RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      • 좁혀본 항목

      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 음성지원유무
          • 원문제공처
          • 등재정보
          • 학술지명
          • 주제분류
          • 발행연도
          • 작성언어
          • 저자

        오늘 본 자료

        • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
        더보기
        • 무료
        • 기관 내 무료
        • 유료
        • KCI등재

          에누마 엘리쉬에서 무무(Mummu)의 어원화

          유윤종 ( Yoo Yoon-jong ) 한국서양고대역사문화학회 ( 구 한국서양고대사학회 ) 2015 서양고대사연구 Vol.42 No.-

          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.

        • KCI등재

          사해사본 11QPs<SUP>a</SUP>와 시편의 정경화

          유윤종(Jong-Yoo Yoon) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2006 신학논단 Vol.43 No.-

          11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> among Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls has brought the issue of canonicity of the book of Psalms since it was published in 1965 by J. A. Sanders. What is the relationship between MT and 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP>? On its relationship with MT, 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> provides the following points of dispute: 1) on the order of psalms, it has commons and differences in comparison with MT, 2) it has liturgical purpose, 3) it includes a lot of non-canonical psalms, 4) it argues strongly Davidic authorship, 5) it shows the secondary feature including interpretation on fixed text. This paper pursues the issue of canonicity of the book of Psalms by the above five points of dispute. The five points of disputes do not exclude the probablility of 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> canonicity. Most scholars argue that 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> has nothing to do with canonicity of the book of Psalms, because they consider that MT Psalms acquired its position as a canon before DSS. But Sanders and Wilson propose that 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> is under canonicity toward MT. While discussing on the five subjects on the issue of canonicity of 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP>, I suggest 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> is going toward canonicity and shows various historical stages on the canonicity of the book of Psalms. 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> among Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls has brought the issue of canonicity of the book of Psalms since it was published in 1965 by J. A. Sanders. What is the relationship between MT and 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP>? On its relationship with MT, 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> provides the following points of dispute: 1) on the order of psalms, it has commons and differences in comparison with MT, 2) it has liturgical purpose, 3) it includes a lot of non-canonical psalms, 4) it argues strongly Davidic authorship, 5) it shows the secondary feature including interpretation on fixed text. This paper pursues the issue of canonicity of the book of Psalms by the above five points of dispute. The five points of disputes do not exclude the probablility of 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> canonicity. Most scholars argue that 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> has nothing to do with canonicity of the book of Psalms, because they consider that MT Psalms acquired its position as a canon before DSS. But Sanders and Wilson propose that 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> is under canonicity toward MT. While discussing on the five subjects on the issue of canonicity of 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP>, I suggest 11Q Ps<SUP>a</SUP> is going toward canonicity and shows various historical stages on the canonicity of the book of Psalms.

        • KCI등재
        • KCI등재

          역사학 고전 다시읽기 : 유세비우스의 『연대기』와 『교회사』

          유윤종 ( Yoon Jong Yoo ) 한국서양사학회 2012 西洋史論 Vol.112 No.-

          Although Eusebius Pamphili has been criticized as dishonest and biased by many scholars, no historian has contributed to the studies of ancient history and early church history. His left two monumental books on history called The Chronicle and The Ecclesiastical History. He worked as a biblical exegete, Christian apologist, the bishop of Caesarea as well as a historian. It implies that Eusebius` interest in history is placed not in history itself, but in apologizing Christianity which had been neglected by influential contemporary intellectuals. In this paper, I will review Eusebius` two historical books and provide hermeneutical keys for Eusebius` understanding on history. Little has been known about the life of Eusebius. It is known that Acacius, successor of Caesarea, wrote a Life of Eusebius, but this work has been lost. It is assumed that he was born in Palestine about 260 and died in 339. When he was young, he was under tutelage of Pamphilus while working in the Christian library of Caesarea, thus enabling him to make access to ancient writings with which he wrote a variety of works. He did not live a smooth life, however. In 303, an emperor Diocletianus` persecution lasted for 10 years and his teacher Pamphilus was martyred during the persecution period. After the persecution, Constantinus and Licynius accepted Christianity by the edict of Milan in 313. He became a bishop of Caesarea in 314, but he was reproached by Athanasius of Alexandria because of his Arianism. In 325, he was approved by Constantinus in the Nicene Council. The Chronicle consists of two books from Abraham until the vicennalia of Constantine I in 325 AD. Book 1 contained sets of extracts from earlier writers; book 2 contained a technically innovative list of dates and events in tabular format. Eusebius believed that the ancient writings were not accurate completely and efforts to set accurate date was not possible and even futile. Therefore he examined thoroughly ancient writings, selected reliable ancient books, and tried to prove that the religion of the Hebrews from which Christianity was derived are very old and nothing is short of the truth. In sum, it is noted that Eusebius` Chronicle is reinterpretation of ancient history from the Christian perspective. The Ecclesiastical History consists of ten chapters from the apostle`s period to 325 CE-the genre of church history was initiated by Eusebius. After reviewing lots of ancient writings, he reinterpreted history as God`s Story. It is called as the providential interpretation. He claimed that Christianity had been enshrined in the God`s plan from the beginning of the world. In this sense, to Eusebius, the history of the Hebrews was important, because he believed that he could find Christianity in history of the Hebrews. After Christ, the church had been expanded by apostles` works. Eusebius provided the lists of bishop working in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch. In addition, he interpreted history by quoting sermons, letters, historical records of church leaders. He also gave an account on the struggle with demonic powers and heresies. He praised the life of martyrs. On the waves of church history of the past three centuries, Eusebius tries to read God`s grace. He interpreted history from the divine perspective. Finally, he found God`s intervention in history during the process of Constantine`s victory, the edict of Milan, the Nicene Council, and Constantine`s enthronement as the only emperor. To Eusebius, history was not circular, but progressive and linear. It is interpreted that Constantine`s enthronement is the realization of God`s promise to Abraham, the acme of historical progression.

        • KCI등재
        • KCI등재
        • KCI등재
        • KCI등재

          유대교의 성서 해석학과 공시적 방법론과의 관계

          유윤종(Yoon Jong Yoo) 한국기독교학회 2004 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.32 No.1

          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

        • KCI등재
        • KCI등재후보

          ‘에블라어'와 성서 히브리어

          유윤종(Yoon-Jong Yoo) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2011 신학논단 Vol.65 No.-

          Ebalite is named after the site of ancient Ebla, modern Tell Mardikh, located 60 kilometers south of Aleppo, in northern Syria. In the 1970's about seventeen thousands of cuneiform texts dated to the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. were discovered at the site. But the language reflected in these texts were composed of ideographic Sumerian and syllabic Akkadian, but the characteristics of the language share with features of West-Semitic as well as East-Semitic. In this paper, I will seek to present the linguistic features, and family of the Eblaite, and apply it to Biblical Hebrew. In phonology, Eblaite has a phenomenon of the monophthongization of the original diphthongs ay/aw to ? as opposed to the typical shifts to e/o. In the realm of morphology, Eblaite lacks an N-stem (=the Hebrew Niph?al), the 1csg personal pronoun is ?ana, the 2msg personal pronoun is ?ant?, and the 2mpl personal pronoun is ?antanu, and the passive participle is the qat?lu form. In addition, there are some important lexical features. The linguistic features allow us to see in Eblaite an early form of the Semitic language of Syria. Eblaite helps us to illuminate understanding of the Biblical Hebrew. In Hebrew, the dophthong ay and aw remain in some words like bayit and m?wet in absolute state, but in construct state monophthongization occurs with ay>e, and with aw>o. But there are various places in the Bible where monophthongization process results in ay>? and aw>? just as occurs in Eblaite (e.g. 2 Kgs 5:25K; 1 Sam 10:14; Job 8:2 etc). In morphology, the combination of conjunctive u and enclitic ma to create the form u-ma. The recognition of this feature in Eblaite prompted scholars to locate a series of examples wm- in Hebrew (Gen 41:32; Numb 23:10;2 Sam 16:5; 1 Kgs 14:14 and so on). The Masora no longer recognized this form, and thus the mem following the conjunctive waw was reanalyzed as other elements. In comparisons between Ebalite and Hebrew lexicons, we find several words in Hebrew that have cognates only in Ebla. In sum, Eblaite is the earliest attested Semitic language. It was used in the city-state of Ebla in northern Syria in the 3rd millennium B.C.E. It is part of the Syrian branch of West Semitic, along with Amorite and Aramaic. Remarkably, although almost two thousand years separates Eblaite and the bulk of biblical literature, the language nevertheless sheds considerable light on biblical Hebrew. Ebalite is named after the site of ancient Ebla, modern Tell Mardikh, located 60 kilometers south of Aleppo, in northern Syria. In the 1970's about seventeen thousands of cuneiform texts dated to the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. were discovered at the site. But the language reflected in these texts were composed of ideographic Sumerian and syllabic Akkadian, but the characteristics of the language share with features of West-Semitic as well as East-Semitic. In this paper, I will seek to present the linguistic features, and family of the Eblaite, and apply it to Biblical Hebrew. In phonology, Eblaite has a phenomenon of the monophthongization of the original diphthongs ay/aw to ? as opposed to the typical shifts to e/o. In the realm of morphology, Eblaite lacks an N-stem (=the Hebrew Niph?al), the 1csg personal pronoun is ?ana, the 2msg personal pronoun is ?ant?, and the 2mpl personal pronoun is ?antanu, and the passive participle is the qat?lu form. In addition, there are some important lexical features. The linguistic features allow us to see in Eblaite an early form of the Semitic language of Syria. Eblaite helps us to illuminate understanding of the Biblical Hebrew. In Hebrew, the dophthong ay and aw remain in some words like bayit and m?wet in absolute state, but in construct state monophthongization occurs with ay>e, and with aw>o. But there are various places in the Bible where monophthongization process results in ay>? and aw>? just as occurs in Eblaite (e.g. 2 Kgs 5:25K; 1 Sam 10:14; Job 8:2 etc). In morphology, the combination of conjunctive u and enclitic ma to create the form u-ma. The recognition of this feature in Eblaite prompted scholars to locate a series of examples wm- in Hebrew (Gen 41:32; Numb 23:10;2 Sam 16:5; 1 Kgs 14:14 and so on). The Masora no longer recognized this form, and thus the mem following the conjunctive waw was reanalyzed as other elements. In comparisons between Ebalite and Hebrew lexicons, we find several words in Hebrew that have cognates only in Ebla. In sum, Eblaite is the earliest attested Semitic language. It was used in the city-state of Ebla in northern Syria in the 3rd millennium B.C.E. It is part of the Syrian branch of West Semitic, along with Amorite and Aramaic. Remarkably, although almost two thousand years separates Eblaite and the bulk of biblical literature, the language nevertheless sheds considerable light on biblical Hebrew.

        맨 위로 스크롤 이동