지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Iver Larsen and Diphus C. Chemorion argue that acceptability is one criterion of a good Bible translation. Acceptability is the receptor audience’s subjective response to a translation. This paper compares the acceptability of the Geneva Bible (1560) to those of other translations in circulation during Shakespeare’s lifetime (1564-1616). The comparison demonstrates that among the available translations, the Geneva Bible had the highest level of acceptability. Acceptability was high because the Geneva Bible translators provided readers with copious and relevant information, such as exegetic commentary and notes concerning doctrinal differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Faithfulness to available source texts, compatibility with respected protestant theologians such as John Calvin and Theodore Beza, and acceptable responses to the prevailing Anglican conventions and anti-Catholic cultural norms of its time further enhanced the Geneva Bible’s acceptability. The Geneva Bible’s preference for English vernacular over Latin also enhanced its acceptability.
Evidence for the acceptability of the Geneva Bible has been found in the fact that its original and revised editions were published and circulated more than any other English version of the Bible prior to the King James Version (1611). However, despite its high popularity and acceptability in Shakespeare’s period, the Geneva Bible failed to become the Authorized Version, mainly owing to the marginal notes’ controversial anti-Catholic sentiments, strong Calvinistic doctrines, and some disparaging comments regarding royal authority. Both Queen Elizabeth and King James rejected the Geneva Bible as the Authorized Version for Anglican worship, and instead ordered a new version which became the King James Version of 1611. The Geneva Bible’s failure to be used as the Authorized version, however, does not diminish the translation’s acceptability among its intended audience. Rather, this failure is merely an indication that royal and ecclesiastical authorities adhered to different evaluative criteria than the English public at large.
Evidence for the acceptability of the Geneva Bible has been found in the fact that its original and revised editions were published and circulated more than any other English version of the Bible prior to the King James Version (1611). However, despite its high popularity and acceptability in Shakespeare’s period, the Geneva Bible failed to become the Authorized Version, mainly owing to the marginal notes’ controversial anti-Catholic sentiments, strong Calvinistic doctrines, and some disparaging comments regarding royal authority. Both Queen Elizabeth and King James rejected the Geneva Bible as the Authorized Version for Anglican worship, and instead ordered a new version which became the King James Version of 1611. The Geneva Bible’s failure to be used as the Authorized version, however, does not diminish the translation’s acceptability among its intended audience. Rather, this failure is merely an indication that royal and ecclesiastical authorities adhered to different evaluative criteria than the English public at large.
목차
1. 들어가면서
2. 독자의 의미와 역할
3. 용인성의 정의
4. 수용당국의 용인성
5. 용인성의 측정
6. 용인성의 확보를 위한 고려사항
8. 나가면서
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (39)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 구하나 / 2010 / 기데온 투리의 ‘용인성’ 개념과 그 해석 / 번역학연구 11 (4) : 25 ~ 56
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김순미 / 2010 / 문학 번역에서의 격식성(formality)의 변화 / 번역학연구 11 (1) : 127 ~ 159
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 박윤철 / 2009 / 불경(佛經)번역 방법에 관한 제언 / 번역학연구 10 (3) : 121 ~ 139
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 송연석 / 2012 / 뉴스편역의 번역규범 —텍스트 규범을 중심으로 / 번역학연구 13 (5) : 59 ~ 82
5. [학위논문] - 원영희 / 2002 / 한역 성경의 표현 연구 / 박사 / 성균관대학교 대학원
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김순미 / 2010 / 문학 번역에서의 격식성(formality)의 변화 / 번역학연구 11 (1) : 127 ~ 159
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 박윤철 / 2009 / 불경(佛經)번역 방법에 관한 제언 / 번역학연구 10 (3) : 121 ~ 139
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 송연석 / 2012 / 뉴스편역의 번역규범 —텍스트 규범을 중심으로 / 번역학연구 13 (5) : 59 ~ 82
5. [학위논문] - 원영희 / 2002 / 한역 성경의 표현 연구 / 박사 / 성균관대학교 대학원
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-700-001420497