RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    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
    KCI등재

    바리사이파와 예수의 율법 논쟁 = The Debate on the Law between Pharisees and Jesus

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A106418871

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    According to the majority opinion Pharisees were legalists who sought to observe literally the Law. Jesus, the founder of Christianity opposed their formalism and tried to argue Jews into abrogating the Law. I examined this view basing on recent scholarship which viewed the movement of Jesus as an inner reform of Judaism and Pharisees as true leaders who interpreted the Law practically and reduced the burdens of Law in the first century.
    This paper focused on the debate of Sabbath and the Oral Torah of Pharisees. Scholars who uphold the majority opinion argue that Jesus violated the rules of Sabbath by healing the sick on the Sabbath. There are 8 cases which are related to the matter of Sabbath in the New Testament. In each case Pharisees asked whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus answered by healing the sick. If the acts of Jesus had been not to be allowed by the Law, Pharisees would have lodged strong protests and laid formal complaints before the Sanhedrin. But Pharisees did not lay any formal complaint against the teaching of Jesus on the Sabbath. This showed the teaching of Jesus was done within the parameters of Judaism. Therefore in the debates on the Sabbath Jesus didn't have any intention to abrogate the Law.
    Pharisees argued that they have the Oral Torah and interpreted the written Torah with the Oral Torah. Their tries were desirable and necessary because the written Torah was made in old times and was behind the times. Furthermore there were many ambiguities because the written Torah did not regulate the details of daily life. Because Pharisees cleared up these ambiguities, the common people of the Jews respected them.
    Jesus recognized the virtue of the Oral Torah but protested the abuse of Oral Torah. Some of Pharisees made many additional regulations and violated the original intents of the written Law. Furthermore some who were taught by Pharisees violated the Law on the pretext of Oral Torah. For example as someone did not do anything for his father or his mother, he said he offered it to God. Jesus opposed the abuse of Oral Torah. In sum Jesus did not showed any intention to abrogate the Law in the debates on the Law.
    번역하기

    According to the majority opinion Pharisees were legalists who sought to observe literally the Law. Jesus, the founder of Christianity opposed their formalism and tried to argue Jews into abrogating the Law. I examined this view basing on recent schol...

    According to the majority opinion Pharisees were legalists who sought to observe literally the Law. Jesus, the founder of Christianity opposed their formalism and tried to argue Jews into abrogating the Law. I examined this view basing on recent scholarship which viewed the movement of Jesus as an inner reform of Judaism and Pharisees as true leaders who interpreted the Law practically and reduced the burdens of Law in the first century.
    This paper focused on the debate of Sabbath and the Oral Torah of Pharisees. Scholars who uphold the majority opinion argue that Jesus violated the rules of Sabbath by healing the sick on the Sabbath. There are 8 cases which are related to the matter of Sabbath in the New Testament. In each case Pharisees asked whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus answered by healing the sick. If the acts of Jesus had been not to be allowed by the Law, Pharisees would have lodged strong protests and laid formal complaints before the Sanhedrin. But Pharisees did not lay any formal complaint against the teaching of Jesus on the Sabbath. This showed the teaching of Jesus was done within the parameters of Judaism. Therefore in the debates on the Sabbath Jesus didn't have any intention to abrogate the Law.
    Pharisees argued that they have the Oral Torah and interpreted the written Torah with the Oral Torah. Their tries were desirable and necessary because the written Torah was made in old times and was behind the times. Furthermore there were many ambiguities because the written Torah did not regulate the details of daily life. Because Pharisees cleared up these ambiguities, the common people of the Jews respected them.
    Jesus recognized the virtue of the Oral Torah but protested the abuse of Oral Torah. Some of Pharisees made many additional regulations and violated the original intents of the written Law. Furthermore some who were taught by Pharisees violated the Law on the pretext of Oral Torah. For example as someone did not do anything for his father or his mother, he said he offered it to God. Jesus opposed the abuse of Oral Torah. In sum Jesus did not showed any intention to abrogate the Law in the debates on the Law.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼