역사적 예수 연구 방법론적 도구로서 '비판적 실재론'과 '역사적 개연성의 기준' (‘Critical Realism' and 'Criterion of Historical Plausibility' as methodological tools of Historical Jesus Study)

Historical Jesus scholars called “new post-Bultmannian researchers,” two aspects, insist that the Gospels is not appropriate as data to reconstruct historical Jesus. First, most contents of the Gospels are created by the theological intention for believes of Christianity. The Gospels are nothing more than a fantastic fabrication that was made in order to reconceptualize a social identity of community to which authors belonged. For example, Mark created narratives of the Gospel in order to resolve a refusal from synagogue and internal disorders of community to which he belonged by fusing material from the Christ-cult and traditions of Jesus that they had. Therefore, the Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Gospels based on it don’t have correlation with the historical Jesus. Only the materials that isn’t theologically fabricated are necessary. For this reason, only with the Gospels, it is impossible to reconstruct the historical Jesus. So, the texts extracted by the criterion for authenticity such as criterion of dissimilarity and chronically early materials rather than the canonical Gospels are necessary.
Second, they think that supernatural contents contained in the Gospels isn’t historical. The supernatural phenomena like miraculous healings, exorcisms, resuscitation of the dead, feeding miracles are non-rationalistic contents which cannot be understood by a modern scientific thought. From this point of view, the Gospels aren’t historically credible materials. They aren’t based on life of the historical Jesus. Therefore, that kind of contents attributed to Jesus in the Gospels don’t have worth of practical sources that reconstruct the historical Jesus. They are the mythical and legendary expressions that David Friedrich Strauss asserted and Rudolf Bultmann succeeded. Even if they aren’t the mythical contents, they are symbolic statements of social belief rather than historical existence and are expressions to have political connotations. As speaking in redaction criticism, they are stories that fabricated for theological purposes of the Gospel authors as Heilsgeschichte.
Thus, This article refute this claim and argue that the Gospels is appropriate to reconstruct the historical Jesus, by two methodological tools: ‘critical realism’ and ‘criterion of historical plausibility.’ The critical realism is an important tool to criticize the assertion that many contents in the Scripture aren’t historical because they aren’t verified by objective and positivistic methods, and the criterion of historical plausibility is methodological tool to demonstrate historical authenticity of the Gospel's data by overcome the contradictions of ‘criterion of dissimilarity.’

Historical Jesus scholars called “new post-Bultmannian researchers,” two aspects, insist that the Gospels is not appropriate as data to reconstruct historical Jesus. First, most contents of the Gospels are created by the theological intention for believes of Christianity. The Gospels are nothing more than a fantastic fabrication that was made in order to reconceptualize a social identity of community to which authors belonged. For example, Mark created narratives of the Gospel in order to resolve a refusal from synagogue and internal disorders of community to which he belonged by fusing material from the Christ-cult and traditions of Jesus that they had. Therefore, the Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Gospels based on it don’t have correlation with the historical Jesus. Only the materials that isn’t theologically fabricated are necessary. For this reason, only with the Gospels, it is impossible to reconstruct the historical Jesus. So, the texts extracted by the criterion for authenticity such as criterion of dissimilarity and chronically early materials rather than the canonical Gospels are necessary.
Second, they think that supernatural contents contained in the Gospels isn’t historical. The supernatural phenomena like miraculous healings, exorcisms, resuscitation of the dead, feeding miracles are non-rationalistic contents which cannot be understood by a modern scientific thought. From this point of view, the Gospels aren’t historically credible materials. They aren’t based on life of the historical Jesus. Therefore, that kind of contents attributed to Jesus in the Gospels don’t have worth of practical sources that reconstruct the historical Jesus. They are the mythical and legendary expressions that David Friedrich Strauss asserted and Rudolf Bultmann succeeded. Even if they aren’t the mythical contents, they are symbolic statements of social belief rather than historical existence and are expressions to have political connotations. As speaking in redaction criticism, they are stories that fabricated for theological purposes of the Gospel authors as Heilsgeschichte.
Thus, This article refute this claim and argue that the Gospels is appropriate to reconstruct the historical Jesus, by two methodological tools: ‘critical realism’ and ‘criterion of historical plausibility.’ The critical realism is an important tool to criticize the assertion that many contents in the Scripture aren’t historical because they aren’t verified by objective and positivistic methods, and the criterion of historical plausibility is methodological tool to demonstrate historical authenticity of the Gospel's data by overcome the contradictions of ‘criterion of dissimilarity.’