http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
개별검색 DB통합검색이 안되는 DB는 DB아이콘을 클릭하여 이용하실 수 있습니다.
통계정보 및 조사
예술 / 패션
<해외전자자료 이용권한 안내>
- 이용 대상 : RISS의 모든 해외전자자료는 교수, 강사, 대학(원)생, 연구원, 대학직원에 한하여(로그인 필수) 이용 가능
- 구독대학 소속 이용자: RISS 해외전자자료 통합검색 및 등록된 대학IP 대역 내에서 24시간 무료 이용
- 미구독대학 소속 이용자: RISS 해외전자자료 통합검색을 통한 오후 4시~익일 오전 9시 무료 이용
※ 단, EBSCO ASC/BSC(오후 5시~익일 오전 9시 무료 이용)
에누마 엘리쉬에서 무무라는 이름은 매우 혼란스럽게 사용된다. 이 이름은 적어도 두 인물과 관련되어 나온다. 이 신화를 통틀어 무무는 조언자로 나온다. 그러나 무무는 또한 신 티아맛의 형용어로도 사용된다 (I:4). 무무라는 단어의 정확한 어원은 더욱더 혼란스럽다. 지금까지 학자들은 무무라는 인물의 기원에 대해 다양한 방법으로 해석해왔다. 주로 하나의 단어나 어원을 통해 기원을 밝히려는 시도였으므로, 총체적인 관계를 밝히는데 실패해 왔다. 이 글은 지금까지 시도된 연구를 종합해 그 어원을 언어 유희적 관점에서 재해석하고 수메르어 및 아카드어 어휘들을 통해 추적하고자 한다. 에누마 엘리쉬에 나오는 신들의 이름은 그 신들의 특성을 잘 드러낸다. 그러므로 무무라는 신의 이름의 어원을 한 부분으로 한정시켜 찾는 일은 적절한 방법이 아니다. 이 글에서 저자는 이 단어의 어원이 무엇이냐라는 것을 찾기보다는 에누마 엘리쉬에 도입된 어원화시키는 문학적 기법이 어떻게 활용되었는가를 찾는 것이 더 타당하다고 주장한다. 저자는 이 논문에서 에누마 엘리쉬에 나오는 무무라는 이름이 수메르어 및 아카드어에 나오는 무(MU) 및 기타 단어와 어떻게 관련되어 있는가를 연구한다. 1) MU는아카드어 zaqāru “말하다”로 사용된다. 2) MU는 아카드어 aplu “아들”로 사용된다. 3) MU는 아카드어 banû “창조하다”로 사용된다. 4) MU는 아카드어 rigmu “소란”으로 사용된다. 5) 무무는 아카드어 ummu “어머니”로 사용된다. 6) Mummu는 아카드어 “물”로 사용된다. 에누마 엘리쉬의 저자는 에누마 엘리쉬의 무무라는 이름을 수메르어 무(MU)의 다양한 의미를 활용해 Mummu의 내재된 특성으로 만들었다. 어원화시키는 문학적 기법은 무무라는 이름에 대해 왜 수많은 해석들이 시도되었는가를 설명해준다. 서구화된 우리의 관점에서, 무무의 기원을 밝히려는 시도는 여전히 안개속이지만 메소포타미아인들의 관점에서 이름은 사람이나 신의 특징을 구현화시킨다고 믿었으며, 그러한 믿음이 언어 유희적 방법을 통해 표현되었다고 볼 수 있다. 그 대표적인 경우가 에누마 엘리쉬에 등장하는 무무이다. The use of the name Mummu in Enuma Eliš is very confusing, because the name seems to be used in reference to at least two separate, individual characters in the myth. Throughout most of the story, Mummu is clearly the name of the sukkallu, the counselor. However, this name also seems to be used as an epithet of the character Timat (I:4). The question of the precise etymology of the word Mummu is more chaotic. Based on the evidence of onomastic glosses of divine names in Enuma Eliš, the author suggests that it may be not appropriate to search for a single linguistic root for the divine name Mummu. Instead, the author argues that the issue is not the etymology of the word but rather the etymologizing literary technique employed in Enuma Eliš. The author examines how the text of Enuma Eliš etymologizes the name of Mummu by picking up on the various Akkadian equivalent of MU: 1) MU as zaqāru “to speak”; 2) MU as aplu “son”; 3) MU as banû “to create”; 4) MU as rigmu “noise”; 5) Mummu as Akkadian ummu “mother”; 6) Mummu as Akkadian mû “water.” Accordingly, it is concluded that the scribes found several different divine attributes inherent in the name Mummu, and they played upon the various element of the name to interpret the connections between divine figures.
Fontenrose began his book Python with the words, "every god has his enemy, whom he must vanquish and destroy." Struggle is at the center of the experience of every living thing. A story of conflict would therefore be more or less universal in application. The oldest text dealing with the motif of struggle between gods came from the period of Akkad at the 24th centuty BCE. About 2500 year later, the Book of Revelation also refers to "a beast coming out of the sea with ten homs and seven heads."(Revelation 13:1). This paper studies on how the Old Testament adopts and applies the motifs of myhc struggles between gods attested in "Baal Cycle" of the Ugaritic literature. In Ugaritic the fertility god Baal struggles with Yam, Mot, Ltn, Tnn. The story has been explained in terms of seasonal, ritual, liturgical interpretation, and etc. The conflict motif is also adopted in the Bible. Yet, it seems to be contradictory because the Old Testament states monotheism thus rejecting existence of other gods. To what extent and for what did the Old Testament adopt the motif from the Canannite literature? In chapter two, reads and interprets the struggle between Baal and gods in "Baal Cycle." Four major monsters who fought against Baal were Yam/nhr. Mot, Ltn, and Tnn. These four monsters are also attested in the Bible, where they are personified as symbolic power of evil as discussed in chapter three. In chapter four, I pursues how the Old Testament adopts and applies the motif of myhc struggle. The four monsters in the Ugaritic literature appear in the creation stoty, historical events, and apocalypse as Yahweh`s opponents in the Old Testament. Does it mean that Old Testament accept mythological understanding shared by their circumstances without hesitation? The difficulty lies in that the Old Testament does not provide systematic explanation regarding questions of what we raise. In conclusion, I argues that the Old Testament adopt and applies mythic images drawn from the motif of struggle between gods in Ugaritic literature. This mythic usages of Ugaritic motif in the Bible are attested in creation (Isa 51:9-10, Ps 74:13-15). history(Exod 15:1-18), and apocalypse.(Daniel 7, Revelation 12, 13) its implies that the Old Testament adopted and applied the mythic images of Ugaritic literature for the purpose fo emphasizing of God`s sovereignty in Urzeit, Historie, and Endzeit rather than acception Ugaritic myth in a literal sense.
1. Four Jewish interpretations The Jewish people is called as "people of the book." They left us not only the Old Testament, but also a vast of works most of which are commentaries on the Bible. According to the kabbalistic tradtion, there are four distintive methods on interpretation of the Bible, called PaRDeS, an acronym for Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod. This study first introduces four major methods on interpretation of the Bible in Jewish society and then pursues its impact and usages on modern synchronic approaches on the Bible. Derasb is the most ancient interpretation. Its major enterprise is Talmud which consists of Mishnah and Gemera. The first interpretive principle of Derash is filling gaps which derived from text`s silence to the questions raised by common people. To the silence of text, Derasb explains it for homiletic and educational purpose. Second, Derasb fills gaps derived from time distance between biblical times and rabbinic period, such as ritual texts which were no longer performed in derashic period. Third, Derash argues that the Bible is perfect and has no redundancy. Every minor difference should read carefully, because it may bring significant difference in meaning. Fourth, Derash rejected anthromorphism in description on God. In such instances, rabbis rejected literal meaning and changed its meaning for instruction. Remez is otherwise called as an allegorical interpretation. It is expansion of metaphor into a story or abstract concept into a symbolic form. It is derived from Hellenistic culture. Philo of Alexandria was a master of this interpretation. The most famous allegorical interpretation was done on the book of Song of Songs. It also appeared in the legal texts of rabbinic works. Later kabbalistic interpretation adopted this method and utilized it as their methcd with their own methcd called “Sod.” Perbat is a literal, historical, and contextual interpretation. It appeared after Islam. Under Islamic influence, Jewish society has much more concern on the Bible itself which is comparable to Islamic canon, Quran. The attack of Karaite on oral law also led Jews to study the Bible with a rational logic. The study on the Arabic accelerated the development of Pesbat. With a rational methcd called Pesbat, rabbis should defend their oral traditions. Pesbat`s first interpretive principle is historical interpretation of the text. Second, it pursues meaning by contextual and linguistic approach. Pesbat recognized literary rhetoric which Derashic interpretation has ignored. Third, Pesbat understood metaphors and interpreted if figuratively. Sod is a mystical and philosophical interpretation by kabbalah. Its major tenets came from a theory of "emanation" of Neoplatonism. Kabbalah explained 10 "sefirots" which are essential foundation of kabbalistic thought. Kabbalish, argues that God`s life comprise two parts, the first of which is known as Ein-sof, meaning "infinite" or "without end." It is aspect of God which is unknowable and unreachable. The second part is sefirot which are emanations, God`s radiances that flow out of the hidden wellspring of Ein-sof. 2. Connection with synchronic approaches The historical approaches to the Bible, after Wellhausen, have dominated the western biblical scholarship until recently. Nowadays, synchronic approach as opposed to diachronic approach is more and more expanding its boundaries. Jewish traditions on the biblical interpretation has much more influence to synchronic approach to the Bible rather than diachronic one, because synchronic approach has more common ground with Jewish interpretation than diachronic one. Derasbic interpretation has been criticized as deviation from original meaning of the text. Derasb does not pursue text`s original meaning in historical and literary sense. Yet synchronic approach also does not have much concern with original meaning. Thus Drashic interpretation shares basic presupposition with synchronic approaches, thus opening d
이 글은 아모스서의 심판신탁에서 언어유희가 발생하는 세 단락(6:13-14; 7:7-9; 8:1-3)을 분석해 그 언어유희가 어떻게 심판신탁에 나타나며 활용되는지를 보여주고자 한다. 언어유희가 고유명사나 시각적인 형태를 취할 때 미래에 대한 예시적 기능을 담고 있다는 이론에 근거해 세 언어유희가 북이스라엘 대한 심판선언으로서 어떻게 기능하고 있는지를 살핀다. 아울러 아모스서 내에서 언어유희와 심판선언이 어떻게 관련되어 있는지, 문학적 기능과 신학적 의미를 찾고자 한다. This paper examines the literary and theological function of wordplays attested in three judgment oracles (6:13-14; 7:7-9; 8:1-3) in the book of Amos. The structure of the book of Amos lacks clear dividing marks unlike other prophetic writings and has a loose unity. Drawing upon G. von Rad's initial observation on wordplay, I will analyze wordplays in three judgment oracles and seek to find their literary function and theological meaning in the context of the book of Amos. First, in Amos 6:13-14 a wordplay appears in the words Lo-debar (לֹא דָבר )and and Karnaim (קְרָניִם). Two words can be interpreted literally as proper names. Lo-debar and Karnaim in verse 13 mean ‘not a thing' and ‘two horns,' respectively. Amos scorns the Israelites' rejoicing over the conquest of Lo-debar and Karnaim by reducing its significance to nothing and vain strength. In this judgment oracle, the occurrence of Lo-debar and Karnaim functions as a wordplay and provide the reason for judgment in verse 14. Second, Amos 7:7-9 is the third vision among five visions appeared in the book of Amos. In this vision, a wordplay occurs in a Hebrew word אָנדּ. It is attested four times only in these verses. Its exact meaning is difficult to identify. Many scholars attempted to solve the problem, but it is still under much debate. One clear meaning of this word is ‘a tin' derived from Akkadian annaku. If we apply the meaning of ‘tin' to in Amos 7:7-9, it implies its double meaning by a wordplay. If a reader pronounces the word אָנדּ one would associate its meaning of ‘tin' with a word אָנָחה referring to ‘lament, groaning' with a similar sound. In this vision, judgment occurs in Amos 7:8b-9. The last אָנך appears in judgment oracle. In this vision, a wordplay is associated with judgment. Third, Amos 8:1-3 is the fourth vision in the book of Amos. In this vision, the identification of two Hebrew words קִָיץ and קֵּ ץ is crucial. Although two words have different roots and meaning, but their sound is closely connected. It is remarkable to note that two words have same pronunciation in the northern Israel. The diphthong ay was changed to ē in in northern Israel, whereas ay was kept in the southern Judah. Accordingly it is concluded that northern Israel people perceived קִָיץ as קֵּץ . It is considered as a bilingual wordplay. Three judgment oracles in the book of Amos are connected with various wordplays. The forms of wordplay are different, but its literary function is closely connected. The severity of judgment in three judgment oracles escalates step by step. The climax is in Amos 8:1-3 where the word ‘end' occurs in the form of wordplay. In the three judgment oracles found in the book of Amos, wordplay occurs with a variety of forms and conveys distinct theological message effectively.
Biblical scholars agree that the Bible was written later than the events took place. The question how much historicity the Bible has has been raised for a long time. There have been two scholarly circles: "maximalist" tries to accept the biblical sources as containing historicity as much as they can in comparison with ancient Near Eastern customs, personal names, life style, and so on, whereas "minimalist" puts doubt on historicity of early historical sources of the Bible such as patriarchal narratives, exodus, and conquest, because of religious nature of the book. Since 1980s, revisionists have challenged against the traditional above views with the following proposals. Firstly, the Old Testament is later works such as in Persian, or Hellenistic times. Secondly, they emphasize the role of religious ideology in history writing. Since the historiography in the Old Testament is purely literary works for religious goal, it is not possible to find historical facts in the Old Testament. Thirdly, although they recognize that there might be literary traditions tramistted from the early times, the traditions are not much, if any, literary one, so historical facts cannot be found. Fourthly, the beginning of history of Israel is the 9th century, but the size was not big as the Bible described. This paper introduces three representatives among so called revisionists: T. L. Thompson, G. W. Ahlstrrim, and P. R. Davies. Thomas Thompson is the first one who departed from traditional academic circles and argued his view in 1974. Since then, he developed his own theories while arguing with archaeological evidences. He argues that biblical historiograpy prior to the 9th century B.C.E. Ls not reliable as historical sources. It was the times of Assyrian empire when the Syro - Palestine appeared in history. In the 9th century B. C. E., Samaria built by Omri emerged in history as a small city state. Jerusalem became a significant city after Assyria destroyed Iachish in the 7th century B. C. E. Unlike Samaria, Jerusalem was an empire city state controling authority over other Judean territories such as highland in Judean hill, Sephilah, and north Negev. "Israel" in the Bible is far from historical facts. Israel in the Bible is a product of literary figment in Persian period. The notion of an ancient Israelite kingdom came about only with the ideological and political changes of the Persian period and was centered around the Persian supported construction of a temple dedicated to transcendent elohe shatttat`jttt. identified with Yahweh, the long neglected traditional god of the former Om ride state of Israel who is described as a Palestinian variant of the Neo - Babylonian divine S´in and of Persia`s Ahura Mazda. G. W. Alilstro¨m and P. R. Davies follow the similar track with Thompson. According to the revisionists` view, the history of Israel was sentenced to death. Can we not reconstruct "ancient Israel history" from the Bible? Do we have to give up talking about the history of Israel from the Bible? In this context, the role of archaeology would be the only criteria for proving or disproving the historical value of biblical materials. though archaelogy- is not free from interpreters` presupposition. The major topics on biblical historicity connected with archaeological evidences are "emergence of Israel." "existence of David and Solomon." and "dual monarchial period." On "emergence of Israel," Memeptah stele plays an important role, since it mentions "Israel." It is the earliest source in which ``Israel appears in the extra - biblical source. A number of different interpretations have been suggested, the issue of problem is whether the "Israel" has continuity with later Israel or not. Second, in Iron Age I, on central hill country. new populations entered and left archeological evidences. for example: pillared four-room houses, proliferating use of soils for grain storage, and elliptical settlement compounds. Though a lot of different interp