@article{oai:twcu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00025819,
 author = {守屋, 彰夫},
 issue = {2},
 journal = {東京女子大学紀要論集},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {Five years have elapsed since the New Common Bible Translation (Shin-Kyodoyaku) was published through the cooperation of Japanese Protestant and Catholic scholars in accordance with an ecumenical movement in the world. Many review articles on the new translation have appeared in these years. The Aramaic portion of the Bible (Gen. 31: 47aβ, Jer. 10: 11, Dan. 2: 4b-7: 28, and Ezra 4: 8-6: 18, 7: 12-26), however, has never come under thorough review. Checking the new translation verse by verse, word by word in comparison with the Aramaic portion in the Bible (BHS), I have found dozens of linguistically or formally wrong translations, and corrected them as much as possible based on the new Aramaic studies which have developed remarkably since the publications of Aramaic documents found in Elephantine and other areas in the beginning of this century. Studies of epistolary formulae used in these Aramaic documents of the middle of the first millennium B.C. have shed light on the Biblical literature, especially on the epistolary citations in Ezra and Daniel. Their results are, unfortunately, not reflected in the new translation. In this first part of the paper, the Aramaic portions in Genesis, Jeremiah, and Ezra are dealt with, and examples of typical errors pointed out are as follows: (1) Akkadian and Old Persian loan words such as 'ptm (Ezra 4: 13), 'sprn' (Ezra 5: 8 et passim), ndbk (Ezra 6: 4), and 'drzd' (Ezra 7: 23) are wrongly or inconsistently translated; (2) epistolary formulae are neglected and wrongly translated (Ezra 4: 11.17, 5: 7bβ, 7: 12); (3) several words or phrases are dropped off from the translation such as slhn' (Ezra 4: 14), mn dy (Ezra 4: 23), nby'y' (Ezra 5: 1), dy byt 'lh' (Ezra 5: 14), dy gnzy' mhhtyn tmh (Ezra 6: 1), kl qbl dy (Ezra 7: 14), lm^cbd (Ezra 7: 18), 'lhk (Ezar 7: 20); (4) some words or phrases are inappropriately translated such as ms^cdyn (Ezra 5: 2), yhwdy' (Ezra 5: 5, 6: 7. 8. 14), wmslh bydhm (Ezra 5: 8) byrt' (Ezra 6: 2), nyhwhyn (Ezra 6: 10), dy ypl lk lmntn (Ezra 7: 20);, (5) the designations of Jerusalem Temple, such as byt 'lh', and hykl' in Aramaic, as well as byt yhwh, byt h'lhym, and hykl yhwh in Hebrew, are not properly distinguished in the translation; (6) passive and active expressions in Aramaic are very often confused and not translated into suitable Japanese. The rest of the Aramaic portion (Daniel) and a general evaluation of the whole work will be discussed in the forthcoming second part of the paper. The new translation is expected to be revised in the future so far as, at least, the Aramaic portion of the Bible is concerned.},
 pages = {123--147},
 title = {『聖書 新共同訳』アラム語部分の翻訳批評(1)},
 volume = {43},
 year = {1993}
}