■■■예수의 종말론 발언을 실수라고 말한 슈바이처(Albert Schweitzer; 1875-1965)

[석수]

The Quest of the Historical Jesus
역사적 예수 탐구

신학자 알베르트 슈바이처가 1906년 저술한 기념비적인 책의 제목이며, 성경 속 신앙의 그리스도가 아닌 1세기 팔레스타인에서 살았던 실제 역사적 인물 예수의 삶과 사상을 역사적 방법론으로 탐구하는 신학적 주제를 통칭하는 말이기도 합니다.


quest
1.탐구, 탐색
2.탐구하다, 탐색하다




예수의 종말론 언급은 예수의 실수다

예수는 선지자들 중 한 분으로 사랑을 설파한 위대한 인간이다


Schweitzer on Jesus

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) was a modern day renaissance man. He made his mark in no less than three fields:

알버트 슈바이처(1875-1965)는 현대 르네상스 시대의 인물입니다. 그는 적어도 세 가지 분야에서 두각을 나타냈습니다:


as a New Testament scholar who wrote the definitive The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German original Von Reimarus zu Wrede);

as a musician, organist, and organ builder who wrote a valuable study on the life of Bach; and

as a humanitarian physician who set up a hospital and became a “jungle doctor” in Africa based on his “reverence for life” ethic.

I’ve been doing some reading in Schweitzer to prepare for the “Life and Teachings of Jesus” course I’ll be teaching next semester.

In Out of My Life and Thought, Schweitzer reviews his influential work on “life of Jesus” research. He is well known for his critique of the lives of Jesus produced by ninteenth century Protestant liberalism and his contrasting eschatological presentation of Jesus. Though Schweitzer had no sympathy for the non-eschatological Jesus of liberalism, this does not mean he was favorable towards orthodox Christology.

According to Schweitzer, the historical Jesus erred in announcing the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. Thus, Jesus was “capable of error” (p. 57). Furthermore, Schweitzer argues that we are not acting “in the spirit of Jesus if we attempt with hazardous and sophisticated explanations to force [his] sayings into agreement with the dogmatic teaching of His absolute and universal incapability of error” (p. 57).

Schweitzer adds that the historical Jesus never made any claims to omniscience and he “moves us deeply by His subordination to God. In this He stands out as greater than the Christ personality of dogma which, in compliance with the claims of Greek metaphysics, is conceived as omniscient and incapable of error” (p. 57).

Schweitzer makes clear that although his analysis of the historical Jesus undermines the liberal Protestant view of a this-worldly Jesus, this does not mean that it supports orthodox or dogmatic presentations of Jesus. Nor does it mean that he supports the notion that Jesus himself taught dogmatically. He notes, instead, that the historical Jesus “does not think dogmatically. He formulates no doctrine. He is far from judging any man’s belief by reference to any standard of dogmatic correctness” (p. 58). According to Schweitzer, Jesus taught “the religion of love” which has been “freed from any dogmatism” (p. 58). This “religion of Jesus” may now become “a living force in our thought, as its purely spiritual and ethical nature demands” (p. 59). While expressing “reverence” and “thankfulness” for the faith of “ecclesiastical Christianity” handed down “in Greek dogma and kept alive by piety” he unilaterally rejects it (p. 59). What matters in Christianity is not adherence to “articles of belief” but devotion to “Jesus’ religion of love” (p. 59). Thus, “If the Church has the spirit of Jesus, there is room in her for every form of Christian piety, even for that which claims unrestricted liberty” (p. 59).

At the least, one might say that Schweitzer attempted to put his theology into practice. At age 30 he began his medical studies in preparation to go to Africa as a physician. He applied to a French mission agency to go as a “missionary” to Africa, but questions were rightly raised about his unorthodox theology. Schweitzer describes orthodox missionary efforts as holding to a faith “in the fetters of dogmatism” (p. 95). When the mission agency invited him to appear before a committee to be examined as to his beliefs, Schweitzer notes, “I could not agree to this, and based my refusal on the fact that Jesus, when He called His disciples, required from them nothing beyond the will to follow him” (p. 115). He offered instead to meet individually with the committee members to explain his beliefs. In the end, they agreed to send him with the understanding he would only serve as a physician and would do no preaching or teaching [an understanding, by the way, which he reneged upon after reaching the field and began to accept invitations to preach; see p. 143]. Schweitzer notes that one member of the committee sent in his resignation upon the agency’s acceptance of this compromise (p. 116).
What, in the end, did Schweitzer teach about Jesus? For Schweitzer, Jesus was an ordinary yet extraordinary man who wrongly expected the imminent end of the ages. He was not God but made his mark in his radical subordination to God. Thus, like most historical-critical scholars of his era, Schweitzer held to an essentially “Arian” view of Jesus. These convictions naturally led to his rejection of pre-critical, orthodox, confessional views of Jesus. Though he offered a stinging critique of the liberal lives of Jesus of his age, in the end, Schweitzer advocated an equally murky Jesus who called for an amorphous “religion of love.”



알베르트 슈바이처(Albert Schweitzer) 박사는 예수의 신성이나 무오류성을 부정한 것이 아니라, 예수가 '세계의 종말이 임박했다'는 당대의 종말론적 신념에 따라 행동했으며, 그 예언이 문자 그대로 실현되지는 않았다'는 점에서 일종의 '실수'를 범했다고 주장했습니다.

이 주장의 핵심 내용은 다음과 같습니다.

철저한 종말론적 신념: 슈바이처는 그의 저서 『역사적 예수 탐구』(The Quest of the Historical Jesus)에서 예수의 생애와 사상을 당대의 후기 유대교 종말론적 관점에서 해석해야 한다고 보았습니다. 예수는 하나님 나라가 곧 임할 것이라고 굳게 믿었고, 자신의 사역과 죽음을 통해 그 종말을 앞당기려 했다는 것입니다.


예언의 불발: 그러나 슈바이처의 관점에서 예수의 이러한 임박한 종말 예언은 문자 그대로 이루어지지 않았습니다. 예수는 자신의 세대 내에 모든 일이 이루어질 것이라고 믿었지만(마가복음 13:30 등), 실제 역사는 지속되었고 종말은 오지 않았습니다.


'오류 가능성' 인정: 따라서 슈바이처는 예수가 '오류 가능성이 있는'(capable of error) 인간적인 면모를 지녔다고 보았습니다. 이는 예수를 전지전능하고 오류가 없는 그리스도(dogmatic Christ)로 묘사하는 전통적인 기독교 교리와는 다른 해석이었습니다.


예수의 윤리성 강조: 그럼에도 불구하고 슈바이처는 예수를 '균형을 잃은 정신 이상자'로 보지는 않았으며, 예수의 깊은 윤리성과 인류를 향한 사랑의 정신을 높이 평가하고 평생 그 가르침을 따르고자 했습니다.


결론적으로, 슈바이처는 예수를 역사적 인물로서 당대 종말론의 영향을 받은 선지자로 이해했으며, 그의 예언이 불발되었다는 점에서 '실수'를 언급했지만, 이는 예수의 인간적 위대함과 윤리적 가르침 자체를 폄하하려는 의도는 아니었습니다.