D. H. 로렌스, 질 들뢰즈, 캐서린 켈러의 요한계시록 해석 비교 연구 ― 존재론적 이해와 해석적 차이를 중심으로

Abstract

D. H. Lawrence wrote “Apocalypse,” his commentary on the Book of Revelation, using the confrontation between Christ and Paul presented by Nietzsche in “Antichrist.” In this book, Lawrence contrasts Christ, who dreamed of a religion of individual noble love, with John of Patmos, who envisioned a religion of collective anger and revenge. Lawrence argues that the Book of Revelation borrows the mythical narrative of death and rebirth from ancient pagans, reinterpreting it as a story of eschatological revenge. This process involved stripping away the rich religious symbols and recasting it in JudeoChristian moral allegory. Deleuze supports Lawrence’s interpretive perspective in his book “Essays Critical and Clinical,” describing the Book of Revelation as a ‘book of zombies’ that reflects the revenge and arrogance of early Christians. Catherine Keller believes that the inherent ontology of eternal recurrence leading to Nietzsche-Lawrence-Deleuze is effective in addressing contemporary Christian issues and the climate crisis. From this perspective, she argues for reading the Book of Revelation anew through ‘apocalyptic mindfulness.’ In her book “Facing Apocalypse,” Keller sees the visions in the Book of Revelation not as a deterministic ‘prediction’ of future events revealed by an immutable God, but as a ‘prophecy’ of the difficulties that arise when the relationship between humans and God is damaged. Unlike Lawrence and Deleuze, who interpret the ecological destruction and wrath in the Book of Revelation as a projection of collective revenge, Keller envisions a God who empathizes and suffers alongside humanity, understanding judgment as a call for justice and resolution for those who suffer. Thus, while Keller shares an ontological structure and concept of God with Deleuze, her interpretation of the Book of Revelation diverges from that of Lawrence and Deleuze.