포스트모더니즘 관점에서 본J. D. 크로산의 역사적 예수 연구 비판

Abstract

This thesis aims to critically examine J. D. Crossan's focus on the historical Jesus. Crossan interprets Jesus’ supernatural elements as mere irrational byproducts or even artificial corruptions, excluding them in the process of developing a meaningful interpretation of the gospel. In his view, one can get to “true” Jesus only through such a rigorous filtering process. However, it becomes impossible to fully understand Jesus when we separate the historical Jesus from that of faith. Analyzing Jesus from a strictly rational point of view inevitably creates a highly divisive dissonance – the historical Jesus, the Christ of Faith, and the Christ of gospel end up becoming very different from one another. A truly rational approach should not only account for historical aspects, but also irrational, supernatural, and artificially corrupt elements. Such an integrated structure would provide the most comprehensive foundation for rational thinking. Our understanding of Jesus is derived from the traces of faith he left to his disciples. It was his disciples who remembered his spirits and teachings, continuing ministries generation after generation. How his followers and disciples perceived and remembered him – including the supernatural elements – is also a legitimately intrinsic part of Jesus. Thus, one cannot fully understand Jesus through Crossan’s approach, completely stripping him of all of the supernatural aspects. In order to holistically appreciate Jesus, one must seamlessly incorporate these elements. In short, Crossan’s research method – separating spiritual elements from the historical Jesus through strict rationality in an attempt to preserve only the most basic core religious concepts – is unsustainable in the long run. Eliminating the spiritual aspects strips Christianity of its core faith, and when you take away faith, nothing remains in Christianity. It turns out that the more we focus on distinguishing rationality from irrationality and the historical Jesus from that of faith, the more difficult it is to understand Jesus. A modernistic view would define Jesus only through the standards of reason. However, its limits have become clear over time, leading to the rise of postmodernism, which better embodies various elements of integration and interaction. As such, this approach enables the coexistence of the Christ of faith and that of Crossan’s view. To this end, this study defines modernism and postmodernism. It then illustrates the extent to which Crossan’s historical Jesus relies on modernistic interpretations. As aforementioned, the lens of rationality may never allow us to fully understand Jesus. To overcome this limitation, I argue for a more post-modernistic view that requires more interactive thinking.