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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 대한성서공회 성경원문연구 성경원문연구 제51호
- 발행연도
- 2022.10
- 수록면
- 125 - 150 (26page)
- DOI
- 10.28977/jbtr.2022.10.51.125
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The present article attempts to study the text types of Matthew 21:28-32 (the parable of the two sons) and its Korean translation history, and to put forward a suggestion for the upcoming revision of the New Korean Revised Version (NKRV). There are mainly three text types of Matthew 21:28-32. The first type represented by the Codex Sinaiticus portrays the first son as the naysayer but fulfilling his father’s will. The second type as in the Codex Vaticanus favors the second son as being obedient in the end. The third type as appears in the Codex Bezae describes the first son as repentant to answer his father’s request, but it features Jewish leaders who give Jesus a perverse answer that ironically commends the second.
The current NKRV provides a translation based on the second type of the text. In contrast, the Korean New Testament (KNT, 1900), the first full NT translation in Korea considered the first type to be the original. At that time, the Board of Official Translators used Chinese bibles to draft the Korean translation, which then was emended and improved based on the KJV, the ERV, and the Palmer’s Greek New Testament (1881). They also referred to the three critical commentaries written or edited by Charles J. Ellicott, Heinrich A. W. Meyer and Henry Alford. It is interesting to note that all these resources prefer the first type as the original for Matthew 21:28-32. This can explain why the translation in the KNT (1900) is different from the present NKRV.
This difference was, in fact, occasioned by the KRV (Korean Revised Version, 1938). Since the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty in 1910, Koreans got used to Japanese bible. Thus, the revision committee used not only the NTG12 (1923) but also the Taisho Revised Version (1917) as its source text. It should be noted that these two Greek and Japanese bibles show Matthew 21:28-32 in accordance with the second type. This gave rise to the change of the text type in the KRV. From this revision onward, its translation has been passed down to the current NKRV with no great change in its content. However, the majority of the Matthean scholars and textual critics now consider the first type closer to the original for Matthew 21:28-32. Accordingly, it is necessary to reconsider its text type for the future revision of the NKRV.
The current NKRV provides a translation based on the second type of the text. In contrast, the Korean New Testament (KNT, 1900), the first full NT translation in Korea considered the first type to be the original. At that time, the Board of Official Translators used Chinese bibles to draft the Korean translation, which then was emended and improved based on the KJV, the ERV, and the Palmer’s Greek New Testament (1881). They also referred to the three critical commentaries written or edited by Charles J. Ellicott, Heinrich A. W. Meyer and Henry Alford. It is interesting to note that all these resources prefer the first type as the original for Matthew 21:28-32. This can explain why the translation in the KNT (1900) is different from the present NKRV.
This difference was, in fact, occasioned by the KRV (Korean Revised Version, 1938). Since the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty in 1910, Koreans got used to Japanese bible. Thus, the revision committee used not only the NTG12 (1923) but also the Taisho Revised Version (1917) as its source text. It should be noted that these two Greek and Japanese bibles show Matthew 21:28-32 in accordance with the second type. This gave rise to the change of the text type in the KRV. From this revision onward, its translation has been passed down to the current NKRV with no great change in its content. However, the majority of the Matthean scholars and textual critics now consider the first type closer to the original for Matthew 21:28-32. Accordingly, it is necessary to reconsider its text type for the future revision of the NKRV.
목차
1. 들어가며
2. 마태복음 21:28-31상반의 본문 유형에 관한 고찰
3. 마태복음 21:28-31상반의 국문 번역사에 관한 고찰
4. 나가며
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
마태복음 23:26 본문비평과 해석
성경원문연구
2022 .04
-
“애굽으로부터 내 아들을 불러냈다”(마태복음 2:15): 마태의 호세아 11:1 인용에 나타난 기독론적-모형론적 해석
갱신과 부흥
2019 .01
-
마태복음 27:53의 “예수의 부활 후에”에 대한 내본문적 연구
신약논단
2018 .03
-
『개역개정』의 개정을 위한 제언 ― 마태복음 21:29-31의 두 아들 비유에 관한 번역 ―
성경원문연구
2022 .08
-
가부장적 질서를 종식시키는 변화의 힘 - 설교본문 : 마태복음 5장 38-48절
한국여성신학
2020 .12
-
The Synthetical Understanding of Miracles of Matthew 8-9: Their Structural Context, the Sitz im Leben of the Matthean Community, and Matthew’s Redaction of the Markan Miracles
Canon&Culture
2020 .04
-
공동체 내부를 향한 마태의 경고 - 마태복음 23:15의 사회학적 읽기
신약논단
2020 .06
-
코로나19와 누룩 - 마태복음 13장 33절
신학사상
2020 .01
-
마태복음 24:36-25:30 주해
개신논집
2016 .09
-
초기 우리말 성서의 저본 사용에 대한 통시적 연구 : 마태복음을 중심으로
한국기독교신학논총
2017 .10
-
비인격적인 것을 인격적으로 대하지 말기 ― 마태복음 6장 25-34절
신학사상
2021 .01
-
조금 더 의롭기 위하여 - 설교본문: 마태복음 1장 16-25
한국여성신학
2021 .12
-
재물 소유 포기와 마태복음 제자도의 상관성(마 19:16-30)
신약연구
2022 .09
-
“내가 너를 좋아한다” : 성경본문 마태복음 1장 9-11절
세계와선교
2016 .12
-
마태복음의 누룩 비유(13:33)와 맥락
신약논단
2018 .09
-
The “False Prophets” in Matthew 7:15–23
TORCH TRINITY Journal
2015 .11
-
감람산 종말 강화(마 24-25)의 구조 연구
신학지남
2016 .03
-
Metonymy in the Gospel of Matthew
영어영문학
2016 .11
-
마태복음 18:12-14에 나타난 ‘한 마리 잃어버린 양’의 구속사적인 상징
신약논단
2023 .03
-
The Church as the New People of God in the Gospel of Matthew
신학논단
2017 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0