ELUSIYAN
FRANCISN TOLULOPE
INTRODUCTION
Religious
conversion in our world today is not a new discourse; because conversion has
become our day to day life such that people tends to make resolutions in every
minute of their lives. In the ancient time religious conversion mainly
addressed Christianity and to this day is dominated by studies of north
American protestant Christianity, although other varieties of religion are
addressed in the field.
When
one sets out to understand religious conversion, one has embarked on a
formidable task that requires explaining all of the processes that determines
the changes in the heart, mind, and religious group and identity of a person.
To this question of how to explain conversion, each academic discipline whose
ideas are woven together in this paper has its own answer within the orbit of
its own level of analysis. Thus Lewis Rambo highlights the idea that human
beings are individuals embedded in immediate social contexts as well as in
larger cultures and religious traditions, so that any attempt to explain conversion
must be interdisciplinary. The complexities of such an undertaking are apparent
to anyone trained in the discipline of psychology.
WHAT
CONSTITUTES A RELIGIOUS CONVERSION?
William James of Varieties of
Religious Experience fame, was particularly intrigued by “those striking
instantaneous conversions.” While
confessing that he himself did not have a “living sense of commerce with God,”
he nevertheless felt endowed with what might be called “my mystical germ.” St. Paul, he claimed, was the most eminent
example of such a sudden conversion.Among
the most famous conversion accounts in Christian history, in addition to St.
Paul with his Damascus Road experience we find St. Augustine with his Garden of
Milan experience, Martin Luther with his Cloister Tower experience, and John
Wesley with his Aldersgate experience.
What kind of conversions were these, and should they even be called
conversions? Certainly not in the sense that a person suddenly turns from one
religion to another and very different religion.Paul was a true believer-- a
Torah committed Jew. As Kristen Stendhal has pointed out in his Paul among Jews
and Gentiles, this Jew-turned-apostle did not change his religion as belief in
the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Rather, he “received a new and special calling” in the service of the
God of Israel and his dealings with the world. At the heart of Paul’s faith was the holy
law of the Lord that embodies divine righteousness. What happened after his encounter with Jesus
and subsequent instructions was that Paul changed his views about the
law/righteousness nexus in light of Jesus’ fulfilment of the law in a
sacrificial act of holy love.
Paul
heard a “voice from beyond,” a summons that sent him on a mission. It involved a radical reorientation in
thought and life; but can we really call it a radical conversion? The same can be asked of Augustine’s
experience. He had a tollelege moment
that caused him to turn to Paul’s letter to the Romans (chs.13&14). His own account of the experience must be
read in the context of his life story: his devout mother, his intellectual journey
into the Manichean heresy, his sexual escapades. “I loved the beauty of your house, but was
tightly bound by the love of women.” He
believed with his mind, but his heart hesitated; his soul, “contaminated” by
the “revolting things” he had done, held him back. His was undoubtedly a life changing
experience, but it was sudden only in the sense that a long process of
intellectual/spiritual struggle reached a culmination point.Luther
repeatedly spoke about the defining moment as he sat in that tower of the Black
Cloister in Wittenberg, struggling with the words in Romans 1:17 about the
righteousness of God. As it had been for
Paul, the law/righteousness nexus troubled him deeply. Both came to the stunning discovery that the
meaning of the gospel message was to be found in the righteousness we receive
“in Christ” on the basis of his fulfilment of the law. Now Luther was ready for his calling as a
reformer; but he never thought of this experience as a conversion from the
Catholic “religion” to a new religion called Protestantism.John Wesley had been
a practicing preacher for some time when he “felt [his] heart strangely warmed”
during that Aldersgate meeting on Wednesday, May 24, 1738. He too had looked into the holy law of a holy
God and was overcome with a deep sense of inadequacy for the mission to which
he felt called. Looking back, after he
had found inner peace, he confessed that he had been “ignorant of the
righteousness of Christ.” St. Paul
heard a “voice from beyond” and received a summons (“I am sending you,” Acts
26:17), just as had happened in the case of Abraham (Genesis 12) and Ezekiel
(1:28; 2:1ff.). The accounts we have
looked at thus far are what some have called vocation and commissioning stories
rather than conversion stories.
Do
sudden and dramatic conversions occur?
Church history, starting with the Pentecost experience (Acts 2), has
provided us with countless testimonies of almost instantaneous transformations. But, there are also numerous stories of long
intellectual/spiritual journeys that find their culmination in an act of quiet
surrender to the divine will or in an experience of blissful enlightenment.
In
some religions, like Islam, conversion stories of a lightening-strike nature
are quite rare. As a matter of fact, the
idea of “embracing” or “accepting” Islam is found much more prominently in
Muslim accounts than the notion of an abrupt rebirth. Aslama conveys the idea of a homebound
journey, a “reversion” as it were to one’s natural spiritual roots—Islam as
one’s “birth right.” Many Muslims
describe how they came to “recognize” basic tenets they had already believed or
rejected (for instance, the Trinity and the divinity of Christ). Embracing Islam then becomes a process of
transformation in the way one thinks and behaves
THEORIES
OF CONVERSION
Rambo’s
integrative model
Rambo
provides a model for conversion that classifies it as a highly complex process
that is hard to define. He views it as a process of religious change that is
affected by an integration of numerous events, experiences, ideologies people,
institutions and how these different experiences interact and accumulate over
time. From his research Rambo created an integrative model for conversion that
occurs over stages.
Stage
of process Factors
that must be assessed in this stages
Stage
1: content Factors
that facilitate or hinder conversion
Stage
2: crisis Maybe
personal, social or both
Stage
3: Quest Intentional
activity on part of potential convert
Stage
4: Encounter Recognition
of other R/S option
Stage
5: Interaction Extended
engagement with new R/S reality
Stage
6: Commitment Identification
with new R/S reality
Stage 7: Consequences Transformation
of beliefs, behaviour, or identity as a result of new commitment.
CLASSIC PARADIGM
The
classic religious paradigm for conversion is highly dependent on the idea of
sudden conversion. The prototypical sudden conversion is the biblical depiction
of the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. Sudden conversions are highly
emotional but not necessarily rational. In these instances the convert is a
passive agent being acted upon by external forces, and the conversion entails a
dramatic transformation of self. Emotion dominates this dramatic, irrational
transformation leading to a shift in self and belief, with behaviour change to
follow. For sudden converts conversion is not a back and forth drawn out
process, but rather happens in one single instance and is permanent thereafter.
Typically, sudden conversions occur in childhood and are exceptionally
emotional experiences. Often sudden conversions are the result of overwhelming
anxiety and guilt from sin that becomes unbearable, making conversion a
functional solution to erase these emotions.
Emotional
factors have been found to correlate with sudden conversions. Coe
maintains these correlations seem to suggest causation, citing his work in
which 17 sudden converts who had dominant emotional factors affecting their
conversion. However, specimen basket and Byrnes
data suggest not. In their work they found that sudden converts only scored
high on levels of emotionality following conversion, not prior to. No experimental
or longitudinal studies have demonstrated a true causal relationship between
emotion and sudden conversion.
CONTEMPORARY
PARDIGM
In
the contemporary paradigm of conversion, we view the conversion process as a
highly intellectual, well thought out gradual process. This contemporary model
is a contrast to the classic model, and gradual conversion has been identified
by Strickland
as a contrast to sudden conversion. Scobie terms it an ‘unconscious conversion’. Typically,
gradual conversions do not occur following a single, impactful event but rather
are distinguished empirically and thoughtfully over a length of time. A gradual
conversion can be identified by consciously striving toward the goal with no
decisive point where conversion is initiated or converted. The process occurs
cognitively and is much less emotional with no emotional crisis, guilt, or sin.
AGE OF
CONVERSION
Average
age at the time of conversion has been examined by Johnson,Robert
and Gillespie
and has been found to be between the ages of 15-16, a consistent finding over
40years. These findings are consistent with Erikson’s
conclusion that this is the age where individuals are testing the world around
them and forming an identity. However, it has been pointed out by silver stein
that sampling is generally biased as participant age rarely exceeds the early
20s. Spilka and other suggest that better sampling is needed as generally study
participants are college-age students and thus are not truly representative.
Finally, in western countries females typically convert one to two years before
male.
THE
CONVERT AS SOURCE OF CONTROVERSY AND CONFLICT
The history of religious conversions is filled
with complexities, ironies, and contradictions.
Converts have often found themselves caught in a world of ambiguity, a
veritable twilight zone—condemned by their old world, and not quite accepted by
their new one. In what follows I shall
focus mainly, but not exclusively, on the Christian- Jewish dynamic with which
I am most familiar from personal experience. Converts come in many varieties
and so do the reactions to them. First,
there is the convert as conformist, the quiet accommodationist who is usually
considered rather safe by both his/her old and new environment. For the community left behind, the loss of
even one adherent can be a sorrowful event.
It can feel like an assault on the legitimacy of the faith. Converts are perceived as a real threat,
however, when they feel compelled to seek the conversion of others,
particularly members of their previous faith community. On a larger scale, all propagation of the
faith through organized mission and evangelism has its risky side. At what point does authentic witness end, and
propaganda in the service of material or political interests begin? Or, at what point does propagation of the
faith turn into proselytizing in the pejorative sense? On the other hand, how often are oppressive
or suppressive measures against dissenters justified in the name of national
interest and/or community unity? Or, how
often are people accused (sometimes before a court of law!) of proselytizing
when there is not the slightest evidence of enticement or deceit, but simply
disagreement with the message or the passion with which it is delivered. The
“good convert” has often been seen as the Jew who behaves in every way like a
nice Baptist, or the African pastor who dresses like the Methodist missionary
and patterns congregational life after a Western church model. Much has changed in that respect, but old
mentalities can survive for a long time in subtle and almost unconscious
forms.The convert as rebel or reformer is a different story. In the post-colonial era, “mission fields”
have developed into independent churches and we have seen a growing movement
away from Western models of church life and theology toward contextualization
in terms of local cultural expressions.
Among Jewish converts, the refusal to abandon all elements of their
Hebraic heritage has developed into a Messianic Jewish movement.
This
poses a troublesome dilemma for the churches.
They are confronted with newcomers whose basic orthodoxy is beyond
dispute, but who in considerable numbers refuse to be “genitalized” and accept
the whole “package” of creeds and practices that have been adopted through the
centuries. On the other hand, they are
confronted with Jewish establishments that they have eagerly pursued as
dialogue partners who now warn them against fraternizing with Christians who call
themselves Messianic Jews.The Jewish side claims that if, as a Jew, you want to
be a Christian, you should become a real Christian: a totally assimilated
one. In short, if you want the Jewish
Jesus as Lord, you lose all claims to Judaism and Jewishness. Thus we have the ironic situation that
Torah-believing Jewish Christians are considered a greater threat to the future
of Judaism than Jews who abandon all Jewish traditions and accommodate to a
de-Judaized Christianity, or even confess no faith in God altogether. The Christian side, on the other hand, may
nod approvingly as Catholic bishops and ecumenical councils deplore the de-
Judaization of the church’s theology and life, while at the same time resisting
any notion that Jewish Christians might be able to help them rediscover
essential elements of their Judaic roots.
“Taglit
screening out Messianic Jews” read a recent headline in the Jerusalem
Post. That program organizes free “birth
right” trips to Israel for young adults of Jewish descent whom they hope to
inspire with a deeper appreciation for their Jewish heritage. Believers in Jesus, said the organization's
CEO, do not fall within "the parameters of Jewishness in contemporary
Jewish society”; they have opted out of "what constitutes being Jewish
according to the accepted Jewish denominations." “Not so fast,” say their orthodox Jewish
brothers and sisters, “contemporary opinion cannot trump our ancient religious
laws (halacha) according to which one cannot opt out of one’s Jewishness if one
has been born to a Jewish mother.” As an
aside, we might note that the question of “Who is a Jew?” remains a hotly
disputed issue within Judaism. As a
matter of fact, there is public talk of a “conversion crisis in Israel” as the
Conversion Authority, which answers to the Prime Minister’s office, finds
itself in total disarray because of irreconcilable internal conflicts.
Returning
now to the issue at hand, a young adult who has been raised in a devout
Messianic Jewish home could - with or without sincerity – sign the Taglit
document declaring that “I do not subscribe to any beliefs or follow any
practices which may be in any way associated with Messianic Judaism” and thus
be entitled to the trip. Ironically, we
have many examples of formula-type declarations that Jews in the ancient and
medieval periods had to sign before being admitted to the church: “I renounce
every rite and observance of the Jewish religion…detest all its most solemn
ceremonies and tenets…shun intercourse with other Jews,” etc.I have
grandchildren of Jewish descent whom I have baptized, who in their teen-age years
have professed faith in Jesus as Lord, and who had no trouble being accepted
for the trip and loved it. The
difference is that they had been raised in a predominantly “genitalized”
environment and had never seen the inside of a Messianic Jewish synagogue. I know and have extensively written about the
history of horrors perpetrated against Jews in the name of Jesus that lies
behind the tragic irony and complexity we face today. How the sins of our forebears have come to
haunt us and our children!
Similar
examples of converts becoming a source of controversy and conflict can be found
all across the religious spectrum. As
Christians reach out to the non-Christian world (or, as some prefer, to people
of other faiths who are our neighbours in the pluralistic global village) the
transformative impulses of religion work both ways. Some converts enter their new faith community
as changed persons who also turn out to be agents of change, bringing with them
insights, values and ways of life that challenge aspects of the theological
tradition they now embrace.
In
her contribution to the book Cultures of Conversions (p.15ff.), Ivy Imogene
Hansdak discusses the spiritual journey of PanditaRamabaiSaraswati. Her essay bears the subtitle, “The Convert as
‘Heretic.’ PanditaRamabai was born in 1858 of orthodox Chitpavan Brahmin
parents. At a young age, she was honoured
by the scholars of Calcutta who, impressed with her mastery of the Sanskrit
language, bestowed on her the titles Pandita (learned woman) and Saraswati (the
Hindu goddess of learning). At age
twenty- five, while studying in England, she converted to Christianity in the
Anglican tradition. At first she was
welcomed as a great “catch”; but eventually her questioning of fundamental
Christian doctrines (Trinity, divinity of Christ) and her refusal to submit
meekly to a hierarchy inflicted with a colonial mentality (an Indian woman
could teach Indian but not British students) turned her into a threat. “Heretics,” according to St. Augustine, “are
given us so that we might not remain in infancy.”
Stanley Samartha was two years old at the
time of PanditaRamabai’s death in 1922.
Although not a convert himself (he was the son of a Basel Evangelical
Mission pastor), in a real sense he was a product of the missionary movement
that, in turn, gave birth to the twentieth century ecumenical movement. Samartha studied with such scholars as Karl
Barth, Hendrik Kraemer, Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr. As he steadily moved away from Western forms
of systematic theology, however, he sought to make Christianity more relevant
to Indian society by reconciling certain aspects of Hinduism with traditional
Christian concepts—and to do so without falling into a relativistic
syncretism. Using the concept of advaita
(non-duality or oneness), he wanted to provide an antidote to dualistic
tendencies in Greek and Western modes of thinking.
In 1968, Samartha became a leading staff
member of the World Council of Churches, which gave him a worldwide platform to
advocate what were sometimes unconventional and controversial positions. In an age when Christian theological hegemony
is a thing of the past, more and more converts are insisting that a pluralistic
global contextualization should mean not only that other religions receive
greater respect, but also that they sometimes can make a positive contribution
to indigenous theologies. Thus, the
churches are facing complexities with which theological education is just
beginning to come to terms.
ANTI-CONVERSIONARY
TACTICS
When converts are seen as a threat to
religious or political establishments, the measures taken against them can run
the gamut from put-downs to defamation to the death penalty. The first line of attack in the
counter-conversion move is to question the convert’s ability to make sound
judgments. In her discussion of
PanditaRamabai, Hansdak observes that a common perception of conversion
prevalent in India is “that all conversions take place only among deprived
lower caste or tribal groups, which are considered more susceptible to
allurement or coercion.” A brilliant
woman like PanditaRamabai did not fit that pattern. As an upper class convert and later critic,
she became an embarrassment to both sides; and the initial refusal by
historians to recognize her achievements has been described as “a century-long
conspiracy of silence.”
Jewish converts, too, are frequently being
described as the vulnerable poor and weak- minded who are easily enticed. When the great Dutch poet, legal scholar and
essayist Isaac da Costa (1798-1860) had himself baptized, others in the Jewish
Christian community saw him as the perfect counter-argument to that popular
misperception. The magazine Voice of
Israel, therefore, urged him to recount the story of his long and learned quest
for a personal truth in their pages. The
next stage of attack is to question people’s motives. Let me cite Ivy Imogene Hansdak once more:
“In the post-colonial cultural scenario of many Third World countries today,
religious conversion is frequently perceived as an act of expediency undertaken
by converts for purely temporal gains, in terms of entry into a privileged
socio-economic space hitherto denied to them.In the post-emancipation Jewish
community, this commonly accepted view is epitomized in an old and oft repeated
joke. Three Jews are asked by their
compatriots why they had converted. “I
did it,” said the first one, “because it would be good for my professional
career.” Number two gave this reply: “I
converted because I wanted to save my children from the persecution which is
always the fate of the Jewish people.”
The attention now turning to him, the third convert declared that he had
become a believer in Jesus out of conviction, a remark that met with gleeful
hilarity and the response: “Go tell that to the Goyim!” In other words, we Jews know better--they all
must have had ulterior motives. A long
history of Christian attacks on Jews as “Christ-killers” has conditioned many
of them to think of conversion in terms of joining the enemy. In true reaction mode, there is also the
proudly proclaimed assertion that “Jews do not proselytize,” do not engage in
such distasteful activities, a claim that Saul Singer has recently described in
a Jerusalem Post editorial as “in historic term, grossly, even suicidal,
anachronistic.
Since
the idea of social or material gain is so obviously absurd in the case of
today’s Messianic Jews, the most common accusation against them is that they
are deceitful, using Jewish symbols and practices simply as a ploy to cover up
their true nature as fundamentalist Christian churches. Thus they lure unsuspecting Jews into their
cause. According to Michael Cook, early
rabbinic literature “denounced Jesus himself forhaving attempted to ‘entice and
lead Israel astray,’ that is, into apostasy and idolatry”. Jewish
scholarship today tends to view Jesus much more positively as a Jew who was
faithful to Torah, but not so those who accept him as Messiah while claiming to
remain Jewish. To be a Jew, it would
seem, can mean almost anything in terms of faith or no-faith commitments,
except belief in Jesus as Lord.
During a 1976 interfaith conference in
Tripoli, Muammar al-Gaddafi declared that “Christ was sent to the Israelis” and
that “an Arab cannot be a Christian.”
When the Indian Christian scholar Amartya Sen received the Nobel Prize
for economics in 1998, the then president of the Vishwa Hindu Paris had (VHP)
used the occasion to declare that this was all part of a Christian conspiracy
to undermine the Hindu character of the Indian nation. The
slogan among Indian nationalists is: “To be an Indian is to be a Hindu. What if
the convert begs to differ and persists in the “error” of his/her ways? Then there may be unpleasant consequences as
verbal abuse can quickly turn into physical harm. In Saudi Arabia, one can literally lose one’s
head; while in India one may be forced to submit an affidavit to the
authorities or, much worse, be killed in church by roaming mobs; and in some
Jewish circles one may be shunned as a heretic without honour. That leaves us with the question: What about
freedom of religion?
THE
CONVERT AND THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM
The above remarks notwithstanding, there
is still an overwhelming consensus in the world that murder, capital
punishment, or any form of bodily harm to people who have embraced a religious
faith in good conscience is to be condemned.
In the realm of interreligious relationships the treatment of converts
is often like the proverbial canary in the coal mine: a warning sign that the
fresh air of religious freedom may becoming poisoned—both in theory and practice.
The authentic convert who persists in the face of religio-political and
cultural pressures is a reminder that the ability to choose is a key element in
what makes us human, and even more so the ability to take responsibility for
our choices. Societies that suppress the
human soul’s thirst for freedom deprive their citizens of their full humanity
and the body politic of a healthy community life.The Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, stated that “all men
shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in
matters of religion…” What about propagating the things that are
professed? The correspondence between
Jefferson and John Adams makes it quite clear that those great founders of the
republic were not fond of missionary outreach.
For instance, they held that before Bible societies distribute the
Christian scriptures abroad, it might be better to devote those resources to
the cleansing of corrupt influences in the churches at home.
The
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of
the United Nations defines freedom of religion as follows: “Everyone has the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community
with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teachings, practice, worship, and observance.”
None of the member states voted against this declaration; but the Soviet
bloc states, South Africa and Saudi Arabia abstained.
More
recently, we are hearing noises from Arab states, India and elsewhere that the
UN Declaration was essentially a secularized version of the Judeo-Christian
tradition that fails to take into account the cultural and religious context of
Islamic countries. The Cairo Declaration
of Human Rights in Islam, later adopted by the Organization of Islamic
Conferences, states that people have “freedom and right to a dignified life in
accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.”
Anyone familiar with what it was like to live as a not-so- dignified
Dhimmi (second class citizen) in the Muslim world will find little comfort in
that revision of the UN Declaration.
In
his book, God for a Secular Society (1999), Jürgen Moltmann tells the story of
the Archbishop of Canterbury who, before debarking from a flight to Riad, had
to change because the display of a cross on his clerical garb was not
allowed. Orwellian Saudi- speak refers
to services at the US Embassy as “welfare meetings” and Catholic confession as
a “conference.” At the same time, we
witness an increasingly assertive and aggressively Islamic missionary drive
across the world, much of it financed with Saudi money. Irony is piling upon irony as consequences
have often led to tragedy.
Corruptiooptimiestpessima. This Latin dictum that the corruption of the
best is the worst applies particularly to religion. The writer of the New Testament Book of James
refers to “religion that is pure and undefiled,” describing it as a religion
that keeps people “unstained by the world” and demonstrates caring love for
those in distress (James 1:27).
But
no religion is safeguarded from the corruption of the human heart. Hypocrisy is real, and so are the seductions
of the world that have stained many a “spiritual” endeavour. Holy wars and crusades have spread
unspeakable cruelty and suffering among humanity. Not all converts have acted in good faith,
nor have all Christian missionaries acted in the spirit of the gospel of
Christ. Some have exploited religion out
of expediency, seeking social status and/or material gain. The great missionary expansion in the
nineteenth century was often conducted in alliance with colonial and imperial
powers that exploited the resources of whole continents. Few would claim that Jewish evangelism has
always been free of questionable practices, and some converts have turned
against their own people with a vengeance. An example of the latter that comes
to mind is the infamous Reuchlin/Pfefferkorn controversy.
Johann
Reuchlin (1455-1522) was a great humanist scholar of Greek and Hebrew
texts. Johann Pfefferkorn was a Jewish
convert who advocated the destruction of all Hebrew books. Emperor Maximillian turned to Reuchlin for
advice. The latter, who loved the Hebrew
language more than the Hebrews whom he felt should have converted long ago,
courageously fought powerful ecclesiastical forces aligned with Pfefferkorn in
this “war against the Talmud.” Reason
prevailed in the end, and for that both Jews and Christians owe an eternal debt
of gratitude to a great humanist. He
saved the day for the freedom to read and research Jewish texts.
CONCLUSION
The
problems and ambiguities we encounter when facing conversions are very similar
to the ones we confront when dealing with change in general. The fear of change (resistance) and the
fascination with change (faddism) often do battle within the human soul as well
as society at large. Some seek change
out of a deep inner need or spiritual hunger; others grasp at every novelty out
of boredom. Converts, either because of
the very nature of their decision or because of their subsequent behaviour, can
be disruptive— even destructive among family, friends, or the broader
community. “The rebel,” wrote Albert
Camus in the book by that title, “defies more than he denies.” It is usually the revolutionary who, in
pursuit of a utopian scheme, is ready to destroy the old order. I recall the Brazilian theologian Rubem Alves
during luncheon meetings in the 1970s arguing that “neurotic revolutionaries
affirm only their resentment, and not life.”Faith that cannot live with
ambiguity will eventually turn fundamentalism into fanaticism. There are no easy answers. It would help, however, if all religions were
to recognize the healing power of a little holy humour. A laugh has a way of relaxing the passions,
even of opening minds and hearts to truths that may be worth dying for, but are
not worth hating for, let alone killing for.
See
ArieMolendijk’s essay “The Rhetoric and Politics of the Conversion of Isaac da
Costa” in Cultures of Conversions,” p. 65ff.
