Q의 민중 서사적 성격에 대한 연구

Abstract

본 연구는 공관복음서의 기초자료로 알려진 Q의 민중서사적 성격을 밝히는 것을 목표로 한다. 초기 기독교 역사와 그 신학을 탐구하는 데 있어 가장 중요한 자료 중 하나인 Q는 오랜 연구의 여정을 거쳐 왔으며, 그 동안 Q연구는 Q공동체와 그 신학, 그리고 문학적 성격에 이르기까지 방대한 영역에서 많은 연구 성과를 축적했다. 이러한 연구들은 아직도 발견되지 않은 가설적 문서에 대한 연구라는 Q연구의 근본적인 약점을 극복하고, 독자적 문서로서 Q의 성격을 규정했을 뿐만 아니라 역사적 예수 연구를 위한 최고(最古)의 자료로서 Q의 위상을 확고히 했다. 그럼에도 불구하고 기존의 연구에서는 Q본문을 그 내적 구조와 관련해서 통전적으로 이해하는 작업이 충분히 이루어지지 않았다. 본문에 나타나는 통전적인 신학과 문학적 구조에 주목하지 않고, 본문을 지나치게 파편화하고 특정 양식이나 문구만을 부각시킴으로써 본문 안에 살아 숨쉬는 에토스를 포착해내지 못했다. 본 연구는 기존의 Q연구의 이러한 한계에 대한 인식에서 출발한다. 따라서 Q본문을 파편화된 여러 양식들의 수집물로 보아왔던 기존의 연구 방식에서 탈피하여 Q에 내재한 역사적 차원, 즉 Q의 정치경제적 상황과 신념체계들을 파악하는 방향에서 본 연구는 진행되었으며, 1세기 갈릴리의 사회․정치․경제적 상황과 관련해서 Q본문 배후의 총체적인 사회적 상황과 역사를 재구성하는 것이 본 논문의 주요 내용 중 한 축을 형성한다. 이 부분에서는 갈릴리의 정치․경제․사회적 상황과 관련하여 기존에 이루어진 연구들, 특히 호슬리(R. A. Horsley)의 연구를 적극적으로 끌어들였다. Q본문 배후의 사회․정치․경제적 상황과 관련하여 Q본문을 통전적으로 읽을 경우 Q본문의 지혜․견유학파적 성격이 후퇴하는 대신 그 동안 간과되어왔던 예언자적, 종말론적 성격이 드러나며, 이와 함께 Q본문의 저항적 성격이 전면에 부각된다. 그리고 이러한 Q본문의 예언자적, 종말론적 성격은 자연스럽게 Q본문과 구약전통, 유대 종말론적 표상들과 연결된다. 따라서 본 연구는 Q본문을 분절된 지혜 전승들로 파편화시키고, 정신사적으로는 일방적으로 헬레니즘적 견유학파에 귀속시켜왔던 기존의 Q연구 경향에 대해 일정한 방향조정을 시도한 것이다. 그럼으로써 Q본문 배후의 사회적 상황과 본문의 통전적인 서사적 구조, 신학적 특성을 일관되게 파악하고자 했다. 본 연구에서는 Q본문을 1세기 갈릴리 유대 민중상황과 조응시킴으로써 Q본문이 로마제국과 헤롯 왕가, 예루살렘 성전의 사제정부가 부과하는 삼중의 조세로 피폐해진 1세기 갈릴리 유대 민중들의 삶의 정황과 저항을 담고 있으며, 또 그러한 상황에서 Q가 갈릴리 유대 민중의 희망의 담론으로 자리하고 있음을 밝히고자 했다. 그리고 이와 같이 이해함으로써 기존의 Q의 풍부한 구약적 전통과 유대 종말론적 표상들을 2차적인 요소가 아니라 Q의 서사적 구조의 핵심적인 요소로 살아 숨쉬게 하고자 했다. 따라서 Q본문의 서사적 구조로서 종말론적 신학을 재구성해내는 것이 본 연구의 또 다른 한 축이다. 여기서는 Q의 종말론적 성격에 대한 터킷(C. M. Tuckett)의 연구와 Q에 서사이론을 접목시킨 플레더만(H. Fleddermann), 슈뢰터(J. Schröter)의 연구를 참조했다. 이러한 연구의 결과 얻어진 Q본문의 서사적 구조의 핵심적 틀로서 유대종말론은 Q의 배경이 된 1세기 갈릴리 민중의 생존과 저항을 위한 담론이었다. 구체적으로 Q본문 안에서 그러한 종말론적 저항담론은 인자 표상, 즉 “오실 그 분”에 대한 말씀들로 표현되었다. Q는 인자 표상을 반복해서 기술하고 있으며, 예수를 ‘가난한 인자’로 서술하는 것이 Q서사의 핵심적 구조라고 할 수 있다. Q본문 배후의 Q담지자, 내지는 넓은 의미의 Q공동체는 이처럼 “오실 그 분”으로 예수를 그려냄으로써 현재 삶의 고통과 위기를 극복하는 희망의 담론을 만들어낼 수 있었다. 그들은 인자 예수의 가난을 통해 자신들의 가난을 이해하고, 인자 예수의 하나님나라 운동과 최종적인 승리의 도래를 통해 자신들의 삶과 고난 속에서 희망의 근거를 만들어내고자 했던 것이다. 이러한 Q담지자들의 희망과 저항의 담론은 Q서사의 심층구조 속에서 궁극적으로는 하나님 나라라는 신학적 주제로 포괄되었다. Q의 하나님 나라는 아직 오지 않았으면서도 갈릴리 민중들이 현재 삶의 고난을 극복하고 새로운 세상을 꿈꾸게 하는 동력으로서 이미 경험되고 있는 것이었다. 사회경제적인 측면에서 이 하나님 나라는 용서와 자비의 실천을 통해 갈릴리 민중들의 현재 삶 속에서 구체적으로 실현하도록 요구되었다. 즉 Q의 하나님 나라는 갈릴리 민중들이 처한 위기 상황 속에서 빚 탕감과 상호호혜적 삶을 통해 파괴된 공동체를 회복하는 운동으로 구체적으로 실천되었을 것이다. 이 점에서 Q의 하나님 나라 선포는 옛 이스라엘의 모세계약 전통을 회복시키는 운동이면서, 동시에 새로운 역사를 개진할 ‘인자로 온 예수’의 선포로 시작되었다는 점에서 유대 종말론의 저항적 차원을 계승한 것이다. 그러므로 본 연구는 Q본문 배후의 역사적 현실로서 1세기 갈릴리 민중의 고난과 저항, Q서사의 핵심적 구조로서 “오실 그 분”인 가난한 인자 예수 이야기, 그리고 현재 빚을 탕감하고 상호호혜적인 삶의 실천을 통해 선취될 하나님의 나라라는 Q서사의 종말론적 심층구조를 통전적으로 밝히고자 한 것이다. 그럼으로써 초대 기독교의 역사적 기원 중 하나로서 Q서사 의 급진적이고 철저한 종말론적․사회적 성격, 즉 민중서사로서의 그 성격을 밝히고자 한 것이다.;The study to be undertaken in this dissertation is present Q, as a narrative which is derived from Galileans who followed Jesus in the first century. Q is known as an earliest source material for the synoptic gospels, also Q has been regarded as the standard solution for the synoptic problem, which is explaining the shared language among three gospels. Q has been studied over one-hundred-sixty years since the theory of its existence was first formulated. It has been generally regarded as a collection of sayings, or wisdom collection, even though there have been various advancements in the study of Q, especially the link with the study of the historical Jesus. Since Q is not extant but a reconstructed document based on the double tradition which is found both of Gospel of Luke and Matthew, it hardly has been recognized as containing literary forms and content, rather the focus has only been on wisdom sayings. The focus on the wisdom tradition of Q has resulted in some scholars reconstructing the historical Jesus as being heavily influenced by a Hellenistic cynic philosophy. Their emphasis on the wider concept of wisdom tradition like chrea in Q does not fully acount for the historical context of first century Galilee and the people who lived there. In fact, the Galileans who produced Q, unlike the Hellenistic peoples, were not culturally inclined toward cynicism. There has been virtually no supporting evidence within Q for reconstructing a Hellenistic philosophical world view. Also, Q cannot represent the Hellenistic life-style of individualism and anti-conventionism. Rather, Q reflects an agrarian society steeped in ancient traditions founded upon Mosaic Law. These findings are supported by recent Galilean archaeology and sociological studies by scholars like R. Horsley. The claim that Hellenistic cynicism was foundational to Jesus and his movement retains several problems. Support for this claim is based upon an examination of Q that results in a reconstruction of the historicity of Jesus and his movement without considering the reality of the context of the first century people of Galilee and the historical problems inherent in their situation. Secondly, the result of their work was not appropriate in application to 1C Galilee, rather it reflects and deals with the problems of 21C Western society. Their conclusions are only marginally related to the theology of Q and early Christianity. After inquiring into the history of study of Q, I drew conclusions on how they reached this superficial result. Primarily, they ignored the textual structure of the Q. Even though Q is reconstructed document, it is a sort of social historical discourse, because it is derived from the Galilean peoples' memories of the historic Jesus. It underwent the continuing interaction along generational time lines by being passed on through history from face to face encounters by a people with strong oral traditions. This oral tradition became an important cultural cohesive as reflected in the Galilean peoples' ethos of resistance to the Roman empire and Jerusalem’s priest government. It also became a central protectional measure to retain a cultural identity in the face of the disenfranchisement inflicted by the them. Their exploitation of people in Galilee and Juda centered upon the implementation of a severe tax system with the help of power of Rome. Though Q is a hypothetical document the argument for its existence is supported by the theoric evidences such as verbatim agreement and the common sequence found in both Luke and Matthew. But above all it has its inner character as a story of the Galileans. While Q is generally regarded as a simple saying collection of Jesus, it is in fact a reconstructed completion by the 35 pericopes which include various literary forms such as small narrative, parable, prophetic sayings, dialogue, and debate. Those forms are organized as one complete story of "Jesus the coming one"who represents the eschatological hope of the Galileans. The narrative form of Q, which can show the literary unity and the sequence of the text, doesn't get enough attention to find the faith, and agenda of the Q community and the Its reality. However, the text of Q contains the literary unity which reveals the faith and reality of the people who made Q. Insisting upon a wisdom saying collection as the unique literary character of Q causes it to lose its historical ethos as preserved in its narrative flot. Flot is a concept, or a structure of literary work which makes a narrative complete. With the concept of this literary tool I can make connections between each pericopae of Q and eventually regain its integral narrative. One that comprises the people's hope and spiritual support for resistance. The resistance inspired by Q is reflected in the prophetic forms. This aspect of Q is ignored by the scholars who insist Q is merely a wisdom collection because they claim only wisdom sayings are earlier and thereby the most preserved in the original form. But if their perspective is wrong and Q is derived from a peoples' memory of Jesus, the form of Q is enevitably a narrative, not just simple sayings, because a narrative is an easier form to transfer among the illiterate people of that time. Calling Q a wisdom collection makes it an absurd form for the Galilean people and historical Jesus, because a wisdom collection needs the background of an elite class of scribes. Also, the claim of Q being a wisdom collection grossly contradicts the content of Q’s prophetic and eschatological traditions. By reading Q as a narrative can these traditions be preserved within the text of Q. When the prophetic tradition is revived in Q, it shows a people's faith system and their ideology. According to old testament scholars like R. Albertz, the eschatology and apocalyptic thought were prevailed upon in 1C Palestine to provide moral a spiritual fortitude in resisting the oppressing class of occupation power. Therefore, the prophetic tradition in Q is critical to identify its historicity and theology. Futhermore this tradition links early Christianity and the historical Jesus. When Q is read as a narrative, it can be interpreted as a people's story of waiting for "the coming one as a son of man" who represented an open and new era that will overcome the earthly corrupted human empire. However, in Q the kingdom of God which is proclaimed by Jesus means not just an eschatological future. In the blessing of Jesus in Q, Jesus proclaimed that God's kingdom is given to the poor so the poor are the heirs of the kingdom of God. This kingdom is described as the state of solving the huger and agony of the poor. However, the kingdom is not yet given to them in their reality, but the poor are already given the norms of their ordinary life as the children of God, as if they already were given the kingdom. Besides this, Q narrates an even more forgiving God as a father who is generous and merciful even to the ungrateful. Therefore, the poor in Q should be like their merciful father. That story of this kingdom of God is deeply related with the poor people who followed Jesus in the Galilean villages of 1C. The poor in Q can be interpreted as the peasants of Galilean villages who, as subsistence producers, were part of the rather wider group of socially economically disadvantaged people living under the severe constraints of three layers of rulers and heavy economical oppression. Q reflects the poverty, hunger and debt of those times in its words and expressions. Futhermore, Q can be interpreted as dealing with that problem and make suggestions on how to solve the matter. In the Jesus blessing discourse of Q 6:20-49, Q told about forgiveness and mercy which can be interpreted as a cancellation of debt in Greek. According to that interpretation the blessing of Jesus is related to a recovery of solidarity among village people through helping each other through a cancellation of debt among themselves as caused by heavy taxes. Therefore, both the historical dimension of Q and the theological one can be meet in the narrative of Q. Besides, Q has its own unique way of narrating Jesus as 'the son of man” who represents the heavenly being as an earthly poor man, like one of the Galilean peasants. So Jesus can be understood in the light of the Galilean people's daily life, their sufferings and their resistance, which makes a connection with the heavenly Jesus and the impoverished of Galilee. In Q they share same suffering. The sufferings due to the poverty mediated between themselves. However, the story of Q tells that they overcame their sufferings with the Lord's saying, granting forgiveness and mercy just like their Father does. In actually, they don't have any power to give something to others, they are disadvantaged people, but in the narrative of Q, they are identified as God's children so they can be merciful like their merciful God. That kind of narrative is from belief not from reality. In conclusion, I try to clarify the history and theology of Q with the help of narrative theory. The result will show that Q reveals its theology and its history as a Minjung(people)'s narrative, not as a king's narrative or church's story. So if Q is accepted as the earliest material to reconstruct the historical Jesus and primitive Christianity, then it shows that our Christian identity is on the Minjung's narrative, not the dogma or authority of the church.