신약기독론의 이중언어적 기원 - 종교사학파들의 언어적 전제에 대한 비평 -

• 영문명: Bilingual Origins of New Testament Christology - Criticisms against Linguistic Presuppositions of Religionsgeschichtliche Schule -
• 발행기관: 한국복음주의신약학회
• 저자명: 이상일(Sang Il Lee)
• 간행물 정보: 『신약연구』제15권 제1호, 206~233쪽, 전체 28쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 기독교신학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2016.03.30

영문 초록

The ‘New Testament Christology’is a study that concerns how Jesus became God among his early followers. The New Testament Christology has been vividly debated by three positions. First, the scholars of the old religionsgeschichtliche Schule, started with Ferdinand Baur since 1845, have suggested that Jesus was merely regarded as a man in the Jewish setting and the designated titles in Aramaic refer to a man. Later, Jesus became God among Gentile Christians who spoke Greek. The christological titles were developed from a man(low christological titles) into a God(high christological titles). Martin Hengel who shared the view of new religionsgeschichtliche Schule, persisted that Judaism in the first-century Judaeo-Palestine was as Hellenized as the first-century Diaspora regions. Greek was also spoken in the first-century Judaeo-Palestine. Hence, the christological terminologies were formed in the earliest church in Jerusalem; earlier than old religionsgeschichtliche Schule had thought. Following Martin Hengel, scholars of the Early High Christology Hypothesis have recently attracted attention. They (including Larry Hurtado) suggested that we should take early high christology among early Christians into serious consideration. The three positions have dealt with New Testament Christology on the basis of the linguistic milieus of the earliest Christians. The old religionsgeschichtliche Schule, first of all, supposed that Aramaic was used in Judaeo-Palestine in the first century AD whereas Greek was used in the Hellenized regions of the Near East. That, Aramaic christological titles were developed among Jews in Judaeo-Palestine, whereas Greek christological titles were developed among Gentiles in Hellenistic cities. As a result, the christological titles were developed from low christological titles in Aramaic into high christological titles in Greek. Although Hengel considers that the linguistic milieu of first-century Judaeo-Palestine was bilingual, he did not apply the bilingualism to New Testament Christology in consistency. He could correct some faults of the old religionsgeschichtliche Schule, but he still followed their pattern. The scholars of Early High Christology are the same. Recent archaeological excavations, however, show that the linguistic milieu of first-century Judaeo-Palestine was bilingual in Aramaic and Greek. Three evidence can be suggested. First, the inscriptions in Jerusalem in Greek was 52%. Second, writings found in cities as well as in rural areas were Greek. Finally, linguistic-geographical evidence confirms the bilingualism of first-century Judaeo-Palestine. There were numerous Greek cities in Judaeo-Palestine. This implies that Greek was used among the residents who were rich as well as poor in cities and near rural areas. The bilingual situation of the first-century Judaeo-Palestine implies that Jesus traditions were circulated in Aramaic as well as in Greek in Judaeo- Palestine during Jesus’ ministry. The bilingual circulation of Jesus traditions from Jesus’ministry implies that christological titles were also used in Aramaic as well as in Greek. The old religionsgeschichtliche Schule suggested that Aramaic christological titles were used among Aramaic-speaking Christians in Judaeo-Palestine, whereas Greek christological titles were used among Greek-speaking Christians in Hellenistic cities. If we take bilingualism of first-century Judaeo- Palestine into serious consideration, it can be admitted that both Aramaic christological titles and Greek christological titles were already used simultaneously in Judaeo-Palestine. Although the new religionsgeschichtliche Schule including Hengel and Hurtado accepted the bilingualism of firstcentury Judaeo-Palestine, they did not apply the bilingualism to New Testament Christology in consistency, which is their weak point. It seems that if they accept the bilingual christology, their argument would be stronger.

목차

1. 들어가며

2. 구 종교사학파의 기독론의 기원과 발전에 대한 언어적 전제

3. 이중언어 지역인 로마 시대의 유대-팔레스타인

4. 새 종교사학파의 기독론 호칭의 기원과 사용에 대한 언어적 전제

5. 초기 기독론 칭호의 이중언어적 기원과 사용

6. 나가며

Abstract

키워드

신약 기독론 이중언어 최대주의 언어적 전제 종교사학파 초기 고기독론 New Testament Christology bilingualism maximalism linguistic presupposition religionsgeschichtliche Schule Early High Christology