Xindao Jingzhi [Karashima Seishi] 辛島静志. “Liyong ‘fanben’ yanjiu zhonggu Hanyu yanbian: yi Dao xing banre jing ‘yiyi’ yu ‘Jiu se lu jing’ wei li 利用「翻版」研究中古漢語演變：以《道行般若經》「異譯」與《九色鹿經》為例.” Zhongzheng daxue Zhongwen xueshu niankan中正大學中文學術年刊 18 (2011): 165-188.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Karashima studies three different versions of T181, as recorded in the Taishō apparatus, and the version of the same story given in the Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121 (which he treats as an alternate version of the same text). This is a part of a series of studies Karashima has undertaken analysing sequences of "translations", in which he regards the later members as a separable category of text, "modified versions" of earlier translations (Jpn. 焼き直し, Ch. 翻版; something like "rehashes" or "updates"). Texts in this category are distinguished by the fact that they are largely composed upon the basis of earlier translations, rather than independent consultation of Indic source texts. Karashima argues that in the case of T181, the earliest version of the text was the witness he calls "A", from the second carving of the Korean Tripiṭaka; by contrast, his versions "B" and "C" (the first carving of the Korean Tripiṭaka, and the Song, Ming lineage respectively) are best interpreted as revisions of "A". Karashima bases his argument upon comparisons to Pali and Sanskrit, and the fact that certain narrative details fit better in context, and make more sense, in "A" than in "B" and "C". Karashima also mentions that he does not regard the traditional ascription of T181 to Zhi Qian as credible (178-179). |
172-185 |
Karashima studies three different versions of T181, as recorded in the Taisho apparatus, and the version of the same story given in the Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121 (which he treats as an alternate version of the same text). This is a part of a series of studies Karashima has undertaken analysing sequences of "translations", in which he regards the later members as a separable category of text, "modified versions" of earlier translations (Jpn. 焼き直し, Ch. 翻版; something like "rehashes" or "updates"). Texts in this category are distinguished by the fact that they are largely composed upon the basis of earlier translations, rather than independent consultation of Indic source texts. Karashima argues that in the case of T181, the earliest version of the text was the witness he calls "A", from the second carving of the Korean Tripitaka; by contrast, his versions "B" and "C" (the first carving of the Korean Tripitaka, and the Song, Ming lineage respectively) are best interpreted as revisions of "A". Karashima bases his argument upon comparisons to Pali and Sanskrit, and the fact that certain narrative details fit better in context, and make more sense, in "A" than in "B" and "C". Karashima also mentions that he does not regard the traditional ascription of T181 to Zhi Qian as credible (178-179). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0181; 九色鹿經 |