상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
역사와 융합 제1호.jpg
KCI등재 학술저널

김현구가 보는 『일본서기』와 『삼국사기』

김현구는 『일본서기』 진구왕후 49년(369)조에 기록된 임나 7국 평정을 사실로인정하고 일관되게 이후의 임나경영에 관한 논리를 전개해 오고 있다. 그러나그러한 내용은 『삼국사기』에는 기록되지 않은 것으로 허위의 사실이다. 무엇보다 먼저 진구왕후가 가공의 인물이기 때문에 진구 49년의 기록 자체가 부정되어야 마땅함에도 불구하고 평정의 주체인 여러 장군들 중에서 백제 장군 목라근자만 그 실재성을 인정하기 때문에 옳지 않다. 또 임나를 한반도의 가야와 동일시하여 취급하고 있는데 이것은 잘못이며 『일본서기』의 임나는 모든 면에서 『삼국사기』에 보인 한반도의 가야가 될 수 없다. 아울러 임나와 인근하여 기록된 신라·백제·고구려도 한반도가 아니라 일본열도에 있던 작은 나라들이었다. 임나는 가야와 비교할 때 그 기록된 위치, 건국및 멸망시기, 속한 나라들 및 왕의 이름, 주변국과의 관계 등 모든 면에서 가야와 다르므로 한반도에 있던 나라로 볼 수 없다. 김현구는 2백 년의 임나경영이 야마토왜에 의한 것이 아니라 백제에 의한 것으로 보았는데 이것 역시 전연 불합리하다. 백제의 목씨 후손들이 계속 다스렸다는 내용이 『일본서기』를 해석할 경우에도 합리적이지 못할 뿐아니라, 한반도에 없던 임나를 백제가 다스렸다는 가설 또한 『삼국사기』에서는 일체 그 근거가없는 허구일 뿐이다.

Hyungu Kim's position on Imna Prefectural Government during the 4th and 6th centuries are summaried as follows : Firstly, Imna was the same country as Gaya which was the one of the four countries of the old Korea, namely Shilla, Baekje, Goguryo and Gaya. His position is the same as with all Japanese scholars and most of Korean scholars. Secondly, he insists that Imna was conquered and ruled by Baekje, and with this respect he differs from the remaining all other scholars' position that Imna was conquered and ruled by Wae(old Japan). Hyungu Kim's position on these two points is not true. In my opinion, Imna and Gaya were different countries, namely Imna was a Japanese country and Gaya was a Korean one. So Imna was conquered and ruled by Wae, and Gaya, by Shilla(a Korean country). That means Korean Gaya was not ruled by Japanese Wae. But at the end of 19th century all Japanese scholars of the imprial Japan began to insist that Gaya was the same country as Imna and therefore, Wae conquered and ruled Gaya. But such conclusion was not based on the rational analysis of the related material of both Korean and Japanese, but was made cheatingly for the political purpose of the Japanese Government to make Chosun a colony. Hyungu Kim followed the theory of Suemasse Yaskazeand regarded Imna as Gaya, but insisted that Imna was ruled by Baekje and denied the theory of Suemasse Yaskaze which insisted the Japanese ruling of Imna. These two points of Kim's hypothesys, however, are wrong, and the reasons are as follows: First, Imna cannot be Gaya, because both countries totally differ in their years of beginning and perishing, their locations, names of kings, relations with the neighboring countries such as Shilla, Baekje and Goguryo. Second, Imna was not ruled by Baekje. Accoding to 『Ilbonseogi』 Imna was perished by 4 Japanese generals including one Baekje's general named Moknagunja. With regard to this record, Kim insisted Moknagunja's single role and denied other 3 generals as the non-existing people. But the names of the 3 people can be found in New Record on the Family Names, and so Kim's insistance cannot be accepted. Second, Kim regarded Baekje as a sub-country of Japan. He mentioned some records of llbonseogi in which the king of Wae ordered the king of Baekje to recover Imna. He also emphasized a usual custom of Baekje to send the princesses and princes to Wae to serve the kings of Wae. But there was no such custom at all. He explained about 3 princesses and 3 princes for some 40 years, but no one was found in the llbonseogi.

1. 서론

2. 가야 7국 평정에 관한 『일본서기』의 기론은 허위다

3. 임나는 가야가 아니다

4. 백제에 의한 임나경영도 허위다

5. 백제와 일본의 관계

6. 결론

로딩중