신명기 사가의 평가(왕하 17:24-41)와 복음서 전승을 통해 조명한 사마리아 비차별적 포용 전통의 맥을 찾아서
In Search of the Impulse of the Non-Discriminatory Inclusive Traditions towoard Samaria as Illuminated by the Evaluation of the Deuteronomist (2 Kings 17:24-41) and the Gospel Tradition
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
연구의 목표는 북 왕국에 대한 신명기 사가의 최종적 평가(왕하 17)와 복음서 전승에 흔적을 남긴 예수의 사마리아 사역에의 사마리아인들에 대한 묘사를 재조명하여, 사마리아에 대한 비차별적 포용성 전통의 맥을 지리적, 역사적, 신학적으로 기술하는 데 있다. 이를 위해 연구자는 신명기사가의 본문에서 명시적, 암시적 수신자에 대한 메시지를 살펴보았고, 누가-, 요한 복음의 사마리아인 서술에서는 각 복음서의 일관된 신학적 주제로 접근하였다. 또한 사마리아에 대한 명시적 언급이 없는 마가-, 마태복음은 전승자 그룹의 저작환경과 수신자 그룹을 재구성함으로써 사마리아 침묵에 해명해 보았다.
Abstract
he goal of this study is to reexamine the final assessment of the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 17) by the Deuteronomist and the description of the Samaritans in Jesus’ Samaritan ministry that left traces in the gospel tradition, and to describe the context of the tradition of non-discriminatory inclusiveness toward Samaria geographically, historically, and theologically. To this end, the researcher examined the explicit and implicit messages to the recipients in the text of the Deuteronomist, and approached the Samaritan descriptions in Luke and John as consistent theological themes of each gospel. In addition, the silence on Samaria was explained by reconstructing the authorship environment and recipient group of the group of transmitters in Mark and Matthew, which do not explicitly mention Samaria. The results of this study are as follows. The evaluation that the Northern Kingdom was religiously syncretistic and the Southern Kingdom was not requires a reconsideration of its validity. The author of Kings does not take it for granted that Jerusalem was not the central sanctuary(?) as the basis for the destruction of Northern Israel. In fact, since both kingdoms were fostering syncretism, it is not appropriate as a factual basis for discrimination against Samaria even when based on the historical evaluation principle of the Deuteronomist historian. First, 2 Kings 17:24-41 describes the religious situation in Samaria, an administrative province of Assyria, immediately after the fall of Samaria in 722 BC, and has no connection to the conflict (division) between the two sides after the reconstruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in the Persian era (Ezra 4:1-5; Hag 2:10-14). Second, 2 Kings 17:24-41 directly criticizes the ‘exilic tension and confrontation’ between the North and South for approximately 150 years, and the direct recipients of this criticism are foreigners, who were immigrants and had no idea about the ‘sins of Jeroboam’, and who had followed the laws of their own gods until now only recently became interested in the faith of Yahweh. The implied recipients of this text were the northern kingdom refugees living in Samaria, who appealed to them to break away from the syncretism of the newly arrived upper class and return to the Yahweh cult in Jerusalem.
