누가 성령론 이해와 평가 －서구 신약학자를 중심으로

Abstract

This article has critically reviewed the major Western New Testament scholars’ opinions on the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts since 1970s. I have presented three representative scholars’ understandings of Lukan pneumatology, particularly on the meaning of receiving the Spirit along with other related issues: (1) J. D. G. Dunn, (2) R. P. Menzies, and (3) M. M. B. Turner. According to Dunn, the reception of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts is the matrix of Christian life in a manner similar to that found in John and Paul. In contrast, examining both Luke-Acts and the Jewish intertestamental literature, Menzies argued that Jesus and his disciples received the Spirit not as the Spirit of sonship or of new age or covenant, but as a prophetic donum superadditum (i.e., additional gift after being saved) which enables them to accomplish successfully their appointed tasks. In other words, the Spirit in Luke-Acts can be considered the typical Jewish ‘Spirit of prophecy.’ Interestingly enough (but not convincing to me at least) Menzies distinguished three developments of the concept of the Spirit in the early Church to persuade his position. First, Pauline ‘soteriological pneumatology’ possibly influenced by 1QH and Wisdom literature. Second, ‘charismatic pneumatology’ found in the primitive community as for Mark, Matthew, and Q, which took up the Jewish concept of the ‘Spirit of prophecy,’ yet including miracles of healing and exorcism. Third, ‘prophetic pneumatology’ as the typical Jewish concept of the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ irrespective of miracle function, which was found in the Urgemeinde of the non-Pauline early Church inclusive of Luke-Acts. In many respects, Menzies’ basic thesis reminds me of E. Schweizer’s interpretations. Menzies’ sharp analysis of the typical Jewish concept of the Spirit and its development in early Christianity, however, has been severly questioned by Turner. Turner unlike both Schweizer and Menzies maintained that the Jewish ‘Spirit of prophecy’ was associated with miracles, yet was not related to the power of preaching, a perception later developed in Hellenistic-Jewish Christian circles. Thus, Luke, according to Turner, not only adopted the Jewish Spirit of prophecy, but also modified it. As a result, Luke in light of Turner’s perspective understood that receiving the gift of the Spirit was not a donum superadditum in Christian life. Rather it was the sine qua non (i.e., essential condition) of Christian existence. While agreeing that previous scholarship has meaningfully contributed to Lukan pneumatology, I have also noted that their interpretative methodologies were limited to historical criticism, especially redaction criticism. From this point onwards, critical and responsible readers are called to re-visit this ongoing Lukan subject matter for more nuanced and dynamic understanding. By the way, I as a Korean researcher have provided some major contemporary Korean NT scholars’ viewpoints on Lukanpneumatology in footnotes of this paper.