최근 스가랴서의 공시적 해석 동향: 통일성의 열쇠로서의 “맛싸”(Massa)에 대한 연구를 중심으로 (Current Studies on “Massa” as a Key Marker for the Unity of the Book of Zechraiah)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 개혁신학회
· 수록지 정보 : 개혁논총 / 14권 / 365 ~ 386페이지
· 저자명 : 장세훈

초록

It goes without saying that the book of Zechariah has been dealt with as three separate books such First Zechariah (chapters 1-8), Second Zechariah (chapters 9-11) and Third Zechariah (chapters 12-14). During the past two decades, however, biblical interpreters have begun to shift their scholarly interest from the notion of three Zechariahs to reading the book of Zechariah as a whole. In particular, unlike historical critics who are committed to the diachronic approach that tends to divide the book of Zechariah into the three independent books, contemporary scholars including Michael H. Floyd, Mark J. Boda and Edgar W. Conrad have realized that the term, Massa, plays an undeniably significant role in understanding the book of Zechariah as a whole.
It needs to be pointed out, furthermore, that they understand that if a section of a book is labeled as Massa in its superscription, this could tell us something about how to read it as a whole, provided that we know what this term means. Interestingly, though they are interested in the unity of the book of Zechariah by looking at the use of Massa, each of these scholars employs a somewhat different strategy for interpretation. These scholars seek to approach the book of Zechariah as a whole by employing different interpretive procedures, which stem from their particular strategies, which they bring to the text. Since each of these interpreters elaborates a wholistic reading of Zechariah with his/her own methodological perspective, it is of vital significance to articulate these various strategies and to elucidate the differences between them. For instance, some argue that it is important to define this term etymologically by pointing to the fact that recent English versions of the Bible embrace this approach.
On the other hands, Michael H. Floyd is resistant to this etymological approach and attempts to show an approach not based on etymology, analyzing the form and function of the prophetic speeches and writings to which the term, Massa, is applied. In other words, He is entirely committed to the rhetorical approach that seeks to define the term, Massa, as a type of prophetic book. On the contrary, Mark J. Boda disagrees with Floyd and espouses the tradition-historical approach focused on the role of Massa as tradition-historical markers. Edgar W. Conrad seeks to detect the literary cohesiveness of the book of Zechariah by calling for a dramatic shift to a new interpretive paradigm. He maintains that the term, Massa, plays an important role in the structure of the book of Zechariah as a literary whole. In this sense, the primary purpose of this article is to attempt to offer an in-depth look at how to assess these different approaches under four classifications that are steering current studies of the role of Massa found in the book of Zechariah.

영어초록

It goes without saying that the book of Zechariah has been dealt with as three separate books such First Zechariah (chapters 1-8), Second Zechariah (chapters 9-11) and Third Zechariah (chapters 12-14). During the past two decades, however, biblical interpreters have begun to shift their scholarly interest from the notion of three Zechariahs to reading the book of Zechariah as a whole. In particular, unlike historical critics who are committed to the diachronic approach that tends to divide the book of Zechariah into the three independent books, contemporary scholars including Michael H. Floyd, Mark J. Boda and Edgar W. Conrad have realized that the term, Massa, plays an undeniably significant role in understanding the book of Zechariah as a whole.
It needs to be pointed out, furthermore, that they understand that if a section of a book is labeled as Massa in its superscription, this could tell us something about how to read it as a whole, provided that we know what this term means. Interestingly, though they are interested in the unity of the book of Zechariah by looking at the use of Massa, each of these scholars employs a somewhat different strategy for interpretation. These scholars seek to approach the book of Zechariah as a whole by employing different interpretive procedures, which stem from their particular strategies, which they bring to the text. Since each of these interpreters elaborates a wholistic reading of Zechariah with his/her own methodological perspective, it is of vital significance to articulate these various strategies and to elucidate the differences between them. For instance, some argue that it is important to define this term etymologically by pointing to the fact that recent English versions of the Bible embrace this approach.
On the other hands, Michael H. Floyd is resistant to this etymological approach and attempts to show an approach not based on etymology, analyzing the form and function of the prophetic speeches and writings to which the term, Massa, is applied. In other words, He is entirely committed to the rhetorical approach that seeks to define the term, Massa, as a type of prophetic book. On the contrary, Mark J. Boda disagrees with Floyd and espouses the tradition-historical approach focused on the role of Massa as tradition-historical markers. Edgar W. Conrad seeks to detect the literary cohesiveness of the book of Zechariah by calling for a dramatic shift to a new interpretive paradigm. He maintains that the term, Massa, plays an important role in the structure of the book of Zechariah as a literary whole. In this sense, the primary purpose of this article is to attempt to offer an in-depth look at how to assess these different approaches under four classifications that are steering current studies of the role of Massa found in the book of Zechariah.

참고자료

· 없음