always exceptionally strong. The leaders and senior members were keen to bring coherence39 and quality to research activities. This was one of the reasons why in earliest times the available expertise was focused on a particular theme.

An example of how and on what level research was co-ordinated, is to be found in a letter sent out by the general secretary on 5 September1968, three years into the existence of the NTSSA. Noting that the theme for the next conference would be pneumatology in Paul, he listed 11 topics before concluding the letter with the intriguing remark that the topics were proposed by E.P. Groenewald—as if the authority of this senior person confirmed their quality. On 1 December 1969 and on 10 June1970 he sent out circulars about the next meeting that were to take place in Stellenbosch, listing 11 themes followed by references to literature that could be

39 Both the circulars of 5 September and 1 December 1969 listed topics for papers and called

on members to avoid duplication of presentations.


investigated and be presented as topics.40 At the end of the page, a general list of publications was added. This list included, interestingly enough, works of then widely read and sometimes controversial scholars like Bultmann, Fuchs, Ebeling, Kuitert,41 and Robinson (The New Hermeneutic).42 Research within the Society clearly focused on and related to what were then seminal, quality publications and hot topics in the discipline. This was not something that just happened, but was actively promoted by the leading minds.

When groups were formed in later times to study specialized fields, four out of the seven focused on literary studies that were at that stage in the centre of international research. Form criticism, tradition criticism and redaction criticism were considered so relevant that the name of one group was coined after them (cf. further below). Although in practice the study of these approaches was not pursued in real depth, the decision that these fields must receive attention, says much about the academic focus and space that the members of the Society claimed. There was no question about this: the Society located itself in mainstream academic research and the leadership and membership of the Society explicitly steered the activities in that direction.

40 In his circular, the Secretary informs members on 1 December 1969 of the pending

meeting in Stellenbosch (16-17 July 1970) that was to have the hermeneutical question as “very relevant and fascinating topic.” The themes for papers were: 1. The necessity and meaning of New Testament Hermeneutics. 2. Linguistic events as issue in New Testament Hermeneutics or the Linguistic Hermeneutics of Fuchs and Ebeling. 3. The problem of the so-called hermeneutical circle with specific reference to the New Hermeneutic (Fuchs). 4. Demythologizing as hermeneutical possibility. 5. The modern hermeneutical movement and the history of salvation approach. 6. The meaning of cross and resurrection in Bultmann and his followers. 7. The subjectivizing trend in modern Hermeneutics or the subject-object scheme in modern Hermeneutics. 8. The place of the Gospel of John in modern Hermeneutics. 9. The nature and meaning of eschatology in the existential theology. 10. Hermeneutics of the prophetic-apocalyptic parts of the gospels. 11. Docetic trends in modern hermeneutics. In the next circular he observes that the initial list in the first circular was modified after much correspondence.

41 Listed was Kuitert’s work Verstaat gij wat gij leest? (Kampen: Kok) that provoked such intense debate in the Netherlands after its appearance there. After this list, Du Toit, almost as an afterthought, reminds his addressees not to forget the then standard works in Reformed thought of Grosheide (Hermeneutiek, 1926) and Greijdanus (Schriftbeginselen ter Schriftverklaring, 1946).

42 He notes in the circular that 19 people at that stage indicated that they would attend the meeting, followed by a list of speakers and their topics. Out of the 19 attendees, 12 presented papers!


At this stage, a short note about the long term implications of this academic approach needs to be made. Inevitably, international trends in academic research of the NT determined the contents of the research activities of the Society to a large extent. Thus developed a “high” academic culture that shied away from practical matters and focused in the first instance on theoretical work. It continued an idealistic approach to the discipline that would be so strongly attacked in later years by contextual theologies and that, later on, would also contribute to internal tension in the Society (cf. the discussions later on in this overview; also De Villiers 1987a; 1987b; 1991).

6.7. International links There was a conscious awareness of how necessary it was to promote links with international scholarship. Thus already at an early stage, Du Toit (1967, 7) described the studies offered in the first volume as done by a “newly-formed group in the large family of NT scholars all over the world” and expressed the wish that “they may contribute to New Testament research.” At the same time, the papers that “were originally delivered in Afrikaans” are “published in English in order to make the results of our research available to a wider group of New Testament scholars” (Du Toit 1967, 7). One could therefore argue that it was in the very nature of the NTSSA from its inception to link up with international research.

Once again, such an approach fitted well in the general intellectual climate among theologians in that time. In the preface to the publication of the proceedings of the ninth conference of the Old Testament Society, Van Zyl observed that it “reflected the truly international aspect of the Society” (1966, 7) with papers from the then much-respected John Bright, Georg Fohrer and Abraham Malamat.43 Van Zyl (1966, 7) remarks, “And because the international scholars mentioned have honoured us by accepting honorary life membership of the Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap, they have stimulated us in South Africa—also within the Werkgemeenskap—to strive to emulate the high international standards which have been set and to bring to this task the high sacrifice of devoted labour.” Amusing for contemporary readers, but clearly within a context of striving for academic

43 All these scholars had strong links with Prof. Fensham of the University of Stellenbosch.

Cf. further below. Fensham wrote a thesis under Bright. The three scholars mentioned here were all guests at the University of Stellenbosch where they lectured to students at the Department of Semitic Languages in that year.


excellence, he observes rather grandiosely, “These eminent scholars from overseas not only honoured us by their presence and instructed us by their well-thought-out lectures, but their active participation in the affairs of our congress also gave us the feeling that we in faraway South Africa were busy with a grand task which has gripped the attention of the world...”

Whilst it became a given and was accepted as normal in later years for individual scholars to retain links with overseas scholars, it was a different matter in the first years in the existence of the Society. In a time that a trip to “faraway” Europe often was undertaken by ship (mostly a 10 to 14 day journey) or, more rarely, by airplane (a long one / two day journey with stops in Africa), that telephone calls had to be made through several hand dialed exchanges on the continent, that faxes, e-mail and courier services were unheard of, links with overseas colleagues were arduous to uphold, These links were mostly retained through letters (or, in contemporary jargon, snail mail). In this way, the mere physical distances illustrate what challenges were facing scholars when they were so determined to retain international links. It says much about their academic ideals. In many ways, furthermore, the links with overseas colleagues helped solidify certain values and contributed to a life experience that must have contributed to the growing intellectual dissent regarding the policy of apartheid—as was noted to some extent already earlier on in this overview.

This international focus was made even more difficult in the first 25 years of the history of the Society by the growing isolation of the country. Whilst geographic and physical issues contributed to isolation, political factors increasingly threatened to cut local scholars off from mainstream scholarship.

To exacerbate this situation, local scholars were sometimes under pressure when they attended overseas conferences simply because they were South African. Some theologians from abroad questioned whether South African theologians should be allowed to attend those conferences. Others argued against punitive actions against individuals who could not be held responsible for the actions of a government with whom they did not agree. Thus some South African NT scholars were accepted as members of the SNTS during these years and allowed to participate in the proceedings of the


meetings. Not that it was always easy. It was often remarked by them that the undertone of suspicion could not really be overlooked.44

During these years South Africans were denied entry to almost all African and Eastern European countries. South African passports were not accepted in many countries, so that South Africans could basically only visit Western European countries and the United States of America. That the apartheid government often denied scholars from abroad access to the country,45 only intensified the problem. One of the saddest examples of the pettiness of the apartheid regime was the difficulties that the Society experienced to arrange a visitor’s visa for the Dutch scholar Rien de Jonge to read a paper at the annual meeting. De Jonge, later to become president of the SNTS, was denied a visa because his wife, who was from a Dutch colony, did not qualify as a white person in terms of the race classification system of that time. After de Jonge was granted a visa because of strong pressure by members of the society and other theologians who were deeply dismayed by the events, he understandably decided not to visit. Much anger was generated among members of the Society by incidents like these.46

6.8. Language The nature of the Society is also illuminated by the language in which proceedings are conducted. Initially papers were read in Afrikaans, “the language generally used at the meeting of this society” (Du Toit 1967, 7). Interestingly enough, the papers of meetings were published, with some exceptions (e.g. Neot 4), exclusively in English “in order to make the results of our research available to a wider group of NT scholars” (Ibid.). In later years, as non-Afrikaans speaking persons became members of the Society,

44 The first South African to serve on the executive committee of the SNTS after Geyser,

was a South African of colour, Prof. Daan Cloete of the University of the Western Cape. He wrote his thesis under Ridderbos at the University of Kampen, The Netherlands and became a member of the NTSSA on his return from the Netherlands. Cloete, with his genial, but strong personality was an appreciated and active member of the Society. He fulfilled a strong leadership role at the well-known University of the Western Cape, a bastion of resistance against the apartheid regime.

45 Because the anti-apartheid activism of churches, theologians from abroad were suspect long before they applied for visas.

46 De Jonge’s much quoted paper on the expectation of the future in the Similatudes of Enoch later appeared for the first time in an English version in Neot 23 (1989), 93-118. It was then included in his collected essays in this translated form.


papers and discussions were presented mostly in English. Neotestamentica nowadays rarely, if at all, contains any papers in Afrikaans. This confirmed the drive to make non-Afrikaans members feel at home and to promote the inclusive nature of the Society.

7. Membership The NTSSA, unlike some other professional societies in the country, was outspokenly elitist, as was stated already above. The Society was rather careful to allow as members only those who had certain advanced academic qualifications. Quality control was assured by the explicit rule that membership could not be applied for it was extended only by invitation after names of possible candidates were proposed to the executive committee and approved at a business meeting. The business of screening members was a standing item on the agenda at annual meetings.

7.1 Qualifications From its inception the society required certain qualifications for membership. Only academics who specialized in the study of the NT and who have shown ability to do independent research in this field (Du Toit 1967, 7) could join the society as full members, that is, as members who could vote at Business Meetings and read papers.47

7.2 Categories Full membership thus was based on two academic criteria only. The criteria to determine membership were spelled out objectively and in a concrete manner to mean that researchers who completed doctoral examinations48 or who were teaching NT could become full members.

47 In an undated version of the constitution, it reads, “As werkende lede van die

Werkgemeenskap kom persone in aanmerking wat minstens reeds die doktorale eksamen in Nuwe Testament met goeie gevolg afgelê het of wat professorate in Nuwe Testament beklee.” It is add, however, that this norm “kan met soepelheid aangewend word deur die Algemene Vergadering van die Werkgemeenskap.” At this early stage, the status of “begunstigers” (beneficiaries) was allocated to persons interested in the activities of the Society but still unable to qualify as working members (“werkende lede.”). Only working members had voting rights.

48 This meant, in South African terms, following Dutch conventions, postgraduate students who were in a position to commence with the writing of a thesis.


Five years into its existence, in 1970, the Society decided to add the new category of associate membership for those who did not fulfill the requirements of full membership, but wanted to be involved in its activities. This membership, also only on invitation, was open especially to researchers with a postgraduate degree in NT studies or related subjects. This created space for younger students or even academics from related disciplines to sit in on and participate in proceedings,49 but also served to reinforce the strict requirements for full membership.

An interesting category of membership was instituted at an early stage in the history of the Society. Honorary membership was awarded to members who made a major contribution to the discipline through their participation in the activities of the society.50 By 1990 H. Boers, J.L. de Villiers, A.B. du Toit, E.P. Groenewald, L. Hartman, H.L.N. Joubert, A.J. Malherbe and J.N. Suggit were honorary members. One of the earliest people to be honoured in this way was W.C. van Unnik, later to become President of the SNTS.

7.3 Growth in membership There were eleven attendees at the first inaugural meeting of the NTSSA. Three years later, the 1968 meeting of the Society was attended by more or less twenty members and a number of visitors (thirteen papers were read). After these humble beginnings, the NTSSA grew to become quite large in numbers. According to the published membership list (Neot 1990, 391-397), there were 226 members after 25 years.

7.4 Constitution of membership Throughout the years, the vast majority of members were Afrikaans speaking simply because Afrikaans institutions had so many students. The two departments at Stellenbosch and Pretoria produced the students that went on to pursue postgraduate studies in the field and who would become the first crop of members. There were Groenewald, W.J. Snyman, J.J. Müller, H.L.N. Joubert and J.L. de Villiers all of whom were students of F.W. Grosheide at the Free University in Amsterdam. Later on, among a younger generation, P.J. du Plessis, T. van der Walt, I.J. du Plessis, J.H.

49 Only full members were, however, normally allowed to read papers. 50 One of the first to receive this membership was Prof. S.P.J.J. van Rensburg, who was

officially presented as honorary member to the Business Meeting at the Annual Meeting in Pretoria (at Unisa) on 12 July 1973.


Roberts, B.C. Lategan and W. Nicol graduated under Herman Ridderbos of Kampen.51 A.B. du Toit studied under Cullmann in Switzerland, whilst H.J.B.Combrink was a student of R. Schippers at the Free University in The Netherlands. These scholars who completed their studies in the fifties and sixties, returned to the country before or soon after the society was established, forming a major part of the first group of active members.

This constitution of the membership did not change much over the years. By 1990, only 31 members were not Afrikaans mother tongue speakers. This smaller number included 9 people of colour. Most were from a Reformed background, e.g. G.D. Cloete, L.W. Mazamisa, T.C. Rabali, J.M. Ramashapa and S.D. Sibanyoni, whilst E.K. Mgojo and T.S.N. Gqubele were Methodist in affiliation and, finally, W.A. Sebothoma was Roman Catholic. The number of women was even less. Only seven members of the Society were women in 1990 (B.L. Emslie, M.M. Jacobs, C.E.T. Kourie, L. Lovell, A.E.J. Mouton, S.J. Nortje and E. Scheepers).

The predominant Afrikaans and Reformed nature of the Society had nothing to do with ideological prejudices. It was simply a result of the practical situation. Indirectly this situation is corroborated by what happened internationally. In recent years, the SNTS, the international society for NT scholars, seeking to broaden its own base, experienced similar problems in its quest for greater inclusivity. In the twenty first century that society is still mainly a meeting place for elderly, white male scholars.

Some remarks are needed in order to provide a fuller picture of this matter, especially since numbers do not always reflect fully what goes on in a society like the NTSSA. Although there are not that many English speaking members, the contributions of those who did join the Society deserves special mention. Among them there is Paul Decock, a long standing and highly respected member, who contributed regularly to the proceedings of the Society over a long period of time. He ultimately became general secretary of the Society in 2003. Jonathan Draper was elected as

51 Among the more senior members from the first period of the Society, F.J. Botha and

E.A.C. Pretorius, were graduates at the University of Pretoria and Stellenbosch respectively where they completed their doctoral studies. Pretorius later on became professor at the University of South Africa, where he served for many years. P.G.R. de Villiers completed his doctoral examinations under Ridderbos before finalizing his postgraduate research at the University of Stellenbosch. There were three others, namely D.J. Bosch, A.J.G. Dreyer and F.C. Fensham who wrote their theses in NT Studies, but they became active in other disciplines. For dates and locations, cf. Du Toit 1993, 787–but his list is incomplete.


Publications Secretary and Editor of the Journal, also after many years of distinguished service. Also highly appreciated for his strong input was John Suggit, who often mentioned his initial apprehension about joining the Society-fearing that he would not be able to follow Afrikaans. He just as often remarked how he was welcomed and accommodated by other members after he became a member and started attending meetings. Bill Domeris was another active member, who, though an OT scholar, was a regular contributor of papers in the early years.

7.5 Active members The official correspondence52 indicates who the more active members were during the initial ten years of the Society. The list of speakers at conferences in the first ten year of its existence, reveals the following pattern, confirming some trends that need to be spelled out further below:

Topping the list of active members is J.H. Roberts who read no less than six papers (1966, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1974)

Then follows, with five papers, A.B. du Toit (1966, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1974), F.C. Fensham (1966, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1972), J.P. Louw (1966, 1967, 1970, 1974, 1975) and W.S. Vorster (1969, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975).

Also quite active with four papers were F.J. Botha (1966, 1967, 1969, 1970), H.J.B. Combrink (1969, 1971, 1973, 1975), P.J. du Plessis (1966, 1967, 1969, 1969), C. van der Waal (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973). Three papers were read by I.J. du Plessis (1967, 1968, 1970), F. Floor (1970, 1971, 1976) and W. Nicol (1972, 1973, 1975)

Quite a number of members read two papers in these years: J.C.Coetzee (1970, 1972), J.L. de Villiers (1969, 1975), E.P. Groenewald (1967, 1970), B.C. Lategan (1970, 1973), Jac J. Muller (1966, 1970), G.M.M. Pelser (1974, 1976) and S.P.J.J. van Rensburg (1967, 1969).

One paper was presented by C.J.Botha (1976), S.J. du Plessis (1970), J. du Preez (1975), J.J. Engelbrecht (1969), I.H. Eybers (1975), A.S. Geyser (1975), H.L.N. Joubert (1970), P.P.A .Kotze (1977), H.A. Lombard (1971), E.A.C. Pretorius (1971) and T. van der Walt.

52 This list is based on the correspondence sent out by the Secretary because not all papers

read at conferences were printed in Neotestamentica.


Roberts, Du Toit, Fensham, Louw, Botha, Vorster and Combrink were the most active figures in this period.53 It is certainly noteworthy that Roberts heads the list. With his practical and focused mind, Roberts, one of the three students that organized the first meeting of the Society, was the driving force behind two major developments in the life of the Society. He proposed the formation of groups in order to focus the activities of the Society and campaigned for these groups to remain active between annual meetings in the specific fields that they were investigating. He was, secondly, the driving force behind the establishment of the later Institute of Theological Research at Unisa—a project that emanated from discussions during Business Meetings of the Society, as the Minutes and correspondence from this time reveal. Both these developments are linked to the basic aim that was so essential to the nature of the Society, that is, to promote the research of the discipline.54

A totally new phase of the Society developed some years after its origins in terms of its membership. The Society started growing strongly in the seventies, with a new group of members joining or taking up leadership roles in it. As was mentioned above, it was during this time that academic

53 Van der Waal, who is among the group of most active members, was involved in the

ministry. He is especially known and often quoted in international publications for his interesting work on Revelation. Cf. Van der Waal 1971. Du Plessis, who taught at the University of Port Elizabeth, later moving to the Rand Afrikaans University (now the University of Johannesburg), was a regular attendee at meetings of the Society.

54 The essay of Roberts (1972, 56) provides an insight in the type of thinking that accompanied or drove these early years of the Society. He motivates his essay with introductory remarks about the programming of research, that is, the co-ordinated co-operation on a particular project in the field, but also the co-ordination of projects so that a comprehensive overview of research could be established. This would lead to proper depth in specialization and sustainable results and prevent isolated, unco-ordinated research results as well as an unfruitful isolation. He concludes (1972, 5) the essay with some observations, the first of which is that it would be ideal to establish an institute or centre for Biblical Research at Unisa, which he considered to be eminently suited for this purpose. He notes, secondly, that this matter was discussed at the meeting of the NTSSA in 1970 where it was suggested that this work should be done by the Society itself. He then suggested that the Society should rather be part of the co-ordinating activities of such an institute. Although Roberts’ vision was only partially realized, the thrust of his remarks illuminates those values that were important to the NTSSA. Note what he observes (1972, 63), “Met die beperkte korps van S.A. wetenskaplikes lewer hierdie weg nie alleen aan ons binnelands die beste metode tot die lewering van ‘n konstruktiewe bydrae op die gebied van die Bybelwetenskappe nie, maar is dit miskien ook die enigste wyse waarop ons vrugbaar by buitelandse navorsingprojekte ingeskakel word.”


positions were established at various universities, with existing universities appointing further staff or new universities forming new departments of Biblical Studies55 The members of the Society who were in church service when the society was formed, were soon appointed in these new positions. Later on many of the younger generation would be appointed in the many new openings that were created by the establishment of new departments. This led to a dramatic rise in the membership numbers of the Society.

Recent developments could provide the best insight in the special growth of the Society during its first 25 years. The strong rise in numbers leveled off at the beginnings of the nineties. Some of the main causes for this are to be found in the reduction of staff members of departments in which NT Studies were taught or in the closure of such departments. The phasing out of Biblical Studies from the school curriculum and the ripple effect of this on staffing of Departments of Biblical Studies and Faculties of Education at universities and teacher training institutions are perhaps the most important causes of the decline. The underlying ideology that promoted change at universities, especially since democratization of the South African society, implied an elimination of so-called “sectional” or “sectarian” approaches to religion at tertiary institutions. This not only promoted the study of religion, but in terms of public schools it led to the removal of Biblical Studies as an option in the curriculum. In addition there is a strong focus on providing the country with graduates in the scarcer fields (mathematics, engineering, IT). This approach affects the allocation of funds, led to the closure of departments and the rationalization of staff numbers. It also, more to the point, affects the number of members of the NTSSA, and, especially the numbers that attend annual meetings.

Though this development is really part of future historiography, it must be mentioned briefly here because it confirms indirectly that its first quarter century truly represents a golden period in the history of the NTSSA—especially in terms of the impressive membership numbers. The NTSSA reached a milestone in terms of strength and numbers in its first 25 years-within a mere generation after its establishment.

55 The general secretary notes in a letter dated 1 December 1969 the following appointments

in New Testament positions during that year: J.L. de Villiers in Stellenbosch, B.C. Lategan at the University of the Western Cape, T. van der Walt in Potchefstroom, P.J. du Plessis at the University of Port Elizabeth and J.H. Roberts at the University of South Africa.


8. Office Bearers The NTSSA functions in practice on two levels. After the first phase of its history in which one person was responsible for the administration, a leadership of three members were elected as the Society began to expand. They co-coordinated general activities.

The constitution initially determined that a general secretary was to be elected at the Annual Meeting for a period of five years. Later on the secretary was supported by an assistant secretary. Within the first decade, a secretariate of three members was formed, consisting of a general secretary, functioning as chair, a co-secretary for finances56 and a co-secretary for publications who was also editor of Neotestamentica.

Within the first decade of its existence, the Society has established itself as a full grown entity with so many activities that more help was needed to run it efficiently. The journal, Neotestamentica, for example, did not only print more articles, but was pushing up its circulation number both within the country and internationally. The editing and administration responsibilities were huge.57

There was stability and continuation in the leadership. The constitution wisely limits the period of service that one person could occupy a particular position, but in practice the same people were willing to serve in different positions, often moving on from one position to the next. Du Toit was succeeded as general secretary58 by Vorster who was succeeded by H.J.B. Combrink in 1984 and B.C. Lategan in 1989. Combrink and Lategan also served in the position of co-secretary: finance before becoming general secretary. F.J.J. Van Rensburg succeeded them in 1989. Du Rand was succeeded as co-secretary: publications by P.G.R. de Villiers in 1981, followed in 1989 by H.C. van Zyl.59

56 This secretary for finances was responsible for writing minutes, arranging for proper

bookkeeping and for correspondence with members. 57 The history of Neotestamentica will be discussed in a separate article. 58 At the beginning of its history, the Society elected someone, mostly the local organizer of

the annual meeting, to chair the activities during the meeting. As the Society grew, it became clear that the situation demanded so much insight and experience, that only the secretariate could fulfill this task properly. During business meetings, the secretariate therefore took over, with the secretary in the chair and its other members reporting on their portfolios.

59 Minutes of the business meeting of the NTSSA held at the University of Pretoria 10 April 1989, 14.


After the establishment of groups in 1971, a second group of leaders appeared on the scene. In addition to the general leadership, subgroups elected leaders who took responsibility for more focused research activities conducted within groups. Each of the groups normally had at least two leaders. They initiated activities, organized meetings and reported to the annual meeting.

9. Proceedings A typical conference in the early years would consist of an opening ceremony with an address by a university representative (e.g. dean), several papers, a business meeting60 and a formal reception by the host university. In 1969, for example, eight papers were allocated in slots of about one hour for a main paper and 15 minutes for shorter papers with ensuing debate and discussions. The conference took place over a period of a day and a half (with a concluding tour of the campus of the University of Potchefstroom and a reception in the afternoon of the second day)—starting on Tuesday 28 January at 10h15 and ending on the following day at 17h00.

Soon there was more momentum. On 10 June 1970, the secretary informed members that the surprising number of papers (12) compelled him to bring the meeting forward with half a day. “Die verrassende aantal aanbiedinge vir referate,” he notes with clear excitement at the beginning of his letter, “het my genoodsaak om die byeenkoms met ‘n halfdag te vervroeg. Ons byeenkoms sal nou D.V. plaasvind vanaf Woensdagmiddag 15 Julie tot Vrydagaand 17 Julie. Ek is dankbaar dat ons gashere op Stellenbosch ons in hierdie opsig tegemoet kom en vertrou dat hierdie reeling nie vir u groot ongerief sal meebring nie” (his italics). Three years later, the annual meeting at Unisa started on the Wednesday afternoon (11 July) and continued until the Friday morning (13 July) with 8 papers (two by W.C. van Unnik and one by the well known Dutch systematic theologian Prof. H.Berkhof).

With the introduction of groups (cf further below) the meeting was extended with two days. From then on it would begin on a Tuesday (or Monday) evening to end only on the Friday (or Thursday) morning—usually

60 The agenda included the admission of new members, discussion of publications, planning

for future meetings (place, time, organizing committee and topics), payment of travel costs and activities of groups.


in a time in April when universities had their holidays.61 In 1990 the meeting in Stellenbosch on the language of the NT began on the Monday (2 April) at 18h00 and continued until the Thursday (5 April). In total 25 papers were read (5 main papers and 20 papers in parallel sessions). Receptions were given on the Tuesday and Wednesday evenings.

10. Conclusion From this overview one realizes why the NTSSA grew so strongly. It was a Society initiated by dedicated, well trained young scholars. They had a vision, striving to attain clearly formulated aims. At the same time they also had the commitment and organizational skills to continue building and expanding the Society. It is equally true that they could do this in a situation and context that favoured them in a special manner. Given the individuals and given an ideal socio-political context that favoured their subject and their educational focus, the outcomes were bound to be positive and impressive.62 Though there were difficult, intensely tense political developments, the Society grew and experienced golden years despite and amidst those turbulent times.

Bibliography De Pater, W. 1978. Theologie linguistiek: situering en bibliografie. TvT 18:234-

246. De Villiers, P.G.R. 1985. “Use of Scripture and modern society: Political

interpretations of the Bible.” Inaugural lecture, Pretoria: University of South Africa.

De Villiers, P.G.R. (ed.), 1987. Liberation theology and the Bible. Pretoria: Unisa.

De Villiers, P.G.R. 1987a. Review of, “The unquestionable right to be free,” by M. Mothlabi (ed.) Christian Forum.

De Villiers, P.G.R. 1987b. The Gospel and the poor. Let us read Luke 4, in Pieter G.R. de Villiers (ed). Liberation theology and the Bible. Pretoria: Unisa, 45-75.

61 Even then, time was not enough for what had to be done and discussed. Later on the

executive and the group leaders added on meetings on the Monday afternoon. 62 In a following discussion, attention will be given to the research activities of the Society

amidst the turbulent times.


De Villiers, P.G.R. 1991. The End of Hermeneutics? On New Testament Studies and Postmodernism. Neot 25:145-157.

Draper, J. & West, G. 1989. Anglicans and scripture in South Africa, in England, F. & Paterson, T. (eds.) Bounty in Bondage. The Anglican Church in Southern Africa. Essays in Honour of Edward King, Dean of Cape Town. Johannesburg: Ravan.

Du Plessis, I.J. 1967. The Ethics of Marriage according to Matt.5:27-32. Neot 1:16-27.

Du Plessis, P.J. 1967. Love and Perfection in Matt.5:43-48. Neot 1:28-34. Du Toit, A.B. 1967. Preface. Neot 1:7. Du Toit, A.B. 1993. Die opkoms en huidige stand van die Nuwe-Testamentiese

ondersoek in Suid-Afrika: Deel 1. HTS 49:503-514. Du Toit, A.B. 1993. Die opkoms en huidige stand van die Nuwe-Testamentiese

ondersoek in Suid-Afrika: Deel 2. HTS 49:786-809. Fensham, F.C. 1972. Love in the Writings of Qumran and John, Neot 6:67-77. Hartin, P.J. 1988. Apartheid and the Scriptures. The Contribution of Albert

Geyser in this polemic. JTSA 5:20-33. Iser, W. 1974. The Implied Reader. Baltimore: Hopkins. Lämmert, E. 1970. Bauformen des Erzählens. Stuttgart: J B Metzlersche

Verlagsbuchhandlung. Louw, J.P. 1970. Linguistics and Hermeneutics. Neotestamentica 4. Louw, J.P. & Nida, E. 1988. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 2

Vols. New York: United Bible Societies. Mothlabi, M. (ed.). 1986. The Unquestionable Right to be Free: Essays in Black

Theology. Johannesburg: Skotaville. Nolan, A. 1986. Jesus Before Christianity. Cape Town: David Philip. Oberholzer, J.P. 1992. Adriaan van Selms, deeltydse dosent 1938-1962. HTS

48:67-75. Roberts, J.H. 1967. The Sermon on the Mount and the Idea of Liberty. Neot 1:9-

15. Roberts, J.H. 1972. Program vir Bybelnavorsing. ThEv 5:56-63. Schüssler-Fiorenza, E. 1988. The Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: Decentering

Biblical Scholarship. JBL 107:3-17. Van Zyl, A.H. 1966. Preface. Biblical Research. Proceedings of the Ninth

Meeting of “Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika” held at the University of Stellenbosch 26th-29th July 1966 and Proceedings of the Second Meeting of “Die Nuwe-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika” held at the University of Stellenbosch 22nd-25th July 1966. Biblical Research 1-2.


Van Selms, A & Van Zyl, A.H. 1959. Preface, in Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika. Papers read at 2nd Meeting.

Van der Waal, C. 1971. Openbaring van Jezus Christus. Inleiding en Vertaling. Groningen: Uitgeverij de Vuurbaak.

[email protected]

Turbulent times and golden years. The first twenty five years of the New Testament Society of South...

Documents

Transcript of Turbulent times and golden years. The first twenty five years of the New Testament Society of South...