Abstract: This study critically examines the divergent approaches to the Shinchōkōki, contrasting Japanese scholarship—which emphasizes contextual accuracy and close adherence to the original Sengoku-era texts—with English-language research that often imposes modern ideologies onto premodern sources. Through a combination of quantitative probabilistic modeling and qualitative linguistic analysis, the research demonstrates that the exogenous methodologies prevalent in Western studies have led to a cascade of extrapolation errors. These errors are especially evident in the mythologized portrayal of Yasuke, whose scant historical references have been reinterpreted to support contemporary narratives of identity and cultural symbolism.

 

A key finding is that the Ikeda (池田本) manuscript on which most Japanese scholarship is based, due to its closer proximity to the original events and minimal political adulteration, emerges as the most accurate source for understanding Sengoku history. In contrast, the Sonkeikaku-bon (尊経閣本) the version used by Western scholars, an Edo-period reconstruction laden with Tokugawa-era embellishments, is unsuitable for reconstructing authentic Sengoku narratives. Consequently, the reinterpretation of Yasuke’s status and receiving of wakizashi (short sword), stipend and housing is an artifact of later political writing rather than a reflection of Sengoku reality which has been further reinterpreted as samurai status by modern works ideologically driven scholars.

​​​​​

Keywords: Shinchōkōki, black samurai, Yasuke, Oda Nobunaga, Sonkeikaku-bon, Ikeda , Kenkun ,  Tenri  信長公記, 黒人侍, 弥助, 織田信長, 尊経閣本, 池田本, 天理本, 建勲本