마태복음 23:26 본문비평과 해석

Abstract

In the Gospel of Matthew of the GNTSUP4/SUP/GNTSUP5/SUP, the only case where the textual critical grade D is given is 23:26. However, it is surprising that few of the commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew deal with textual criticism of this verse in detail. B. M. Metzger, one of editors of the GNTSUP4/SUP/GNTSUP5/SUP regarded the singular genitive pronoun αὐτοῦ (of cup) as the original rather than the plural genitive pronoun αὐτῶν (of cup and bowl) which later scribes altered. He briefly explains that παροψίς (dish) of Matthew 23:25 was added to verse 26. However, Metzger provides no concrete evidence for his own claims. In this verse, there is no consensus even among the editors of GNTSUP4/SUP/GNTSUP5/SUP, so αὐτοῦ (of cup) is indicated in the text of GNTSUP4/SUP/GNTSUP5/SUP, but D is given as its critical grade. For the textual criticism of Matthew 23:26, this article first studies the external evidence that examines the support of the manuscripts. Then, the structural analysis (namely colon analysis) of Matthew 23:13-36, the textual context of 23:26, the literary style of Matthew, and the purpose of writing and the main theology of the Gospel of Matthew are explored in turn in order to analyze the internal evidence. Finally, the conclusion of textual criticism is suggested in the light of the intertexts of the Gospel of Matthew 23:26.BR Through this study of textual criticism of Matthew 23:26, it is suggested that when attempting New Testament Greek textual criticism, not only the external evidence but also the detailed internal evidence should be investigated. For internal evidence, it is suggested to comprehensively consider the structural analysis, the purpose of writing, the study of core theology, and the intertextual interpretation that have been overlooked in previous studies. This kind of study is more appropriate when the text critical grade is low. In addition, this comprehensive analysis has the advantage that it does not stop with the theoretical study of textual criticism itself, but also encompasses the grammatical interpretation of context and structure, and the theological interpretation that considers main theology. The present researcher suggests that textual criticism which stayed at the level of reconstructing the original text should be developed in the direction that can provide practical help to interpret a text.