초록 close

이 논문은 바울의 구약 인용을 포스트모던 간본문성(intertextuality) 이론에 의거하여 하나의 “성스러운 놀이” 또는 보이지 않는 권력 행사의 일환으로 이해하는 크리스토퍼 스탠리의 입장에 대한 비판적 고찰을 주된 목적으로 삼는다. 그의 주된 논지가 바울의 구약 인용을 화행이론의 관점상 하나의 발화효과행위(perlocution) 차원에 위치시키는 데서부터 출발한다고 보기 때문에, 먼저는 그 작용 기제가 어떤 것인지를 존 오스틴(John Austin)이나 하버마스(J. Habermas)의 분석을 통해 살펴보고, 다음으로는 바울의 구약 인용이 발화수반행위(illocution)의 기반을 확고히 가진다는 사실을 칼빈의 입장을 통해 논증하고 있다. 구체적인 성경 본문들로는 고전 10:1-11, 고후 3:6-18을 다룬다. 이 두 본문을 스탠리와 칼빈이 각각 어떻게 이해하고 있는지 비교함으로써, 스탠리의 간본문 수사학의 “효과” 중심적 인용 목적 이해에 비해 칼빈의 성경의 신학적 “의도” 또는 “목적” 존중의 해석학이 어떤 가치를 가지는지 보다 선명하게 대비시키고 있다. 이런 작업을 통해 오늘날의 포스트모던 간본문성 강조가 저자 상실 및 수사적 장치 일변도로 흘러갈 수 있는 것에 대한 하나의 대안 및 비판적 통찰을 제시하려 하고 있다.


In this article, we try to compare Christopher Stanley (representing a post-modern voice) with John Calvin (representing a pre-modern voice) in regard to Apostle Paul's use of the Old Testament. Christopher Stanley, depending on Gillian Lane-Mercier's view of 'parodic use of quotations,' argues that the deconstructive and reconstructive act of quoting is led by a strategic purpose to reinforce the authority or reputation of the quoting author. So the author tries to assert power over the audience as well as the source text. To illustrate this process clearly, Stanley distinguishes the audience into three supposed groups of informed audience, competent audience and minimal audience. The effect of quotation is different in force and in manner according to the capability of the audience. Stanley's view, however, does not properly distinguish between the effect of perlocutions and that of illocutions. Or more technically, he does not consider how the concealed strategic speech-acts (perlocutions)operate by means of illocutionary successes, as J. Habermas clearly shows. Paul does not just impose his power (or concealed strategic purposes) by quoting the Old Testament verses, especially over the uninformed Gentile audience. He is very careful about the propositional content of the quoted texts, as he respects the author of the word and so tries to be responsible for both the author and the text. When we examine specific cases in which Stanley's view is applied, we can see more clearly the shortcomings of his view. So we select 1 Cor. 10:1-11 and 2 Cor. 3:6-18 and compare Stanley's assessment of Paul's rhetorical success in Old Testament quotations with Calvin's focus on the scope or consilium of the quoted texts. For Calvin, he is very keen in rhetorical contexts of Paul and the effects of the quoted texts over his audience, but not in expense with the propositonal, exegetical-theological content of the texts. In this way, he examplifies a model of a hermentutic of respect,which includes the respect of authorial communicative purpose, the respect of propositional content of the text, and the respect of illocutionary effect for the audience. In the context of post-modern literary criticism, the issue of intertextuality could be both an ally and an enemy for the biblical interpretation. It could prove to be a help for us if we do not exclude the old voices like John Calvin to focus more on the purpose of God with respect, not just on the human rhetorical purposes.