When we mention Jeon Bong-jun, the protagonist of the Donghak Revolution, we develop logic on the premise that he was the leader of Gobu as a Donghak believer. However, nowhere is the primary historical record that proves that he was a Donghak student or a receptionist. The first writings to record Jeon Bong-jun as a Donghakdo are probably Gapodonghakran and Jeon Bong-jun (1926) by Jang Do-bin, and Cheondogyo Changgeonsa (1933) by Cheondogyo describes Jeondogyo as Jeondogyo. Even now, there are many people in academia who make this argument. 》 According to religious scholar Paul Johnson, in order for a human to become a believer of a religion, one can only be said to be a complete believer after (1) experiencing religious experiences, (2) returning to the religion (3), praying, and dedicating (4). However, in the case of Jeon Bong-jun, neither of these four stages is proven to be true. If Jeon Bong-jun was truly an avid Donghak student, why isn't there a single phrase advocating Donghak in the numerous epigraphs and counter-government demands written by his hand until he was arrested after the Gobumin War?
▼The logical leap in advocating religion ▼ In order to claim that a person believed in a religion, there must be a confession of faith that he accepts the religion as an absolute truth, but is it? There should be a ceremony for his admission, but is it confirmed? These questions are the questions I ask to those who claim Jeon Bong-jun to be a Donghak student. In response to my question, the common logic of those who claim that Jeon Bong-jun was a Donghak student is that Jeon Bong-jun answered that he liked Donghak "very much" when he received the beginning of his literary career, which means that he is a Donghak student. However, this is a leap forward interpretation. This is because 'what you like' and 'belief' are completely different. A person who believes in a certain religion may like the religion. However, liking the religion does not mean that he believes in it. None of the Korean scholars liked Donghak as much as Park Jong-hong or Jo Ji-hoon, but they were not Cheondoists. Just because you are touched by reading the Bible does not mean that everyone becomes a Christian. Logically speaking, just because 'A is B' can be explained does not necessarily mean that 'B is A'. Discussions on Jeon Bong-joon went further, and some argued that he was a high-value host. The term "Bonsijeop" was not a unique term for the Donghak text, but a village school at that time, and the teacher of the village school was called "jang" or reception. Even today, some terms are used in our society to call teachers reception.
▼"Jeopjang" means "the Order of Seodang" ▼ The argument that those who claim that Jeon Bong-jun was a Donghak receptionist is that when he was interrogated in court, "Did you teach Donghak when you gave silly praise to Gobu?" Donghak denominations and some scholars interpret "Yeojujeopgobushi" as "when you were a high father's concubine" in the above phrase, and argue that the trial has already been conducted on the premise that he is a concubine. However, this is a fatal error. This is because the word "Yeojububushi" means "when you stay in Gobu and live." They should have looked at the Korean dictionary, not the autobiography, to decipher this passage. The word "silly" also appears in the Korean Chinese dictionary, meaning "stay and live for a while." As pointed out by British historian EH Car, it is a sacred duty before it is a virtue for a historian to accurately interpret the literature. What is more problematic is that Jeon Bong-jun replied to the above question, "I only taught children as a teacher of Seodang, but I did not follow or teach the doctrine of Donghak." What could be a more definite answer to the fact that he was neither a Donghak nor a butterfly?
▼ A fatal error in interpretation of literature ▼ Jeon Bong-jun, who raised an armed uprising due to his personal resentment and compassion for the people groaning under the oppression of the ancient county governor Cho Byung-gap, knew that the uprising could not succeed. Therefore, as he confessed in a court statement, he would not have been able to refuse it when he emerged as the leader of the Donghak Peasant Army "under the back of others," but he did not intend to accept Donghak as a religion. And if Jeon Bong-jun was a believer in his heart, he would not have answered "a reception" in a court statement asking about his job, but "a scholar." Then, what is the point that Jeon Bong-jun was not a Donghak member or a receptionist? I think this point is very important.
▼The Gabo Revolution is a peasant uprising ▼ Because the recognition of Jeon Bong-jun's congregation in the process of defining the nature of the Gabo Peasant Revolution could turn into a reciprocity that claims that this series of struggles is not a peasant revolution but a religious struggle. In the Gabo Peasant Revolution, the element of civil rebellion was an independent variable, and religion was only a dependent variable. In short, it is not proven by historical records that Jeon Bong-jun was a Donghakdo, let alone a receptionist. He was only defined as Donghakdo by the writings of future generations. The claim that Jeon Bong-jun was a Donghakdo or a receptionist of his uncle is a hasty conclusion from a preconceived notion that he is a leader of the revolution developed using Donghak as a major variable. Or, it is nothing more than a unilateral interpretation of the denomination trying to get an effect through the identification between the hero and themselves and some scholars whose academic training is not thorough. Shin Bok-ryong, a professor of political science at Konkuk University (political and diplomatic teacher), has been under tremendous cyberattacks since his article was published. [Killing Shin Bok-ryong] The series was posted on the website every day. Someone who claims to be a Cheondo has suggested having an open debate. I didn't respond at all. In the case of an open debate, I already suggested it a long time ago, but there was no response from Cheondo Bridge. I presented the terms of the open debate at the time. In an objective position, under a society of fair hosts, if the discussion is conducted with fair time allocation, it is always out. In fact, I have a long-standing resentment regarding this matter. In 1981, when I first published an article claiming that [Jeon Bong-jun was not a Donghakist], Cheondo Bridge held an open debate at the Koreana Hotel at a huge cost. The theme of the debate was [Jeon Bong-jun is a Donghak student: refutes Professor Shin Bok-ryong's claim]. I also attended the meeting. But something strange happened. At that time, the host was Professor Shin Il-cheol of Korea University, and it was Professor Kim Chang-soo of Dongguk University who came out to refute my claim. I naturally believed that I would be given the opportunity to present my thesis. However, Shin Il-cheol dismissed my request for a remark, saying, "It is not worth hearing the remark here just because someone said something outside." Where in the world is this law? I have never seen such an absurd debate in which they say they are having an open discussion and then talk to each other alone while blocking the remarks of the parties. On the part of Cheondogyo Bridge, this seems to be regarded as Shin Il-cheol's mistake, but it is not. This is because the debate was organized by Cheondogyo, and the place (the platform) was joined by the then school leader Lee Young-bok. Although I am a natural student, I have pride in contributing to the history of Donghak research in Korea. However, this is not how people who believe in so-called university professors, Si Cheon-ju, treat people. I ask them politely. If my argument was not worth listening to as Professor Shin Il-chul said, why would Cheondogyo, who has so much to do other than that, spend so much money on the difficult religious situation and have a dinner show at the expensive hotel under the name of an academic conference? After my article was published, Cheondogyo demanded the right to object, and Professor Yoon Seok-san of Hanyang University posted an article in the Dong-A Ilbo that refuted my article. I felt that the tone was too rude and emotional to see it as an article trying to argue seriously. His counterargument can be summarized in two ways as follows. First, the title of Jeon Bong-jun Gongcho written by the Japanese is [Jeon Bong-jun Gongcho, a sinner of Dongdo-dong], so it is clear that he is a Donghakdo. This is a ridiculous argument. Just because the situation at that time was called Donghakran, not all of the groups who participated in it were Donghakdo. As Jeon Bong-jun stated in a court statement, the revolutionary army was called Donghakdo because [there were few believers and many resentful farmers]. Nevertheless, everyone who participated in the civil war was called Donghakdo and a religious factor called Donghak worked in the early form of the civil war. Just as not all of the groups participating in the Crusades were Christians, not all of the groups participating in the Gabo Revolution were Donghak students. And since when did Cheondogyo trust the Japanese title so much? If Japanese data are so cited in Geumgwaokjo, why is it called Donghakran as they used to call it? Second, Professor Yoon Seok-soon argues that Jeon Bong-jun must be a member of the group, given that he answered [Yes] to the phrase [Is Choi Si-hyung also transferred you?] in a court statement. However, this issue is not a matter to be concluded so simply. This is because Jeon Bong-jun has never met Choi Si-hyung throughout his life. Then, when Jeon Bong-jun emerged as the leader of Donghak-gun, Choi Si-hyung only unilaterally appointed Jeon Bong-jun as a leader, but the leader (Choi Si-hyung) is supposed to appoint him directly (Jeon Bong-jun Gong 4 seconds) without meeting with the horse. At that time, regardless of one's intention, there were often cases in which the church or church unilaterally appointed him as a host. For example, in the case of Kim Rak-seon, who was a receptionist of Hongnong Anma Prefecture, Donghakran Record (Ha), Mujang, and Bae Hwan-jeong, a folding mung bean flower blooming again, p.49), the appointment of the folding was not strictly carried out by the leader Choi Si-hyung. As Jeon Bong-jun confesses in a court statement, he accepted it as if he could not win because others called it folding. If Choi Si-hyung truly trusted Jeon Bong-jun and appointed him as a receptionist according to procedures, when a secondary bubble centered on Donghakdo occurred in Gobu, [Jeon Bong-jun criticized Oh Ji-young Donghaksa, p.136) and [Do not be filial to avenge his father] Did Donghak give a name of name to Samunnan enemies and a letter of appointment? In addition to the above points, the logic of Professor Yoon Seok-san and other commentators is poor. They make a claim, but if I refute it, they can't answer it, and come back with a completely new argument. For example, when Jeon Bong-jun answered, "I taught only a few children, but I never followed or taught the doctrine of Donghak," or "Yeojujeopgobushi (Yeojujeopgobushi)] about the phrase "Did you teach kobu?" What new arguments will come up next for my counterargument? There will be no reason for a person studying Korean literature to study history. However, in order to jump into the debate about history, you had to be in the ring with minimal knowledge about history. If not, it will be helpful for you to study Korean literature more in Korea. After this article was released, I heard that the Cheondogyo Bridge mobilized all bronchial tubes to post articles of young people refuting my writings and posted a hand-written poster at the entrance of the church. I don't want to respond one by one, but I'm bothered by the booing that [If I had read Jeon Bong-joon's Gongcho at least once, I wouldn't have made such a mistake]. The answer to this is simple. [When you were in elementary school, I read Gongcho more than 10 times]
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기