View : 94 Download: 0

K. 바르트의 그리스도론적 인간학

K. 바르트의 그리스도론적 인간학
Other Titles
Karl Barth's Christological Anthropology : Compared with Rudolf Bultmann's understanding of existence
Issue Date
대학원 기독교학과
K. 바르트그리스도론인간학R. 불트만
이화여자대학교 대학원
본 논문은 바르트(K. Barth)와 불트만(R. Bultmann)의 인간학의 방법론과 역사적·시간적 존재로서의 인간 이해를 고찰한 것이다. 그들은 19세기 자유주의 신학에 대하여 인간의 죄악과 불의에 대한 하나님의 심판과 부정을 의미하는 하나님의 초월성을 선포함으로써 신학을 출발하였다. 그러나 바르트는 예수 그리스도의 인간성에 기초하여 하나님의 말씀을 듣고 응답함으로써 하나님께 능동적으로 복종하는 책임적인 존재요 타인과의 만남 속에서 서로 개방하고 도와주는 타인을 위한 사회적인 존재로서의 인간의 역사성을 말하고 있다. 그리고 과거와 현재와 미래가 동시적인 예수 그리스도의 영원한 시간성에 근거하여 인간의 시간의 한정성과 부정성의 극복을 말한다. 반면 불트만은 하이데거의 실존주의에 근거하여 과거의 자기로부터 해방되어 아직 실현되지 않은 자기의 본래성에로 개방하는 개인 실존의 현재적 결단만을 강조한다. 따라서 과거와 미래의 차원이 현재적 차원에로 축소되어 인간 실존은 과거와 단절되고 미래와의 관계도 부정적으로 머무른다. 즉 바르트는 역사와 시간의 주(主)로서 예수 그리스도에 근거하여 인간과 역사에 대한 긍정적 차원을 제시하는 반면 불트만은 예수 그리스도에 의한 하나님과 인간의 화해를 언급하지 않음으로써 인간 실존의 부정성에만 머무르는 것이다. 따라서 두 사람의 인간학을 비교 분석함으로써 인간과 역사의 문제 상황을 인식하고 동시에 그러한 문제들을 극복할 수 있는 길을 살펴봄으로써 역사적인 존재로서의 인간 실존의 본원적 인간성을 고찰한다.;This thesis deals with Karl Barth's and Rudolf Bultmann's anthropological methodology and understanding of man as historical and temporal one. By emphasizing the infinite qualitative distinction between God and man, Barth and Bultmann criticized the liberalism of 19th century, which considered God as the object of human thought and idea, and pronounced the subjectivity and transcendency of God as the 'Wholly Other'. what they focused upon was God's judgement against, and negation of, man's sin and unrighteousness. But, asserting the reconciliation between God and man through the event of Jesus' Revelation, Barth turned from his earlier concept of human understanding through the emphasis in God's negation of man, to the later anthropological methodology of overcoming the negation. He thought that only the event of Jesus' Revelation, his condescending incarnation makes man hear the Word of God and, through the Word, man understand his own nature. Hence, based upon the humanity of Jesus as the 'real man', Barth newly determines the historicity and temporality of man and he talks about overcoming the negation of man. On the other hand, Bultmann limits the event of Jesus' Revelation to a meaning of existence. Differentiating Historical Jesus from Kerygmatic Christ, regarding the humanity of Jesus as the more object of speculation, he does not mention the affirmative dimension of the reconciliation between God and man through Christ. Instead, basing his thought on Heidegger's existentialism and existential hermeneutic principle, he suggests man's existential questions as a preunderstanding for Jesus' Revelation. That is to say, he holds the desire to understand man's own authentic nature as a point of contact with the desire to know God. Thus, he concentrates on the self-understanding of existence, that is, the decision of faith which negates the inauthentic self of the past and opens itself toward the authentic existence. This methodological difference in anthropology between the two has caused a difference in directions toward the understanding of man's historicity and temporality. Therefore, if we examine the difference, we can find out the ways of realizing man's problematic state, and also of solving those problems. Barth speaks of the historicity of man, not only as a responsible being which submits himself to God by hearing and responding to His Word, but also as a social being which helps his fellow creatures and opens himself in an encounter with others. Also, he says that we can conquer the distorted human time, which is only too finite and mortal, through the eternal time of Jesus Christ in which the present is simultaneous with the future and past, and also through the Easter time of his which conquered the thralls of death. Bultmann, however, focuses his attentions on the personal level of existence, not on the public and social level of various relationships. He exclusive1y emphasizes the momentary decision of personal existence, and the opening toward the self- authenticity that is not yet realized. Consequently, he reduce the dimension of the past and future in favor of the present, and dwells on the condition in which man's existence is cut off from the past and it negates the future. Therefore, Bultmann goes on further than to mention a world history full of sin and chaos, a discontinuity of existence, and a negation of existence and world history. Barth, on the other hand, determines man newly conquers the negation of man's existence , and speaks of the level of God's affirmation to man, in the light of the event of the Revelation in which God, who is prior to man's existence and world history , became man.
Show the fulltext
Appears in Collections:
일반대학원 > 기독교학과 > Theses_Master
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.