Methodological Similarity between Calvin’s Biblical Exegesis and Chinese Traditional Exegesis

Hyeon Woo Shin Presbyterian General Assembly Theological Seminary 2016 CHONGSHIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Vol.21 No.-

Grammatical knowledge of Biblical languages and textual criticism functioned as basic tools in Biblical exegesis by Calvin. The internal context (the author’s usage, the literary context) and the external context (usage in other Biblical books, background information in other Biblical books and extra - Biblical books) were used as major tools by Calvin for Biblical exegesis. In methodological aspects, Chinese traditional exegesis and Calvin’s Biblical exegesis are similar to each other. Thus those who know Chinese traditional exegesis can easily learn the methods of Calvin’s Biblical exegesis. The similarities of the traditional Chinese exegesis to Calvin’s Biblical exegesis will help Chinese people for developing their Reformed theology (esp. Reformed Biblical exegesis).

학습자를 위한 고전시가 주석 연구

고정희 서울대학교 국어교육연구소 2014 국어교육연구 Vol.33 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to provide principles of ‘classical poetry exegesis for learners’ and present the reality of such exegesis. First, two principles ‘the meanings of the text must be clarified through annotations according to the learners’ demands’ and ‘literary annotations must be more than mere word definitions for reading comprehension’ were established in chapter 2. In chapter 3, the fact that it is not easy to harmoniously implement these two principles was confirmed by using example exegesis in foreign textbooks. Then in chapter 4, the reality of exegesis ‘for learners’ were presented through Lee Hyun-bo’s Eobuga. Guidelines for drawing up exegesis for learners can be extracted through this process. First, just like foreign language glossaries where reading comprehension itself is the primary task, there is a need to focus on vocabulary in classical poetry exegesis. Second, interpretation of vocabulary directly related to the topic should not be presented prior to the introduction of the literary piece. Third, priming glossaries should not go beyond learners’ intellectual horizons. Fourth, contents of the prompting glossaries need to be within learners’ zone of proximal development. Fifth, the contents should include opportunities for learners to experience the characteristics of classical poetry. 이 글의 목적은 ‘학습자를 위한 고전시가 주석’의 원칙과 실제를 제시하는 데 있다. 먼저 2장의 이론적 논의를 거쳐 ‘원문의 의미를 밝히되, 학습자의 요구에 맞게 주석한다.’는 원칙과 ‘독해를 위한 단어풀이를 넘어서는 문학적 주석이어야 한다.’는 두 가지 원칙을 세웠다. 3장에서는 외국 교과서의 사례를 통해 두 가지 원칙을 조화롭게 구현하는 것이 어려운 일임을 확인하였다. 4장에서는 이현보의 <어부가>를 통해 ‘학습자를 위한’ 주석의 실제를 제시하였다. 이러한 과정을 통해 학습자를 위한 주석을 마련하기 위한 몇 가지 지침을 추출할 수 있다. 첫째, 고전시가 주석은 독해 자체가 일차적 과제가 되는 외국어 주석과 마찬가지로 어휘에 집중하는 것이 필요하다. 둘째, 작품 경험 이전에 주제와 직접적으로 관련된 어휘의 풀이를 미리 제시해서는 안 된다. 셋째, 마중물 주석은 학습자들이 알고 있는 지식의 범위를 넘지 않아야 한다. 넷째, 즉각적 주석은 학습자들의 근접발달지대 안에 들어올 수 있는 내용으로 작성해야 한다. 다섯째, 고전시가의 장르적 특징에 대한 경험의 기회를 제공하는 내용을 담아야 한다.

히에로니무스의 전도서 1장 1-11절 번역과 주석의 특징에 관한 연구

박철우 한국구약학회 2011 구약논단 Vol.17 No.1

Jeromes exegesis and translation of Ecclesiastes, written 1600 years ago, shows methodological particularities now being rediscovered in modern biblical hermeneutics. This study on Jeromes exegesis and translation on Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 shows the following particularities:Ƒ) Jerome tried to be faithful to the Hebraic understanding of the text on the basis of the study of Hebrew materials, such as Aquila, Theodocion, Symmachus, etc.(vv. 2, 5, 10b). Showing Christological understanding of the text on the basis of the clear understanding of the Hebrew text, he succeeded to reduce the subjective element of Origins spiritual(allegorical) interpretation of the biblical text. ƒ) Jerome tried to perceive the particularities of the development and the structure of the contents of the text on the basis of the observation of the textual context and the textual interrelationship(vv. 3, 9-10a, 11; cf. vv. 12, 16). Ɠ) Jerome tried to be faithful to Hebraic expression, structure and meaning in his translation and showed the practice of close reading with his careful observation and analysis of the text in his exegesis(vv. 1-2, 4, 9, 11; cf. v. 16). He tried to single out Christological meanings on this basis. Ɣ) He tried to find out the real meaning of the text wrapped in the metaphoric. ƕ) In his translation he tried to reflect the own characteristics of target language(Latin) with his reader-oriented translation, while maintaining the contents of the Hebrew text(vv. 3, 5, 11; cf. v. 7). Especially he tried to represent the elegancy and fluency of the Latin expression in his Vulgate(vv. 3, 5, 10b[=MT v. 10], cf. v. 16). It cannot be denied there was some deficiency in his exegesis and translation from the modern point of view. But his close analysis of the biblical text provides lots of interpretative insights for us not only for the methodological principles of the translation and exegesis of the text but also for solving interpretative matters unsolved yet. 본 논문은 전도서 1장 1-11절에 대한 히에로니무스의 주석과 번역의 특징에 대한 연구이다. 이 논문을 통해 저자는 히에로니무스가 이미 1600년 전에, 현대 해석학에서 재발견하고 있는 수사학적 정밀분석과 목표언어의 고유성에 대한 배려, 최종본문의 내용적 문학적 구조의 관찰 등을 적극적으로 시도하였음을 보인다.

피터 롬바르드의 신학방법론

이은선 한국교회사학회 2006 韓國敎會史學會誌 Vol.19 No.-

Peter Lombard wrote the Sententia which played the formative role in the theological education in the high Middle Ages. When he wrote it, he used the Psalm exegesis and Pauline exegesis which he lectured in the classroom. He established the systematic exegesis method in the preface of his exegesis. and kept the method consistently more than any other exegetes. And Peter offered a mode of reconciling discrepant readings of ancient fathers and contemporary theologians. When some disagreements are non capable of being reconciled, he offers his own reasonable suggestions for why one opinion should be preferred to another. Furthermore, he treated many theological sententia in his biblical exegesis. After theses sententia were used as the sources of his own Sententia. His Sententia was superior to the theological systems which Abelard, Hug, and Gilberts made using the scholastic method in three ways. First Peter offers a coherent overall rationale for his schema. The thematic orientation that Peter gives to his work is the distinction between signs and things, use and enjoyment found in Augustine's De doctrina christiana. Second, the Lombard's handling of his Christian sources reveals a deep and broad reading, an acute and discriminating analysis of his authorities. And He read the latin translation of John of Damascus's works and accepts his eastern orthodox theology in his system. Third, He endows those terms such as essentia, substantia, natura, persona with a clear definition and solid contents and uses them consistently and overcomes the confusion around them. He resolved the problem of Abelard's trinity which attributes names power, wisdom, and goodness to the names of three persons indicating that the three names don't apply to the persons but to the essence of God. Therefore the estimation about Peter's Sententia which were the summa of existing opinions was groundless.

Rethinking Mu`tazilite tafsir: from essence to history

( Alena Kulinich ) 서울대학교 종교문제연구소 2015 종교와 문화 Vol.0 No.29

It has been common to approach the history of the interpretation of the Qur’an (tafsir) through the study of different traditions or ‘schools’ of tafsir. These ‘schools’ usually correspond to various Islamic intellectual/sectarian traditions and include, among others, the Twelver Shi‘ite, Sunni, Mu‘tazilite and Sufi tafsir traditions. An underlying assumption in this division is that each of these traditions developed a distinct approach to the text of the Qur’an, and that tafsir works authored by scholars associated with these ‘schools’ fall into recognisable traditions due to the manifestations of this approach in their texts. The ‘school’ framework has been applied in the classical studies on Qur’anic exegesis and continues to inform both the analysis of the history of Islamic exegesis and studies on individual commentaries on the Qur’an. Several recent publications, however, revisited this wellestablished framework. Centred on the fundamental question of ‘what makes an exegetical tradition a tradition?’, they raised a number of related questions concerning the precise characteristics of the various exegetical ‘schools’, the value of this notion for the analysis of individual commentaries on the Qur’an, and its validity as an analytical tool for understanding the history of Islamic exegesis. This article explores the implications that this critical engagement with the notion of an exegetical ‘school’ has for Mu‘tazilite tafsir. It shows that the arguments advanced in the course of this engagement are not only fully applicable to the case of Mu‘tazilite tafsir, they also reveal the limitations of the traditional approach to Mu‘tazilite tafsir which defines this tradition through reference to a single unique set of characteristics that the commentaries on the Qur’an written by Mu‘tazilite authors are thought to have. The article highlights some of these limitations, focusing on the exceptionalism and essentialism implied in this approach. It further suggests that the study of Mu‘tazilite tafsir could benefit from an adaptation of a historical rather than an essentialist framework. This historical framework implies that Mu‘tazilite exegetical tradition is regarded not as a homogeneous and static category, defined by a unique and unchanging ‘essence’, but approached from a historical perspective and seen as changing over time, and interacting with other trends of Islamic exegesis.

영지주의와 성서 해석

이수민 한국신학정보연구원 2009 Canon&Culture Vol.3 No.2

영지주의가 구약 성서를 배격하였다는 종전의 주장은 1945년 대량의 영지주의 필사본이 이집트 나그 함마디에서 발견된 이후로, 더 고수할 수 없게 되었다. 필자는 여기에서 “영지주의와 성서 해석”이라는 제목을 다루기 위해 1980년에 출판된 학술 논문집『구약 성서와 고대 후기 유대교, 그리고 영지주의』Altes Testament-Frühjudentum-Gnosis에 실린 나겔(Peter Nagel)의 논문 “낙원의 이야기와 영지주의적 해석”에서 여섯 가지 카테고리의 해석을 소개하며, 이 논문을 바탕으로 하는 세 논문(G. Filoramo-C. Gianotto, 1982년; B.A. Pearson, 1988년; K. Rudolph, 1996년)의 특성들을 밝힌다. 이 논문들을 통해서 영지주의 문헌이 구약 성서를 인용하는 통계학적 빈도와 세 가지 해석학적 전제들을 알게 된다. 마지막으로 루돌프가 종합한 ‘영지주의와 지혜 문학, 그리고 묵시 문학과의 관계’를 소개한다. 영지주의 핵심 교리는 우주와 인간의 시작, 타락과 구원은 창세기(특별히 1-7장)를 바탕으로 하며, 예언서에 대한 부정적인 입장은 기성 교회의 ‘정체적 성서 해석’을 반대하여 역동적 ‘영적 해석’의 우월성을 주장하려는 동기일 뿐이다. 세상에 대한 환멸과 회의주의적 지혜 전승을 이은 전도서(코헬레트)는 안티오코스 III세(242-157년)때에 세상의 지혜에 대한 첨예화된 회의론으로 발전한 듯하다. 같은 환경 속에서 자라난 묵시록과 영지주의는 지혜 전승을 바탕으로 하지만 환멸·비관적 현실을 비판하면서, 묵시록은 이 세상과 역사의 종말과 낙관적 새 세계를 창안하고, 영지주의는 완전히 새로운 우주와 인간 생성론을 창안하여 ‘현실 타파’를 위해 영지인에게만 한정된 낙관적 구원론을 제안한다. An assertion that Gnostics have rejected the Old Testament is no more tenable, since 13 Codices of Gnostic manuscripts were discovered in the Upper Egypte, near Nag Hammadi, 1945. To deal with our theme on “Gnosticism and the Bible exegesis”, we begin first of all with an article of Peter Nagel “the Gnostic exegesis on the Paradise narrative” with his six categories of the Gnostic use of Old Testament, presented in the Altes Testament-Frühjudentum-Gnosis, published 1980, which is the base of three subsequent articles(G. Filoramo-C. Gianotto, 1982; B.A. Pearson, 1988; K. Rudolph, 1996), in which we learn the statistical frequency of Old Testament citations in the Gnostic literatures and three hermeneutical presuppositions. Finally we describe the relation between Gnostic, Sapiential and Apocalyptic literatures based on the article of K. Rudolph on “the Sophia and Gnosis” published 1980. The central Gnostic doctrine concerns the cosmogony, anthropogony and their fall based on the Gen 1-7. The negative position against the prophets is rather due to oppose the ‘static interpretation’ of the Church than Bible itself, in order to assert their superiority of dynamic ‘pneumatic interpretation’. The Ecclesiastes(Qohelet), sharing the scepticisme of early sapiential traditions on this world, seem to be radicalized with the pessimistic view of world during the atrocious reines of Antiochos III(242-157). In the same circumstance the Apocalyptics and the Gnostics who were grown up with the sapiential(schools), now have found the different solutions for the optimistic view of redemption; the former has seen in the eschatological vision the end of this world with his history and the beginning of the new eternal world, the latter has proposed a new doctrine of cosmogony, anthropogony and soteriology to secure the redemption reserved only to the Gnostics.

설교에 있어서 본문과 상황의 이분법 문제 해결을 위한 연구

이광희 한국복음주의실천신학회 2014 복음과 실천신학 Vol.33 No.-

한국교회 강단은 실용적 ‘상황중심 설교’이거나 또는 스콜라주의적 ‘적용 없는 설교’의 양극단적 인 현상을 보이고 있다. 이와 같이 본문과 상황의 분리라는 이분법적인 접근은 상황을 위해서 본문말씀의 정확한 해석을 등한히 하거나 또는 지나치게 본문에만 메여서 ‘지금 여기’라는 삶의 상황에 변화를 주지 못하여서, 성경을 ‘지금 여기’에서 우리에게 말씀하시는 하나님의 말씀이기 보다는 단순한 ‘과거의 참고도서’로 비하시킬 수 있는 위험이 있다. 성경적인 복음주의 설교는 ‘올바른 본문해석을 통한 상황에로의 순종’이라는 ‘적용’을 이끌어 내 기에 충분해야 한다. 하나님 말씀들을 분석해 내고 다시 종합하여 ‘지금 여기’에 사는 청중들에 게 설득 있는 동의를 얻어내는 ‘오늘의 말씀’으로 만들어서 세상을 설득하고 변화시키는 것이 중요하다. 왜냐하면 본문과 상황은 구별되지만 결코 분리되지 않는 점에서 분명한 상관관계를 가지고 있기 때문이다. 본 연구는 이와 같은 본문과 상황의 이분법적인 단절문제가 한국교회 강단에 있어서 어떤 문제 점을 야기 시키는지에 대한 논쟁을 통해서, 한국교회의 강단사역을 위한 복음주의 대안으로서 통합화된 ‘본문의 적용’ 제시를 연구목적으로 삼는다. 강해설교란 본문에 대한 올바른 주해로 준비된 설교내용의 전달을 통해서 성도들의 삶 가운데 변화를 목표하기 때문이다. 설교는 성경 주해의 결과 또는 설교자의 해석학적 과정을 거친 내용들을 ‘지금 여기’에 있는 교인들에게 효 과적으로 전달하는 방법론이 아니라, 삶에의 적용을 통한 실천을 목표로 삼아야 한다. 따라서 목사의 설교가 교회당 안의 예배 뿐 아니라 ‘성도들의 삶의 장소에도 적용’되도록, 말씀이 곧 삶 이라는 유기적 통합의 관점이 현재 한국교회 문제해결의 한 방안이 될 수 있을 것이다. 본 논문 은 성경본문과 삶의 상황이 하나님의 언약에 대한 순종의 관점에서 통합적으로 만나는 Harvie Conn의 “해석상의 나선”을 통한 ‘본문의 적용’을 복음주의 강해설교의 한 유형으로 제시한다. The Biblical sermon based on the reformed faith should be sufficient to lead hearers to obey the Word of God by applying the right 'Textual exegesis' to the context of their living. The preacher should interpret and deliver the Scriptures in a way that people living 'here and now' take them as today's Word to live according to it. We can distinguish the 'Text' and the 'context' but can never separate them. The 'Text' should be realized in relation to a specific 'context,' and thus, the two are evidently related. This paper studies ways to resolve the dichotomy between the 'Text' and 'context,' one of the most concerning matters of the Korean church in a broader context of debating homiletic issues. This paper suggests a holistic exegetic application to the context from a Evangelical perspective. A good sermon with accurate exegesis of the Text has the goal of contextualizing itself in the daily lives of the believers. The sermon should ultimately be practiced in the hearers' lives who live 'here and now,' rather than serve a role of delivering the results of the Biblical exegesis. We argue that preaching can be applied to the believers' contextual situations by bridging the Text and the context, as if the Word of God is life itself. In a glance, separating the Text and the context may look as if it is enhancing the independency and the authority of the Scriptures. In fact, it is very dangerous to make the Word of God a reference of the past rather than the living Word of God, who is still speaking to us today in our contemporary context. This paper argues that expository preaching should emphasize on the crucial linkage between the Text and the context through 'textual application' to our current situations, from the perspective of obeying the covenant of God.

Discourses on Diversity in Medieval Interpretation of the Qur’ān

( Alena Kulinich ) 한국이슬람학회 2019 한국이슬람학회논총 Vol.29 No.2

References to historical conceptions of diversity in the Islamic tradition have become an important part of modern debates about Islam, tolerance, and pluralism. While the concepts of ikhtilāf (recognised difference of opinion among the Islamic jurists) in jurisprudence and ahl al-dhimma (protected communities of non-Muslims under Islamic rule) in the domain of interfaith relations, have received most scholarly attention, this article draws attention to conceptions of diversity in the field of exegesis of the Qur’ān (tafsīr), and in particular to the practice of many medieval exegetes who included into their commentaries a diversity of interpretations of the Qur’ānic verses. This practice has not passed unnoticed in modern scholarship. It has been attributed, for example, to the literary conventions of the genre of classical tafsīr, and explained as being beneficial for intra- Muslim disputations in cases where the exegetes recorded the interpretations of their doctrinal opponents. It has also been treated as a manifestation of the juridical principle of ikhtilāf in the field of Qur’ānic exegesis. To complement this focus on the practice, this article raises a question about how medieval Muslim thinkers themselves engaged with the question of interpretative diversity with regard to the Qur’ān. The article offers a preliminary consideration of this question through an overview of the five selected discourses on exegetical diversity from among the medieval Muslim authors. Although their contributions by no means exhaust the treatment of this subject in medieval Islamic literature, they nevertheless exemplify a range of approaches to interpretative diversity, from explaining its causes by reference to epistemological challenges and the nature of language, and validating it through the recognition that the text itself has several levels of meaning; to attempts to justify exegetical diversity as reflecting the divine will, and, on the opposite side, to narrow its boundaries. As such, these discourses could provide a starting point for further study of conceptions and attitudes to interpretative diversity in the Islamic tradition.

Discourses on Diversity in Medieval Interpretation of the Qur’ān

Alena Kulinich 한국이슬람학회 2019 한국이슬람학회논총 Vol.29 No.2

References to historical conceptions of diversity in the Islamic tradition have become an important part of modern debates about Islam, tolerance, and pluralism. While the concepts of ikhtilāf (recognised difference of opinion among the Islamic jurists) in jurisprudence and ahl al-dhimma (protected communities of non-Muslims under Islamic rule) in the domain of interfaith relations, have received most scholarly attention, this article draws attention to conceptions of diversity in the field of exegesis of the Qur’ān (tafsīr), and in particular to the practice of many medieval exegetes who included into their commentaries a diversity of interpretations of the Qur’ānic verses. This practice has not passed unnoticed in modern scholarship. It has been attributed, for example, to the literary conventions of the genre of classical tafsīr, and explained as being beneficial for intra- Muslim disputations in cases where the exegetes recorded the interpretations of their doctrinal opponents. It has also been treated as a manifestation of the juridical principle of ikhtilāf in the field of Qur’ānic exegesis. To complement this focus on the practice, this article raises a question about how medieval Muslim thinkers themselves engaged with the question of interpretative diversity with regard to the Qur’ān. The article offers a preliminary consideration of this question through an overview of the five selected discourses on exegetical diversity from among the medieval Muslim authors. Although their contributions by no means exhaust the treatment of this subject in medieval Islamic literature, they nevertheless exemplify a range of approaches to interpretative diversity, from explaining its causes by reference to epistemological challenges and the nature of language, and validating it through the recognition that the text itself has several levels of meaning; to attempts to justify exegetical diversity as reflecting the divine will, and, on the opposite side, to narrow its boundaries. As such, these discourses could provide a starting point for further study of conceptions and attitudes to interpretative diversity in the Islamic tradition.

Historical Context and Influential Interpretations of the Six Principles of Writing Theory

Jan VIHAN 세계한자학회 2023 世界漢字硏究 Vol.6 No.2

Aspects of the liu shu 六書 theory continue to be used today to analyse Chinese characters, yet most scholars are unaware of the historical context out of which the theory emerged and the controversies surrounding its both initial and subsequent interpretations. I trace the origins of the theory to the Eastern Han and compare its three earliest rival formulations. Subsequent centuries saw a proliferation of interpretations which rendered any attempt at a unified vision of Chinese writing impossible. The trend of adding new explanations was only reversed by the Qing scholars Dai Zhen and Duan Yucai who, drawing on some of the earliest explanations, argued that the theory encapsulated not only the way characters were composed but also their exegesis. Even if they laid the ground for a shared interpretation, Dai and Duan’s take on the Eastern Han scholar Xu Shen did not go unchallenged. I discuss Zhang Taiyan’s and Lu Zongda’s criticism and their attempts to reconcile aspects of the traditional framework with modern linguistics. I finally contrast this updating of an ancient theory with the approach of Qiu Xigui who selectively discards one of the principles and thereby the very feasibility of the framework as a whole.