출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 7 출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 - 믹돌, 바알스본, 비하히롯- 김창주 * 이스라엘자손에게명령하여돌이켜바다와믹돌사이의비하히롯앞곧바알스본맞은편바닷가에장막을치게하라( 출 14:2) 1. 여는글 성서에언급된지명을성서지도에서찾아비교해보면어떤

Similar documents
장석정 (, ) I. 1),. 2) 1),.. 2). C. Wright, God s People in God s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans Publishing


<B3EDB9AEC0DBBCBAB9FD2E687770>

HT hwp

금강인쇄-내지-세대주의재고찰

내지-교회에관한교리


泰 東 古 典 硏 究 第 24 輯 이상적인 정치 사회의 구현 이라는 의미를 가지므로, 따라서 천인 합일론은 가장 적극적인 경세의 이론이 된다고 할 수 있다. 권근은 경서의 내용 중에서 현실 정치의 귀감으로 삼을 만한 천인합일의 원칙과 사례들을 발견하고, 이를 연구하여

134 25, 135 3, (Aloysius Pieris) ( r e a l i t y ) ( P o v e r t y ) ( r e l i g i o s i t y ) 1 ) 21, 21, 1) Aloysius Pieris, An Asian Theology of Li

* pb61۲õðÀÚÀ̳ʸ

íŁœêµŁìšŸ 목íı„ퟗ쉤욗 ê°’ìŁ‹íŁœ íŁŸë‡Ÿë‰Ÿ 욟 샓엱슒 촋쀒욗 ë‚fl 엤굒 ífl—뀋잗과 ê·¸ 쀆ìı©

178È£pdf

- 4 -

<3032BFF9C8A35FBABBB9AE5FC7A5C1F6C7D5C4A32E696E6464>

<C7D1B9CEC1B7BEEEB9AEC7D C3D6C1BE295F31392EB9E8C8A3B3B22E687770>

152*220

Slide 1

,,,,,, ),,, (Euripides) 2),, (Seneca, LA) 3), 1) )

00시작(1-5)

5 291

Bible panorama 1강 복음이란 무엇인가

120~151역사지도서3

문화재이야기part2

현장에서 만난 문화재 이야기 2

기본소득문답2

hwp

쌍백합23호3

대한한의학원전학회지24권6호-전체최종.hwp

새국어생활제 14 권제 4 호 (2004 년겨울 )

300 구보학보 12집. 1),,.,,, TV,,.,,,,,,..,...,....,... (recall). 2) 1) 양웅, 김충현, 김태원, 광고표현 수사법에 따른 이해와 선호 효과: 브랜드 인지도와 의미고정의 영향을 중심으로, 광고학연구 18권 2호, 2007 여름

step 1-1

<302DC5EBC0CFB0FA20C6F2C8AD28BFCF292E687770>

8

歯M PDF

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: * The Participant Expe

<B9AEC8ADC0E7C3A2766F6C2E31325FBDCCB1DB2E706466>

ITFGc03ÖÁ¾š

#7단원 1(252~269)교

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Study on the Pe

- 2 - <위기의 한반도> 한 반도는 몇 가지 측면에서 그 어느 때보다 위기 상황에 놓여 있다. 그 첫째는 이슬람이 계획적으로 한반도( 韓 半 島 ) 안으로 교묘하게 침투해서 기독교 를 위협하는 동시에 테러세력으로 나타나 분쟁을 일으키는 일이고 다른 하나는 북한의 위

<C0FCB9AEB1E2BCFA20BFDCB1B9C0CEB7C220B3EBB5BFBDC3C0E520BAD0BCAE2E687770>

???춍??숏

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

Page 2 of 5 아니다 means to not be, and is therefore the opposite of 이다. While English simply turns words like to be or to exist negative by adding not,


고3-02_비문학_2_사회-해설.hwp

¼øâÁö¿ª°úÇÐÀÚ¿ø

< FC3D6C1BEBCF6C1A45FB1E2B5B6B1B3B1B3C0B0B3EDC3D E687770>


82-대한신경학0201

7 1 ( 12 ) ( 1912 ) 4. 3) ( ) 1 3 1, ) ( ), ( ),. 5) ( ) ). ( ). 6). ( ). ( ).

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Analysis of

최승락(강의안).hwp

CD 2117(121130)

<BDC5C7D0B0FA20BCB1B1B C1FD2E687770>

자연언어처리

RVC Robot Vaccum Cleaner

저작자표시 - 비영리 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 이차적저작물을작성할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물

44-4대지.07이영희532~

(......).hwp

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

2 佛敎學報 第 48 輯 서도 이 목적을 준수하였다. 즉 석문의범 에는 승가의 일상의례 보다는 각종의 재 의식에 역점을 두었다. 재의식은 승가와 재가가 함께 호흡하는 공동의 場이므로 포 교와 대중화에 무엇보다 중요한 역할을 수행할 수 있다는 믿음을 지니고 있었다. 둘째

현대영화연구

?? 1990년대 중반부터 일부 지방에서 자체적인 정책 혁신 을 통해 시도된 대학생촌관 정책은 그 효과에 비자발적 확산 + 대한 긍정적 평가에 힘입어 조금씩 다른 지역으로 수평적 확산이 이루어졌다. 이? + 지방 A 지방 B 비자발적 확산 중앙 중앙정부 정부 비자발적

< FB1B9BEEEB1B3C0B0BFACB1B C1FD5FC3D6C1BE2E687770>

국어 순화의 역사와 전망

141018_m

2019달력-대(판형키워)

11+12¿ùÈ£-ÃÖÁ¾

2015년9월도서관웹용

328 退溪學과 韓國文化 第43號 다음과 같은 3가지 측면을 주목하여 서술하였다. 우선 정도전은 ꡔ주례ꡕ에서 정치의 공공성 측면을 주목한 것으로 파악하였다. 이는 국가, 정치, 권력과 같은 것이 사적인 소유물이 아니라 공적인 것임을 강조하는 것으로 조선에서 표방하는 유

27 2, 17-31, , * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** ( :

< C7CFB9DDB1E22028C6EDC1FD292E687770>

4-01

이에 이렇게 되었나니 주께서 그들에게 일러 이르시되, 일어나 내게로 나아와서 너희 손을 내 옆구리에 넣어 보고, 또 내 손과 내 발의 못 자국을 만져 보아 내가 이스라엘의 하나님이요, 온 땅의 하나님이며, 세상의 죄를 위하여 죽임을 당하였음을 알지어다. 그들이 이를 행

44-6대지.07전종한-5

바르게 읽는 성경

할렐루야10월호.ps, page Normalize ( 할 437호 )

저작자표시 - 비영리 - 변경금지 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물을영리목적으로이용할

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

11¹Ú´ö±Ô


00½ÃÀÛ 5š

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

최종ok-1-4.hwp

- 2 -

Microsoft PowerPoint - 26.pptx

2. 박주민.hwp

2저널(11월호).ok :36 PM 페이지25 DK 이 높을 뿐 아니라, 아이들이 학업을 포기하고 물을 구하러 가를 획기적으로 절감할 수 있다. 본 사업은 한국남동발전 다닐 정도로 식수난이 심각한 만큼 이를 돕기 위해 나선 것 이 타당성 검토(Fea

2학년 1학기 1,2단원 1 차례 세 자리의 수 1-1 왜 몇 백을 배워야 하나요? 1-2 세 자리 수의 자릿값 알아보기와 크기 비교하기 1-3 뛰어 세기와 수 배열표에서 규칙 찾기 1단원 기본 평가 단원 창의 서술 논술형 평가 22 1단원 심화 수

ÁÖº¸

03이경미(237~248)ok

2 大 韓 政 治 學 會 報 ( 第 18 輯 1 號 ) 과의 소통부재 속에 여당과 국회도 무시한 일방적인 밀어붙이기식 국정운영을 보여주고 있다. 민주주의가 무엇인지 다양하게 논의될 수 있지만, 민주주의 운영에 필요한 최소한의 제도적 조건은 권력 행사에서 국가기관 사이의

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

<30322D28C6AF29C0CCB1E2B4EB35362D312E687770>

한국의 양심적 병역거부

[ 영어영문학 ] 제 55 권 4 호 (2010) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1) Kyuchul Yoon, Ji-Yeon Oh & Sang-Cheol Ahn. Teaching English prosody through English poems with clon

본문01

4.기획특집5-최종

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * Experiences of Af

Transcription:

Journal of Biblical Text Research. Vol. 35 Published Semiannually by The Institute for Biblical Text Research of the Korean Bible Society; October 2014 Table of Contents Paper [Kor.] Exploring Toponyms in the Early Route of Exodus ----- Chang-Joo Kim / 7 [Kor.] David s Lament(2 Sam 1:17-27): A Song for David s Royal Ideology ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeong Bong Kim / 27 [Kor.] A Study on the Translation of Parallels between Kings and Chronicles in the New Korean Revised Version (1998) Based on the Analysis of 1Ki 8:1-53 and 2Ch 5:2-6:42 ------------------------------------------------------------- Jong-Hoon Kim / 48 [Kor.] The Historical Ezra and his Supporting Group ~ydrx --- Hyeong-Geun So / 70 [Kor.] Is Psalm 88:11-13 a Rhetorical or General Question? --- Il-rye Lee / 87 [Kor.] Eine neue Interpretation von Jeremia 33:1-3 - Kommunikation und Offenbarung ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyunggoo Min / 117 [Kor.] Analysis of Dramatized Prophetic Discourses in the Book of Ezekiel ----------------------------------------------------------- Yoo Hong Min / 142 [Kor.] A Study on the Word Order in the Nominal Sentences of Biblical Hebrew ----------------------------------------------------------- Sung-Dal Kwon / 170 [Kor.] Understanding and Translation of the Noun fo,boj in Luke-Acts ----------------------------------------------------------- Chang Wook Jung / 195 [Eng.] Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrei S. Desnitsky / 218 [Eng.] The Meaning of ~ynih]ko tk,l,m.m; in Exodus 19:6 Revisited ----------------------------------------------------------- Kyu Seop Kim / 249 [Eng.] And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert A. Bascom / 268 [Eng.] He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation ----------------------------------------------------- Alexey Somov / 291 [Eng.] From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) ----------------------------------------------------------- Inhee Park / 310 [Eng.] Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians ------ Jin Ki Hwang / 329 Translated Paper [Kor.] Cities, Towns, Villages in the New Testament ------------------------------------- Paul Ellingworth (Cheol-Won Yoon, trans.) / 347 Book Review [Kor.] ZeBible (Villiers-le-Bel: Société biblique française - Bibli O, 2011) -- Sun-Jong Kim / 352 [Kor.] The Financial Stewardship Bible (Contemporary English Version) (New York: American Bible Society, 2011) --------------------------------------------- Jin Young Choi / 371 Report [Kor.] My Little Experience and Participation in Bible Translation - Chang Hwan Park / 385

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 7 출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 - 믹돌, 바알스본, 비하히롯- 김창주 * 이스라엘자손에게명령하여돌이켜바다와믹돌사이의비하히롯앞곧바알스본맞은편바닷가에장막을치게하라( 출 14:2) 1. 여는글 성서에언급된지명을성서지도에서찾아비교해보면어떤참고서를활 용해야하는지난감할때가더러있다. 왜냐하면학자마다자신의이론을 앞세워지명을설명하고표기하고있지만지도마다그위치가다른데다가 심지어는같은이름을두곳에다표기한경우도발견되기때문이다. 1) 아하 로니(Yohanan Aharoni) 는구약성서에언급된지명들을확인하기위하여여 러방법을동원하고있으나모든위치를찾아내기는어렵다고주장한다. 2) 그럼에도일부성서지도를보면성서에언급된지명들을어떤식으로든표 식하려는경향을찾아볼수있다. 예를들어출애굽경로에나타난지명들 은대부분정확한좌표를파악하기어려운데도마치현장을동행한듯지 명들이촘촘히표시되어있다. 특히출애굽기 14:2 에언급된믹돌, 비하히 롯, 그리고바알스본등세지역은경우에따라서두세곳의후보지가추정 되기도한다. 이지역들은출애굽초기의일정과경로를파악할수있는중 요한공간이기때문에많은학자들이면밀하게검토하며관련정보를추적 하고있다. 그러나아직까지몇몇예상지역이거론되고있을뿐연구자들 마다다른견해를제시하고있는실정이다. * Chicago Theological Seminary 에서구약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재한신대학교신학과교수. qimchangjoo@naver.com. 이논문은한신대학교학술연구비지원으로작성되었음. 1) 앤손 F. 레이니, R. 스티븐나틀리, 성경역사, 지리학, 고고학아틀라스, 강성열역 ( 서울: 이레서원, 2010); Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Motley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta, 2005); A. LaCocque, The International Bible Atlas (Carta: Israel Map & Publishing Company, 1999). 2) 미카엘아비요나, 요하난아하로니, 아가페성서지도, 편집부역 ( 서울: 아가페출판사, 1988), 40.

8 성경원문연구제35호 이와같이출애굽초기의경로를파악할수있는출애굽기 14:2의지명의 위치를알아내기어렵다면지명의음역에가려진사전적의의를찾아보면 어떨까? 성서지명은대부분음역으로옮길뿐본래적인뜻을헤아리지않 았던것이사실이다. 더상세히들여다보겠지만우리가관심하는세지명 은거의모든성서가단순히소리나는대로번역하고있다. 이글은출애굽 여정과관련한세지명을지도에서확인하는데한계가있다면지정학적인 위치보다해석학적의미를살펴보자는제안이다. 왜냐하면지명은항상음 역으로옮겨져사전적인의미를간과하기때문이기도하고, 무엇보다현재 까지연구로보아지도상에서그지명을확증할수없다는물리적인한계 때문이기도하다. 2. 이집트탈출의초기경로 2.1. 라암셋에서비하히롯까지 바로의장자로부터가축의처음난것들의죽음으로인하여이집트는걷 잡을수없는혼란에휩싸인다. 급기야바로는모세와아론을불러이스라 엘백성을데리고나가라고명령한다( 출 12:29-33). 이제어느길로갈것인 지새로운선택이모세에게주어진다. 모세는광야에서줄곧양치기생활 을하였기때문에바로의추격을예상하면서어떤경로를통하여이집트를 벗어날수있을지미리염두에두었을것이다. 이스라엘이허겁지겁라암 셋(Rameses) 을떠났기때문에숙곳(Sukkot) 에머물때전열을가다듬었다 ( 출 12:37 이하). 이윽고고센땅에묻혀있던요셉의해골을수습한후에야 이스라엘은본격적인행로를시작한다. 모세와이스라엘이라암셋을출발 하여숙곳에다다른경로는나일강하류에서남동쪽으로내려가는길이 다. 모세가선택한길은다소이해하기힘들다. 왜냐하면고센지방에서가 나안으로곧바로연결되는지름길이있기때문이다. 즉모세와이스라엘은 가까운 블레셋사람의땅의길 ( 출 13:17) 3), 또는해변길대신에돌아가는 홍해의광야길 (18 절) 로행진하였던것이다. 물론출애굽기 13:17의설명 처럼 블레셋사람의땅의길 이가나안에이르는빠른길이지만이집트군 3) 출애굽기에서 블레셋사람의땅의길 이라고부른이길이당시군사도로로알려진일명 호루스의길 이다. 투트모스 3 세의군대가이길을따라가자(Gaza) 까지가는데열흘걸렸다고한다. Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 68.

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 9 대의추격에직면한다면다시이집트로돌아갈수밖에없다는점을염려하 였기때문에그지름길을의도적으로피한것으로볼수있다. 또다른설명 은요셉의유골을수습하기위한경로라고해석할수있다. 어쨌거나육십 만의출애굽행렬을생각하면무모한여정이라고말할수밖에없다. 한편출애굽여정을간추려서소개한민수기 33 장에따르면 숙곳 은이 스라엘이라암셋을출발한후처음장막을친곳임을확인할수있다( 민 33:5; 출 12:37). 숙곳을떠나광야끝에담에진을치고, 에담을떠나바알스본앞비 하히롯으로돌아가서믹돌앞에진을치고( 민 33:6-7) 4) 그러나민수기의기록과달리출애굽기에서는에담이후어디에장막을 쳤는지가늠하기쉽지않다. 순차적으로보면에담에장막을쳤고( 출 13:20), 가던길을돌이켜 바다와믹돌사이의비하히롯앞곧바알스본맞 은편바닷가 ( 출 14:2) 에서하룻밤을묵은것으로파악된다. 한순간에여러 지명이언급되기때문에오히려그지점을콕집어말하기어렵지만이야 영지가이집트영역에서이스라엘의마지막진영임을알수있다. 이후이 스라엘은 바다가운데서마른땅 ( 출 14:16) 을지나시내광야로진입한다. 아래그림은이해를돕기위하여본문을근거로바다와믹돌사이의비하 히롯앞바알스본맞은편에설치되었을야영지와주변을이미지로표현한 것이다. 편의상이스라엘의출발지가이집트의고센땅서쪽이므로이점 을고려하려동쪽을향하여행진한것으로그렸다. 이집트탈출초 기의경로는라암 셋에서숙곳까지, 숙곳에서에담까 지, 그리고에담에 서비하히롯으로 이어진다. 첫번째 야영지숙곳은히 브리어로 텐트 라 는뜻으로, 탈출한 이스라엘이 맨처 4) 본고에서제시하는본문은전반적으로개역개정판을따르면서필요에따라사역했다.

10 성경원문연구제35호 음 야영한장소를가리킨다 ( 출 12:37; 민 33:5). 에담은출애굽기 13:20에서이 집트쪽의 광야끝 으로소개되어있다. 하지만이스라엘은이집트에서마지 막밤을믹돌과비하히롯앞의야영지에서보낸다. 마침내이스라엘은이집트 영역을떠나자유인으로서본격적인광야유랑을시작할수있게된것이다. 2.2. 바다와믹돌사이비하히롯앞바알스본맞은편? 이집트에서의최종야영지를소개하는데세지명이어지럽게나온다. 라 암셋을출발하여홍해를건너기직전이다( 민 33:7-8). 처음한동안, 즉라암 셋에서숙곳, 숙곳에서에담까지탈출행로는순탄하게계속되었던것으로 보인다. 그러나에담에서다음야영지로가는길은갑자기돌이켜오던방 향으로선회한다. 여기에는두가지의문점이제기된다. 하나는왜이스라 엘은이집트를탈출하여남동쪽으로향하던길을돌이켜 바다와믹돌 사 이의비하히롯으로갔는지어느누구도설득력있는주장을내놓지못하고 있다. 5) 가까운해변길을택하지않은것도예상되는바로의추격을따돌리 기위한전략일수도있겠지만현실적으로나일강하류의촘촘한경비를 뚫고나갈수없다는판단때문이었을가능성도있다. 이점은다음장에서 믹돌 을다룰때확인된다. 그러나모세일행이가던길을다시돌이킨다는 것은바로에게투항하거나탈출을포기한다는의미다. 그만큼위험부담이 큰모험이다. 그럼에도오던길로돌이킨것은추격군을교란시키려는고 도의전술이아닌지생각해볼수있다. 왜냐하면일단가나안으로가는지 름길을택하지않고남동쪽경로로택한것은일반적인예상도주로를피 한것이었는데모세는그와반대로우왕좌왕하는모습을보여주면서제 3 의길, 예컨대가데스바네아와신광야로이어지는 수르광야 길을염두 하고있었을수도있기때문이다. 다른하나는왜한장소를설명하는데여러지명이집중적으로등장하는 것일까? 출애굽기저자가이렇듯세밀하게소개한것은그공간의지리적 특징을숙지하고있거나중요하다고여겼을것이다. 더햄(John I. Durham) 은저자가적어도네곳이상의장소를거명하며정확한위치를제시하려 는것은출애굽경로에대한역사적인근거를보여준다고주장한다. 6) 따라 5) James K. Hoffmeier, Out of Egypt: The Archaeological Context of the Exodus, Margaret Warker, ed., Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus (Washington: Biblical Archaeological Society, 2012), 14. 6) 존더햄, 출애굽기, 손석태, 채천석역 ( 서울: 솔로몬, 2000), 327-328; John I. Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 3 (Waco: Word Books, 1987).

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 11 서저자에게이장소는세밀화를그리듯자세하게설명해야할만큼중요한공간으로받아들일수있다. 그러나출애굽기 14:9에는바로의추격군이같은장소에당도한장면이소개된다. 애굽사람들과바로의말들, 병거들과그마병과그군대가그들[ 이스 라엘] 의뒤를따라바알스본맞은편비하히롯곁해변그들이장막친 데에미치니라. ( 출 14:9) 앞선 2 절과달리믹돌은빠지고바알스본과비하히롯만언급되어있다. 모세가끈질기게바로를설득하고협박하여마침내이스라엘의이집트탈 출을감행하였으나라암셋을떠난이후숙곳에서에담으로다시돌아가는 등갈팡질팡하는모습을보여준다. 이장면에서등장하는세지명과더불 어 바다 는숙곳남쪽비터호수인지, 북쪽의발라호수인지, 지중해를가 리키는지경로가더욱아리송해진다. 지금까지논의한바와같이지도상으로확인하기쉽지않은믹돌, 비하 히롯, 바알스본, 그리고바다처럼자세하고반복적으로소개된성서구절 을찾아보기힘들다. 여하간세지명이등장하는이공간이학대와종살이 를마감하는이집트에서의마지막여정이며, 자유의세상으로나아가는 얌수프 (@Ws-~y: ) 를지나가나안에진입하기직전에머문장소가된다. 그렇 다면여기에특별한해석학적장치가암시된것은아닐까? 이질문에대하 여다음장에서세지명을분석하면서출애굽의지정학적, 혹은신학적의 미를모색해보고자한다. 3. 믹돌 (ldog>mi) 3.1. 지리적인위치 우선가장먼저나오는 믹돌 의위치를살펴보자. 출애굽기 14:2에언급 되는세지명중에서믹돌의위치는비교적라암셋에서가까운현재의펠 라시움방향으로나일강하류삼각지대로추정된다. 최근믹돌의지리적 위치를확보할수있는고고학적성과가있었다. 지난 2008년 5월자히하 와스(Zahi Hawass) 이집트문화재최고위원회사무총장은고고학자들이현 재의라파(Rafah) 지구에서가로 500m, 세로 250m 규모의성곽도시를발굴

12 성경원문연구제35호 했다고밝혔다. 7) 고대이집트라므세스 2 세(B.C.E. 1304-1237) 당시이집트 와팔레스타인을연결하는도로 호루스길 을탐사하던중이지역에서진 흙벽돌로축성된성읍을발견한것이다. 이성곽에포함된높이 4m 정도의 망루가여러개확인되었다. 특히이일대에서투트모세 2 세(B.C.E. 1516 1504) 를새긴부조가발견돼투트모세 2세역시이곳에성곽을지었을가능 성이있다고주장한다. 그이전에도나일강하류지역의경비가삼엄한사실이밝혀진바있다. 즉 사자의은신처 (The Dwelling of the Lion) 와 세티의요새 (the Fortress of Seti) 라고명명한 멘마아트레의믹돌 (Migdol of Men-maat-re) 등이가나안 으로진입하는호루스길에서발굴된것이다. 8) 이성곽에포진된망루들은 대부분라므세스 2세아버지세티와라므세스 2세통치시기에축성된것 으로판명되고있다. 가장육중하고압도적인것은길이 790m, 너비 393m 짜리요새이다. 호프마이어(James K. Hoffmeier) 에따르면이집트 19-20 왕 조 (B.C.E. 1295-1069) 사이에이집트와가나안경계에많은군사시설물과 요새를설치하여선대의이름으로불렀다. 이를테면세티의이름을따서 멘마아트레의망루, 라므세스 2 세의이름으로 라므세스 2 세의망루 등 이그것이다. 9) 오렌(Eliezer D. Oren) 역시성서에몇차례나오는믹돌의위치를고고학 적발굴을통하여확인하고자하였다. 그는논문제목에서암시하듯카르 낙부조와아나스타시파피루스등을근거로믹돌의위치가나일강삼각 주의동쪽경계로서시내광야를건너면곧바로만나게되는이집트의변 방경계지역으로본다. 10) 한편후대의일이긴하지만예레미야서에서믹 돌은유대인들이거주하는지역으로나온다. 애굽땅에사는모든유다사람곧믹돌과다바네스와놉과바드로스 지방에사는자에대하여말씀이예레미야에게임하니라 ( 렘 44:1) 7) Maamoun Youssef, Archaeologists Find Ancient Fortified City in Sinai, Associated Press, 2008. 5. 28. www.nbcnews.com/id/24860550/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/archaeologists-findancient-fortified-city/#.u9agx63nupo. 8) James K. Hoffmeier, Out of Egypt: The Archaeological Context of the Exodus, 15. 9) 이뿐아니라팔레스타인지역에서도믹돌과합성된지명, 즉 Migdol-El, Migdol-Gad, Migdol- Eder 등이발견된다. E. L. Curtis, Early Cities of Palestine, The Biblical World 7 (1896), 411-424. 10) Eliezer D. Oren, Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 256 (1984), 32. 한편오렌은후대에믹돌은변방을떠도는부랑자와용병의수용소등으로활용되었을가능성도제시한다.

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 13 오렌의주장에의하면이구절은이집트의식민지혹은외래인거주지를 동북쪽(northeast) 부터남쪽순으로기록한것이다. 믹돌은가장동쪽에위 치하고바드로스는최남단이다. 마찬가지로예레미야 46장에믹돌이다시 언급되는데역시가장먼저기록된다( 렘 46:14). 예언자에스겔은 애굽땅 믹돌에서부터수에네곧구스지경까지 ( 겔 29:10; 30:6) 라는관용적인어법 을사용함으로써믹돌이바로이집트의동쪽경계선임을보여준다. 그러나 하우트만(Cornelius Houtman) 의주장은사뭇다르다. 즉믹돌이나일강하 류동북쪽이아니라출애굽기 14장과반대로비터호수남쪽으로에담보다 훨씬아래쪽인현재의텔엘헤르(Tell el-her) 지역의국경선일것으로추측 한다. 11) 최근스콜니크(Benjamin E. Scolnic) 는앞에서논의한 사자의은신처 가 호루스의길에있는요새일것으로보고, 그렇다면믹돌은현재의 텔엘보 르그 의남동쪽 3-5km 부근이라고제안한다. 12) 지금까지논의를종합할때 믹돌의위치가정확히한지점으로일치되지는않으나나일강하류에서 이집트의동쪽국경선과시내반도의서쪽습지의경계선에해당하는지역 으로높은망대혹은성곽에포함된경계초소를가리키는용어로볼수있 다. 3.2. 어원적인의미 믹돌은이스라엘이광야유랑초기에지나갔던곳으로구약성서에지명 으로몇차례( 출 14:2; 민 33:7; 렘 44:1; 46:14; 겔 29:10; 30:6) 나온다. 사전적 인의미는 높은탑 이나국경선근처에세워진 망루, 요새 를가리키는순 수셈어로보인다. 13) 실제로나일강하류의동쪽델타지역에서 믹돌 이라 는지명이가끔확인되기도한다. 일단이스라엘이숙곳을떠나에담에서 하루를묵었다( 출 13:20). 다음일정은본문에서확인하듯그들의행진을 돌이켜바다와믹돌사이의비하히롯앞곧바알스본맞은편바닷가에장 막을치게된다. 여기서잠깐복음서에등장하는마리아중 막달라마리아 의막달라를 살펴보는것이믹돌의어원을이해하는데도움이된다. 막달라마리아는 11) Cornelius Houtmann, Exodus, vol. 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 112. 12) Benjamin E. Scolnic, A New Working Hypothesis for the Identification of Migdol, J. K. Hoffmeier and A. R. Millard, eds., The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 91-120. 13) Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus, 70.

14 성경원문연구제35호 글자그대로 막달라출신마리아 라는뜻이다( 막 15:40; 눅 8:2). 막달라 (aldgm) 는높은탑이나요새를가리키는아람어이지만그뿌리말은히브리 어 가달 과어원적으로관련된다. 히브리어와아람어는 사촌언어 (cousin language) 라고불릴만큼글자의형태는물론문법적으로유사한점이많을 뿐아니라심지어단어도같은경우가허다하다. 즉히브리어믹돌과아람 어막달라는 크다, 위대하다 는동사가달(ldg) 에서파생되어동일한의 미를가리킨다. 막달라는지리적으로보면갈릴리호수서편에위치하며북으로게네사 렛과남으로디베랴사이에있는성읍이다. 이곳이 막달라 라고불리는까 닭이있다. 14) 막달라는요세푸스(F. Josephus) 가 생선절임 이라는뜻의 Taricheia 라고일렀을정도로어업과가공산업이번창한곳이었다. 갈릴 리호수의어획량중상당부분이막달라로모여들었으며이차적인가공과 중개상이이루어졌다. 생선의신선도를잘유지하며소비하는방법은현장 에서회로먹거나구이로요리하는것이다. 그러나오래보관해야할경우 생선을소금에절이거나, 혹은말리기도한다. 또다른방식으로는증기로 물고기를익히는훈제요리가개발되었다. 이렇듯소금간생선과훈제로 가공된생선은예루살렘을비롯한여러지역에팔렸고심지어로마에유대 인의진상품으로사용되기도하였다. 특히막달라지역은풍부한땔감을이용한훈제가공업이발달한곳이 다. 훈제는불의효과적이용과밀접한관련이있다. 즉생선을잘익히려면 자연히굴뚝을높이세워바람과불의강도를적절히활용해야했다. 이리 하여훈제를위한가공공장이이곳저곳에세워졌고이렇듯높이솟은굴 뚝은이지역의상징이자별명이된것이다. 그렇게붙여진이름이신약시 대통용되던아람어로 막달레나 (h` Magdalhna. ) 가되고, 히브리어로 믹달 누니에 ( 생선의망대) 이다. 15) 그러므로구약의믹돌과복음서의막달라는 높은탑과키큰굴뚝을가리키는유사한의미, 다른발음이다. 복음서에서 막달라는오직마리아의출신지역만을가리키는뜻으로알려진것이다. 그렇다고믹돌과막달라가동일한공간이라는주장은더욱아니다. 둘은 의미상으로는서로관련있지만실제시간과공간적으로는전혀다른두 지역이기때문이다. 오렌은믹돌이사전적으로 높은탑, 성곽, 또는 군사훈련장 등을의 14) 복음서에는 막달라 가달마누다(Dalmanouqa, 막 8:10), 마가단(Magada,n, 마 15:39) 등으로표기되지만히브리어 가달 과연관이있다. 15) James F. Strange, Magdala, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, 464-65; 이요엘, 이스라엘 12 지파탐사리포트 ( 서울: 평단문화사, 2010), 257 에서재인용.

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 15 미하지만동시에다양한정착지를가리킬수있다는가능성도열어놓고있 다. 16) 막달라가높은굴뚝때문에붙여진이름이라면믹돌은주변을정찰 하기용이한높은요새나성곽이다. 그러나공통점은높이솟은탑이나망 루처럼한눈에간파된다는점이다. 국경선의출입을경계하던나일강하 류의망대이거나갈릴리호수에솟아오른굴뚝이거나믹돌과막달라는주 변의경관에비해크고높은인공구조물인것은분명하다. 3.3. 믹돌의상징적인의미 출애굽경로에서믹돌의역할은분명하다. 즉주변을두루살필수있는 지역으로서내부적으로이집트백성과노예들을통제할수있는위치이며 동시에외부적으로는적군의움직임을잘포착할수있는지리적인이점이 요구되는곳이다. 따라서믹돌은높은탑과관련이있다. 높은망대, 즉 망루 나 요새 를의미하는지명이라면필연코이집트의국경지역일가능 성이높고, 노예노동자들이밀집한곳이라면나일강하류의어느지점으 로추측할수있다. 그렇지만위에서확인한바와같이 믹돌 의어원론적인 설명과지리적특징, 그리고지정학적현상을통하여그지점을유추할수 있지만지도상에서그지점을구체적으로적시한다는것은쉽지않다. 따 라서믹돌의위치는출애굽여정에포함된특정지점을기술하기위한지 점으로국한하기보다는믹돌의지정학적이며상징적인의미를살펴보자 고제안하는것이다. 모세가이와같은국경선부근의삼엄한정찰과빈틈없는경비를모를 리없었을것이다. 그러니왜이스라엘이 블레셋사람들의땅의길 을경유 하지않았는지에관한답은자명해진다. 물론이상의고고학적발굴물들이 출애굽기의믹돌과일치한다고단정하기어렵다. 다만출애굽사건이라므 세스 2세치하에일어난일이라면믹돌은이스라엘의탈출과관련되었을 가능성은훨씬커진다. 이와같은분석에따르면 믹돌 은출애굽행로와관련하여지리적인위 치를가리키는하나의좌표인것은확실하나동시에출애굽의신학적의미 를제고하려는수사적장치라고읽을수도있다. 17) 다시말해서믹돌은이 16) Eliezer D. Oren, Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta, 31. 17) 한편으로믹돌은일종의보통명사로경계표가되는건축물을가리키는이름으로쓰인다. 그러나하나님을통칭하는일반명사로도활용된예도볼수있다. 사무엘하 22:51(lyDIg>m;) 과시편 18:50(lADIg>m; ) 에서는모음이약간다른형태를취한다. 쿰란공동체에서는 하나님은구원의요새 (ldig>m;) 라고노래한다.

16 성경원문연구제35호 스라엘을압제하며종살이를강요하던이집트를표상하는상징물로서국 경에배치된제국의표식이라고간주할수있다. 막달라가갈릴리호수변 에자리한훈제공장의많은굴뚝을가리키듯, 출애굽기의믹돌은당시세 상의최고지배세력이던이집트의폭력적인통치를공간적인상징으로풀 어내어출애굽의지정학적의미를풀어낸것이다. 4. 바알스본 (!poc.l[;b;) 바알스본은믹돌보다그위치를추정하기가훨씬어렵다. 노트(Martin Noth) 는바알스본의위치를확정할수있다고주장하며나일강하류동편 지중해연안지역으로본다. 18) 연구자들이몇몇후보지역을추정하고있 지만역시일치된견해가없다. 성서지도가더러는바알스본을전혀표기 하지않는경우도있으며같은지도라도두곳을지정하는예도가끔눈의 띈다. 19) 바알스본은문자적으로 북방의터줏대감, 또는 북쪽의실력자 정도로옮길수있다. 한단어처럼보이지만히브리어두낱말이결합된합 성어이기때문에 바알 과 스본, 그리고 바알스본 등각각의단어에대 한분석과해설이요구된다. 4.1. 바알 구약성서에서바알은동사로는 결혼하다, 다스리다 가되고, 명사로는 주인, 남편 또는 지배자 를뜻하는데가나안지역에서는그들의대표 신(Baal) 을가리켰다. 이스라엘에서바알은본래가나안종교를대표하는 이름을넘어우상의상징처럼사용되는데그이유는그들이신앙적으로가 나안의종교를비롯한이교도와끊임없이대결해야만했기때문이다. 바알 은또한 바알스본 처럼인명이나지명등에서합성어를포함하여빈번하 게언급되는데그만큼이스라엘에게는한편으로친숙한이름이면서도다 른한편으로경계의대상이기도하였다. 이미기원전 2천년시기에바알은우가릿산신의고유명사로잘알려졌 으며바알브릿( 삿 8:33), 바알세붑( 왕하 1:2), 바알브올( 민 25:3; 호 9:10) 등 18) Martin Noth, 출애굽기, 국제성서주석제2 권, 박재순외 3 인공역 ( 서울: 한국신학연구소, 1981), 129-131; Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973). 19) 성서와함께, 성경지도개정판 ( 서울: 성서와함께, 2009), 지도 4.

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 17 과같이지역적인특성을합성어로표시하고있었다. 가나안과시리아에서 바알은일반적인신으로지칭되기도하지만실제로는가나안의으뜸신이 다. 흔히남편( 출 21:22; 삼하 11:26) 이나상급자( 사 16:8) 등을부르는관직 명으로도사용되었다. 바알은특히유목민이던이스라엘이가나안에정착 하는과정에서만난곡식과비의신, 풍요와다산의농경신으로서곧잘유 혹의대상이되었으며, 자연히이스라엘의사제들과예언자들에게불편한 존재였다. 역사적으로볼때바알은이스라엘에지대한영향을주고받았다 ( 삿 2:11-15, 3:8-11; 왕상 16-18). 지역적으로지중해연안을따라수많은산당들이바알의이름으로세워 졌으며그영향력은심지어나일강하류까지도미쳤던것으로보인다. 여 하간바알은그리스의제우스나바빌론의마르둑에상당하는가나안최고 의신의자리를지키고있었다. 이와같이이스라엘과바알의불편한관계 는사사시대를넘어서도이어지다가남북왕조시대아합왕때에이르러 최고조에달한다( 왕상 18 장). 엘리야가갈멜산정에서바알선지자를물리 치고야웨의승리를선포하였지만( 왕상 18:39) 그뒤로도바알의질긴유혹 은근절되지않고계속되었다. 그리하여바알은출애굽이후이스라엘의 야웨신앙을흔드는위협적인대상으로서가까이할수록분쟁을일으키는 갈등의신, 이른바우상으로간주되는대표주자였던것이다. 4.2. 사폰( 스본, 사본) 히브리어 사폰 (!Apc' ) 은북쪽을가리키는데개역개정은 북극, 북쪽 끝, 또는 북방 으로옮긴다( 사 14:13; 겔 38:6, 15; 39:2; 시 48:2; 89:12; 욥 26:7). 동사로는 숨어있다, 간직하다 라는뜻인데은밀하게감추어진상태 라는의미가된다. 그러니까 사폰 은본거지, 또는은거지를암시한다고볼 수있다. 고대근동에서 사폰 은가나안의주신 바알 과그의거처와예배 중심지로알려진 사폰 ( 개역개정은 사본, 수 13:27), 혹은사폰(Zaphon) 산등과관련이깊은낱말이라고할수있다. 사폰 은구약성서에 152차례 나온다. 리핀스키(E. Lipiński) 는 사폰 의지리적위치를비롯한신화적인 의미등을다양한용례를통하여검토한바있다. 20) 본래 사폰 은시리아와 팔레스타인의경계에있는거룩한산을가리키는지명이며가장오래된언 급은우가릿문헌에서찾아볼수있다. 한편구약성서에는사폰산은시온과동일하거나같은의미로신화적으 20) E. Lipiński,!Apc', Theological Dictionary of Old Testament, vol. 12, 435-443.

18 성경원문연구제35호 로쓰이기도한다. 즉시편 48:2 에 사폰의꼭대기, 시온산 이라는표현이 나온다. 한글성서개역개정은 큰왕의성곧북방에있는시온산 으로 옮기고있다( 겔 38:6, 15, 39:2). 에스겔은또한 사폰 을폭풍우와관련된자 연현상으로묘사하기도한다( 겔 1:4). 이와유사한표현이잠언에도나온 다. 사폰의바람이비를일으킴같이 ( 잠 25:23). 이와같은사본의상징성 은바람, 비, 천둥번개등의표상되는바알신앙의특징을잘보여준다. 사폰( 스본, 사본) 의일차적인뜻은바알과그의하급신들의거처하는거 룩한산, 또는본거지이며바알의왕좌가있는곳으로서그리스의올림푸 스산에해당한다고보면된다. 앞으로사폰은이스라엘이건조한광야를 유랑하는동안바람과비의신바알을끊임없이맞닥뜨리게되며, 특히가 나안에정착한후에도풍요의신을자처하는바알과더불어이스라엘을유 혹하는우상이며, 바알신앙의본고장을이르는뜻으로확대된다. 4.3. 바알스본 그렇다면바알스본은어디쯤일까? 시내산이야웨하나님의산이듯바알 스본은가나안의최고신바알이사는거룩한산으로묘사된다. 바알신앙 의본거지가곧우가릿북쪽의사폰산이었으며바알신전이그곳에있었 다. 올브라이트(W. F. Albright) 는기원전 6세기경페니키아의문헌을제시 하며바알스본을나일강하류의다바네스(Tahpanhes), 현재지명사이드 (Said) 항인근일가능성을제시한다( 렘 44:1). 21) 그의주장대로라면가나안 신앙이이집트까지퍼져있었다는설명이가능하다. 실제로나일강하류 의풍부한물산과식량은가까운지역의사람들을끌어들였을것이고그들 의신앙도자연히따라갔을것이다. 가나안의바알은이집트의셋(Seth) 과 동일하게예배의대상이되었고, 기원전 6세기로추정되는한편지에는 바알스본과다바네스의모든신들의축복을빈다 는구절등에서서로의 왕래를확인할수있다. 22) 근자에호프마이어는바알스본을발라호수부근의 바알의바다 일가 능성을타진하고있다. 23) 그렇게되면 바알스본 은나일강하류, 지중해 21) W. F. Albright, Baal Zaphon, Walter Baumgartner, ed., Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80 Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr, 1950), 1-14. 22) 나훔 M. 사르나, 출애굽기탐험, 박영호역 ( 서울: 솔로몬, 2004), 213; Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 71; Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken, 1986), 109. 23) Barbara J. Sivertsen, The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 19 연안의어느지점, 곧현재의사이드와펠루시움사이일가능성이높다. 지 금까지바알스본에대한어원과지리적인연구를통해서의미와위치를살 펴보았다. 안타깝게도바알스본으로예상되는몇몇지점을확인할뿐더 이상논의가진척되지못하는상황이다. 바알스본이출애굽여정초기, 즉바다를통과하기직전에언급된것은 다분히의도적이다. 왜냐하면야웨가이스라엘을바다에서구원한것은거 대한혼돈의세계를장악함으로써그자신이경배의대상이될수있기때 문이다. 여기에서바알스본은바다의신, 혹은폭풍의신으로바다사람들 과연관되었을개연성을보여준다. 24) 이렇듯바알스본은바다의신, 혹은 바닷사람들의생활과연관되었기때문에바다를통한출애굽여정에의도 적으로포함되었을것이다. 왜냐하면야웨가이집트에서이스라엘을탈출 시킨것은바다의신과이집트제국으로부터출애굽을암시하기때문이다. 이점에서이스라엘과바알의갈등도뿌리깊은역사가있었음을염두에 둔포석으로보인다. 따라서바알스본의지리적위치를출애굽경로에서 확인하는것도필요하지만노예에서자유인으로거듭난이스라엘을또다 른방식으로예속시키려는우상이라는점에서바알스본의상징적의미를 새겨보는것이다. 5. 비하히롯 (troyxih;ypi) 바하히롯은지금까지어디인지정확하게알려진바도없고, 앞의믹돌과 바알스본보다도더복잡하다. 더구나이집트나그리스등의문헌에도이와 유사한지명이나오지않는실정이다. 이단어는 피 와 하히롯 두개의단 어가연계형처럼합성되어있기때문에 피, 하히롯 그리고 비하히롯 세가지경우를고려하며분석해야한다. 5.1. 피 우선우리말로음역된 비 는본래이집트어 피 (Pi) 에해당한다. 구약성 서에서 비돔, 비라암셋, 비하솔, 비베셋 등도 비 와고유명사의결합 을보인다. 흔히이집트왕으로불리는 바로 의본래발음은 파라 Shaped the Story of Exodus (Princeton: PUP, 2009), 130. 24) Cornelius Houtman, Exodus, vol. 1, 105-106.

20 성경원문연구제35호 오 (Pharaoh) 이다. 이칭호는이집트의최고통치자를일컫는표현으로알 고있지만본래는 큰집 또는태양신 라(Ra) 의신전 이라는뜻이다. 특히 이집트 19 왕조(B.C.E. 1306-1200) 의 파라오 는통치왕조를가리키는용어 로쓰였고점차오늘날의청와대나백악관처럼당시통치자를상징하게되 었다. 25) 하히롯 은이집트의여신 하솔 (Hathhor) 이다. 따라서비하히롯은 여신하솔의신전 을의미한다. 이와같이 장소와이름 이결합된고유명 사는고대이집트문서에빈번하게쓰인것으로확인된다. 즉비돔(Pithom) 은아툼신전(House of Atum) 을, 비라암셋(Pi-Rameses) 은라암셋의궁전 (House of Rameses) 등을뜻한다. 26) 한편 피 를히브리어로읽으면본래 입 ( ) 을가리키는낱말이축약되 어뒤에오는단어와결합된형태로읽을수있다. 비하히롯이민수기에는 피 가생략되어나온다( 민 33:8). 칠십인역(LXX) 은비하히롯을지명처럼 음역하지않고테스에파우레오스 (th/j evpau,lewj) 로옮긴다. 칠십인역이 농 장 (farmstead), 또는 개척지, 거주지 를의미하는단어로번역한것으로 보아번역자들은비하히롯이목초지를뜻하는하체롯 (trcx) 으로읽었을 가능성이있다. 하우트만은 피 가입을가리키는것은분명하나비톰에서 와같이이집트어를히브리어로채용한것으로이해한다. 27) 그렇다면 하 히롯 을풀어야 비 의의미를살릴수있을것이다. 5.2. 하히롯 하히롯 의기본자음은 ḥ-r-t 로 새기다, 파다 라는뜻이다. 이독법이 옳다면비하히롯의지리적위치를가늠하는데단서를찾은셈이된다. 왜 냐하면히브리인, 혹은이집트노예들이토성을쌓거나힘든운하를건설 하였다면그지역이후보지가될수있을것이기때문이다. 앞의 2장에서 제시한믹돌, 바알스본, 비하히롯의그림을예시한대로믹돌과바알스본 사이에바다가있다. 비하히롯은아마도나일강하류에있었을운하와관 련하여 운하의입구 를가리키거나칠십인역의번역을살린다면노동자들 25) 동양에서도최고통치자를지칭하는왕이나대통령등고위관리를전하( 殿下 ), 폐하( 陛下 ), 각하( 閣下 ) 등으로일컬으며 파라오 와같이유사한경로를거쳤다고볼수있다. 이를테면 전하 는본래궁궐이나대궐의계단아래있는이를가리키는뜻이었지만최고관직을가리키는칭호가된것이다. 26) 본래 비라암셋 은타니스였는데라므세스 2 세가재건함으로써붙여진이름이다. H. H. Rowley, 聖書地圖 Student's Bible Atlas, 대한기독교서회편집부역 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 1995), 6. 27) Cornelius Houtman, Exodus, vol. 1, 124.

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 21 의집단거주지를암시할수있다. 또한가지믹돌과연관지어해석할수있는이론은적군의침입에대비하는해자(moat) 로볼수있다는설명이다. 해자( 垓字 ) 는보통동서양을막론하고외부의침입을막기위해성곽주변에강을끌어들이거나연못을파서물을채워놓은방어선을가리킨다. 그렇다면비하히롯은히브리들이이집트의노예노동자로강요된삶을살았던이스라엘의고통과거대한제국의착취를동시적으로보여주는지역을추정할수있게된다. 28) 그러므로믹돌이이집트제국의통치아래있는소수민족과하층민들을감시하는높은망루라면, 비하히롯 은히브리등과같은 중다한잡족 ( 출 12:38) 의울부짖는고달픈현실을반영하는것으로볼수있다. 5.3. 바하히롯 비하히롯은 비 와 하히롯 두개의단어가나란히연결된형태로서뒤 에오는자음에따라 Pe, Pa, 또는 Pi 등으로변화된다. 학자들은이집트어로 읽을때와히브리어로읽을때의차이점을들어비하히롯을풀이한다. 29) 지난 20 세기초에야블론스키(Bryant Jablonsky) 는비하히롯이콥틱어 Pi-Achirot, 곧 사초풀이자라는장소 라고풀이한바있다. 즉나일강하류 의습지와연관된현재지명라스아타카(Ras Atakah) 라고제안하였다. 30) 그러나유대교랍비들의비하히롯해석은과거의사실로고정시키기보 다미래지향적인설명을내놓는다. 즉 운하입구 로번역할수있는이집 트어 비하히롯 을히브리어 자유 (ḥerut) 에정관사가포함된 그 자유의입 구 로새긴다. 중세유대교학자라시(Rashi) 는 히롯 을자유라고풀이하면 서그이유는이스라엘이바로거기서자유인이되었기때문이라고설명한 다. 31) 이렇듯일반명사에정관사를더한형태로읽으면하나님이인도하여 낸그리하여절대적자유가부여되어그자유의의미가한층강조된다. 이 집트어비하히롯은고통스럽게노역을하던운하의현장을반영하지만, 히 브리어는자유인으로서새로운여정을눈앞에둔 자유의광장 으로읽을 수있는중의적인의미로읽을수있다는것이다. 32) 28) Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 196. 29) Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus, 70. 30) Max Seligson, Pi-Hahiroth, The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 10, 34. 31) A. Cohen, The Soncino Chumash: The Five Books of Moses with Haphtaroth (Jerusalem: Soncino, 1993), 409. 32) Targum Onkelos, Rashi 등유대교의저작들을참조.

22 성경원문연구제35호 한편나본(Mois A. Navon) 은한걸음더나아간다. 그는출애굽기 14:2과 9 절에똑같이나오는비하히롯의세밀한차이점을찾아내어그의미를부 각시킨다. 33) 즉 2 절은 비하히롯앞 (troyxih;ypi ynep.li) 이고 9 절은 비하히롯 위 (troyxih;ypi-l[;) 로수식하는전치사가다르다. 34) 그러니까앞절은아직바 다를건너지않고천막을친상황이기때문에 자유의입구앞 으로묘사되 었지만, 바로의군대가추격해온 9 절에는이미 비하히롯위 를걷고있는 자유의실행으로판단하기때문에전치사 l[; 을쓴것이라고해석한것이 다. 따라서이스라엘에게비하히롯은이집트제국의종살이하던치욕과압 제의자리가아니라당당하게자유의헌장을선포하는자유인의현장으로 바뀌게된다. 이스라엘에게비하히롯은과거제국의명예를유지하기위해 운하를파내야했던이집트에서의탈출이며이제는종의멍에로부터벗어 나자유인으로새로이출발하는출정식장과같다고할수있다. 6. 맺는글 출애굽기 14:2처럼한곳을설명하기위해지명이집중적으로언급된예 는좀처럼보기어렵다. 이것은저자에게매우친숙한지역이고중요한지 역이었음을반영한다. 이스라엘은라암셋(?) 에서숙곳, 에담을지나남동쪽 으로가다돌이켜 바다와믹돌사이, 비하히롯앞바알스본맞은편바닷가 에장막을친다. 민수기에서는이곳이셋째날이지만출애굽기에서는몇 번째밤인지명확하지않다. 여기에는시간의일정을명시하지않은출애 굽기저자의특별한의도가있을것이다. 다만유감스럽게도이세지명이 어디인지지도상에서확인하기어렵다는사실이다. 그렇다면왜성서기자 는얼른알아차리기힘들정도로많은지명을한꺼번에소개하고있는것 일까? 그이유는위에서토의한대로믹돌, 비하히롯, 그리고바알스본에 숨겨진출애굽의신학적의미가내포되어있기때문이다. 메소포타미아가 두강사이 를의미하듯출애굽은 믹돌과바알스본사 이 에위치한다. 유프라테스와티그리스사이에서찬란한메소포타미아문 33) Mois A. Navon, Pi-Hahiroth The Mouth of Freedom, Jewish Bible Quarterly 27:4 (1999), 261. 34) 대부분번역들이 비하히롯위 를살려내지못하고있다. 비하히롯곁 ( 개역개정), 비하히롯근처 ( 새번역), near Pi-Hahiroth (NIV), by Pi-Hahiroth (NRSV) 등을참조하라.

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 23 명이태어난것처럼이스라엘은믹돌과바알스본사이에서야웨신앙을꽃 피웠다. 그공간은다름아닌자유의광장, 비하히롯 이다. 그러나출애굽 공동체이스라엘이자유인으로서거듭났지만그들이누릴수있는자유는 무제한적으로허용되지않는다. 왜냐하면왼쪽으로한발자국만나가면 믹돌 이그들을착취하며유린할것이고, 오른쪽으로한손을뻗으면 바 알스본 이그들의자유를유혹하며예속시킬것이기때문이다. 놀랍게도 바로는이와같은사실을알았을까? 그는이집트를탈출하는이스라엘을 향하여이렇게소리친다. ( 이스라엘은) 광야에갇힌바되었다 ( 출 14:3). 그렇다. 이집트를벗어날마지막관문이믹돌이며, 자유인으로서광야를 유랑할수있는공간이비하히롯이고, 여전히경계해야할 바알 의영향력 을의식적으로알아차려야할지역으로서바알스본에서머물렀던것이다. 이스라엘이향유할수있는자유의공간은오직믹돌과바알스본, 곧 제국 의압제와바알의유혹 사이의광야일뿐이다. < 주제어>(Keywords) 출애굽초기경로, 믹돌, 바알스본, 비하히롯, 막달라. Early route of Exodus, Migdol, Baal-zephon, Pi Hahiroth, Yahwism. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 31 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

24 성경원문연구제35호 < 참고문헌>(References) 나훔 M. 사르나, 출애굽기탐험, 박영호역, 서울: 솔로몬, 2004. 미카엘아비요나, 요하난아하로니, 아가페성서지도, 편집부역, 서울: 아가페 출판사, 1988; Y. Aharoni, and Michael Avi-yonah, The Carta Bible Atlas, Jerusalem: Carta, 2002. 성서와함께, 성경지도개정판, 서울: 성서와함께, 2009. 앤손 F. 레이니, R. 스티븐나틀리, 성경역사, 지리학, 고고학아틀라스, 강성 열역, 서울: 이레서원, 2010; Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World, Jerusalem: Carta, 2005. 이원희, 포토성경지명사전, 서울: 하늘기획, 2010. 이요엘, 이스라엘 12 지파탐사리포트, 서울: 평단문화사, 2010. 존더햄, 출애굽기, 손석태, 채천석역, 서울: 솔로몬, 2000. 홍순화, GPS 성경지명사전, 서울: 한국성서지리연구원, 2012. Brisco, Thomas V., 두란노성서지도, 강사문외역, 서울: 두란노서원, 2008; Holman Bible Atlas: A Complete Guide to the Expansive Geography of Biblical History, Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998. Noth, Martin, 출애굽기, 국제성서주석제2 권, 박재순외 3 인공역, 서울: 한국신 학연구소, 1981. Rowley, H. H., 聖書地圖, Student's Bible Atlas 울: 대한기독교서회, 1995., 대한기독교서회편집부역, 서 Albright, W. F., Baal Zephon, Walter Baumgartner, ed., Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80 Geburtstag, Tübingen: Mohr, 1950, 1-14. Barett, David P., ESV Concise Bible Atlas, Wheaton: Crossway, 2012. Cassuto, Umberto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1951, 1982. Curtis, E. L., Early Cities of Palestine, The Biblical World 7 (1896), 411-424. Gurtner, Daniel M., Exodus: A Commentary on the Greek Text of Codex Vaticanus, Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Hoffmeier, James K., The Search for Migdol of the New Kingdom and Exodus 14:2: An Update, Buried History 44 (2008), 3-12. Hoffmeier, James K., Out of Egypt: The Archaeological Context of the Exodus, Margaret Warker, ed., Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus, Washington: Biblical Archaeological Society, 2012, 1-20. Houtmann, Cornelius, Exodus, vol. 2, Leuven: Peeters, 1993. Durham, John I. Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 3, Waco: Word Books, 1987.

출애굽초기경로와지명톺아보기 / 김창주 25 LaCocque, A., The International Bible Atlas, Carta: Israel Map & Publishing Company, 1999. Lamdin, T, O., Migdol, The Interpreter s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. III, 377. Lipiński, E.,!Apc', Theological Dictionary of Old Testament, vol. 12, 435-443. Lott, Jeffrey., Migdol, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. IV, 822. Navon, Mois A., Pi-Hahiroth 27:4 (1999), 259-264. The Mouth of Freedom, Jewish Bible Quarterly, Noth, Martin, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Oren, Eliezer D., Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 256 (1984), 7-44. Propp, William H., Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Notes and Comments, New York: Anchor Bible, 2008. Sarna, Nahum M., Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel, New York: Schocken, 1986. Sarna, Nahum M., The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Scolnic, Benjamin E., A New Working Hypothesis for the Identification of Migdol, J. K. Hoffmeier and A. R. Millard, eds., The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 2004, 91-120. Seligson, Max, Pi-Hahiroth, The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 10, 34. Sivertsen, Barbara J., The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of Exodus, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Strange, James, Magdala, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. IV, 464-465. Youssef, Maamoun, Archaeologists Find Ancient Fortified City in Sinai, Associated Press, 2008. 5. 28.

26 성경원문연구제35호 <Abstracts> Exploring Toponyms in the Early Route of Exodus Chang-Joo Kim (Hanshin University) This article explores toponyms by analysing the early route of Exodus: Migdol, Baal-zephon, and Pi-Hahiroth. Many studies have discussed the locations of the three sites. However, there is no consensus regarding where those spots are. This article thus attempts to interpret the implied senses behind those words etymologically and theologically. Israel was once under the tyranny of Pharaoh but after Israel became free, a tent was set up between Migdol and Baal-zephon, also known as the front of Pi-Hahiroth. These sites are stated in the Book of Numbers as the third night, yet in the Book of Exodus, it is not clearly stated. The author of Exodus might have had a purpose of not clarifying the chronological order. Unfortunately, the three designations cannot be pointed on the maps. Then why would the author of the Book of Exodus pass down and mention unidentifiable sites? This is because Migdol, Pi-Hahiroth, and Baal-zephon are used symbolically in the Book of Exodus. The word, Mesopotamia means between two rivers while Exodus refers to in between Migdol and Baal-zephon. As the Mesopotamian civilization prospered in between Euphrates and Tigris, Yahwism flourished among the Israelites in between Migdol and Baal-zephon. That place is the entrance of freedom, Pi-Hahiroth. Even though Israel was an Exodus community that had become free, her freedom was limited. On the one hand, there was Migdol which would exploit and violate them, while on the other hand, there was Baal-zephon which would lure their freedom to subordinate Israel. Would Pharaoh have known about this? As Israel escaped from Egypt, he said, They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has closed in on them (Exo 14:3). The only place Israel could enjoy and feel free was in between Migdol and Baal-zephon, that is, the space between the oppression of an empire and the temptation of Baal.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 27 다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- 김정봉 * 1. 서론 다윗은사울과요나단의죽음을애도한조가를지어유다족속에게가 르쳤다( 삼하 1:17-27). 그는자신의조가에서이스라엘의왕이자군사지 도자들이었던사울과요나단의생전의삶을영웅적으로회고하며그들의 죽음에조의를표한다. 1) 사울과요나단은이스라엘에게는 영광 이었고 용사 였으며 싸우는무기 였다. 다윗은그들을독수리보다도빠르고사 자보다강한자들로묘사한다. 그러나다윗은산위에서당한그들의죽음 을상기시키며쓰러져망한자들로반복해서알린다. 2) 이는마치다윗이 사울과요나단은용사들이었지만결국망한자들로선포하는인상을자 아낸다. 이처럼다윗의조가에내비치는이중적인성격은그노래를유다 족속에게가르치도록명령( 삼하 1:18) 한불명확한다윗의의도와함께주 * University of Pretoria 에서구약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재침례신학대학교구약학시간강사. jbkim0104@gmail.com. 이논문은 2012 년도정부( 교육부) 의재원으로한국연구재단의지원을받아수행된연구임 (NRF- 2012S1A5B5A07037712). 1) 사무엘하 1:19-27은다윗의진심어린슬픈노래이며이스라엘의영웅의죽음에대한다윗의애곡이진정성을나타낸다는주장을위해서는다음연구들을참고하라. J. Randall Short, The Surprising Election and Confrontation of King David, HTS 63 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010); Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 153; W. B. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 214; H. W. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, OTL (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 239. 2) 다윗의조가를정치적인수사적노래로설명하는접근을위해서는다음을참고하라. Tod Linafelt, Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1:17-27: Hearing and Overhearing David s Lament for Jonathan and Saul, The Journal of Religion 88 (2008), 526; A. F. Campbell, 2 Samuel: The Forms of the Old Testament Literature volume VIII (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 25; Michael B. Dick, The History of David s Rise to Power and the Neo-Babylonian Succession Apologies, Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts, eds., David and Zion (Winona Lake; Eisenbrauns, 2004), 11.

28 성경원문연구제35호 목된다. 다윗의조가의이중성은개역개정에서 영광 으로번역된히브리어 단어 י ( 쩌비) 와 높은곳 으로번역된 tamb' ( 바못) 그리고다윗의길보아 산에대한저주의표현등을분석하도록이끈다. 쩌비와바못은비록사울 과요나단을향한극존칭과전사한장소를가리키지만두단어의다의적 인성격으로인해본문내에서뿐만아니라주변문맥과의관계속에서그 의미를단정하기에는어려워보인다. 사실다윗의조가는개인적이자공 적인노래라할수있다. 3) 다윗은그의노래에서사울과요나단의죽음을 개인적으로애도하였으며또한사울과요나단의죽음이초래할공적인 결과도주목하였다( 삼하 1:20). 사울과요나단을조상하기위해지어진노 래임에도불구하고근접문맥속에서그노래의의도와의의는명확하지 않다. 다윗의조가의분석을위해서정치적배경은간과될수없다. 결과적으 로다윗은사울과요나단의죽음을추모한이후에유다의왕으로기름부 음받았기때문이다( 삼하 2:4). 따라서다윗의조가에자리한다윗의정치 적동기는주목되어야하며그정치적배경과의도는다윗왕정이념과의 연관성속에서분석되어야한다. 다윗의조가( 삼하 1:19-27) 는그구조와 내용이사울전승( 삼상 9-11; 13-15) 을포함한넓은문맥인다윗이야기( 삼 상 16-삼하 5) 와고대근동왕정이념의배경속에서수행될것이다. 다윗 의조가는궁극적으로신적으로부여된다윗의정치적권위와지도력을 선언하는노래로다윗과그의집그리고그의왕정에대한영원한신적언 약을주장하는다윗왕정이념( 삼하 7) 의배경속에서그진정한의의가 자리한다는논증을전개하는것이본논문의목적이다. 2. 다윗의조가의배경 3) 리나펠트(Tod Linafelt) 는사무엘서에서 이상적인왕 과 무자비하고이기심에사로잡힌왕 등의다윗의양면성을주목함으로다윗의조가를개인적애곡의시와공적정치적수사의양면성의관계에서분석하였다. Tod Linafelt, Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1:17-27: Hearing and Overhearing David s Lament for Jonathan and Saul, The Journal of Religion 88 (2008), 497-526; 한편보그만(Paul Borgman) 은다윗의조가에서사울을향한다윗의지고한경외감과함께사울의아들요나단을향한다윗의깊은사랑의개인적표현을발견할수있지만그러한다윗의개인적태도는모든이스라엘의눈에다윗자신의위상을고양시키게되었으며결국정치적이익을구하였을것이라고주장하였다. Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 153-156.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 29 다윗의조가는다윗이사무엘로부터기름부음을받는사건을전하는 사무엘상 16장으로부터온이스라엘의왕으로등극하였음을알리는사무 엘하 5 장까지의다윗이야기내에자리한다. 다윗은사울의군대지휘관 이자그의사위였으며또한그의아들요나단과는언약관계에있던친구 이자동료였다. 다윗은이스라엘에게사울의군대가직면한수치와패배 의위협으로부터승리를가져다주었다( 삼상 17 장). 다윗의명성은사울의 명성을항상능가하였다( 삼상 18:5-7). 갑작스런다윗의영웅적인등장과 부상그리고그에게쏠리는국가적주목은사울로하여금소외감과긴장 감을불러일으켰음에틀림없었을것이다( 삼상 18:9-12). 사울과의관계는 더욱악화되어다윗은더이상사울과함께할수없음을깨닫고황급히 사울을피해유랑하게되었다( 삼상 19:18). 끝날것같지않았던사울로부 터의다윗의도피는사울과요나단의전사로극적인전환을맞게되었다 ( 삼하 1-2 장). 다윗은사울과요나단의죽음을애도하였으며곧바로이스 라엘의오랜전통을간직한유다성읍헤브론으로올라가그곳에서유다 의왕으로추대를받았다( 삼하 2:1-4). 그러나이스라엘에는사울과요나 단의전사이후에도여전히사울왕정을이어갈사울의아들이스보셋이 생존하였다. 이스보셋은이스라엘왕으로즉위하였고( 삼하 2:8-9) 다윗은 유다의왕으로추대된것이다( 삼하 2:4). 이후이스라엘의군대사령관인 아브넬이살해되고이스라엘왕이스보셋이시해되자모든이스라엘지 파는다윗에게나아와그를이스라엘의왕으로추대하였다( 삼하 5:2). 한편다윗이야기에는다윗이왕이된그의모든정치적인여정은이스 라엘의하나님여호와의선택과이끄심의결과였음이주장된다. 다윗은 사울과마찬가지로여호와에의해선택되었으며( 삼상 16:1) 그가사무엘 로부터기름부음을받을때여호와의영이임함을경험하였다( 삼상 16:13). 다윗은전투에서여호와의이름으로승리하였으며( 삼상 17:45-49) 유랑의혼란속에여호와가보내신선지자의지시에순종하였다( 삼상 22:5). 다윗이헤브론으로나아간것은여호와의응답을통해서였다( 삼하 2:1). 다윗의조가의넓은문맥은비록사울이이스라엘의왕이었지만다 윗이이스라엘의하나님여호와의신적보장을받은이스라엘의왕으로 등극하는과정을알린다. 4) 그러므로다윗왕위등극사는종종정치변증 문학으로설명되어진다. 맥카터 (P. K. McCarter) 는주전 13세기히타이트왕정변증문학인하투 4) 다윗왕위등극사에관한최근의간결한요약을위해서다음을참고하라. Michael B. Dick, The History of David s Rise to Power and the Neo-Babylonian Succession Apologies, 3-19.

30 성경원문연구제35호 실리스 (Ḫattushilish) 의변증을사무엘서본문과비교연구하였다. 5) 맥카 터에의하면사울궁정에서행한다윗의이타적인봉사와헌신, 도망자가 됨, 추방자로서압제받는무리들을위해지도자가됨, 이스라엘의대적인 블레셋의용병이됨, 사울의죽음에관해무관함, 아브너의죽음에관해 무관함, 그리고이스바알의죽음에관해무관함등의주제는변증적으로 설명된다. 6) 한편맥카터는다윗이유다의왕으로추대된사건은다윗의 군사적성공에대한유다백성들의즉각적인충성으로다윗의통치능력 을변증한것이라설명했다. 7) 그러나사무엘서의다윗왕위등극을변증 적정치문학적으로접근한맥카터의분석은하투실리의변증과다윗왕 위등극사와의유사성에만주목함으로방법론적인한계를보였다. 랜달숏(J. Randall Short) 은맥카터와달리히타이트변증문학과다윗 왕위등극사와의차이점에주목했다. 숏은다윗등극사의내러티브에는 다윗에대한부정적인평가가존재하지만히타이트변증문학에서는하 투실리 8) 를무죄하며의로운자로만묘사하고있다고지적하였다. 9) 숏은 두문학의근본적인차이를주목하는한편히타이트변증문학과다윗등 극사와의대조적인특징은다윗의조가에서주목된다윗의전임자들에 대한전적인칭송이하투실리의전임자들에대한적대적표현과또한대 조를이룬다고설명하였다. 그는결국다윗왕위등극사( 삼상 16-삼하 5) 와하투실리의변증문학은서로유비적이지않다고결론지었다. 10) 숏은 다윗왕위등극사와히타이트변증문학과의유사성을절대화하는것은 성급한결론이된다는논지를설득력있게전개하였지만그의분석은다 윗의조가의여러주제어들이사울과요나단의죽음에대한다윗의진정 성만을표현하는것으로단정지음으로그단어들의다의적인가능성을 제한하였다. 마이클딕(Michael B. Dick) 은전임자의왕권을찬탈한고대근동왕들 사이에일치하는공통점은자신들의왕권을성스런것으로강조하는것 5) 맥카터는다음다섯가지의하투실리스변증의주제를제시하였다. 첫째는하투실리스의행정적군사적경험에서비롯된통치능력이며, 둘째는하투실리스의형무르실리스 (Murshilish) 에대한호의적인태도, 그리고셋째는형에대한가족의존경심유지이고, 넷째는의심과질투에치우친무르실리스의아들이자하투실리스의조카인우르히- 테숩(Urhi-teshub) 과의충돌에대한무죄함이며, 다섯째는하투실리스의수호신인이스타르(Ishtar) 의호의의결과로소유하게된능력등이다. P. K. McCarter, The Apology of David, JBL 99 (1980), 495-498. 6) Ibid., 499-502. 7) Ibid., 499. 8) 숏은맥카터의하투실리스를하투실리로읽는다. 9) J. Randall Short, The Surprising Election and Confrontation of King David, 75-78. 10) Ibid., 49.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 31 이며그와유사한배경속에서다윗왕위등극사는주전 6세기의신바벨 론왕들의변증문학과비교된다고주장하였다. 11) 딕은나보니두스와다 윗의비교를통해다음네가지변증적주제를제안하였다. 첫째, 나보니 두스와다윗의전임자들은각각신적승인을상실했다. 둘째, 나보니두스 와다윗은누구도왕위를추구하지않았다. 셋째, 나보니두스와다윗은그 들의왕권에대한신적승인을받았다. 넷째, 나보니두스와다윗의왕권 형성은의복이라는공통된주제를통해전개되었다. 12) 딕의변증적접근 에서주목되는주제는신적승인이다. 전임자는신적승인을상실했지만 새로운왕은신적승인을받았다는것이다. 결국후임자의왕위등극은왕 권찬탈의결과가아니라신적승인을득한종교적열정의결과라는설명 이다. 다윗왕위등극사의변증적배경은전적으로부인되기어렵다. 비록 넓은문맥에서는, 사울은다윗이공적으로등장하기이전에신적지지를 상실한것으로전하지만(13:14; 15:11), 사울에대한다윗의종교적평가가 지속적으로제기되었다는점에서변증적배경은주목된다( 삼하 24:8-15). 그러나소위말하는다윗왕위등극사는, 사울과요나단을조상한다윗 이이스라엘의왕으로추대되기에앞서유다지파의왕으로세워졌다는 사실을전한다는것을주목해야할것이다. 유다지파에게다윗은자신의 왕권을변증해야할이유가뚜렷하지않았다. 유다지파는사울왕정이세 워질때부터이스라엘과구별되었는데( 참고, 삼상 11:8) 사울왕정체제에 서다윗은결과적으로유다지파와장로들을돌보고그들의재산을지켜 주는역할을수행했었다( 삼상 30:26). 유다지파의유력한성읍이었던헤 브론으로다윗이그의거처를옮김으로그는유다사람들을통해신속하 게그들의왕으로등극하게되었다( 삼하 2:4). 이처럼다윗이유다지파로 부터그의지도력을인정받는것은자연스런일이었다. 다윗왕위등극사 는다윗이유다의왕으로서전이스라엘의왕으로추대되었다는사실을 강조한다( 삼하 5:1-3). 다윗은이스라엘왕위찬탈자가아니라유다의왕 이었다. 그는결국이스라엘의가장모범적이며이상적인왕으로추앙받 게된다( 왕상 3:3; 14:8). 다윗왕위등극사는다윗이유다왕이된것은신 적승인과함께이루어진이상적인결과이지변증을요구하는사건이아 니라고선언하는것으로간주될수있다. 다윗의조가의넓은문맥인다윗왕위등극사를변증적으로접근하는 것은다소제한적인이해로보인다. 특히다윗이유다의왕이된사건에 11) Michael B. Dick, The History of David s Rise to Power and the Neo-Babylonian Succession Apologies, 3-19. 12) Ibid., 12-18.

32 성경원문연구제35호 대해정치적으로종교적으로유다지파에게변증해야할필요성이없었 다는점에있어서그렇다. 다윗은유다지파의자발적이며적극적인지지 로왕이되었으며그것은여호와의신적승인의결과이기도하였다. 다윗 의조가의정치적배경은다윗은자신의왕권찬탈을변호하기위해사울 과요나단의죽음을영웅적으로묘사해야할필요가없음을부각시킨다. 다윗의조가는오히려유다의왕으로서전이스라엘의왕이될다윗의왕 정이념을선언하는배경속에서자리한것으로보인다. 3. 다윗의조가본문분석 3.1. 탄식구절(19, 25, 27 절) 다윗의조가는사무엘하 1:19-27 로, 19절과 25절그리고 27절의반복된 구절이그두드러진특징으로구성되어있다. 본노래는사울과요나단의 죽음에대한다윗의애도가주제이며(19, 25, 27 절) 13) 본노래를선행하는 구절인 17절과 18 절은본문의성격과목적을보충하여준다. 본문은사울과 요나단을위한조가이며유다족속에게가르쳐진노래이다. 14) 다윗의조가의문학적구조를설명하는가장전형적인접근은교차대구 법적분석이다. 15) 본문 22절과 23절에서사울과요나단의죽음은영웅적으 로간주되며그들은용맹한용사들로묘사된다. 교차대구법적분석에의하 면죽은자의생전의삶의모습을칭송하는두구절은본문의중심구절이 된다. 16) 다윗의조가의교차대구법적구조이해는본문의규칙적이며주제 13) 참고, Bruce K. Waltke and M. O Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 329. 14) 구약성서에서탄식을노래하는애가는전반적으로역사적상황이나인물들과연관된다 ( 렘 1-5, 겔 19:1-14; 참고, 삼하 19:1-4) 는점에서서론의역사적배경은타당하게여겨진다. 15) 게일이(Gael Yee) 는다윗의조가의삶의자리를장례식으로제시하고교차대구법적구조이해를근거로다음과같이여섯개의주제를배열하였다. 19 절: 죽음을알리는수사적서론; 20 절: 죽음의소식이적에게전파됨에대한억제; 21 절: 죽음에대한자연현상의묘사; 22-23 절: 죽은자의생전의삶의묘사; 24-25 절: 죽은자를위한애곡의요청; 26-27 절: 죽은자에대한개인적슬픔의표현. Gale A. Yee, The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14, CBQ 50 (1988), 573. 16) William H. Shea, Chiasmus and the Structure of David s Lament, JBL 105:1 (1986), 13-25; M. O Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 230-233, 468-471, 555-556. 아울러삼하 1:19-27의문학적구조및장르에대한논의를위해다음논문을참고하라. Nissim Amzallag and Mikhal Avriel, Complex Antiphony in David s Lament and Its Literary Significance, VT 60 (2010), 1-14.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 33 중심적인구조의이해에근거한것으로 17) 본문의정교한문학적구성을잘 대변한다. 본문에대한교차대구법적이해는적어도다윗의조가는즉흥적 으로불리어진것이아니란점을분명히한다. 본문의주제와구조에주안점을둔교차대구법적접근은그러나다윗의 노래에내재된다윗의정치적의도에대한분석에는제한적이다. 사실교 차대구법적구조분석에근거한사울과요나단의영웅적죽음에대한이해 는반복되는탄식구절들의기능과는대조된다. 19절과 25절그리고 27절 에서반복된탄식구절들은오히려사울과요나단의죽음을군사지도자로 서의실패로제시하는듯하다. 특히 27 절에덧붙여진 싸우는무기가망하 였음 의구절은사울과요나단이군사지도자로서실패하였음을결론내린 다. 반복된탄식구절은영웅적행위의칭송(22, 23 절) 과대비된다. 마지막탄식구절에덧붙여진 싸우는무기가망함 은사울과요나단의 전사에그탄식의초점이있는선행구절들의관심을사울과요나단의전 쟁도구로옮기게된다. 22 절에서전쟁도구인 활 과 칼 이사울과요나단 의영웅적행위를상징하는데반해반복된마지막탄식구절은사울과요 나단은전쟁터에서전사하였으며그들이소유한전쟁도구는그들을보호 하지못했다는사실을부각시킨다. 다윗의조가의탄식의주제와시적사 상은세개의탄식구절로연결되고강화된다. 18) 사울은생전에전쟁도구 의소유를통해서군사지도자로서자신의주권을주장하였다. 19) 이스라엘 왕이된후에사울은한번의경우를제외하곤항상창을손에지니고있는 자로묘사된다( 삼상 18:10; 19:9; 20:33; 22:6). 한번은사울에게자신의창을 분실하는사건이일어나는데다윗이우연한중에십광야하길라산길가 에서사울의창을취하게된것이다( 삼상 26). 사무엘상 26:12에서는여호 와께서다윗의그러한행위를정당화하셨다. 다윗은그사건가운데자신 은사울을치는자가아니며여호와께서그의죽음에직접적으로관여하실 것이라고맹세하였다( 삼상 26:10). 사울은자신의창을분실한자이며다윗 17) 테리펜톤(Terry Fenton) 은이처럼규칙적이며주제중심적인다윗의노래의시적양식은근접한문맥과넓은문맥의구체적인역사적사건들과그것들의상황들을잘반영하며사울과요나단의비극에대한다윗의직접적이면서분명한반응이라주장하였다. 따라서그는다윗의애가의구조는그사건들과사건들의배경들이후대에고안된것이아닌것을보인다고주장하였다. Terry Fenton, Hebrew Poetic Structure as a Basis for Dating, John Day, ed., In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, JSOTSup 406 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 407. 18) 이와유사한보기를위해서욥기 28 장을참고하라. 욥기 28장은 12절과 20절의반복구가시의구조를나누며마지막구절인 28절에서반복구의핵심어들로주제의절정을제시한다. 참고, Craig G. Bartholomew and Ryan P. O Dowd, Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 169-170. 19) 참고, 샌드라리히터, 에덴에서새에덴까지, 윤석인역 ( 서울: 부흥과개혁사, 2013), 157.

34 성경원문연구제35호 은그것을취한자이다. 사울의죽음은다윗의저주와연결된다( 참고, 삼상 26:19). 그러나그를치실자는여호와이시다. 탄식구절은사울과요나단의 죽음이초래하는공적인결과(20-21 절) 와다윗의개인적인탄식(22-23, 26 절) 그리고공적인애도(24 절) 를이어주는구조상이음매의역할을한다. 3.2. 실패한가젤 다윗의조가의첫단어는히브리어로 י ( 핫쩌비) 이다. 핫쩌비는문법적 으로명사인쩌비에정관사가전접되어형태상한정된의미를제시한다. 일반적으로연계상태에서히브리단어의한정은뒤따르는단어에서나타 나므로 20) 핫쩌비는뒤따르는단어인 ל ( 이스라엘) 과는연계상태를구 성하고있다고보기어렵다. 한편쉐아는핫쩌비의직접호칭은이스라엘 과속격을이루어살아있는길보아산과병행된다고설명함으로써쩌비는 요나단을가리킨다고주장하였다. 21) 그러나다윗의슬픈노래와같이정교 한시적본문에서감탄사나호격등의기능이아닌정관사의존재를기대 하기는어렵다. 22) 본문에서핫쩌비는이스라엘과병렬관계속에있으며호 격으로간주하는것이보다타당해보인다. 구약성서에서쩌비는크게세 갈래로그의미가나타나는데첫째는 가젤 ( 신 12:15, 22; 14:5; 15:22; 왕상 4:23; 대상 12:8; 잠 6:5; 아 2:7, 9; 8:14; 사 13:14) 23) 이며둘째는 영광 ( 사 24:16; 28:5; 참고, 사 13:9) 이고셋째는 아름다움 ( 사 4:2; 렘 3:19; 겔 20:6; 25:9; 단 8:9; 11:16, 41, 45) 이다. 개역개정에서본문의쩌비는 영광 으로번역되었는데다윗이이스라 엘의지도자로서사울과요나단을칭송한다는이해에잘부합되어보인다. 사울과요나단을위한칭송은 22절과 23절에서두드러지는데사울과요나 단은물러서지않는영웅적인용사가된다. 그들은생전에독수리보다도 빠르고사자보다도강한자들로이스라엘에게는영광스런군사지도자들 이다. 사실쩌비는다른본문속에서 영광 의의미를대변하기도한다. 가 장대표적인보기는이사야본문속에나오는데그경우에는이스라엘의 하나님여호와의신적속성을나타낸다( 시 24:9; 사 6:3; 참고, 사 3:8; 10:16; 20) C. L. Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), 70. 21) William Shea, Chiasmus and the Structure of David s Lament, 14. 22) D. N. Freedman, Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew Poetry, Poetry and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 2-3. 23) 개역개정에서쩌비는가젤의의미로 노루, 들노루, 그리고 산의사슴 등으로번역되었다. 본논문에서는넓은의미로가젤을사용한다.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 35 40:5). 다른경우는국가로서에브라임의특성을제시하는본문이다( 사 28:1-5). 쇠잔해가는꽃 과같은영화[ 쩌비] 를소유한에브라임( 사 28:4) 과 영화로운[ 쩌비] 면류관 ( 사 28:1) 이신여호와의성품이쩌비를통해대조 된다. 이처럼쩌비는여호와의신적속성을제공하는한편제한적이며무 능한국가적존재인에브라임의속성을대조하기위해사용되었다. 결국 쩌비는신적대상의영속성을나타내기도하지만인간의제한적인속성을 제시하기도한다. 만약다윗의조가에서쩌비가 영광 의의미로고안되었 다면그것은쇠잔해가는사울의영광을제시하는것으로이해할수있다. 본질적으로한계를가진사울왕정의속성을알리기위해쩌비는적절한 용어로받아들여질수있을것이다( 참고, 삼하 7:13, 16). 이와같은주목은 사울왕권의몰락을통한다윗의정치적주장이다윗의조가에자리한다는 개연성을제공한다. 그러나본문에서사울과요나단은독수리와사자로비유된이스라엘의 군사지도자로그들의민첩함과용맹함이조상되었다는사실을주목할필 요가있다. 생전에사울과요나단은뛰어난군사지도자들( 삼상 11:1-11; 14:1-45) 로24) 그들의군사적능력으로인해그들의업적이칭송되었다( 삼 상 14:47-52). 본문분석과관련해서특히요나단의기개와용맹함이주목 되는데그는바위를기어올라가( 삼상 14:13) 는민첩한자로전해진다. 바 위를오름으로전투에서승리를가져왔다는사실은요나단의민첩함과재 빠름은산과바위를자유롭게달리는 가젤 의움직임과유비될수있다는 것이다( 대상 12:8; 아 8:14). 민첩한가젤로서의요나단의군사적자질은분 명 독수리 와 사자 가제공하는용맹한속성과부합될수있을것이다. 그 러나다윗의조가에서쩌비가제공하는시적분위기는죽임을당하여엎드 러진자로멸망한용사의특성을제공한다는사실이다. 비록사울과요나 단은 독수리 와 사자 처럼용맹한용사들이었지만그들은전장에서죽음 을맞이한자들로조상된다. 이는오히려쩌비가사울과요나단의실패한 군사적능력을반영하는용어로계획된것처럼보인다. 근접문맥은이와 유사한보기를제공하는데민첩하였지만그것으로인해죽임을당한아사 헬이상기된다. 아사헬은민첩한가젤로불리었지만아브넬을뒤쫓음에민 첩한까닭으로그는죽게되었다. 아사헬의민첩함은그가실패한 가젤 이 었음을나타내는속성이된다. 사울과요나단도결과적으로실패한 가젤 이된다. 쩌비가실패한가젤의의미를대변한다면실패한가젤로서사울 24) 참고, B. M. Levinson, The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History s Transformation of Torah, VT 51 (2001), 517.

36 성경원문연구제35호 과요나단은그들의전쟁무기가버린바되고기름부음을받지아니한것 이며결국망한것이었다는본문의묘사(21, 27 절) 와조화를이루게된다. 25) 사울과요나단의군사지도자로서의실패는그들의죽음이민족적수치 를불러온다는탄식속에서더욱강화된다. 블레셋은사울과요나단을멸 망시켰다. 따라서그들에게사울과요나단의죽음이전파되기를금지하는 것은 20절의표현처럼단지블레셋의환호를금지하고자하는것이아니 다. 오히려사울과요나단의죽음은이스라엘에게수치를가져온다고선언 하는수사적표현으로보인다( 참고, 미 1:10). 다윗은블레셋을할례받지 못한자들로묘사함으로이스라엘과이방민족을구별하는언약의표징( 창 17:9-10; 출 4:26) 인할례를부각시킨다. 할례받지못한자들로인한사울과 요나단의멸망은암몬의나하스에의해이스라엘에부과되었던민족적수 치를제거함으로이스라엘에게각인된사울의뛰어난군사적능력을회상 시킨다( 삼상 11:1-15). 결국할례받지못한블레셋에의한사울의죽음은 이스라엘에게수치가되었다는것이다. 할례받지않은자들에게죽임을 당하는것은사울에게도몹시불명예스런것이었다( 삼상 31:4). 그러나다 윗의조가에는블레셋에의해자신에게부과된그의죽음을불명예스럽게 고백하는사울의태도가전혀부각되지않는다. 사울과요나단은생전에 그들의뛰어난군사적능력과지도력으로칭송을받았지만사울과요나단 의군사적자질은그들을보호하지못했다. 이스라엘의지도자로뛰어난 군사지도자들이었던그들은블레셋에의해전장에서망하지않아야했다. 유다족속에게가르쳐진그의노래가실패한가젤인사울과요나단을노래 한것으로받아들여졌다면그들의실패를노래한다윗은분명성공적이며 구원받고높임받을군사지도자로간주되었을것이다. 26) 그런관측으로 볼때본문에서쩌비는 가젤 의의미가가능하다. 27) 25) 물론쩌비는땅이나성읍혹은장식물등의아름다움을묘사할때도사용된다( 겔 7:20). 그러나어떤경우에도사람의아름다움을묘사하기위해서쩌비는사용되지않았다. 같은맥락에서본문내에서쩌비는사울과요나단을아름다운자로수식하는용어로사용된것으로는보이지않는다. 비록쩌비가사울과요나단의죽음의장소를표현하는것으로인식될수도있지만그럼에도불구하고사울과요나단의죽음의장소를아름다운것으로표현하는것은다윗에의해저주받는길보아산과의내용상충돌을유발하며특히다윗의슬픈노래에서다윗이조상하고자하는대상은사울과요나단이지그들이전사한장소는아니란관측에있어서쩌비의의미로 아름다움 은본문에서적절하지않다. 26) 고대근동에서왕을군사지도자로선언하는것은왕정이념의주요한특징중의하나이다. B. M. Levinson, The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History s Transformation of Torah, 517. 27) 쩌비를 가젤 로번역한역본으로는 NIV 가있다.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 37 3.3. 실패의장소 다윗의조가의반복구절인 19절과 25절에나타나는바못은쩌비와마찬 가지로다의적인특성을지니고있다. 바못은바마의여성복수형태의명 사로바마는지형의고도를나타내는 산 이나비유적의미로 높은곳 ( 신 32:13; 암 4:13; 사 58:14 등) 그리고종교적제의의장소인 산당 ( 삼상 9:12; 왕상 11:7 등) 혹은신체의일부인 등 으로그의미가제안된다( 참고, 신 33:29). 28) 다윗의조가에서바못은사울과요나단의죽음의장소와관련해 언급되지만바못이사울왕정출현의주요한종교적배경을제공한지역 성소( 삼상 9-10) 였음을상기할때그다의적특성은주목된다. 사울의공적출현을알리는사울전승에서바마는그에게지역성소( 삼 상 9:11-14) 이자그를공적으로등장시켜준장소( 삼상 9:22-24) 로전해진다. 사울은사무엘에의해바마로초대를받았으며그곳에서그는특별한환 대를받았다. 29) 바마는사울이이스라엘의 지도자 30) 로기름부음받는과 정속에서결정적인공간적배경을제공하였다( 삼상 9:15-16; 10:1). 31) 바마 28) 김정봉, 신명기 33:29 절의 바못 의번역에관한제안, 성경원문연구 32 (2013), 30-49. 29) 사울은바마에서마치제사장과같은환대를받았다 ( 참고, 출 29:22; 레 7:32-33). Peter Gruyter, Festive Meals in Ancient Israel: Deuteronomy s Identity Politics in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context, BZAW 424 (Berlin: De gruyter, 2011), 75. 30) 사울에게적용된히브리어단어 יד ( 나기드) 는개역개정에서 지도자 로번역되지만그역할은분명해보이지않는다( 삼상 10:1; 참고, 삼상 9:16). 사울이이스라엘의기름부음받은자로출현한시기는이스라엘에왕정이도입된시기에해당하지만나기드가왕을의미하는지아니면왕세자를의미하는지혹은군대사령관을의미하는지구체적이지않다. 나기드로사울의역할을보여주는본문인사무엘상 11장에서사울은이스라엘전체를대상으로군대를징병하는군사사령관으로소개된다. 그러나넓은문맥은군대를징병하고통솔하는지도력은왕에게속한것으로묘사한다( 삼상 13; 15). 따라서사울의경우를보기로들때나기드가군사사령관을의미하는지아니면군사지도력을가진왕을의미하는지또는왕으로즉위할자를공적으로미리공표하는것인지분명하지않다. 한편나기드의명칭은후대에이사야 55:4에서미래의다윗에게적용되어이상적인왕을포용하는단어로제시된다. 고대근동의배경속에서나기드의역할에대한논의를위해다음을참고하라. T. Ishida, The royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology (New York: W de Gruyter, 1977), 57. 왕세자 를위한나기드의논증을위해서는다음을보라. D. V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 30-31. 군사사령관 으로서의나기드의논증을 ) די 나기드 ( 위해서는다음논문을보라. 소형근, 노라(Nora) 비문과구약성서에나타난 의연구, 구약논단 14:3 (2008), 145-162. 왕정이념의배경속에서군사지도자를위한나기드의논증을위해서는다음논문을참고하라. J. B. Kim, King Saul s mustering of all Israel (1 Sm 11:6-7): An idealised leadership, Verbum et Ecclesia 32 (2011), Art. #557, 7. 31) 쿨리(Jeffrey Cooley) 는사무엘상 9-10장의예언적행위는군주로써사울의주권과새로운정치제도로왕권의정당성을입증하며제시하는역할을수행하고있으며그와같은예언적배경은고대이라크의예언적양상과도밀접하게부합된다고주장하였다. Jeffrey L.

38 성경원문연구제35호 는사울왕정출현을가능케한신적으로준비된핵심적인장소였다. 32) 사 울전승( 삼상 9-10) 은이처럼사울의왕권출현에있어서산당으로바마의 역할을분명히전한다. 또한사울전승에서 산당 은번제와화목제가규칙 적으로드려진장소이며여호와의이름이기념되었던곳( 삼상 9:12-13; 참 고, 출 20:24) 이었다. 사울왕정출현에주요한배경을제공하였던산당으로 서의바마는다윗의조가에깃들인다윗의정치적의도와맞물려주목된 다. 그러나다윗의조가내에서바못은어떠한제의적배경과는관련이없 다는사실을주목할필요가있다. 33) 이는사울왕정이출현한후에는사울 이더이상바못과직접적으로연결되지않는사실과도부합된다. 다윗의 노래의바못이산당으로이해되어야할이유는부족해보인다. 결국다윗 의조가에서다윗의왕권에대한신적보장을위한이념적주장의견지에 서사울의산당은불법적인종교적행위나배교행위등을대변하지못한 다. 따라서다윗의조가의바마는사울왕정출현시의종교적배경을제공 하는 산당 의의미로간주되기는어렵다. 34) 다윗의조가에서바못은사울과요나단의죽음의장소로길보아산 (21 절) 에상응되며구체적으로산을의미하는히브리어단어 ר ( 하르) 와병행 을이룬다. 35) 하르는고유대명사인길보아와연계되어산을의미하지만 Cooley, The Story of Saul s Election(1 Samuel 9-10) in the Light of Mantic Practice in Ancient Iraq, JBL 130 (2011), 247-261. 32) 참고, Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 230. 33) 지역성소인산당은이스라엘분열왕국이후에불법적인제의장소로심판 ( 참고, 왕상 12:25-33; 14:22-24) 되었다. 주전 8세기의앗수르로인한유다의국가적위기가운데미가선지자는이스라엘을패망으로이끈야곱의죄의원인으로사마리아를구체화하고또한병행적관계속에서예루살렘을유다의산당으로구체화하였다 ( 미 1:5). 미가 1:5에서산당에대한미가의언급은사마리아가아니라예루살렘과의관계속에서제시되었음이분명하다. 여호와를향한유다의반역은산당으로서의예루살렘이그원인으로정의된것이다. 그러한미가의산당이해는예레미야선지자에게서도동일하게나타난다( 렘 26:18-19). 이러한관측은유다의국가적위기와혼동가운데산당의범죄는사울왕권이나사마리아에게돌려진것이아니라예루살렘그자체의것으로동일시하였음을보인다. 사실다윗의조가에서다윗의왕권에대한신적보장을위한이념적주장의견지에서사울의산당은불법적인종교적행위나배교행위등을대변하지못한다. 34) A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 13 을참고하라. 35) 히브리시에서병행관계는한절혹은구이상떨어져나타나기도한다. 트램퍼롱맨, 레이몬드딜러드, 최신구약개론 2 판, 박철현역 ( 고양: 크리스챤다이제스트, 2009), 30-31을참고하라. 한편구약성서에는산과같이높은지형을의미하는다른단어로 h['b.gi( 기브아) 가있다. 다음이사야 2:2가서술하는것처럼하르는산을가리키는일반적명사인반면에기브아는작은산혹은언덕등을의미하는데사용된다. 말일에여호와의전의산[ ר ] 이모든산[ ים ] 꼭대기에굳게설것이요모든작은산[ עוֹת ] 위에뛰어나리니만방이그리로모여들것이라 ( 개역개정 ).

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 39 바못은히브리어 2인칭남성소유대명사와연계되어그의미가분명치않 다. 바못의구체적인의미를밝히기위해서는본문의시적표현들에주목 하여야할것이다. 길보아산은사울과요나단의주검이방치되었던곳으로그들의전쟁도 구가망한곳이다(21, 27 절). 바못은하르와유비적관계에서그곳과동일 한곳으로제시된은유적표현으로보인다. 사울과요나단은높은곳에서 민첩하고자유롭지못했다. 그들은이미실패한 가젤 이다. 만약바못이 높은곳 을의미한다면그것은사울과요나단의군사적실패를부각하는 용어가된다. 36) 사울과요나단의죽음이파멸적이었음을부각하는다윗의 반복된탄식은바못은사울과요나단이맞이한죽음의장소로이해하는것 이더욱적절함을알린다( 참고, 삼상 31:1-6). 37) 사무엘하 22:34에서다윗은 그의발을 암사슴 같게하여그를 높은곳 ( 바못) 에세우신그의하나님 여호와를노래한다. 다윗의조가와는달리사무엘하 22장의다윗의노래는 여호와께서다윗을모든원수와사울의손에서구원하신그날에부른다 윗의승리의노래가된다. 두노래는바못을 가젤 과 암사슴 과연관하여 제시한다. 사무엘하 22:34에서바못은 암사슴 과같은다윗의승리를드높 이는 높은곳 으로반면에사무엘하 1:19와 25의바못은사울과요나단의 죽음과실패의장소와연관된곳으로제시한다. 즉바못은실패한 가젤 인 사울의죽음의장소로강조된다. 다윗의승리와사울의실패는바못을통 해뚜렷이대비된다. 따라서다윗의조가에서바못은사울과요나단의군 사지도자로서의실패를구체화한 높은곳 으로여겨진다. 3.4. 저주받은길보아산 핫쩌비와바못의의미결정은또한 21절에묘사된길보아산에대한다 윗의저주를부각시킨다. 다윗은 21절에서사울과요나단의죽음을탄식하 며그들의주검이방치된장소였던길보아산을향해저주를내린다. 이스 라엘의왕이죽은곳에는이슬과비가멈추며땅의소산물이나지않아야 한다. 그러나길보아산들을향한다윗의저주는다윗이사울과요나단의 죽음을애도하는목적과비추어볼때자연스럽지않다. 길보아산들을향 36) 맥카터(P. K. McCarter) 는바마를 등을꼿꼿이세우다 는숙어를구성하는 등 으로해석하였다. P. K. McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 75. 37) W. Boyd Barrick, Saul s Demise, David s Lament, and Custer s Last Stand, JSOT 73 (1997), 33-34.

40 성경원문연구제35호 한다윗의저주가사울과요나단의죽음을극히애통하는것인지혹은길 보아산이피폐해진것의원인을사울과요나단의죽음으로돌리는것인지 알수없다. 아니면다윗은길보아산들에초자연적인재해가발생하는것 을전제함으로사울과요나단의죽음을신적인차원으로끌어들이는것인 지모호하다. 신명기 1:16-17은땅의소산의성공을결정짓는것은이스라엘의하나님 여호와의의지이지이슬이나비가그원인이아니라고밝힌다. 신명기적 신학에서분명히제시하는것은비가멈추는것은종교적배교의까닭으로 여호와의심판의표시이다( 참고, 왕상 17-18). 시편 72:16은의로운왕의행 위는산꼭대기의땅조차도곡물이풍성하게자라도록영향을미친다고선 언한다. 38) 길보아산들을향한다윗의저주는신명기적신학에비추어볼 때그의도에의구심을불러일으킨다. 넓은문맥은사울이아말렉족속을전멸하는전투에서이미그의왕권을 상실했음을언급한다. 사무엘상 15장에서이스라엘의하나님여호와는사 울을왕삼으신것에후회하심으로그의왕권에대한신적보증을철회하 셨다( 삼상 15:35-16:1). 여호와는 여호와의영 을사울에게서거둬들이셨 다( 삼상 16:14; 참고, 삼상 11:6). 종교적으로사울의왕권은이미철회되었 다. 길보아산은시적의미에서사울의죽음을막을수없었다. 그러므로의 인화된길보아산은사울의죽음에대한책임이없다. 길보아산을향한다윗의저주와문학적으로유비되는고대근동의본문 은우가릿아캇이야기이다. 39) 이슬과비가내리지아니하며제물낼밭도없을지어다 ( 개역개정 삼하 1:21) 이슬도비도, 두바다의놀침도, 바알의음성의유익함도없으리라 (Aqht C (i) 43-46) 40) 38) 참고, Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 237; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 76. 39) H. L. Ginsberg, A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1:21, JBL 57 (1938), 209-13. 40) ANET 는 깊음이솟구쳐올라옴이없음 은 제물낼밭도없음 으로읽을수도있음을제안하였다. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 153. 두구절의비교가나타내는표현과주제의유사성은다음의아캇이야기의배경을좀더주목하도록이끈다. 성읍입구에서과부나고아들과관계된법적사안들을처리하는자였던다넬은아들이없었다. 바알은그에게아들을약속했으며아캇이태어났다. 후에가나안대장일의신인코타르-와-하시스 (Kothar-wa-Hasis) 가한연회에서다넬을방문해그에게활과화살을선물하였다. 다넬은

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 41 두구절은모두이슬과비라고하는자연현상에대한신적반응에그초 점이주어져있다. 두본문다이슬과비의통제는신적영역에속한것으로 명시한다. 그렇기에땅의소산물은신적의지의영역아래에있다. 한편두 구절은서로대조적인배경을제시하는데아캇이야기에서의작물의파괴 는아캇의억울한죽음과관련되어있다. 반면에적어도표면적으로는땅 의소산물의파괴는사울의죽음에대한비통함의표현으로다윗의조가에 서의도된것처럼보인다. 물론두노래는영웅과지도자의죽음이라는공 통된주제에근거한저주를표현하고있다. 그럼에도불구하고신화적배 경과역사적배경이라는각각다른문학적배경은다윗의저주에대한종 교적배경속에서의역사적근거에대한가능성을보게한다. 특히길보아 산에대한다윗의저주는사울의방패가기름부음을받지못한것으로귀 결된것에주목하게한다. 기름부음은이스라엘의왕을상징적으로나타 내는표현이었다. 사울도기름부음을받음( 삼상 10:1) 으로이스라엘의왕 으로세워지게되었으며다윗도기름부음을받음( 삼상 16:13) 으로이스라 엘의왕으로나아가게된것이다. 기름부음은이스라엘왕에대한여호와 의신적승인의표시였다. 길보아산에대한다윗의저주와함께사울의방패가기름부음받지못 했다는다윗의주장은이스라엘의왕이었던사울의죽음에대한다윗의애 곡의진정성을의심하게하는이유들중의하나이다. 사실넓은문맥속에 서다윗은지속적으로사울의기름부음받았음을언급했으며이스라엘의 왕으로서그는여호와의신적보증을받은자라고고백( 삼상 24:6; 26:11; 삼하 1:14) 하였다. 사울에대한다윗의이러한태도는다윗의조가를접하 게될때사뭇대조적임을알게된다. 다윗의조가에서다윗은사울을전혀 이스라엘의기름부음받은왕으로언급하지않는다. 사울을기름부음받 은자로언급하는대신그의방패는기름부음받지못했다는다윗의언급 은실패한사울과그를실패에서구원하지못한방패는신적보장의철회 의결과임을강조하는것으로보인다. 길보아산을향한다윗의저주가사 울의방패가기름부음받지못한것으로귀결된것은, 그의저주를통해다 윗이사울과요나단의길보아산에서의죽음이마치사울의방패가기름 그활과화살을그의아들아캇에게주었는데전쟁과사냥의신인아낫이아캇의활과화살을탐내어금과은을제공했지만아캇은그제안을거절하였다. 이후에아낫은엘(El) 의허락과함께얏판(Yatpan) 을시켜아캇을죽였다. 아캇의죽음의결과는재난이었다. 작물들은즉시파괴되었으며독수리는다넬의집위를날아다녔다. 다넬과그의딸부갓(Bugat) 은애곡하기시작했다. Michael D. Coogan and Mark S. Smith, Stories from ancient Canaan, 2nd rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 27-33.

42 성경원문연구제35호 부음을받지아니함같이된것처럼길보아산이이슬과비가필요없는오 염된장소가되었음을주장하는듯하다. 이사야 5:6-7은이와유사한배경 을제시한다. 이사야구절은여호와의공평과정의를열매맺어야하지만 포학을맺은자들로이스라엘을제시하고그이스라엘은짓밟히고황폐하 게된포도원으로써그위에는비가내리지못하게될것이라는예언을들 려준다. 다윗의저주는사울은여호와앞에정당한이스라엘의왕이아닌 자란사실을부각시켜주는것이다. 길보아산의다윗의저주는궁극적으로 실패한사울과기름부음받지못한그의방패로귀결되면서성공적인전 사와전쟁무기의필요성을상기시켜준다. 결국다윗의저주는사울과요 나단은전장에서실패한자들이며그들의병기는결정적인전투에서무용 지물이었음을분명히하는주장을내포하고있는것이다(21 절). 41) 전쟁을승리로이끌자는다윗이다. 다윗은여호와의큰구원과기름부 음을받은자로그의영원한인자를받을자이다( 삼하 22:51). 다윗의길보 아산의저주는이스라엘왕정의종교적영역과정치적영역의중요성을 다윗가문과예루살렘성전이라는두축을통해선언하는다윗왕정이념 을위한전주에해당한다. 42) 사울과요나단의죽음에대한비통함의극적 인표현으로제시된길보아산의다윗의저주는오히려다윗왕정의군사 적우월함과그것을가능하게하는여호와신앙의종교적보증을주장하는 것이다. 4. 결론 다윗의조가의서론(17, 18 절) 은다윗이사울과요나단을조상한노래를 기록하여유다족속에게가르칠것을명령하였다. 그러나다윗의조가자 체에는유다족속에대한언급이없다. 사울과요나단은이스라엘의지도 자이자용사이다. 본문자체는다윗이왜그의노래가유다족속을대상으 로기록되고가르쳐져야하는지에대해아무런제시도하지않았다. 19절 에서다윗은 이스라엘 에게두용사의죽음을상기시키며 24 절에서는 이 41) Johanna W. H. van Wijk-Bos, Reading Samuel: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 162. 42) 세르기(Omer Sergi) 는다윗가문과성전에대한중요성은신명기적역사서뿐만아니라구약성서전반에걸쳐나타남을논증함으로이스라엘왕정에있어서두영역의중요성을한층더강화시켰다. Omer Sergi, The Composition of Nathan s Oracle to David (2 Samuel 7:1-17) as a Reflection of Royal Judahite Ideology, JBL 129:2 (2010), 262.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 43 스라엘딸들 을불러사울을위한애곡에참여토록부른다. 서론에서제시 된유다를향한다윗의의지와본론에서표현된이스라엘을향한다윗의 태도사이에는긴장감이존재한다. 다윗이이스라엘의지도자들인사울과 요나단을애도하고있다는본문의내용은유다를대상으로한다윗의명령 과대비된것이다. 다윗은유다지파에게자신이사울과요나단을조상하 였음을알리고자한것처럼보이지는않는다. 또한그들을자신의애도에 대한증인으로요청한것도아니다( 참고, 삼하 4:9-12). 사울은이스라엘의 왕이었고다윗은그왕의죽음을애통해한다. 그러나다윗은자신의애곡 을유다지파에게가르치고자하였다. 결과적으로근접문맥은다윗은사 울과요나단을위한조가를지은이후에이스라엘과는구분된유다지파에 서왕으로세움을받았음을전한다( 삼하 2:4). 유다지파에게자신의조가 를전하고자한다윗은결국자신의주권을그들위에확립하고왕권을주 장한것으로보인다( 참고, 출 17:14). 본연구는다윗의조가에서애도된사울과요나단의죽음은쩌비와바못 그리고길보아산을향한다윗의저주등의주제를통해다윗왕정이념의 배경속에서해석될수있음을논하였다. 다윗은길보아산에서의사울과 요나단의죽음은이스라엘의 가젤 로서는 수치 이며또한바못( 높은곳) 에서죽은사울과요나단에대한다윗의강조는군사지도자로서의사울과 요나단의실패를알리는기회로삼았음을나타내었다. 한편다윗은사울의 군사적실패를부각시키기위해서그의방패는기름부음받지않은것으 로묘사하였지만사울이왕이었음을상기할필요는없었기에그를이스라 엘의기름부음받은자로는언급하지않았다. 또한다윗은요나단을향하 여개인적인애통함을토로하였지만그를사울의아들이자적법한왕위계 승자로언급할필요는없었다. 사울과요나단은이제바못( 높은곳) 에서쓰 러진자들이다. 다윗의애도에깃들인다윗의정치적의도는넓은문맥과 도자연스럽게부합되었음을보이는데다윗의노래는단순한조가의성격 을넘어그이상의정치적의미를제시한다. 다윗의애도는다윗의왕정이 념을구성하고자죽은자를기리는조가의양식을빌려다윗의왕정출현 의신적정당성을주장한왕정이념의노래로보인다. < 주제어>(Keywords) 다윗의조가, 다윗의왕정이념, 가젤, 높은곳, 전쟁도구. David s lament, David s royal ideology, Gazelle, High places, Weapons of war. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 31 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

44 성경원문연구제35호 < 참고문헌>(References) 김정봉, 신명기 33:29 절의 바못 의번역에관한제안, 성경원문연구 32 (2013), 30-49. 리히터, 샌드라, 에덴에서새에덴까지, 윤석인역, 서울: 부흥과개혁사, 2013. 소형근, 노라(Nora) 비문과구약성서에나타난 나기드 ( די ) 의연구, 구약논 단 14:3 (2008), 145-162. 코흐, 클라우스, 예언자들 : 앗수르시대, 강성열역, 고양: 크리스챤다이제스트, 1999. 해밀턴, 빅터, 역사서개론, 강성열역, 고양: 크리스챤다이제스트, 2005. Amzallag, Nissim, and Mikhal Avriel, Complex Antiphony in David s Lament and Its Literary Significance, VT 60 (2010), 1-14. Anderson, A. A., 2 Samuel, WBC, Dallas: Word Books, 1989. Barrick, W. B., BMH as Body Language: A Lexical and Iconographical Study of the Word BMH When Not a Reference to Cultic Phenomena in Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew, London: T & T Clark, 2008. Barrick, W. B., Saul s Demise, David s Lament, and Custer s Last Stand, JSOT 73 (1997), 25-41. Bartholomew, Craing G., and Ryan P. O Dowd, Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010. Borgman, Paul, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Brueggemann, W. B., First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, Louisville: John Knox, 1990. Campbell, A. F., 2 Samuel: The Forms of the Old Testament Literature volume VIII, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Cooley, Jeffrey L. The Story of Saul s Election (1 Samuel 9-10) in the Light of Mantic Practice in Ancient Iraq, JBL 130 (2011), 247-261. Day, J., The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy, J. Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, JSOTSup 270, Sheffied: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, 72-90. Dick, Michael B., The History of David s Rise to Power and the Neo-Babylonian Succession Apologies, Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts, eds., David and Zion, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004, 3-19. Dietrich, M., Loretz, O., and Sanmarín, J., Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, 1:Transkription, AOAT 24:1, Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 45 Dietrich, M., Loretz, O., and Sanmarín, J., The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places, KTU, 2nd ed., Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995. Edelman, D. V., King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Fenton, Terry, Hebrew Poetic Structure as a Basis for Dating, John Day, ed., In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, JSOTSup 406, London: T & T Clark, 2004, 386-409. Firth, David G., The Accession Narrative (1 Samuel 27-2 Samuel 1), Tyndale Bulletin 58:1 (2007), 61-81. Freedman, D. N., Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew Poetry, Poetry and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980, 51-76. Fried, Lisbeth S., The High Places (Bāmôt) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation, JAOS 122:3 (2002), 437-465. Galpaz-Feller, Pnina, David and the Messenger-Different Ends, Similar Means in 2 Samuel 1, VT 59 (2009), 199-210. Ginsberg, H. L., A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1:21, JBL 57 (1938), 209-13. Hertzberg, H. W., I & II Samuel, OTL, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. Ishida, T., The royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology, New York: W de Gruyter, 1977. Kim, J. B., King Saul s mustering of all Israel (1 Sm 11:6-7): An idealised leadership, Verbum et Ecclesia 32 (2011), Art. #557, 7. Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Levinson, B. M., The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History s Transformation of Torah, VT 51 (2001), 511-534. Lewis, T. J., Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, HSM 39, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Linafelt, Tod., Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1:17-27: Hearing and Overhearing David s Lament for Jonathan and Saul, The Journal of Religion 88 (2008), 497-526. Ludwig Koehler, and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament I, Leiden: Brill, 1994. Mayes, Andrew D. H., Deuteronomistic Ideology and the Theology of the Old Testament, JSOT 82 (1999), 57-82.

46 성경원문연구제35호 McCarter, P. Kyle, The Apology of David, JBL 99 (1980), 489-504. McCarter, P. Kyle, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB, New York: Doubleday, 1984. O Connor, M., Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Redditt, Paul, Introduction to the Prophets, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Routledge, Robin, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach, Downers Grove: IVP, 2008. Seow, C. L., A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, Nashville: Abingdon, 1987. Sergi, Omer, The Composition of Nathan s Oracle to David (2 Samuel 7:1-17) as a Reflection of Royal Judahite Ideology, JBL 129:2 (2010), 261-279. Shea, William H., Chiasmus and the Structure of David s Lament, JBL 105:1 (1986), 13-25. Short, J. R., The Surprising Election and confrontation of King David, HTS 63, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Van Wijk-Bos, and Johanna W. H., Reading Samuel: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Waltke, Bruce K., and O Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

다윗의조가( 삼하 1:17-27) -다윗의왕정이념의노래- / 김정봉 47 <Abstract> David s Lament (2 Sam 1:17-27): A Song for David s Royal Ideology Jeong Bong Kim (Korea Baptist Theological University) David s lament (2 Sam 1:17-27) is a song that shows David s personal sorrow and his public concern for the death of Saul and Jonathan in the political context of status change. Its poetic structure, keywords, themes, and poetic expressions present Saul and Jonathan as failed military leaders, and it is set in the context of the emergence of kingship in ancient Israel. The poetic structure of David s lament has a thematic climax in the final phrase the weapons of war perished. This stands with the phrase How the mighty have fallen, which is repeated in verses 19, 25, and 27. The remarkable military skill of Saul and Jonathan mourned in the central structural section (vv. 22-23) is contrasted with the emphasis on their deaths and announcing their failure as the military leaders of Israel. Saul and Jonathan should have been the gazelle on high places, demonstrating their swiftness and agility, but instead they are presented as fallen on the mountain of Gilboa. Saul, who should have given the blessings of Yahweh to Israel, turned out to bring them shame, being killed by uncircumcised people. The anointed one was not saved and the shield of Saul was unable to protect him. David did not hesitate to state that Saul and Jonathan were failed military leaders of Israel. As the anointed and divinely sanctioned leader, David claimed that he was the heroic military leader Judah and Israel needed, and could bring effective weapons of war. The failure of Saul and Jonathan leads the people of Israel to pay attention to David and acknowledge him as the anointed and divinely sanctioned king and leader of Israel. David s lament is the song of his royal ideology, announcing that he is a man after His own heart. Although there is no direct reference to David s royal authority and his kingship in the song, it is clear that this lament is a song for David and a song for Yahweh, who made him both king and military leader of Israel.

48 성경원문연구제35호 열왕기와역대기평행본문의 개역개정판 번역에대한소고 -열왕기상 8:1-53// 역대하 5:2-6:42 평행본문을보기로- 1) 김정훈 * 1. 들어가는말 우리말구약성경의첫완역은 1911 년에나온구약젼셔로거슬러올라 간다. 2) 이구약젼셔는 1900 년부터선교사레이널즈(W. D. Reynolds) 와 1907 년부터번역작업에탄력을실어주었던한국인번역위원이승두와김 정삼의노력을바탕으로하여 1910 년봄에완역하여이듬해간행되었다. 이번역을두고일반적으로 구역 ( 舊譯 ) 이라일컫는다. 3) 이번역은 영어 개정본 (The Revised Version) 과 미국표준역본 (The American Standard Version) 을저본( 底本 ) 으로해서히브리어원전을참조하고, 중국어역, 일 어역, 라틴어역, 불어역, 독어역, 러시아어역등을대조하여이루어졌 다. 4) 하지만선교초기부터여러개인번역을거쳐공인본으로옮겨진신약성 경 5) 과비교되지않을만큼, 많은분량을짧은시간에적은인원이번역하다 보니, 구역은나오자마자곧바로개역의요구에맞닥뜨리게되었다. 그리 * Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel 에서구약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재부산장신대학교신학과교수. ihoze@hotmail.com. 1) 본논문은 2014년 4월 25일대전신학대학교에서열린제95차한국구약학회에서발표한원고를수정한것임을밝힌다. 2) 대영셩셔공회편, 구약젼셔 ( 경셩: 대영셩셔공회, 명치44[1911]); 韓國聖經大全集 10, 11, 19, 20 ( 서울: 한국기독교문헌연구소, 2002; 영인본 10권과 11 권의표지에제각각신약 ( 상) (1900), 신약 ( 하) (1900) 로잘못표기되어있음). 우리말구약성경번역사는우선류대영, 옥성득, 이만열, 대한성서공회사 II 번역 반포와권서사업 ( 서울: 대한성서공회, 1994), 27-204 를참조하라. 그리고제각각역본의특징과더불어약술한글로는김정훈, 우리말역본과함께하는호세아주석 ( 서울: 기독교문서선교회, 2013), 14-28 을보라. 3) 류대영외, 대한성서공회사 II, 81. 4) 김중은, 구약성서국역사, 구약의말씀과현실 ( 서울: 한국성서학연구소, 1996), 28-29. 5) 나채운, 우리말성경연구 ( 서울: 기독교문사, 1990), 35-48.

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 49 하여선교사게일(G. S. Gale), 베어드(W. M. Baird), 피터스(A. A. Pieters) 등 을중심으로개역되어 1937년에완성되었고이듬해에는신약성경의개역 과더불어셩경개역으로출간되었다. 6) 구역과비교해보면, 셩경개역 은구역이끝난바로뒤시작했기때문에어휘로봐서는큰변화없이문장 을주로다듬었으며, 가장큰변화라면아래 ㆍ 가사라졌다는점을들수 있다. 7) 개역한글판성경은 1956 년에당시 한글맞춤법통일안 에따라 맞춤법의수정 편집을완성하여 1961 년에출간하였다. 8) 그러니번역자 체에는별다른변화가없었다. 이번역본을그이후로도 40여년동안우리 나라개신교회의정경으로사용하였다. 이개역한글판성경은 1998년에이르러서야비로소개정되기에이른 다. 9) 개역개정판성경의궁극적인목표는성경의뜻을좀더잘옮기는 것, 어려운말을쉽게바꾸는것, 한글맞춤법및표준어규정에따라표기를 바르게고치는것, 우리말표현을다듬고뜻을밝히는것등이었다. 10) 개 역개정판성경은개역한글판성경의기본적인특징을유지한다고는했 지만, 개역한글판에서수정한건수가구약성경에서 59,888 건, 신약성경 에서 12,823건으로더하면 72,711 건에이른다. 이것은 1956/1961 년의개역 한글판을출간할때 730여건을수정한것에비교하면 100 배가넘는다. 11) 그런데이렇게광범위하게수정한개역개정판 성경은과연더이상재 고할문제가없는가? 이렇게질문하는것은성경을시대에따라, 또학문의 발전에따라거듭개정해야한다는점에서보면당연하다. 또한이질문에는 개역개정판 는개역개정판 성경에대한양면적관점이바탕에깔려있다. 곧한편으로 성경이나오기까지각고의노력을마다하지않았던이들 의노고와그들을통해이땅에일어난복음의열풍, 그리고개역개정판 성경의전통을존중한다는관점과더불어, 다른한편으로는개역개정판 성경의한계와문제점에서비롯하는재개정필요성의가능성을열어두려 는관점이담겨있기도하다. 이미개역개정판 성경에대하여는긍정적이든부정적이든여러측면 의연구가나왔다. 12) 지금까지나온연구에더하여우리는, 개역개정판 6) 죠션셩셔공회편, 구약개역 ( 경셩: 조션셩셔공회, 昭和 13[1938]); 韓國聖經大全集 40, 41 ( 서울: 한국기독교문헌연구소, 2002, 영인본). 7) 나채운, 우리말성경연구, 57. 8) 대한성서공회편, 성경전서개역한글판 ( 서울: 대한성서공회, 1956). 9) 대한성서공회편, 성경전서개역개정판 ( 서울: 대한성서공회, 1998, 4 2005). 10) 자세한내용은, 민영진, 개역개정판, 이렇게달라졌다 ( 서울: 대한성서공회, 2003) 을보 라. 11) 김정우, 성경전서개역개정판에대한소고, 신학지남 68:3 (2001), 149.

50 성경원문연구제35호 구약성경의본문에서여태껏주목받지못했던또다른측면의재고사항을 다루고자한다. 곧열왕기와역대기평행본문의번역을견주어살펴보려는 것이다. 열왕기와역대기에는수많은평행본문이있으며, 이본문들에대 한대조나분석연구들도많다. 13) 열왕기와역대기의평행본문에는물론 서로다른사관( 史觀 ) 에서비롯한차이점들도있지만, 같은자료에기댄본 문들이분명히존재한다. 그리고두전승이자음본문에서까지일치하는 경우도많다. 14) 기본적으로열왕기와역대기의히브리어본문이일치하는경우, 또는부 분적인차이만있는경우에는누구나추론할수있듯그번역도같아야하 는것이당연하다. 그런데결론부터말하자면, 개역개정판의경우아쉽 게도이부분의통일성에문제를드러낸다. 더욱이이전번역인개역한글 판 성경은두본문의번역을일치시키려노력했음에도개역개정판에서 달라진경우를어렵지않게찾아볼수있다. 이런경우는두본문을서로다 12) 김정수, 성경전서개역개정판에대한언어학적인검토, 성경원문연구 2 (1998), 70-74; 나채운, 개역성경개정판, 무엇이어떻게바뀌었나, 기독교사상 42:10 (1998), 158-166; 도한호, 개역한글판성경개정의의의와방법, 성경원문연구 2 (1998), 19-42; 홍근수, 성경전서개역개정판에대한몇가지의견, 성경원문연구 2 (1998), 91-96; 전무용, 개역한글판성경의관주검토, 성경원문연구 4 (1999), 65-90; 박동현, 관주성경전서개역한글판시편 1 편관주에대한연구, 성경원문연구 6 (2000), 198-229; 서철원, 개역개정판성경의문제 창세기, 마태복음, 요한복음, 신학지남 68:3 (2001), 176-222; 이한수, 개역개정판 성경전서 에대한평가 갈라디아서, 신학지남 68:3 (2001), 223-231; 유재원, 개역성경과개역개정성경, 신학지남 70:1 (2003), 4-8; 강승일, 성경전서개역개정판아가번역의개정을위한주석적제안, 구약논단 38 (2010), 93-113; 강성열, 개역개정판의창세기번역오류수정을위한제안, 신학이해 40 (2011), 11-33; 강성열, 개역개정판의호세아번역오류수정을위한제안, 한국기독교신학논총 76 (2011), 55-75 등. 13) P. Vannutelli, Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti seu Librorum Regum et Chronicorum loci paralleli (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institue, 1931); A. Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible (heb.) (Jerusalem: Carta, 1965, 2010 repr.); W.D. Crokkett, A Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1951, 1985 repr.); J. Newsome, A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles With Related Passages from Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezra (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986); J. Kegler and M. Augustin, Synopse zum Chronistischen Geschichtswerk, BEATAJ 1 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1993); J. C. Endres, W. R. Millar and J. B. Burns, eds., Chronicles and its Synoptic Parallels in Samuel, Kings, and Related Biblical Texts (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998) 등. 한편우리말본문대조연구로는, 이종록, 사무엘 열왕기와역대기본문대조 ( 서울: 한국장로교출판사, 1995); 황선우, 사무엘 열왕기평행본문대조집 ( 서울: 기독교문서선교회, 2012); 황선우, 역대기평행본문대조집 ( 서울: 기독교문서선교회, 2012) 등을들수있다. 14) 이런경우는위의각주 13) 에서소개한벤다빗(Bendavid) 의책에서잘알아볼수있다. 벤다빗은이책에서평행본문이서로차이나는곳을모두빨간색으로표시하였다. 그러므로빨간색으로표시되지않는평행본문은자구가일치한다고보면된다.

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 51 른개정자가개정했고, 면밀한상호독회를충분히거치지않은채출간된 것으로판단할수밖에없다. 우리는이제이문제를구체적본문을보기로 분석하고개선점을제안해보고자한다. 이를위해서열왕기와역대기가 같은자음본문을공유한것으로여길수있는본문가운데서솔로몬의성 전봉헌본문의일부분( 왕상 8:1-53// 대하 5:2-6:42) 을분석하여예증하고자 한다. 2. 히브리어두평행본문의특징 우리가다룰두평행본문의히브리어자음본문은상호평행본문이없는 몇몇부분( 대하 5:11하-13; 6:5하-6 상, 13, 40-42; 왕상 8:50상하-53) 을제외하 고는같은자음본문전승을바탕으로한다. 나머지차이점들은개별자음 이나낱말단위의이형들(variants) 이주를이룬다. 먼저가장많이눈에띄는차이점으로는뜻의변화에영향을주지않는 철자법(orthographic) 의이형을들수있는데, 이는역대기가완전서법 (scriptio plena) 을즐겨쓰는데서드러난다. 15) 또한인칭또는성( 性 ) 수 ( 數 ) 의차이나16) 어순의차이 17) 도찾아볼수있다. 많은경우에두평행본문 에서낱말의차이가 18) 드러나기도한다. 그런가하면낱말차원에서본문 15) dwd//dywd ( 왕상 8:1// 대하 5:2, 왕상 8:15// 대하 6:4 passim); wabyw//waybyw ( 왕상 8:6// 대하 5:7); dm[l//dwm[l ( 왕하 8:11// 대하 5:14); dm[//dmw[ ( 왕상 8:14// 대하 6:3); tbyjh//twbyjh ( 왕상 8:18// 대하 6:8); acyh//acwyh ( 왕상 8:19// 대하 6:9); ~qaw//~wqaw ( 왕상 8:20// 대하 6:10); ~vaw//~yvaw ( 왕상 8:21// 대하 6:11); bvy//bvwy ( 왕상 8:25// 대하 6:16); $ny[//$yny[ ( 왕상 8:29// 대하 6:20); [mvl//[wmvl ( 왕상 8:29// 대하 6:20); ~tbvhw//~twbvhw ( 왕상 8:34// 대하 6:25); ttnw//httnw ( 왕상 8:39// 대하 6:30); $wary//$waryy ( 왕상 8:40// 대하 6:31); wbya-l[//wybywa-l[ ( 왕상 8:44// 대하 6:34); ytnb//ytynb ( 왕상 8:44// 대하 6:34); ~hybv//~hybwv ( 왕상 8:46// 대하 6:36). 그밖에철자법상의이형은다음과같다 : wksyw//wskyw ( 왕상 8:7// 대하 5:8);!w[dy//w[dy ( 왕상 8:38// 대하 6:29); ~bl//~bbl ( 왕상 8:47// 대하 6:37); ~bbl//~bl ( 왕상 8:48// 대하 6:38). 16) ~v wyhyw//~v-yhyw ( 왕상 8:8// 대하 5:9); wdybw//wydybw ( 왕상 8:15// 대하 6:4); $yrbd[ketib]//$rbd ( 왕상 8:26// 대하 6:17); ~twbal//~hytbalw ( 왕상 8:34// 대하 6:25); wbya//wybya ( 왕상 8:37// 대하 6:28; 왕상 8:44// 대하 6:34); hyht//hyhy ( 왕상 8:38// 대하 6:29); ~tnxt-taw//~hytnxt-taw ( 왕상 8:49// 대하 6:39). 17) alm!n[hw//!n[ alm ( 왕상 8:10// 대하 5:13); ~wyw hlyl//hlylw ~mwy ( 왕상 8:29// 대하 6:20); $dbl t[dy//t[dy $dbl ( 왕상 8:39// 대하 6:30). 18) ~nyhkh//~ywlh ( 왕상 8:3// 대하 5:4); yk//wyhyw ( 왕상 8:7// 대하 5:8); vdqh-!m//!wrah-!m ( 왕상 8:8// 대하 5:9);!tn//~v hnx ( 왕상 8:9// 대하 5:10); hwhy tyb-ta//~yhla tyb-ta ( 왕상 8:11// 대하 5:14); ytynb hnb//ytynb ynaw ( 왕상 8:13// 대하 6:2);!wral//!wrah-ta ( 왕상 8:21// 대하 6:11); larfy ynb-~[//wnytba-~[ ( 왕상 8:21// 대하 6:11); #rah-l[w//#rabw ( 왕상 8:23// 대하 6:14); ynpl//ytrwtb ( 왕상 8:25// 대하 6:16); ymv hyhy//$mv ~wfl ( 왕상 8:29// 대하 6:20);

52 성경원문연구제35호 이추가되거나누락된부분도더러있다. 19) 적어도마지막두경우는번역 을할때역본에서도차이가드러나도록유의할필요가있다. 물론이모든경우의제각각차이점들은다양한측면에서그원인을추 적해볼필요가있다. 하지만우리의목적은이런차이점의원인을밝히는 것이아니라, 이평행본문을우리말개역개정판 성경이어떻게번역했는 지를살피는것이다. 그러므로이차이점들은두평행본문의대부분을이 루는일치점들과더불어개역개정판 분석하는기본적인자료구실을한다. 성경의평행본문번역을비교하고 3. 두평행본문에대한개역개정판의번역분석 이제우리는두평행본문에대한개역개정판 성경의번역을비교하고 분석할것이다. 이를위해히브리어원문뿐아니라개역한글판성경 (1956; 1938) 의번역과더거슬러올라가서구역본문(1911) 도참조할것이 다. 분류는아래서보듯, 개역개정판에서개선된경우, 개역한글판의 문제점이이어진경우, 순으로살펴볼것이다. 개역개정판에서이전에없던문제점이생긴경우 3.1. 개역개정판성경이개역성경을개선한경우 3.1.1. 히브리어대본의차이반영 개역개정판성경에서는민영진이밝히듯, 20) 개역한글판성경에서 tnxt-la//ynwnxt-la ( 왕상 8:30// 대하 6:21); ~ymvh-la//~ymvh-!m ( 왕상 8:30// 대하 6:21); rva//~a ( 왕상 8:31// 대하 6:22); [vr [yvrhl//[vrl byvhl ( 왕상 8:32// 대하 6:23); @gnhb//@gny-~aw ( 왕상 8:33// 대하 6:24); rva//yk ( 왕상 8:33// 대하 6:24); $yla//$ynpl ( 왕상 8:33// 대하 6:24); wbbl//wbacmw ( 왕상 8:38// 대하 6:29); hwhy-la//$yla ( 왕상 8:44// 대하 6:34); ~hybv//~ybv ( 왕상 8:47, 48// 대하 6:37, 38); tybhw//tyblw ( 왕상 8:48// 대하 4:38). 19) 1 열왕기본문에만있는본문 : hmlv $lmh-la (8:1); ~yntah xryb (8:2); hwhy [!wra](8:4); [~ywlh]w (8:4); [~yrxm] #ra[m] (8:9); [hwhy tyb]-ta (8:10); larfy-ta (8:16); ~a [yk] (8:19); ~wqm (8:21); ~yrcm #ram ~ta waycwhb (8:21); txtm l[mm (8:23); an [rmay] (8:26); yba (8:26); ~wyh (8:28); $yla (8:33, 48); [~tajxm]w (8:35); tyf[w (8:39); [ynb-]lk (8:39); bywah (8:46); 2 역대기본문에만있는본문: [ twxl]h (5:10); tybhw (5:13); [~yrcm] #ra[m] (6:5); hwhy (6:17); ~dah-ta (6:18); [~ymvh]-!m (6:23, 25, 30, 33, 35, 39); [~hytbal]w ~hl h[ttn] (6:25); [~ymv]h (6:26); w[[gn] (6:29); $ykrdb tkll (6:31); [hta]w (6:33); [!wkm]m (6:33, 39); [haryl]w (6:33); [ry[h]w (6:38).

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 53 정확히번역하지않았거나잘못번역한본문을고치는것이주된원칙가 운데하나였다. 우리가살피는본문에서도이런경향을찾아볼수있는데, 특히다음에서보기로든경우는분명히개역개정판 길수있다. 열왕기상 성경의성과라고여 8:4의본문에서언약궤와성전기물들을솔로몬성전으로메고 올라가는사람들은 ~ywlhw ~ynhkh ( 제사장들과레위인들) 으로기록되어 있다. 그런데이본문이역대하 5:5에서는두낱말을이어주는접속사가빠 진채쓰였다. 이런표현이더러쓰이는것으로보아21) 역대기에서접속사 가없는본문은의도적이라고보아야할것이다. 이럴경우두낱말은서로 다른집단으로볼수없다. 더욱이연계상태에있다고말할수도없다. 결 국두낱말은동격으로보는것이가장합당하다고하겠다. 22) 곧 레위인 제사장들 이라고옮겨야한다는말이다. 역대기저자는아마도제사장의 직무를맡는이들의레위계혈통을이표현으로강조하려했을것이다. 그런데우리말성경의번역은구역에서부터두평행본문을동일하게옮 겼다( 구역: 졔 쟝과레위사 이; 개역: 제사장과레위사람이). 이번역은 분명히칠십인역이두곳을모두 oi` ièrei/j kai. oi` Leui/tai 로옮긴데서시 작한전통일것이다. 영어역본의경우흠정( 欽定 ) 역(KJV) 이이전통을따 른다. 하지만개역개정판 성경에서는앞서언급한히브리어본문의차이 점을분명히하려하여열왕기의본문은 제사장과레위사람이 로, 역대기 의본문은 레위인제사장들이 로구분해서옮겨져있다. 솔로몬의기도가운데열왕기상 8:34 에서는회복될땅을 ~twbal ttn ( 그들의조상들에게주신) 으로표현한다. 이에비해역대하 6:25에서는 ~hytwbalw ~hl ttn ( 그들과그들의조상에게주신) 으로확장된본문을제 공한다. 역대기의저자는이를통해약속의현재화를꾀하려한듯하다. 23) 이본문의차이는물론우리말성경에서도드러나있다. 하지만개역 경의전통은복수형 ~hl 이분명히드러나있지않고, 그와그열조에게 주신 으로옮겨서오히려단수형의본문을떠올리게하였다. 이번역은구 역에서부터시작하였다. 이를개역개정판성경에서는 그들과그들의 성 20) 민영진, 개역개정판, 이렇게달라졌다, 8. 21) 신 10:8; 31:9; 대하 23:18; 30:27; 스 10:5 등. 22) 이런견해로 R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 71을참조하라. 참고로최근에스라와느헤미야의경우는이렇게접속사없이(asyndeton) 쓰인이표현을 제사장과레위인들 로새겨야한다는견해는, 민경진, 하코하님하르위임 의번역재고, 부산장신논총 13 (2013), 25-40 을보라. 23) 참조. R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles, 94; S. Japhet, 2 Chronik, HThK.AT (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 86.

54 성경원문연구제35호 조상들에게주신 으로고쳐서본문의의미를우리말에서분명히하였 다. 24) 3.1.2. 우리말표현의개선 개역개정판 성경에서가장많이고친부분이새롭게바뀐맞춤법이나 현재쓰이는표현에맞춘경우일것이다. 물론우리가다루는본문에서도 그런경우는제법많이찾아볼수있다. 열왕기상 8:23 에는하늘과땅을견주어쓰는대조제유법 (merismus) 에서평행 본문인역대하 6:14 에없는부사가둘더있다. 역대기에서는 #rabw ~ymvb ( 하 늘과땅에) 로쓰였는데, 열왕기에는 txtm #rah-l[w l[mm ~ymvb ( 위로하 늘과아래로땅에) 로쓰여서뜻이더명확해졌다. 구역에서는두본문을구 분하지않고둘다 텬디간에 로옮겼다. 이것은개역 성경에서제각각 上天下地에 와 天地에 로개선하여, 개역한글판에서그대로이어졌 다. 하지만개역개정판 성경은옛날에는쓰였지만지금은쓰이지않는 한자어는순우리말로고치는원칙을가지고있었다. 25) 그래서개역개정 에서는열왕기의표현을 위로하늘과아래로땅에 로고쳤다. 다만역대기 의역본은그대로인데, 이것도 하늘과땅에 로하여열왕기표현과맞추지 않은것은아쉬움으로남는다. 이밖에도개역개정에서우리말표현에따라고친경우는우리가다루 는본문에서도찾아볼수있다. 26) 3.2. 개역한글판의문제점이개역개정판에서그대로이어진경우 글판 개역개정판 성경의개정자가많은노력을기울였을것임에도개역한 성경의오류가개역개정에서여전히이어지는경우를어렵지않 게찾아볼수있다. 이런경우는히브리어본문의미세한차이를주의깊게 살피지않아서생긴경우도있고, 우리말표현의잘못을미처수정하지못 24) 이와비슷한경우로 ~tajxm 을 그죄에서 로번역한개역성경의전통을 그들의죄에서 로분명히한왕상 8:35// 대하 6:26 과개역성경의 자기를 을히브리어복수인칭어미를살려 자기들을 로바꾼대하 6:38 등을들수있다. 25) 참조, 민영진, 개역개정판, 이렇게달라졌다, 19-23. 26) 가로되 이르되 ( 왕상 8:12// 대하 6:1; 왕상 8:15// 대하 6:4); 온역 전염병 ( 왕상 8:37// 대하 6:28); 저희가 그들이 ( 왕상 8:40// 대하 6:31 passim); 물론하고 막론하고 ( 왕상 8:47// 대하 6:36) 등.

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 55 한경우도있다. 3.2.1. 히브리어본문의차이를반영하지않은경우 열왕기상 8:9에서언약궤의두돌판을언급하는장면의본문일부는 hvm ~v xnh rva ( 모세가거기에안치한) 으로기록한다. 이에비해역대하 5:10 에서는 hvm!tn-rva ( 모세가준) 으로썼다. 두본문은밑줄친부분에 서보듯서로다른낱말을택하였다. 결과적으로열왕기가돌판의언약궤 안치에초점을맞추고있다면, 역대기는신명기 9:9나 10:1과마찬가지로 율법수여의매개자로서모세가강조되었다. 이렇듯본문은분명한의미의 차이가있음에도개역성경이나개역개정판성경은한결같이 모세가 그안에넣은것이더라 로옮긴다. 이번역은칠십인역이두본문모두 를같은동사를써서 a]j e;qhken [evkei/] Mwush/j 로옮긴전통과잇닿아있으 며, 영어성경의전통으로이어졌던데서비롯했을것이다( put [ASV, KJV]). 열왕기상 8:32 상반절// 역대하 6:23상반절의히브리어본문을견주어보 면다음과같다. ^yd<b'[]-ta, T'j.p;v'w> t'y"fi['w> ~yim;v'h;[-!mi] [m;v.ti ht'a;w> 왕상 8:32 ( 그러니이제당신께서는하늘에서[ 역대기: 부터] 들으시고행동하시 되당신의종을심판하소서 ) Av+aroB. AKr>D: ttel' [v'r" [:yvir>h;l. ( 그리하여악인을정죄하셔서, 제각각의길을제머리에되돌리소서 ) Av+aroB. AKr>D: ttel' [v'r"l. byvih'l. 대하 6:23 ( 그리하여악인에게되돌리시되, 제각각의길을제머리에되돌리소서 ) 위의본문과번역에서보듯두본문은뒷부분에서서로다른낱말을선 택하여서뜻도미세하지만달라졌다. 그런데우리말성경에서는구역에서 부터개역개정에이르기까지뒷부분두본문의차이를반영하지않고다 음과같이동일하게옮겼다. 옵시며 구약젼셔악 쟈의죄를뎡 야그 위를그머리로도라가게 셩경개역惡한者의罪를定하야그行爲대로그머리에돌니시고

56 성경원문연구제35호 고 개역개정 악한자의죄를정하여그행위대로그[ 의] 머리에돌리시 이렇게두본문을같게옮긴것은본문증거에서는찾아볼수없는전통 이다. 결국초기의부주의한번역이그대로이어졌다고볼수밖에없다. 더 군다나개역개정은열왕기본문에서는 그머리에 로옮기고역대기에 서는 그의머리에 로옮겨서상호독회의문제점도함께드러내고있다. 그밖에다음의경우들도히브리어본문의차이를개역 게번역하지않은것을개역개정이그대로이어받은경우다. 성경이정확하 평행본문히브리어개역 = 개역개정개선안 왕상 8:29 ~wyw hlyl 주야로 밤낮으로 대하 6:20 hlylw ~mwy 낮이나밤이나 왕상 8:41 대하 6:32 왕상 8:48 ~gw ~hybya #rab (-) 또 적국의땅에서 또 원수들의땅에서 대하 6:38 ~ybv ~rab 포로지에서 3.2.2. 표현의차이가있는경우 몇몇의경우에서는개역한글판의표현차이가개선없이개역개정판 에그대로이어진경우도있는데, 이들을도표로나타내보면다음과같다. 히브리어 구약젼셔 개역 개역한글 / 개역개정 왕상 8:13 lbz-tyb 계실셩뎐 계실殿 계실성전 대하 6:2 lbz-tyb 계실셩뎐 거하실殿 거하실성전 왕상 8:24 trmv rva 직히셧스니곳 직히샤 지키사 대하 6:15 trmv rva 직히셧스니곳 직히시대 지키시되 위의두경우모두히브리어본문은같으며두평행본문을달리번역할필요가없는데도, 우리말성경에서달라진경우다. 개역개정에서이런통일성없는번역이그대로이어졌다.

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 57 3.3. 개역개정판성경에서문제가생긴경우 본연구에서가장관심을끄는부분이개역개정판 성경에서이전에없 던문제가생긴경우들이다. 여기서는두평행본문의히브리어가동일한 경우가속한다. 이런경우먼저개역한글판에서평행본문을동일하게번 역했는데개역개정판에서서로다르게옮겨진경우가두드러진다. 대부 분은두평행본문가운데한본문의수정자만달리번역한것이다. 그런가 하면개역한글판에서동일했던번역본문이두본문의수정자가제각각 수정을해서달라진경우도있다. 이두경우모두두평행본문수정자들이 상호독회에소홀했다고판단할수밖에없다. 우리는이런용례들을찾아 제각각히브리어본문과관련이있는경우와우리말표현과관련이있는 경우로나누어살피기로한다. 그리고문제점을좀더잘관찰할수있도록 여기서다루는모든용례들은히브리어본문, 구약젼셔, 셩경개역, 개 역한글판 한다., 개역개정판의본문을주로견주어보며논의를이어가도록 3.3.1. 한쪽만달라진경우 1) 열왕기가달라진경우 (1) 히브리어본문관련 1 열왕기의개역개정판개정자만히브리어원문의의미를고려하여개 정하여번역의통일성이깨진경우가있다. 먼저, 열왕기상 8:35// 역대하 6:26 에서히브리어본문은 wllpthw 로쓰인 다. 이동사를우리말성경은구역에서부터전통적으로 빌며 로옮겼다. 하지만개역개정판의열왕기에서는이를 기도하며 로고쳤는데, 아마 도개정자는 기도하다 가 빌다 보다더기독교적이라여긴듯하다. 그다음으로들수있는보기는열왕기상 8:36과역대하 6:27의평행본 문이다. 이구절에서쓰인관계문 Hb wkly rva 를우리말역본들은역대 기번역문에서보듯 그마땅히행할 로옮겼다. 하지만열왕기의개정자 는동사의주어가복수라는점을분명히하여 그들이마땅히행할 로고 쳤다.

58 성경원문연구제35호 2 개역개정판 열왕기의개정자만번역을고쳤는데, 그고친번역이여 전히재고의여지가있는경우가있다. 먼저, 열왕기상 8:35// 역대하 6:26 의경우를보자. 히브리어본문은두곳 다 wdwhw 로쓴다. 이본문은개역한글판성경에서 그들이 인정하고 로옮겼다. 그런데개역개정판에와서역대기의번역은그대로이어졌지 만, 열왕기의번역은 찬양하고 로고쳤다. 이낱말의문맥은이스라엘백 성들이죄를짓고벌을받았을때, 기도하는경우를가정하는것이다. 이동 사의목적어는하나님의 이름 이다. 이경우동사 hdy 는회개제의(Buß- gottesdienst) 를삶의자리로전제하며백성들이불렀던탄원시(Volks- klagelied) 와연관된다고볼수있다. 27) 그래서사실상구역이선택했던 놉 히고 나개역개정열왕기상의수정번역인 찬양하고 도다수긍할수 있다. 흥미로운점은칠십인역이두평행본문에서도서로다른번역을제 공한다는점이다. 열왕기본문의경우칠십인역은 kai. evxomologh,sontai tw/ ovno,mati, sou ( 그리고그들이당신의이름을인정하면) 로옮기는반면, 역대 기에서는 kai. aivne,sousin to. o;noma, sou ( 그리고그들이당신의이름을찬양 하면) 로옮긴다. 28) 칠십인역의번역에서도우리는히브리어동사 hdy 의 문맥에따른다양한번역가능성을엿볼수있다. 그런데문제는개역개정 에와서히브리어에는같은낱말이평행본문에서달라졌다는점이다. 물론 두번역이다가능하지만, 어느한번역으로통일해야한다. 본문이전제하 는삶의자리를고려한다면, 구역이선택한대로 높여드리고 가적절한대 안이될수있을것이다. 다음으로열왕기상 8:37// 역대하 6:28 의경우를보자. 여기서쓰인히브리 어본문은 wyr[v #rab 이다. 우리말역본가운데는구역이 셩문을 로옮 겨히브리어원문을그대로반영한다. 하지만개역부터개역개정판에 이르기까지이표현에대한번역은 성읍을 로바뀌었다. 이것은칠십인역 을반영하는번역이다. 칠십인역은이경우열왕기와역대기가제각각의 번역을보여준다. 사실히브리어본문은 그들의성문들의땅에 ( 원수들이 와서) 로이해하기쉽지만은않다. 칠십인역열왕기는여기서 evn mia/ tw/n po,lewn auvtou/ ( 그들의성읍들가운데하나에서) 로옮겼는데, 이번역은아 마도 wyr[[v] dxab 를대본으로삼았을것이다. 여기서 wyr[v 의 v 를번 역자는관계사로여긴듯하다. 29) 한편, 칠십인역역대기는 kate,nanti tw/n 27) 참조, G. Mayer, hdy jdh, II. Bedeutung, 1. im hebr. Sprachgebrauch, ThWAT III (1982), 457. 28) 다만, 루키안본문을반영하는중세두소문자필사본(be 2 ) 은열왕기본문과맞추었다. 29) 이구절의히브리어대본을 wyr[ dxab 로재구성하는경우가있는데(R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles, 84), 이는잘못된견해라여긴다.

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 59 po,lewn auvtw/n ( 그들의성읍을대항하여) 로옮겼는데, 이번역은사실상마 소라본문과구별되는히브리어대본이아니라, 어려운본문에대한번역 자의이해를반영하고있을것이다. 30) 여하튼개역 성경부터볼수있는 번역어 성읍 은이렇게칠십인역의본문이해를바탕으로한다. 정판 개역개 역대기에서는히브리어본문의복수형을살려서 성읍들을 로옮겼 다. 하지만위에서살폈듯, 마소라본문을, 구역이번역했듯, wyr[v 의 v 를 성문 의첫자음으로볼지, 31) 관계사로보거나지우고 그들의성읍들 로이해할지는여전히논의의여지가있다. 셋째보기는, 솔로몬의기도에서백성들의회개를가정하며하는말가 운데하나인열왕기상 8:47// 역대하 6:37 을들수있다. 여기서마소라본문 은 wnyw[hw 이다. 구약성경에서이낱말은종종히필형으로쓰여서범죄의 뜻으로쓰인다. 32) 하지만이동사 hw[ 의어원을거슬러올라가면, 길에 서벗어나다 는뜻을만날수있다. 33) 우리말성경은구역부터개역한글 판까지두본문모두에서중국어성경의영향을받아 패역을행하며 ( 구 역: 패역 일을 며) 로옮겼다. 여기서쓰인 패역 ( 悖逆 ) 은 도리에어 긋나고순리( 順理 ) 를거스름 이라는뜻이어서히브리어원어의의미가잘 담겨있다. 하지만지금은잘쓰이지않는말이어서개정이필요한말이기 도하다. 그런뜻에서열왕기의개정자는 반역을행하며 로고쳤다. 하지 만히브리어어원을볼때, 패역 보다나은선택이라여겨지지는않는다. 그보다더큰문제는앞서언급했듯, 두평행본문이달라졌다는것이다. 여 기서는히브리어동사의어원적의미를살려 어긋나갔으며 정도로수정 하는것을제안한다. (2) 우리말표현관련 우리말표현과관련하여다음과같은경우는개역개정에와서동일한 대본의평행본문번역이달라졌다. 그렇지만두번역모두우리말표현에 어긋나지않으므로상호독회를통해서번역을둘가운데하나로일치시켜 야한다. 30) R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles, 84. 31) 이낱말을 성문 으로본고대역본으로는불가타를들수있다(portas eius). 32) 참조, 삼하 7:14; 19:20; 24:17; 시 106:6; 렘 9:4 등. 33) Gesenius-Handwörterbuch 18, 932; HALAT, 752.

60 성경원문연구제35호 왕상 8:5 대하 5:6 왕상 8:20 히브리어구약젼셔개역개역한글개역개정 ~yxbzm txt 졔 드리 졔 를 드리니 니여 祭祀를 드렷스니 祭祀를 드렷스니 제사를 드렸으니 제사를 드렸으니 제사를 지냈으니 제사를 드렸으니 代身하야대신하여이어서 대하 6:10 니여代身하야대신하여대신하여 왕상 8:48 ry[h 셩과 城과성과성읍과 대하 6:38 셩과城과성과성과 2) 역대기가달라진경우 우리가살핀본문범위에서히브리어본문이동일한경우개역개정판 성경에서열왕기가달라진경우보다는아래서보듯역대기에서훨씬많이 달라졌다. 이것은역대기의개정자가더적극적인개정경향을가졌을것 이라고추측할수있다. 문제점은열왕기개정자와충분한상호독회를거 치지않았다는점이다. (1) 히브리어본문관련 1 역대기의개역개정판개정자만히브리어원문의의미를고려하여개 정하여번역의통일성이깨진경우가있다. 먼저, 열왕기상 8:1// 역대하 5:2 에서히브리어본문은!wyc ayh dywd ry[m 이다. 이표현을우리말로옮기자면 다윗성, 곧시온에서부터 정도가될 것이다. 이가운데우리말역본들의뒷부분번역은다음과같이정리해볼 수있다. 구약젼셔개역개역한글개역개정 시온에셔시온에셔시온에서시온에서 시온셩에셔시온에셔시온에서시온에서부터 우선구역역대기번역은다른곳에서볼수없는 셩 ( 城 ) 을집어넣었는 데, 이는 다윗성 과동격임을강조하려는의도에서였을것이다. 그런데

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 61 우리가주목하는부분은전치사!m 의번역이다. 개역개정역대기의개 정자는이전치사의뜻을강조하기위해개역성경의 ~ 에서 를 ~ 에서 부터 로고쳤다. 둘째, 열왕기상 8:19// 역대하 6:9 에서 $yclxm 로쓰인히브리어본문의 쌍수형명사 ~yclx 은구체적으로허리를뜻한다. 34) 일찍이구역에서는 네허리에셔 로옮겨서이뜻을살렸는데, 개역에서는이를 네몸에셔 로고쳤고이것이열왕기의개역개정에까지이어졌다. 한편, 역대기에서 는다시금구역이택했던 네허리에서 로고쳤는데, 이로써원문의의미는 분명해졌으나역시번역의통일성은깨졌다. 다음으로는열왕기상 8:27// 역대하 6:18에서역대기의개정자가그간우 리말번역에서반영하지않았던히브리어불변화사 (particle) hnh 를 보소 서 로분명히하여옮긴경우를들수있다. 2 개역개정판 역대기의개정자만번역을고쳤는데, 그고친번역이여 전히재고의여지가있는경우가있다. 먼저, 열왕기상 8:3과역대하 5:4 의평행본문 larfy ynqz lk 에대하여 역대기개역개정판 개정자는납득할만한이유없이 이스라엘장로들 이다 라는번역전통에서벗어나 lk 의번역어인 다 를빠뜨렸다. 이경 우는분명히역대기개정자의부주의에서비롯한실수로밖에볼수없다. 둘째보기로, 열왕기상 8:25와역대하 6:16에서쓰인히브리어본문 ~krd-ta 을역대기개정자는지금까지유지해온 자기길을 을 그들의 행위를 로고쳤다. 물론문맥을보자면, 사람들이스스로걸어가는삶의여 정, 곧삶에서이루어지는모든 행위 를조심한다는의미다. 하지만본문 을직역한개역의전통도이런뜻을충분히드러낼수있다는점에서, 통 일성을깨뜨린역대기의수정은재고의여지가있다. (2) 우리말표현관련 열왕기에서와마찬가지로우리말표현과관련하여개역개정에와서 역대기수정자가번역을고치는바람에동일한대본의평행본문번역이달 라졌다. 이경우도상호독회를통해서번역을둘가운데하나로일치시켜 야한다. 34) 이와같은표현은창 35:11 을보라.

62 성경원문연구제35호 왕상 8:14 히브리어구약젼셔개역개역한글개역개정 bsyw 도리켜도리켜돌이켜돌이켜 대하 6:3 도리켜도리켜돌이켜돌려 왕상 8:14 대하 6:3 lhq-lk larfy 이스라엘의온회즁이스라엘온회즁 이스라엘의온會衆이스라엘의온會衆 이스라엘의온회중이스라엘의온회중 이스라엘의온회중이스라엘온회중 왕상 8:27 대하 6:18 bvy 거 시겟 잇가거 시겟 잇가 居하시리잇가居하시리잇가 거하시리이까거하시리이까 거하시리이까계시리이까 왕상 8:28 tlpt 부르지짐부르지즘부르짖음부르짖음 대하 6:19 구 부르지즘부르짖음부르짖는것 왕상 8:35 hyhy alw 비가업서비가업서셔비가없어서비가없어서 대하 6:26 rjm 비를 리지 니 야 비가업서셔비가없어서 비가내리지 않는 왕상 8:36 htaw 쥬 셔 대하 6:27 쥬 셔 主는주는주는 主는주는주께서는 왕상 8:47 대하 6:37 wn[vr 악을지엿나이다악을지엿나이다 惡을지엇나이다惡을지엇나이다 악을지었나이다악을지었나이다 악을지었나이다악을행하였나이다 3.3.2. 양쪽다달라진경우 1) 히브리어본문관련 1 두개정자가같은히브리어본문을두고제각각서로다른수정을했는 데, 어느한쪽이원문의의미를더잘반영한경우가있다. 먼저, 열왕기상 8:6// 역대하 5:7 의경우히브리어본문은 tybh rybd 이다. 여

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 63 기서쓰인 rybd 는 뒤에있다, 뒤로돌리다 는뜻의동사 rbd I 35) 에서파 생한명사로, 구약성경에서지성소를일컫는 ~yvdqh vdq 36) 과같은뜻으로 쓰인다. 37) 실제로이구절에서는두표현이잇달아나와서 tybh rybd 를 ~yvdqh vdq 이동격으로설명해주는꼴이다. 우리말성경에서는개역 한글판까지이두표현을 내전지성소 로옮겼다. 그런데열왕기의개역 개정판에서는 지성소 와구분되는 tybh rybd 를히브리어표현을살려 성전의내소 로고쳤다. 반면에역대기의개역개정판에서도수정이이 루어졌지만, 본전 으로옮겨서본디번역전통보다더모호해지는결과를 빚고말았다. 다음으로는열왕기상 8:28과역대하 6:19 의보기를들수있다. 이구절에 서솔로몬은야훼께스스로를 $db[ 라고일컫는다. 개역한글판에이르 기까지우리말번역전통에서이표현은인칭대명사를빼고 종이 로만옮 겼다. 개역개정판에와서이표현은두본문모두에서수정되었다. 하지 만열왕기에서는인칭대명사가아니라지시사를써서 이종이 로옮겼다. 이수정은사실상히브리어본문을제대로반영했다고볼수없다. 반면에 역대기에서는 2 인칭남성대명접미어를개역 을써서 주의종이 라고고쳤다. 성경의표현에따라존칭 셋째보기는열왕기상 8:43과역대하 6:33 에서찾아볼수있다. 여기서문 제가되는히브리어본문은 yrknh $yla arqy-rva lkk ( 이방인이당신께 부르짖는것모두그대로) 이다. 특히여기서쓰인 lk 은구역에서부터개 역한글판에이르기까지우리말에서 종합하여살펴보건대 라는뜻을가 진부사 무릇 으로옮겼다. 하지만역대기의개역개정판에서이번역은 모든이방인이주께부르짖는대로 로개정되어히브리어 lk 을살리려 한흔적이보인다. 하지만문장전체를받는히브리어표현과는달리역대 기의본문은 이방인 만을꾸미는관형사가되어의미의차이가생겼다. 반 면에열왕기의개정자는아예이표현을빼고 이방인이주께부르짖는대 로 만으로결정하였다. 이경우역대기가원문을반영하려했지만, 불완전 한상태이므로재고해보아야할것이다. 2 두개정자의서로다른수정이저마다의미가있어상호독회를통해합 의점을찾아야하는경우도있는데, 다음의경우다. 35) 참조, HALAT, 200-201. 36) 참조, 출 26:33, 34; 왕상 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; 겔 41:4; 대하 3:8, 10; 4:22; 5:7. 37) 참조, 왕상 6:5, 16, 19-23, 31; 7:49; 8:8; 시 28:2; 대하 3:16; 4:20; 5:9.

64 성경원문연구제35호 왕상 8:44 대하 6:34 히브리어구약젼셔개역개역한글개역개정 wbya-l[ 그들의그뎍국으로그敵國으로그적국으로적국과더브러더브러더불어더불어그뎍국으로그敵國으로그적국으로그적국과더브러더브러더불어더불어 여기서번역에문제가되는부분은단수명사에붙은 3인칭남성단수대 명접미어의처리다. 역대기의개정자가단수임을재확인하며 그 로옮긴 기존의번역을유지했다면, 열왕기의개정자는이본문의문맥이 백성 임 을고려하여비록원문과는다르지만 그들의 로고쳤다. (2) 우리말표현관련 다음표에있는보기들은히브리어본문의문제보다는우리말표현의문 제에서두본문이개역개정판에서제각각달라진경우들이다. 이경우도 두번역모두저마다의미가있으므로상호독회를통해한번역으로일치 시켜야한다. 히브리어구약젼셔개역개역한글개역개정 왕상 8:5 대하 5:6!wrah ynpl 법궤압헤잇서법궤압헤서셔 櫃압헤잇서櫃압헤잇서 궤앞에있어궤앞에있어 그궤앞에 있어 궤앞에서 왕상 8:25 네게로좃차나셔 네게로좃차나셔 네게로좇아나서 네게서나서 $l 38) 대하 6:16 네게로좃차나셔 네게로좃차나셔 네게로좇아나서 네게로부터 나서 38) 이경우히브리어 르카 는문자적으로는 너에게 이지만, 개역성경의전통은 너다음 너를대신하여 의의미로새겨서원문에없는 ~ 에게서나다 는표현을더하였다.

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 65 4. 결론및제언 본연구에서우리는열왕기와역대기의평행본문가운데일부분( 왕상 8:1-53// 대하 5:2-6:42) 을보기로개역개정판의번역양상을분석하였 다. 그결과개역개정판이개역한글판에까지이른우리말성경번역 의전통을개선한점을여러곳에서찾아볼수있었다. 그러나히브리어 본문이동일한평행본문에서우리는개역개정판 성경번역의문제점 도파악할수있었다. 이문제점들가운데는개역한글판의문제점이 여전히개정되지않고이어진경우도있었지만, 무엇보다개역개정판 의열왕기개정자와역대기개정자의상호독회소홀및부재에서비롯한 번역의비통일성을가장큰문제점으로지적할수있을것이다. 이문제 는개역한글판까지이르는전통에서는볼수없었던것으로, 이것이 히브리어본문의의미와관련되었든, 우리말표현과관련되었든, 반드시 개선되어야할문제이다. 우리는열왕기와역대기의일부분만대상으로살폈는데도위에서분 석한문제점들을어렵지않게찾아볼수있었다. 그렇기때문에더넓은 범위의본문을관찰한다면더많은경우의수가나올수있을것이다. 이 런문제를해결하기위해본연구에서는다음과같은두가지제언을하 고자한다. 먼저, 개역개정판성경은체계적이고세밀한재개정작업이필요하 다. 특히본연구에서다룬대로개역개정판 작업에서미처꼼꼼히하 지못한열왕기와역대기평행본문의상호독회를해야한다. 이를통해 적어도히브리어본문이같은부분이라면번역을통일시켜야할것이다. 물론히브리어본문이다른부분에대한재검토도함께이루어져야할것 이다. 히브리어본문과연관이되는경우둘가운데어느번역이더충실 히원문을반영하는지를충분히검토하여야하며, 우리말표현과관련되 는경우에는우리말맞춤법과번역어투의일관성을함께고려하여번역 을일치시켜야할것이다. 둘째, 현재대한성서공회를중심으로 차세대를위한우리말성경번 역 을진행하고있다. 39) 이런새로운성경번역프로젝트와관련하여두 가지점을유의해야한다. 먼저, 새로운성경번역프로젝트에서는개역 개정판에서찾아볼수있는평행본문번역의문제점은답습하지않아 39) 이에관한글들로는대한성서공회에서발행하는 성경원문연구 제31 호별책 (2012. 12) 에실린글들을참조해볼수있다.

66 성경원문연구제35호 야할것이다. 그다음으로현실적인점을생각해보지않을수없다. 곧 새로운성경번역이나오고그것이교회에서정경으로받아들여진다고 해도한동안은여전히개역개정판을교회에서정경으로더써야한 다. 게다가이전에공동번역이나새번역의경험에서볼때, 새로운 성경번역이교회에서개역 성경의전통을대치할수있을지를확신할 수도없다. 그렇다면더욱더개역개정판의재개정에우선적으로박차 를가해야할것이다. 이렇듯개역개정판의재개정이이루어진다면, 본연구에서제기했 듯, 적어도열왕기와역대기의평행본문에서히브리어본문이같은경우 에대하여면밀한상호독회를반드시거쳐야할것이다. < 주제어>(Keywords) 열왕기역대기평행본문, 구약성경번역, 개역개정, 본문대조, 본문비평. Parallel passages between Kings and Chronicles, Korean Translation of the Old Testament, New Revised Korean Version, Synoptic parallels, Textual Criticism. ( 투고일자: 2014년 6월 24 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 67 < 참고문헌>(References) 대영셩셔공회편, 구약젼셔, 경셩: 대영셩셔공회, 명치44[1911]; 韓國聖經大全 集 10, 11, 19, 20, 서울: 한국기독교문헌연구소, 2002 영인본(10권과 11 권의표지에제각각신약 ( 상) (1900), 신약 ( 하) (1900) 로잘못표기 되어있음 ). 죠션셩셔공회편, 구약개역, 경셩: 조션셩셔공회, 昭和 13[1938]; 韓國聖經大 全集 40, 41; 서울: 한국기독교문헌연구소, 2002 영인본. 강성열, 개역개정판의창세기번역오류수정을위한제안, 신학이해 40 (2011), 11-33. 강성열, 개역개정판의호세아번역오류수정을위한제안, 한국기독교신학논 총 76 (2011), 55-75. 강승일, 성경전서개역개정판아가번역의개정을위한주석적제안, 구약논 단 38 (2010), 93-113. 김정우, 성경전서개역개정판에대한소고, 신학지남 68:3 (2001), 9-27. 김정수, 성경전서개역개정판에대한언어학적인검토, 성경원문연구 2 (1998), 70-74. 김정훈, 우리말역본과함께하는호세아주석, 서울: 기독교문서선교회, 2013. 김중은, 구약성서국역사, 구약의말씀과현실, 서울: 한국성서학연구소, 1996, 28-29. 나채운, 우리말성경연구, 서울: 기독교문사, 1990. 나채운, 개역성경개정판, 무엇이어떻게바뀌었나, 기독교사상 42:10 (1998), 158-166. 대한성서공회편, 성경원문연구 제31 호별책, 서울: 대한성서공회, 2012. 도한호, 개역한글판성경개정의의의와방법, 성경원문연구 2 (1998), 19-42. 류대영, 옥성득, 이만열, 대한성서공회사 II. 번역 반포와권서사업, 서울: 대한 성서공회, 1994. 민경진, 하코하님하르위임 의번역재고, 부산장신논총 13 (2013), 25-40. 민영진, 개역개정판, 이렇게달라졌다, 서울: 대한성서공회, 2003. 박동현, 관주성경전서개역한글판시편 1 편관주에대한연구, 성경원문연 구 6 (2000), 198-229. 서철원, 개역개정판성경의문제 창세기, 마태복음, 요한복음, 신학지남 68:3 (2001), 176-222. 이종록, 사무엘 열왕기와역대기본문대조, 서울: 한국장로교출판사, 1995. 이한수, 개역개정판 성경전서 에대한평가 갈라디아서, 신학지남 68:3 (2001), 223-231.

68 성경원문연구제35호 유재원, 개역성경과개역개정성경, 신학지남 70:1 (2003), 4-8. 전무용, 개역한글판성경의관주검토, 성경원문연구 4 (1999), 65-90. 홍근수, 성경전서개역개정판에대한몇가지의견, 성경원문연구 2 (1998), 91-96. 황선우, 사무엘 열왕기평행본문대조집, 서울: 기독교문서선교회, 2012. 황선우, 역대기평행본문대조집, 서울: 기독교문서선교회, 2012. Bendavid, A., Parallels in the Bible (heb.), Jerusalem: Carta, 1965, 2010. Brooke, A., McLean, N., and Thackeray, H. St. J., eds., The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, vol. II:2, I and II Kings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930. Brooke, A., McLean, N., and Thackeray, H. St. J., eds., The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, vol. II:3, I and II Chronicles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932. Crockett, W. D., A Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1951, 1985. Endres, J. C., Millar, W. R., and Burns, J. B., eds., Chronicles and its Synoptic Parallels in Samuel, Kings, and Related Biblical Texts, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998. Japhet, S., 2 Chronik, HThK.AT, Freiburg: Herder, 2003. Kegler, J. and Augustin, M., Synopse zum Chronistischen Geschichtswerk, BEATAJ 1, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1993. Klein, R. W., 2 Chronicles, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Mayer, G., hdy jdh, II. Bedeutung, 1. im hebr. Sprachgebrauch, ThWAT III (1982), 455-458. Newsome, J., A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles With Related Passages from Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezra, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986. Vannutelli, P., Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti seu Librorum Regum et Chronicorum loci paralleli, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1931.

열왕기와역대기평행본문의개역개정판번역에대한소고 / 김정훈 69 <Abstracts> A Study on the Translation of Parallels between Kings and Chronicles in the New Korean Revised Version (1998) Based on the Analysis of 1Ki 8:1-53 and 2Ch 5:2-6:42 Jong-Hoon Kim (Busan Presbyterian University) The present study analyses the texts of sample passages (1Ki 8:1-53//2Ch 5:2-6:42) from the parallels between Kings and Chronicles focusing on the translation of the New Korean Revised Version (1998). The main perspective is that the translation of the parallel texts should be equal, if both Hebrew texts are identical. The result of the analysis naturally shows the improvement of the NKRV (1998), but also exposes its problems in the translation. These problems are to be categorized as the following: (1) cases where incorrect translations or mistakes of the previous version, the Korean Revised Version (1956) are maintained; (2) cases where problems of translation are newly raised in the NKRV. These problems are found not only in one of the parallel texts, but sometimes in both of them. They are concerned mainly with the differentiated translation of the identical source text, and the active revision of one part of parallels in the NKRV. They were therefore caused either by a careless reviser, or by the absence of mutual reading to reach a consensus between revisers of the parallels. The problematic cases can be found without effort, although the present study has set the limit to analyse just one chapter. There should therefore be much more cases where translation of the parallels between Kings and Chronicles need reconsideration. Finally, the present study insists that the New Korean Revised Version must be revised once more, at least in the passages of parallels between Kings and Chronicles.

70 성경원문연구제35호 역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) 소형근 * 1. 서론 그동안구약성서와관련된저널들에서포로이후역사문헌인에스라 - 느헤미야서에대한연구가활발해졌다는것은고무적인일이다. 포로기와 포로이후이스라엘종교는유대교(Judaism) 의초석이되어왔으며, 1) 유대 교의첫걸음이라할수있는페르시아시대유대교를이해해야지헬레니 즘유대교와초기기독교의탄생을이해할수있을것이다. 이런맥락에서 포로이후역사서인에스라- 느헤미야서는중요한위치를차지하고있다. 에스라- 느헤미야서가이렇게비중있는책이고, 그동안학자들의많은연 구들이있었지만, 페르시아시대예루살렘귀환자그룹의지도자였던에스 라에대한논쟁은여전히계속되고있는것이사실이다. 본논문에서는에 스라와관련된학계의그동안의논쟁들을정리하면서역사적에스라에대 한새로운가능성을제안할것이며, 귀환자에스라를추종하고, 그의개혁 을지지하던그룹인 하레딤 (~ydrx) 과그들의역할에대해살펴보도록할 것이다. 2. 에스라이해 * Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-University Bonn에서구약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재서울신학대학교교양학부교수. bonnso@hanmail.net. 이논문은 2014년도서울신학대학교교내연구비지원에의한논문임. 1) 이에대해서는다음의책들을참고하라. J. 블렌킨소프, 유대교의기원: 에스라와느헤미야를중심으로, 소형근역 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2014); M. 헹엘, 유대교와헬레니즘: 기원전 2 세기중반까지팔레스타인을중심으로한유대교와헬레니즘의만남, 박정수역 ( 파주: 나남, 2012); 박정수, 기독교신학의뿌리: 유대교사상의형성과신약성서배경사 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2008) 등.

역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) / 소형근 71 2.1. 에스라는누구인가? 구약성서에의하면포로이후바빌론지역에있던디아스포라유대인지 도자들중페르시아왕의조서를통해예루살렘을방문한자가있었는데 그가바로에스라다( 스 7:11-13). 이런에스라에대해구약성서는학자겸 제사장( 스 7:11, 12, 21; 느 8:9; 12:26) 이라고알려주고있다. 에스라-느헤미 야서에서묘사하고있는에스라에대한정보는다음세가지로요약할수 있다. 첫째, 에스라는페르시아왕아닥사스다통치기간에왕의조서를통 해유다와예루살렘에서자신의임무를수행하며, 성전에헌물을전달하는 자로등장한다( 스 7:11-8:34). 둘째, 에스라는예루살렘수문앞광장에서나 팔절( 일곱째달초하루) 을맞아모세의율법책을회중앞에서낭독하는모 습으로소개되고있다( 느 8:1-18). 셋째, 에스라는귀환자골라(hlwg) 그룹이 이방여인들과결혼함으로인해, 공동체의정체성을훼손시킴으로이를개 혁하려는모습으로나온다( 스 9-10 장). 2) 다시말하면, 에스라는자신의동 료유대인들을유다지방으로인도한뛰어난디아스포라종교지도자( 제사 장으로서역할) 였고, 페르시아제국왕실에서특별한임무를맡아수행하 던자( 왕실서기관으로서역할) 였다. 그러나한사람이이런막중한두가지 역할을동시에감당할수있었을까? 예를들면, 유다공동체를위해제사장 역할을수행하다보면제국이요청하는임무를수행하기어려워지고, 제국 의요청대로하다보면제사장의역할을감당하기어렵게된다. 이둘을적 절히, 균형있게수행하기란쉬운것이아니기때문이다. 그리고에스라가 유다지방에서행한위의세가지는에스라가반드시제사장이어야만할 수있는사역들은아니었다. 분명한것은에스라 7:1-5에서에스라를대제 사장아론의십육대손으로연결시키고있지만, 에스라가대제사장으로서 기능을수행했던흔적들을성서본문들에서찾아볼수없다는점이다. 3) 또 한느헤미야 12:10-11에는포로이후대제사장계보를알려주고있는데이 명단에에스라가빠져있음을고려해볼때, 에스라가예루살렘과유다지 2) 김윤이, 에스라는누구인가?, 구약논단 28 (2008), 88-106. 3) 요세푸스문헌에는에스라를대제사장(prōtos hiereus) 으로언급하고있고(Ant. 11.121), 랍비문헌에서도에스라가대제사장예수아의뒤를승계했다고주장한다 (Midr. Cant 5:5). 그러나에스라가대제사장으로활동했다는증거는없다. 에스라의이름이역대상 6장에나오는제사장목록에나오지않으며, 에스라-느헤미야서에도에스라를대제사장으로서언급하지않는다. 아크로이드의글을참고하라. P. R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler as Exegete, JSOT 2 (1977), 18-19. 트론베이트는에스라 7:1-5 의족보가에스라의족보가아니라고말한다. 참고. M. A. Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992), 40-41.

72 성경원문연구제35호 방에서대제사장직을수행했던것은분명아니었다. 그렇다면여기서역사 적에스라에대해묻지않을수없다. 구약성서의언급과는달리, 학자들중에는역사적에스라에관심을갖고 있는자들이많다. 예를들면, 마이어스(J. M. Myers) 는에스라를학자겸제 사장으로서인정하지만, 에스라의두역할( 학자와제사장) 중더중요한것 은율법학자의역할이었다고주장한다. 4) 트론베이트(M. A. Throntveit) 는 마이어스의주장을지지하면서, 여기서더발전하여에스라의학자로서모 습이본래에스라의역할이었고, 에스라의제사장적기능은후대첨가라고 본다. 5) 블렌킨소프(J. Blenkinsopp) 또한에스라가페르시아제국에서파견 된사람임을감안할때, 에스라이야기의핵심에는에스라가서기관( 학자, rps) 6) 으로활동하고있지, 제사장으로서는아니라고생각한다. 에스라의 제사장적기능을강조한이유에대해블렌킨소프는에스라를새로운사회 의기원자로내세워바빌론디아스포라에서신앙을변절하지않고, 매수로 더럽히지않은제사장으로서에스라를롤모델로삼고자했다고주장한 다. 7) 마이어스나트론베이트, 블렌킨소프의역사적에스라에대한신선한 주장들이타당성을갖는이유에대해두가지관점에서살펴볼수있을것 같다. 첫째는에스라- 느헤미야서에서역사적에스라를찾는방법이고, 둘 째는기원전 6-4 세기상황에서역사적에스라를찾는방법이다. 에스라가예루살렘에귀환할때, 에스라는페르시아왕아닥사스다의조 서를통해귀환허락을받게된다. 이때에스라는 학자 (rps) 겸 제사 장 (!hk) 으로불린다( 스 7:12, 21). 여기서 학자 곧 소페르 는고대근동에 서 국무장관 ( 삼하 20:25) 이나, 비서실장 ( 삼하 8:17; 왕하 22:3-13) 을가리 키는관직명으로, 장춘식은 소페르 를페르시아왕이임명한페르시아제 국의고위관직명으로봐야한다고주장한다. 8) 그렇다면페르시아고위관 리인 소페르 에스라가남는시간을활용하여디아스포라유대인들을위 해바빌론지역에서제사장직을수행할수있었을까? 묻는다면, 그것은아 마도불가능했을것이라고답할것이다. 만약에스라가레위지파의후손 이었다고한다면조상들로부터내려오는세습신분은계속유지할수있었 을지모르지만, 페르시아제국의고위관리이면서, 왕의총애를받고있던 4) J. M. 마이어스, 에스라- 느헤미야 ( 서울: 한국신학연구소, 1983), 141-142. 5) M. A. 트론베이트, 에스라- 느헤미야 ( 서울: 한국장로교출판사, 2001), 75-76. 6) 바인펠트는 소페르 가다양한형태의국가적활동들을담당했다고보면서 소페르 는 기록하는일, 정치적인일, 교육적인활동 등을담당했다고본다. 참고, M. Weinfeld, Judges and Oifficers in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ISO VII (1977), 83. 7) J. 블렌킨소프, 유대교의기원: 에스라와느헤미야를중심으로, 111-116. 8) 장춘식, 에스라- 느헤미야 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2007), 152-153.

역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) / 소형근 73 자가바빌론지역의유다공동체를위해제사장으로활동했을가능성은매 우희박하다고볼수있다. 에스라-느헤미야서에나타난초기자료층들에 의하면에스라가 소페르 로만소개되고있는이유가바로여기에있다( 스 7:11 하; 8:1, 4, 13). 9) 페르시아왕과일곱자문관들은유대인들의토라교육 에대한관심보다는유다와예루살렘의정세변화에관심이더컸음이분 명하다( 스 7:14). 그렇다면역사적에스라의실체는페르시아의관리인 소 페르 였으며, 이후에유다공동체안에서에스라의제사장적기능이발휘 되었던것으로볼수있지만, 에스라-느헤미야서본문에서에스라의정확 한제사장적기능은알수없다. 10) 또한기원전 6-4세기상황에서역사적에스라의모습을짐작해볼수있 는데, 김경래는기원전 6-4 세기서기관의역할에집중하면서이시기에 소 페르 는 율법에대한합법적해설자인동시에수호자의구실 을했으며, 고대히브리어체를정방형의아람어체로바꾼것은바로이들서기관들 의중요한활동중의하나 라고보고있다. 11) 그럼이시기에활동했던 소 페르 는과연누구일까? 김경래는바빌론에서돌아온 모세의율법에익숙 한학사 에스라를포로이후 소페르 의일원으로생각하고있다. 12) 물론 이에대한분명한성서적근거는없지만, 그개연성은얼마든지상정해볼 수있다. 종합하면, 소페르 에스라가페르시아에서예루살렘으로파송받 아골라공동체를위해하나님의율법을연구하여가르치면서활동했으며, 그는나팔절을맞아예루살렘수문앞광장에서율법을낭독했던( 느 8 장) 페르시아관리 소페르 였다. 2.2. 에스라의귀환시기 포로이후유다와예루살렘에서활동했던대표적인인물로에스라와느 헤미야가있다. 일반적으로에스라는아닥사스다 1 세( 기원전 465-424 년) 7 년에예루살렘에왔고( 기원전 458 년; 스 7:7-8), 느헤미야는아닥사스다 1세 20 년에예루살렘에왔으며( 기원전 445 년; 느 2:1), 이들은동시대에유다와 9) 김윤이, 에스라는누구인가?, 94. 10) 에스라의제사장적기능은느헤미야 8 장에나오는 토라낭독 으로볼수있지만, 포로이후 토라교육 과 토라낭독 은제사장이아닌, 레위인, 평신도에게도부여된기능이었다( 대하 17:7-9). 11) 김경래, 비블리아헤브라이카퀸타연구, 성경원문연구 1 (1997), 123. 12) 포로이후서기관의활동은율법책의필사와해석이라는차원에서중요한역할을담당했었다. 이에대해서는다음의글을참고하라. 김경래, 구약본문전래과정에대한연구, 성경원문연구 1 (1997), 152.

74 성경원문연구제35호 예루살렘에있었다고구약성서는증언한다( 참고, 느 8:9; 12:26). 그러나비 평적학자들은이두사람이동시에예루살렘에존재했을가능성을낮게 보고있으며, 에스라가느헤미야보다앞서온것에대해회의적인시각을 갖고있다. 그이유는느헤미야가제사장엘리아십과교류한반면( 느 13:4, 7), 에스라는엘리아십의아들, 제사장여호하난( 요나단) 과교류했기때문 이다( 스 10:6). 이런이유때문에놀(K. L. Noll) 은느헤미야가에스라보다 한세대이전에예루살렘에와서활동했으며, 13) 에스라는아닥사스다 1세 가아닌, 아닥사스다 2 세( 기원전 404-358 년) 7년에예루살렘에온것으로 추정한다( 기원전 398 년). 이주장대로한다면, 에스라가느헤미야보다약 50 년후에예루살렘에귀환한셈이된다. 이에대한반박으로윌리암슨은 느헤미야당시의엘리아십과에스라 10:6의엘리아십이동일인물이아닐 가능성을주장한다. 14) 그러나이것은적절한반론이될수없다. 에스라 10:6에나오는엘리아십의아들여호하난은느헤미야 12:11에나오는대제 사장계보의요나단을말한다. 요나단, 즉여호하난이대제사장이었다면, 그의직계조상( 아마도할아버지) 엘리아십또한대제사장이다. 15) 또한느 헤미야가상대했던엘리아십( 느 13:7) 은이방인도비야에게성전의방을 내줄정도로성전안에서막강한권력을가진자였다. 느헤미야가말하는 엘리아십은분명대제사장이었을것이다. 그러나본문의모호함이있음에도불구하고이문제는결코단순하지않 다. 에스라의후대귀환( 기원전 398 년) 은앞선귀환( 기원전 458 년) 보다오 히려더많은문제점을야기하기때문이다. 우선구약성서는에스라와느 헤미야를동시대에동일장소에서공존하던유다공동체의지도자들로설 정해놓고있다. 나팔절수문앞광장에서모세의율법책을낭독하던에스 라와함께총독느헤미야가등장한다( 느 8:9). 느헤미야가이본문에어울 리지않는다고생각하는클라인스(D. J. Clines) 의주장도있지만, 16) 그러나 만약 9 절에느헤미야가누락되어있으면, 그것이오히려더어색하다. 예루 살렘성벽공사를마무리하고나서공동체의영적부흥을위해공동체구 성원전원이함께모여율법을듣고결신하는감동과축제의자리에총독 느헤미야가빠져있다는것은더문제가된다. 17) 그리고느헤미야 1:1( 하 가랴의아들느헤미야의말이라아닥사스다왕제이십년기슬르월에내가 13) K. L. 놀, 고대가나안과이스라엘역사, 소형근역 ( 서울: 프리칭아카데미, 2013), 407. 14) H. G. M. 윌리암슨, 에스라- 느헤미야, 조호진역 ( 서울: 솔로몬, 2008), 649. 15) 느헤미야 3:1 에서는느헤미야시대대제사장이엘리아십이었음을알려준다. 16) D. J. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 185. 17) 소형근, 느헤미야 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2014), 136.

역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) / 소형근 75 수산궁에있는데 ) 에는페르시아왕아닥사스다의이름을삭제하고, 단지 이십년 (~yrf[ tnv) 이라는통치연한만사용하고있다. 이것은에스라본 문의연속선상에서느헤미야본문을읽어가라는의미다. 또한에스라가느 헤미야의성벽재건목록( 느 3 장) 이나, 성벽재건현장에등장하지는않지 만, 에스라와느헤미야가성벽봉헌식에참여하여백성의행렬을이끄는 지도자들로나타난다( 느 12:31-43). 18) 이런점들을종합해보면다음과같 이정리해볼수있을것같다. 에스라의예루살렘귀환시기를다룰때, 에 스라가느헤미야보다예루살렘에먼저온것에대한구약성서본문의모호 한점이분명있지만, 에스라가아닥사스다 2세 7년에예루살렘에왔다는 주장또한완벽한것이아니라, 여러문제점들을야기시킨다. 그리고에스 라의후대귀환을주장하려면에스라-느헤미야서의편집을언급해야만한 다. 따라서이주제에대한계속적인논쟁은아마도소모적일것이다. 이경 우는정경에대한전통적읽기와전통적이해가타당할듯하다. 19) 2.3. 에스라의임무 에스라가유다와예루살렘에온이유는무엇인가? 이에대한궁금증을 에스라 7 장에서찾을수있으며, 일반적으로세가지임무를지적한다. 20) 첫째, 에스라는야웨의율법을연구하여, 준행하며, 율례와규례를이스라 엘에게가르치기로결심하여예루살렘에왔고( 스 7:10), 둘째, 에스라는하 나님의율법을따라유다와예루살렘의형편을살피기위해왔으며( 스 7:14), 셋째, 에스라는바빌론에서가져온물건들을하나님의성전에전달 할목적으로왔다( 스 7:15-20). 그러나에스라의임무는이것으로끝이아니 다. 제국이에스라에게부여한임무가추가로언급되고있다. 에스라 7:26 에는 무릇네하나님의명령과왕의명령을준행하지아니하는자는속히 그죄를정하여혹죽이거나귀양보내거나가산을몰수하거나옥에가둘 18) Ibid., 202. 에스라그룹은예루살렘성벽의오른쪽으로시계반대방향을따라남쪽분문쪽을향해내려갔으며, 느헤미야그룹은예루살렘성벽의왼쪽으로시계방향을따라화덕 ( 도가니) 망대쪽으로올라갔다. 19) 켈러만은지역법률을제정하고, 진행시키도록격려하는모습은아케메네스왕조통치후반기와는대치되는모습이기에에스라의소명은후기보다는초기가더잘어울린다고주장한다. U. Kellermann, Erwägungen zum Problem der Esradatierung, ZAW 80 (1968), 55-87. 20) 에스라의첫번째임무는아닥사스다조서밖에있는역할이고, 아람어가아닌히브리어로기록되었다. 따라서에스라의첫번째임무는에스라개인이생각하는임무로이해할수있다. 나머지두번째와세번째임무는아닥사스다의조서안에있는아람어로기록된임무로, 제국에서지시한임무로볼수있다.

76 성경원문연구제35호 지니라 고말한다. 이본문에는단순히하나님의명령(%hla-yd atd) 만을말 하지않고, 왕의명령(aklm yd atdw) 에준행하지아니한자에대한엄벌을 말하고있다. 이것은페르시아제국정책의근간을담은법을백성들에게 가르쳐신민의의무를다하도록하는에스라의또다른임무이다. 21) 키드너(F. D. Kidner) 는에스라의첫번째임무에대해 연구 (vrd) 는비현 실성에서부터건져내주고, 준행 (hf[ ) 은불확실에서부터벗어나게해주 며, 가르침 (dml) 은위선과천박함에서벗어나게해준다고말한다. 22) 그러 나구약성서의이런언급과는달리호글룬트(K. G. Hoglund) 는에스라의파 견이페르시아제국의미래와예후드의운명을연결하여경제적, 사회적관 계를개발하고자하는제국의노력으로이해하고있다. 23) 앞선키드너의주 장은성서본문중심으로에스라의임무를이해한것이고, 호글룬트의주장 은페르시아제국의관점에서에스라의임무를이해한경우다. 그러나역사 적에스라의귀환임무에는키드너의관점과호글룬트의관점이따로존재 했다기보다, 이두가지목표가함께전제되어있었던것으로보인다. 페르 시아왕다리오 2 세는자신의고위관리인우자호레스네트(Udjahorresnet) 를 이집트지역에, 히스티에우스(Histiaeus) 를그리스지역에파견했는데, 이파 견의목적은제국의이익과목적달성을위해왕실관리를파송한것이었 다. 24) 이와동일선상에서페르시아관리( 소페르 ) 에스라를이해한다면, 에스라의임무에대한목적이분명해질것이다. 에스라는페르시아제국을 위한특별한임무를부여받고예루살렘에왔음이분명하다. 이것은구약성 서에나오는에스라의두번째임무( 스 7:14) 에서알수있다. 즉, 에스라의 임무는페르시아제국의안보를위해유다와예루살렘의종교적상황 25) 뿐 만아니라, 정치적인상황에대한실태를파악하여, 보고하는것이었다. 그러나문제는에스라가여러가지임무를가지고유다와예루살렘에왔 지만, 이네가지임무를유다와예루살렘에서수행했었을까? 묻지않을수 없다. 구약성서에서말하는에스라의임무가제국에서지시하는하향식임 무였다고한다면, 역으로에스라자신은어떤임무를심중에가지고있었 을까? 이에대한질문은에스라가유다와예루살렘에서수행한일들을살 21) 민경진, 에스라- 느헤미야서의레위계기원: 역사적맥락, 구약논단 17 (2005), 93. 22) H. G. M. 윌리암슨, 에스라- 느헤미야, 224 에서재인용. 23) K. G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBLDS 125 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 244-247. 24) P. Briant, Histoire de l empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, vol. 1 (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 586-605; From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 569-588. 25) 장춘식, 에스라- 느헤미야, 158.

역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) / 소형근 77 펴보면, 그의마음에있던임무들을역으로유추해볼수있을것이다. 흥미 로운것은에스라-느헤미야서에는제국이에스라에게지시한하향식임무 들중에 제국의이익 을위한실행(practice) 이빠져있다는것이다. 에스라- 느헤미야서에는에스라의첫번째와세번째임무만이분명히달성되었음 을알려주고있을뿐이고( 스 8:33-35; 9-10 장; 느 8 장), 에스라의두번째임 무와제국이부여한추가적인임무수행에대해서는침묵하고있다. 에스 라-느헤미야서는하나님의율법을토대로한에스라의유다공동체를위한 임무와그결과들만을기록하고있을뿐이다. 결과론적으로보면, 에스라 의임무에대한키드너와호글룬트의주장을동시에수용하는것이옳을 것같다. 제국이왕실관리였던소페르에스라에게하향식으로요청했던 임무가분명있었고, 유대인으로서스스로임무를계획했던에스라의모습 이성서본문을통해분명하게드러나고있다. 3. 에스라개혁과지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) 3.1. 에스라개혁 에스라가유다와예루살렘에와서수행했던강력한개혁드라이브가에 스라 9-10 장에소개되고있다. 개혁의내용은골라(hlwg) 그룹이땅의백성 이나, 혹은이방인과결혼하는것에대한금지와이별을촉구하는내용이 다. 그렇다면골라그룹이이방인과결혼하는것이왜문제가되는것일까? 이유는율법에이방인과결혼을금하고있기때문이다( 신 7:1-5). 26) 에스라 의첫번째임무대로에스라는에스라 9장이하에서율법에따라개혁을단 행하고있다. 그러나에스라의개혁에서흥미로운점은골라남성과이방 인여성에대한결혼에만관심을두고있다는점이다( 스 9:2). 27) 이것은이 스라엘의세습적토지소유권과깊이관련되어있다. 골라여성이이방남 성과결혼했을경우에는골라그룹에서배제되어크게위협적이지않지만, 골라남성이이방여성과결혼했을경우에는그자녀들이토지소유권을 승계할수있기때문에, 행여있게될토지소유권에대한상실을염려하여 이런개혁을단행한것이다. 28) 26) 그밖에도출애굽기 3:8, 17; 33:2; 34:11; 신명기 20:17 등. 27) 에스라 10:18-44 에는이방여인과결혼한골라남성들의명단을기록하고있다. 이것은골라여성들이이방남성들이나, 땅의백성들중남성들과결혼하는것이크게문제가되지않음을의미하는것이다.

78 성경원문연구제35호 그러나에스라의개혁은당시시대상황을고려할때관행이라는대세를 꺾고, 율법에기초한새로운공동체로거듭나기위한작업이었는데, 과연이 것이성공적인결과를가져왔을까의구심이든다. 기원전 6-5세기메소포타 미아지역과시리아-팔레스타인지역은다양한민족문화들이혼재되어있 던다문화사회였다. 이러한시대적흐름은유다공동체에게도마찬가지였 다. 바빌론에있던디아스포라유대인들이나, 29) 엘레판틴에있던유대인들 조차도 30) 혼합종교의식이나, 타민족사람들과결혼이일반화되어있었고, 또한그것이그렇게흠으로생각되지않던시대였다. 그리고때로는정착해 있는그지역의문화와종교에동화되어살아가는길이이들의살길이라고 생각했었다. 31) 이것은유다와예루살렘에돌아와정착한골라집단의구성 원들에게도마찬가지였다. 이러한종교적, 문화적배경을고려해볼때과연 에스라의개혁이성공을거두었을까? 김래용은에스라 10장에기록된잡혼 자들목록이단순한목록이아니라, 에스라개혁이성공적으로완성되었음 을강조하는역할을한다고주장한다. 32) 그러나이러한주장은섣부른결론 이될수있다. 여기서고려해야할점은에스라의개혁대상이골라그룹이 었으며, 골라그룹구성원들중에서도엘리트집단이라할수있는제사장들 과레위인들, 그리고평신도지도자들이대부분이었고, 이들이이혼합결혼 에연루되어있었다. 골라의엘리트구성원들이이방인들과결혼하는이유 는페르시아속주의또다른권력자들과정치적결탁을통해자신의사회적 입지를구축( 혹은강화) 하고, 경제적이익을꾀하기위한목적이었다. 33) 따 라서이러한혼합결혼의관계를에스라한개인이끊으려고한다는것은엄 청난저항이뒤따랐을것이다. 결론적으로에스라의개혁이성공했다고보 기힘든세가지이유를들면다음과같다. 첫째, 에스라 10장에나오는잡혼 자들의명단에는전체 111 명이나오는데, 이명단은귀환자전체숫자34) 에 28) J. 블렌킨소프, 유대교의기원: 에스라와느헤미야를중심으로, 105-106. 29) E. Ephal, The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries B.C.: Maintenance and Cohesion, Or 47 (1978), 74-90; E. Ephal, On the Political and Social Organization of the Jews in Babylonian Exile, Fritz Steppat, ed., XXI Deutscher Orientalistentag Vorträge, ZDMGSup 5 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983), 106-112. 30) J. 블렌킨소프, 유대교의기원: 에스라와느헤미야를중심으로, 173-176. 31) 소형근, 에스라- 느헤미야서에나타난신학적기원들, 구약논단 47 (2013), 136-137. 32) 김래용, 에스라 9-10장과느헤미야 13 장의특징과역할, 구약논단 38 (2010), 41. 33) 장춘식, 에스라- 느헤미야, 320. 암몬사람도비야는유대인지도층인사들과정치적이고, 경제적인목적으로돈독한관계를유지하고있었다. 유대인종교지도자들도예외는아니었다. 34) 에스라 2:64 에는귀환자가사만이천삼백육십명이었다고말한다. 남종과여종은이계수에포함되지않고있다( 참고, 스 2:65).

역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) / 소형근 79 비해상대적으로적은숫자다. 35) 마이어스는이명단이전체가아니라, 일부 일가능성을제시한다. 그러나에스라 10:18-44 는제사장, 레위사람, 노래하 는자, 이스라엘의평신도지도자들순으로체계적인목록나열이되어있 고, 마지막 44 절( 이상은모두이방여인을아내로맞이한자라그중에는자 녀를낳은여인도있었더라 ) 에는목록을마무리하는멘트로끝맺고있다. 따라서이목록이전체가아니라, 일부일가능성은희박하다. 둘째, 개혁의 시작은있었지만, 개혁의결과가없다는점이다. 에스라의주도로잡혼자들 에대한명단확인이추진되었지만, 이들이에스라의의도대로잡혼가정들 을해체했다는실천사항이빠져있다. 셋째, 에스라이후에예루살렘에온 총독느헤미야가에스라와동일한개혁을느헤미야 13장에서반복하고있 다. 만약에스라의개혁이성공을거두었다면, 동시대를살았던느헤미야가 개혁을수행할필요가있었을까? 따라서조심스럽게결론을내린다면, 에스 라개혁은 절반의성공 이라볼수있다. 즉, 에스라는율법에근거하여이 방인들과결혼금지를포로이후골라공동체에알리는홍보대사로서중요 한역할을담당했다는차원에서절반의성공(?) 이라할수있다. 3.2. 개혁의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) 은누구인가? 에스라 9-10 장에는에스라개혁에중요한지지그룹이등장한다. 에스라 의지지그룹에게있어서특이한점은특정한고유의이름을가지고등장 하는것이아니라, 이들은 이스라엘의하나님의말씀으로말미암아떠는 자 ( 스 9:4) 이고, 우리하나님의명령을떨며준행하는자 ( 스 10:3) 들이다. 이두본문에서공통적으로사용하고있는히브리어동사는 떨다 라는의 미를가진히브리어 하라드 (drx) 다. 먼저이 하라드 에대한구약성서의 용례들을살펴보도록한다. 3.2.1. 하라드 (drx) 의용례 히브리어 하라드 (drx) 는칼(Qal) 형으로 떨다 (to tremble), 히필(Hiphil) 형으로 놀라다 (to startle) 라는의미로쓰이고있다(HALOT I, 350). 하라드 는대체로공포의상태를묘사하는상황에서사용하는데, 바우만(A. Baumann) 은구약성서에서 하라드 의쓰임을크게세가지용법으로분류 35) J. M. 마이어스, 에스라- 느헤미야, 169. 마이어스는에스라 10장의적은숫자에대해세가지가능성을들고있다. 첫째, 잡혼문제가그리심각하지않았다. 둘째, 전체명단이아니라, 일부명단이다. 셋째, 개혁이성공적이지않았다.

80 성경원문연구제35호 한다. 36) 첫째는 하라드 의세속적인용법으로서, 나쁜소식을들었을경우 ( 창 27:33; 삼상 4:13, 18), 혹은전쟁에임하거나, 전쟁소식을듣게되었을 경우( 삼상 13:7; 28:5) 떨거나, 놀라는 상태를말한다. 둘째는신현현과 관련된공포로인한떨림이다. 야웨께서시내산에천둥과번개, 큰나팔소 리와불과함께강림하셨을때, 백성들은공포에사로잡히게되었다( 출 19:16, 18). 이런경우공황에가까운공포를말한다. 37) 셋째는종말론적평 화나전체적인안정을의미하는차원에서사용되는데, 이때에는히브리어 엔마하리드 (dyrxm!ya) 와같은관용구로쓰인다. 레위기 26:6에는축복의 맥락에서들짐승과칼의위협을제함으로써평화의상태를가져오게되는 데, 이때어느누구도너희를두렵게할자가없도록하겠다는하나님의말 씀으로사용되고있다. 38) 3.2.2. 에스라 9-10장의하레딤 에스라 9:4와에스라 10:3 에나오는 떠는자 (drx) 혹은 떠는자 들 (~ydrx) 은바우만이분석한 하라드(drx) 의세가지용례들중에두번째 에해당한다. 물론신현현은아니지만, 에스라본문에의하면 떠는자들 이 하나님의말씀으로인해떨고있고( 스 9:4), 하나님의명령으로인해떨고 있다( 스 10:3). 그런데 떠는자들 인 하레딤 을윌리암슨은포로이후공동 체에서율법을엄격하게지키는사람들을표현하는정형화된용어로이해 하고있다. 39) 블렌킨소프또한윌리암슨의주장을지지하면서 하레딤 을 비- 하레딤 과결혼을거부하며, 제의적으로는자기정결을목적으로하는 분파의구성원들로, 유대교초기에에스라의핵심지지그룹과공통된특 징을지니고있던자들로이해하고있다. 40) 그렇다면이 하레딤 이에스라개혁을어떻게지지하고있는것일까? 하레딤 은에스라의주변으로모여들던자들이었고( 스 9:4), 에스라에게 잡혼에대한파기와하나님과언약을맺을것을제안했던자들이었다( 스 36) A. Baumann,, חרד TDOT V (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 167. 37) 호세아 11:10-11 은사자처럼소리를지르시는야웨로인해떠는자들을말한다. 이들에게야웨는한번더안전한거주지를줄계획이다. 38) 신명기 28:26( 네시체가공중의모든새와땅의짐승들의밥이될것이나그것들을쫓아줄자가없을것이며 ) 에서는정반대로하나님의말씀에불순종하는자들에게임하는저주를언급하는데, 히브리어엔마하리드(dyrxm!ya) 를우리말개역개정에서는 쫓아줄자가없다 라고번역하고있지만, 문자적으로는 놀라는자가없다 라고번역하는것이더옳은번역으로보인다. 39) H. G. M. 윌리암슨, 에스라- 느헤미야, 287. 40) J. 블렌킨소프, 유대교의기원: 에스라와느헤미야를중심으로, 128-129.

역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) / 소형근 81 10:3). 구약성서의율법에는이방인과결혼하지말라는금지조항은있지만 ( 신 7:1-5), 이방인과결혼했을경우결혼관계를파기하라는명령은없다. 그러나지금 하레딤 은에스라에게이방인과결혼한가정을해체시킬것 을제안하고있다. 그런면에서에스라의지지그룹인 하레딤 은율법에대 한엄격주의자들이면서, 41) 과격주의자들이다. 이러한 하레딤 의대표주 자이면서, 에스라개혁의주도적인인물로스가냐(Shecaniah) 가등장한다. 스가냐라는이름은구약성서에서 10 회사용되고있으며, 오로지역대기( 대 상 3:21, 22; 24:11; 대하 31:15) 와에스라- 느헤미야서( 스 8:3, 5; 10:2; 느 3:29; 6:18; 12:3) 에만나오는이름이다. 그런면에서스가냐는포로이후에사용 되었던이름으로볼수있다. 에스라개혁에동조하면서, 때로는주도적인 세력이었던스가냐에대해정확히알수는없지만, 에스라 10장에언급된 스가냐는엘람자손중여히엘 42) 의아들로소개되고있고(2 절), 잡혼에참 여한이방여인들을내쫓을것을제안하고있다(3 절). 또한하나님과언약 을세우고, 율법대로행할것을에스라에게제안한다(3 절). 43) 엄밀하게말 하면스가냐이야기( 스 10:2-4) 에서에스라는특별히주목받지못하고있으 며, 개혁의주도적인역할은에스라가아닌, 스가냐가하게된다. 그래서아 크로이드(P. R. Ackroyd) 는에스라와상관없이스가냐와그의동료들이중 심이되어행해진사건이에스라이야기안에들어왔을가능성을제기하고 있다. 44) 그러나에스라 9-10장의개혁이야기에서개혁의주도권을쥐고있 는자는에스라가분명하다. 개혁이야기에서떠는자들이에스라주변으 로몰려들었고( 스 9:4), 잡혼현실에대한에스라의단독기도( 스 9:6-15) 와, 에스라의성전앞통곡때많은백성이동참했으며( 스 10:1), 에스라는제사 장들과레위사람들과온이스라엘에게맹세하도록주도했고( 스 10:5), 예 루살렘에모인백성들에게죄를지적하면서자복할것을명령했다( 스 10:11). 따라서에스라 9-10 장에서개혁주도자는에스라였고, 에스라를지 지하던그룹은 떠는자들 인 하레딤 이었으며, 하레딤 의지도자급이었 던스가냐가개혁에적극동조했던것으로이해할수있다. 45) 41) Ibid., 128. 42) 스가냐의아버지여히엘은구약성서에 15 회사용되고있으며, 포로이후본문인역대기( 대상 15:18, 20; 16:5; 23:8; 26:21, 22; 27:32; 29:8; 대하 21:2; 31:13; 35:8) 와에스라본문( 스 8:9; 10:2, 21, 26) 에서만나오는이름이다. 여히엘은포로이후에사용된이름으로볼수있으며, 에스라개혁당시이방여인과결혼한자들명단에도언급된이름이다. 43) 에스드라1서 9:36 에는 그들이자녀들과함께그들을내쫓았다 라고말하고있다. 44) P. R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler as Exegete, JSOR 2 (1997), 16. 45) 에스라본문에언급된 하레딤 은오늘날유대교안에서 초정통유대교도 (= 하레디) 로알려져있다. 이들대부분은직업을갖지않고, 오직 토라 만을읽고, 연구하는자들로이

82 성경원문연구제35호 3.2.3. 이사야 66장의하레딤 에스라 9:4와 10:3 에나오는 하레딤 은에스라개혁의지지세력으로등 장하지만, 이사야 66:5 에나오는 하레딤 은위상면에있어서크게다르다. 이사야 66:5 에나오는 하레딤 은에스라 9:4 처럼 여호와의말씀으로말미 암아떠는자들 이다. 하지만이사야본문에나오는 하레딤 은마음이가 난하고, 심령에통회하는자들로( 사 66:2), 블렌킨소프는이사야 66장에나 오는 하레딤 을포로이후종교권력자들, 즉성전주도세력들에게서축출 된그룹으로, 이들에게는예언자적-종말론적신념이강하게나타나고있다 고주장한다. 46) 여기서주목할것은에스라본문에나오는 하레딤 은개혁 의주도세력이었던반면, 이사야본문에나오는 하레딤 은변방에서무시 당하고, 혜택을받지못하는그룹이었다. 47) 이런이유가이그룹이종말론 적신념을갖게했을가능성이크다. 이사야 66 장에나오는 하레딤 은무릇 마음이가난하고, 심령에통회하며, 하나님의말씀을듣고떠는자들로하 나님이돌보는자들이며(2 절), 이들은형제들로부터미움을받고, 하나님의 이름으로인해내쫓기게된자들이다(5 절). 그러나하나님은 하레딤 을미 워하고내쫓는자들( 비- 하레딤 ) 에게수치를당하도록할것이다. 이사야 66:1-5 의상황은유다공동체에서 하레딤 과 비- 하레딤 의갈등구조를알 려주고있다. 왓츠(J. D. W. Watts) 는이두그룹이화해하기에는상황이너 무나도절망적이라고지적한다. 48) 이처럼이두그룹이극단으로치닫다 보니까내쫓김을당한소외그룹인 하레딤 에게종말론적신념이생겨나 게되었던것이다. 악트마이어(E. Achtemeier) 는 하레딤 을내쫓았던비-하 레딤의주도세력을사독계사람들로보고있다. 즉, 이사야 66:5( 너희형제 가너희를미워하며 ) 에서형제를미워하는주체는우상숭배혐의로레위 사람들을내쫓고( 겔 44:10), 레위사람들에게모욕을가하고( 사 59:4; 참고, 사 58:9 하), 그들을분리시키고( 사 63:16; 65:5), 그들에게사형선고한자들 ( 사 57:1-2) 이사독계사람들이라는것이다. 49) 악트마이어의이러한주장은 스라엘정부로부터지원금을받으며살고있고, 특히병역의무를면제받고있다. 이들은텔레비전, 인터넷, 라디오, 전화사용을금기시하면서외부와교류를차단하고있다. 이들은에스라본문에나오는 하레딤 의전통을이어받아오직 토라 대로살기에집중하는극보수적유대교집단으로볼수있다. 참고, http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_ view.html?artid=2010 11022129535. 46) J. 블렌킨소프, 유대교의기원: 에스라와느헤미야를중심으로, 128. 47) Ibid. 48) J. D. W. 왓츠, 이사야 34-66, 강철성역 ( 서울: 솔로몬, 2002), 558. 49) E. Achtemeier, Community and Message of Isaiah 56-66: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982), 142.

역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) / 소형근 83 충분한가능성을가지고있지만, 이사야 66 장의 하레딤 이소외된레위사 람이고, 이들을내쫓는 비- 하레딤 이사독계사람인지는정확히알수없 다. 다만이사야 66:5 에나오는 하레딤 은에스라 9-10 장에나오는 하레 딤 과공동체내부에서차지하는위상이서로다름은분명하다. 4. 결론 본연구는에스라에대한기존연구에대해새로운조명과함께역사적 에스라를찾고자했으며, 에스라개혁을지지했던그룹하레딤을찾아, 그 들의역할을밝히는것이었다. 에스라는본래소페르의신분으로페르시아 에서활동하다가예루살렘에파송되었으며, 후에유다공동체안에서자신 의세습적신분인제사장적기능을수행했던인물로보인다. 그러나에스 라-느헤미야서에서에스라의제사장적역할보다는소페르의역할이부각 되고있다. 또한에스라는제국의관리로서하향식임무를부여받고유다 와예루살렘에왔지만, 유대인혈통의에스라는스스로임무를계획하면서 유다공동체의지도자역할을수행했었다. 이러한에스라가유다와예루살 렘에서개혁을단행했다. 이개혁에동조하며, 지지하던그룹이있었는데, 이들은 이스라엘의하나님의말씀으로말미암아떠는자 ( 스 9:4) 들이었 다. 이들은에스라개혁에동조하는차원을넘어서에스라에게개혁의방 향을제시하던그룹이었다. < 주제어>(Keywords) 에스라, 소페르, 골라, 하레딤, 이사야 66 장. Ezra, Sofer, Golah, Haredim, Isaiah 66. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 31 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

84 성경원문연구제35호 < 참고문헌>(References) 김경래, 비블리아헤브라이카퀸타연구, 성경원문연구 1 (1997), 118-144. 김경래, 구약본문전래과정에대한연구, 성경원문연구 1 (1997), 145-155. 김래용, 에스라 9-10장과느헤미야 13 장의특징과역할, 구약논단 38 (2010), 33-53. 김윤이, 에스라는누구인가?, 구약논단 28 (2008), 88-106. 놀, K. L., 고대가나안과이스라엘역사, 소형근역, 서울: 프리칭아카데미, 마르틴 2013. H., 유대교와헬레니즘 : 기원전 2세기중반까지팔레스타인을중심으로 한유대교와헬레니즘의만남, 박정수역, 파주: 나남, 2012. 마이어스, J. M., 에스라 - 느헤미야, 서울: 한국신학연구소, 1983. 민경진, 페르시아제국시대의유대역사재구성, 구약논단 27 (2008), 113-137. 민경진, 에스라- 느헤미야서의레위계기원: 역사적맥락, 구약논단 17 (2005), 78-100. 박정수, 기독교신학의뿌리: 유대교사상의형성과신약성서배경사, 서울: 대 한기독교서회, 2008. 블렌킨소프, J., 유대교의기원: 에스라와느헤미야를중심으로, 소형근역, 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2014. 소형근, 느헤미야, 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2014. 소형근, 에스라- 느헤미야서에나타난신학적기원들, 구약논단 47 (2013), 133-156. 왓츠, J. D. W., 이사야 34-66, 강철성역, 서울: 솔로몬, 2002. 윌리암슨, H. G. M., 에스라 - 느헤미야, 조호진역, 서울: 솔로몬, 2008. 장춘식, 에스라- 느헤미야, 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2007. 트론베이트, M. A., 에스라- 느헤미야, 서울: 한국장로교출판사, 2001. Achtemeier, E., Community and Message of Isaiah 56-66: A Theological Commentary, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982. Ackroyd, P. R., The Chronicler as Exegete, JSOT 2 (1977), 2-32. Baumann, A.,, חרד TDOT V, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986, 167-170. Briant, P., Histoire de l empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, vol. 1, Paris: Fayard, 1996, 586-605; From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002, 569-588. Clines, D. J., Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCBC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Ephal, E., The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries B.C.: Maintenance and Cohesion, Or 47 (1978), 74-90. Ephal, E., On the Political and Social Organization of the Jews in Babylonian

역사적에스라와그의지지그룹 하레딤 (~ydrx) / 소형근 85 Exile, Fritz Steppat, ed., XXI Deutscher Orientalistentag Vorträge, ZDMGSup 5, Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983, 106-112. Hoglund, K. G., Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBLDS 125, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Kellermann, U., Erwägungen zum Problem der Esradatierung, ZAW 80 (1968), 55-87. Throntveit, M. A., Ezra-Nehemiah, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992. Weinfeld, M., Judges and Officers in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ISO VII (1977), 65-88.

86 성경원문연구제35호 <Abstract> The Historical Ezra and his Supporting Group ~ydrx Hyeong-Geun So (Seoul Theological University) The purpose of this article is to seek the historical Ezra, his supporting group ~ydrx, and their roles in the text of Ezra-Nehemiah. Ezra who originally served as rps in Persia was dispatched to Judah and Jerusalem, and since then, it seems that he carried out the priestly function in the Jewish community with a hereditary status. However, the role of rps was emphasized than that of!hk in the Ezra-Nehemiah text. In addition, Ezra came to Judah and Jerusalem as an imperial official through the top-down appointment, but he who was a Jewish descent performed a role for the Jewish community arbitrarily with his own program. Ezra rolled out the reform in Judah and Jerusalem, and it was the ~ydrx group that advocated and supported the reform of Ezra, and they were every one who was trembling at the words of the God of Israel (Ezra 9:4; 10:3). The ~ydrx was the group that suggested to Ezra the conditions and directions of reform beyond agreement.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 87 시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? 1) 이일례 * 1. 들어가는말 시편 88 편은양식의특징에따라개인탄원시로분류될수있다. 병든자 의전형적인상황들, 고독과외로움, 사회적무관심과우울한분위기가지 배적인시편 88편은2) 무엇보다도긴고난의끝자락에서위협적인죽음의 문제와씨름하고있는시인의모습을적나라하게담아내고있다. 3) 그러므 로시편 88 편의내용을형성하고있는고난의현상들이중요한주제, 죽음 의세계에서하나님의권능 과관련하여신학적논쟁을촉발시킨것은그 리이상한일이아니다. 그러나이와같은신학논쟁중심에있는 11[10]-13[12] 4) 절에관한문법적구조의판단문제는그리단순하지않다. * Ruhr Universität Bochum에서구약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재서울신학대학교기독교신학연구소연구원. 서울신학대학교구약학강사. ilryelee@gmail.com. 1) 이소논문은필자의 유일신개념과신정론 을다룬박사학위논문(I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten: Monotheismus und Theodizeefrage in ausgewählten Klagepsalmen des Einzelnen, Verlag-Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe XXIII Theologie, Bd. 937 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2013) 중일부분의내용을선택하여 시편 88:11-13의번역의문제 로발전시킨것이다. 2) I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten (Frankfurt: Peter, 2013), 166; K. Seybold, Das Gebet des Kranken im Alten Testament (Stuttgart; Berlin; Koln; Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1973), 115; E. Zenger, Die Psalmen II (Würzburg: Echter, 2002), 482. 3) 특별히욥의고난을기억하게하는 88편을채우고있는표현들을통해서시편 88편의하나님이해와욥의하나님이해는서로많은공통점을지니고있다는것을알수있다. E. Haag, Psalm 88, Freude an der Weisung des Herrn, E. Haag and F.-L. Hossfeld eds., Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen (FS H. Groß [SBB 13]) (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel- werk, 1986), 149. 비교해보라. H. D. Preuß, Psalm 88 als Beispiel alttestamentlichen Redens vom Tod, A. Strobel, ed., Der Tod - ungelöstes Rätsel oder überwundener Feind? (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1974), 63-79; H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen II (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), 773; B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 216 이후; 욥 16:7-14 ( 비교, 19:8-12; 30:12-14). 4) 이논문에서장절표기는히브리성경 BHS의것을먼저적고한글성경의것은바로뒤 [ ] 안에넣기로한다.

88 성경원문연구제35호 문법적구조와번역에따라시편 수있기때문이다. 본논문은먼저시편 88편본문전체의신학적해석이달라질 88편의신학적인이해와논쟁을바탕으로히브리 성경에 연속적인질문 으로표현되어있는 11-13절을수사학적질문으로 이해한지금까지연구사를분석한다. 또한우리말성경이시편 88:11-13을 수사학적질문 으로번역하고있으며, 지금까지이러한번역에관하여이 의를제시한경우는거의드문이유를파악한다. 본논문의목적은이와같 은작업을근거로시편 88:11-13을수사학적질문으로번역하는근거가어 떤신학적인해석에서비롯되었는지를파악한다. 더나아가 일반의문문 으로번역할수있는가능성을제시하고그근거를언어적특징과새로운 신학적해석에서찾아제시하는데있다. 2. 수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? 2.1. 문제제기 우리말성경개역개정, 새번역과공동번역은시편 88:11을일반적 으로다음과같이번역하고있다 : 개역개정주께서죽은자에게기이한일을보이시겠나이까유령들이일어나주를찬송하리이까새번역주님은죽은사람에게기적을베푸시렵니까? 혼백이일어나서주님을찬양하겠습니까? 공동번역당신은죽은자들에게기적을보이시렵니까? 혼백이일어나서당신을찬양합니까? 이렇게번역된의문문문장들은질문의답으로 아니오 를기대하는수 사학적질문이다. 5) 우리말성경번역이이부분을 수사학적인질문 으로 해석하는것은지금까지의시편 88편의연구사6) 의경향을따르는것으로 5) 비교, 렘 2:32 의경우또한수사학적질문이다. 6) 비교, 2.2. 연구사.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 89 이해할수있다. 11-13절에대한수사학적해석은다른영어성경에서도거의차이점이없어보인다 : NIV Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in Destruction? NASB Will You perform wonders for the dead? Will the departed spirits rise and praise You? 그렇다면이와같은해석과구별되는번역은없는것일까? 만약에있다 면어떻게가능한것일까? 독일어엘버펠트역(Elberfeld) 과루터역 (Luther Bibel) 은두의문문사이에 oder 를사용하고있다. 킹제임스역 (King James Version) 도위에서언급한독일어번역본문과동일하게 or 를사용 하는문법구조를택하고있다. 엘버펠트 Wirst du an den Toten Wunder tun? Oder werden die Gestorbenen aufstehen, dich preisen? 루터 Wirst du denn unter den Toten Wunder tun, oder werden die Verstorbenen aufstehen und dir danken? 킹제임스 Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? 이처럼독일어번역에서 oder 를사용하는것과영어번역에서 or 를 사용하는것은 둘혹은그이상의것에서하나만이문제가됨 을표현한다. 그러므로 11 절이질문이 or 를동반하게되는경우반드시수사학적인대 답만을유추할수있는것은아니다. 그렇다면히브리어성경에는시편 88:11 이어떻게기록되어있는것일까? al,p,_-hf,[]t; ~ytiîmel;h] (11a) `hl's,( ^WdìAy WmWqÜy" ~yaip'r> -~ai (11b) 위에서보여주는것처럼 11 절에서는의문사 h] (11a 절) 는 ~ai (11b 절) 과 함께 이중질문 (Disjunktiv-Frag) 을7) 형성하고있다( 비교, 창 27:21 하). 먼

90 성경원문연구제35호 저창세기 자 : 27:21 에서의문사 h] 와 ~ai 으로이루어져있는용례를살펴보 개역개정 `al{)-~ai wf'þ[e yniïb. hz<±ht'îa;h;( ( 비교, 창 27:21 하) 네가과연내아들에서인지아닌지내가너를만져보려하노라. 엘버펠트 ob du wirklich mein Sohn Esau bist oder nicht! NASB whether you are really my son Esau or not. 창세기본문은어떤번역도수사학적질문으로이해하지않고 하나만이 문제 가되는일반 이중질문 이다. 이와같은용례는시편 88:11의의문문 을선택적 이중질문 으로이해할수있는가능성을잘보여주고있다. 11절에서는의문사 h] (11a 절) 와 ~ai (11b 절) 이형성하는일반적문법적인의미 는선택적인일반의문문을나타낸다. 그렇다면왜지금까지연구사는이 구절을수사학적인질문으로해석해온것일까? 2.2. 연구사 시편 88:11-13 에서연속되는질문들은다양한관점에서연구사에서특별 한위치를차지하고있다. 8) 궁켈(H. Gunkel) 이후9) 백년을넘어연구사는 이부분을 수사학적인질문 으로간주해왔다. 10) 다시말하면대부분의학 7) E. Jenni, Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1981), 86. 8) I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten, 195. 9) H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 381. Tust du an dem Toten Wunder, Stehn die Schatten auf, dich zu preisen? 10) 무엇보다도 W. Groß 는 시편 88 편의중심축 을언급하면서이부분을수사학적질문이라고말하고있다. W. Groß, Gott als Feind des einzelnen? Psalm 88, Groß. W., ed., Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern, SBAB 30 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel- werk, 1999), 164, 수사학적인질문 (rhetorischer Fragen) 에관해서는 F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Die Psalmen 51-100, 573; B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 219; C. de Vos, Klage als Gotteslob aus der Tiefe: Der Mensch vor Gott in den individuellen Klagepsalmen, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 30; J. Schiller, Für die Toten wirst Du ein Wunder tun, Protokolle zur Bibel 14 (2005), 61-66, 여기서 63; H. W. Wolff, Anthropologie des Alten Testament (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 3 1977), 161.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 91 자들은이질문에대한대답을 아니오 로당연시했다. 이러한이해는무 엇보다도시편 시편 88 편의전체구조를세부분으로분류하는데서출발한다. 88편을세부분으로나누면서 11-13절의질문들을전체본문중의하 나이며 전체본문의중심축 11) 으로이해했다. 12) 그로스(W. Groß) 는 11-13 절의질문에서시인은자신의상황을표현하고있는것이아니라죽은자 에관한일반적인견해를이야기하고있다고주장한다. 그는하나님과단 절(JHWH-Ferne) 된지하세계(Scheol) 와그세계의사람들에관하여설명하 고있다고본다. 그렇기때문에그로스는시편 88:11-13에서연속적으로나 타나는질문들을수사학적질문으로이해하는데아무런문제가없다고본 다. 13) 이러한경향은야노브스키(B. Janowski) 에게도동일하게나타난다. 그 는 11-13절을시편 88 편전체의신학적인핵심부분으로해석한다. 이부분 에서나타나고있는야웨와죽음의세계에있는자의단절된관계 (Beziehungslosigkeit) 가시편 88편의근본적인신학적사상으로연결된다고 주장한다. 그러므로그는이와같은신학적근거를바탕으로 11-13절을수 사학적질문으로이해한다. 14) 그러나이부분을수사학적질문으로이해하는지금까지의견해에크뤼 제만은회의적이다. 그에따르면 11-13절은많은해석자들이제시하는것 처럼어떤한주장(Behauptungen) 도아니다. 15) 크뤼제만은지금까지의연구 사가이부분의텍스트로단지그렇게다루어왔을뿐이라고주장한다. 그 가이부분을지금까지의연구사와방향을달리하는이해의근간은본문의 특징에관한관찰뿐만아니라하나님- 탄원의해석에있다. 그는시인이하 나님께 죽은자에게기적을행할수있는지, 행하기를원하는지 를의문문 형식을통해서탄원하고있다고지적한다. 16) 이제정리해보자! 11-13절을수사의문문으로보는연구사에따르면 11 절은일반적으로죽은자에관하여언급하고있는것이며그러므로기도하 11) W. Groß, Gott als Feind des einzelnen? Psalm 88, 161. 12) J. Schiller, Für die Toten wirst Du ein Wunder tun, 63. 13) W. Groß, Gott als Feind des einzelnen? Psalm 88, 164. 14) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 219. 15) F. Crüsemann, Rhetorische Fragen!? Eine Aufkündigung des Konsenses über Psalm 88, 11-13 und seine Bedeutung für das alttestamentliche Rede von Gott und Tod, Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003), 351. 16) B. Janowski, Die Toten loben JHWH nicht. Psalm 88 und das alttestamentliche Todesverständnis, F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger, eds., Auferstehung Resurrektion, WUNT 135 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2001), 18.

92 성경원문연구제35호 는시인은제외된다는데에의견일치를이루고있다. 즉시인이물리적죽 음이후사후세계에서는하나님이어떠한권능도찬양할수없음으로죽 음으로부터구원을탄원하고있다고이해한다. 그러므로연구사는신학적 관점에서새로운단계가태동되고있다는주장이다. 17) 신학적인진공상 태(Vakuum) 에서묵시적인(apokalyptisch) 부활신앙의기운이싹트는서막 으로이해한다. 18) 다시말하면주전 4세기중반부터죽음의한계의극복의 문제에관심을갖기시작하면서개인탄원시나감사시에서고난의경험을, 죽음과접촉하는것과동일하게이해하며고난으로부터구원을죽음으로 부터의구원으로이해한다. 19) 그러나크뤼제만(F. Crüsemann) 은시편 88편은시간상통일성있는결과 를가지고있지않다고주장하면서, 본문에서묵시적인(apokalyptisch) 부활 신앙(Auferstehungsglauben) 에로의발전을구성하는것은불가능하다고본 다. 20) 오히려그는 이스라엘하나님만을섬기는급진적인현상의태동은 사실상중요한발전이다 라고지적하며시편 88편을바르게이해하는데 에기여하고있다. 지금까지 11-13절을수사학적질문으로보는연구사는시편 88편의신학 적인주제가 하나님은죽은자들(die Toten) 에게기적(Wunder) 을행할수 없다는견해이다. 동시에죽은자들의상황을하나님으로부터단절 로이 해한다. 21) 그렇다면여기서우리는질문을제시할수있다. 시편 88편의근 본적인신학사상으로연구사가제시한 하나님이해 는어디서어떻게비 롯된것일까? 문제의해결을위해우리는시편 88편에나타나는원수-탄원 을비교분석하는데서출발할수있다. 2.3. 원수들의하나님이해로인한시인의충격과경직: 5-6절 궁켈이후지배적인양식사비평을통한괄목할만한시편이해의성과 17) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens 비교, 233;, H. Gese, Der Tod im Alten Testament, Gese. H., ed., Zur biblischen Theologie. Alttestamentliche Vorträge (Tübingen: Mohr, 3 1989), 41-45. 18) Ibid., 233. 19) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 233; H. Gese, Der Tod im Alten Testament, 41f; D. Michel, Ich aber bin immer bei dir. Von der Unsterblichkeit der Gottesbeziehung, Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte alttestamentlicher Texte, TB 93 (Gütersloh: Christian Kaiser, 1997), 156-160. 20) F. Crüsemann, Rhetorische Fragen!? Eine Aufkündigung des Konsenses über Psalm 88,11-13 und seine Bedeutung für das alttestamentliche Rede von Gott und Tod, 347. 21) Ibid., 347.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 93 는개인탄원시의구조를자신에대한탄원, 하나님탄원그리고적( 원수) 에 대한탄원이란세가지요소로나누고, 22) 적에대한탄원과관련하여적에 대한정체성에관한방대한업적을이룬것이다. 23) 개인탄원시를형성하 고있는세가지탄원의형식속에서고난받는시인( 저자) 들은그들의신학 적인문제들을표현한다. 그들은자신에대한탄원의형식속에서자신의 고난에대한책임을자신의죄에서찾아고백하거나또는다른경우그들 의무죄와결백을강조한다. 자신의무죄를고백하는경우, 하나님탄원에 서하나님은고난의간접적인원인으로써뿐만아니라직접적인장본인으 로써언급되며고발되고있다. 그리고탄원시에서고난당하는자에게는언 제나원수들이존재한다. 이것은모든탄원시에전형적으로나타나고있는 현상이다. 24) 원수탄원에서시인은그들의원수를폭로하고있다. 그리고 원수들을향한하나님의징계와징벌을소망한다. 25) 그러나지금까지의시편연구사는시편 88편에개인탄원시의중요한요 소중의하나가되는 원수탄원 이빠져있다고주장한다. 26) 학(E. Haag) 은 시편 88 편에서고난가운데도움을요청하는도입부분에해당하는대화, 그리고청원과들음의부분을제외하면, 이시에서개인탄원시의구조를 찾아보기어렵다고주장하고있다. 27) 야노브스키(B. Janowski) 는시편 88편 에는원수-탄원대신에하나님- 탄원이지배적이라고주장한다. 28) 또한시 인의자기- 탄원이약하게표현되고있으며, 동시에전통적인원수-탄원은 하나님- 탄원으로변형되며, 시인은어떠한신뢰의표현도, 구원에대한직 접적인청원도그의시에서관철시키지않고있다고말하고있다. 시편 88 22) 시편관련번역서에서독일어 Klage 를우리말로 탄식 으로번역하는경우가있다: C. 베스터만, 시편해설: 시편의주제, 구조그리고메시지, 노희원역 ( 서울: 도서출판은성, 1996), 47-57. 그러나탄식이란번역은적합하지않다. 왜냐하면탄원시에서시인의모든언어는하나님을향한기도이기때문이다. 그러므로 Klage 를우리말로 탄원 으로번역하는것이더적합한번역이라말할수있다. E. 쨍어, 복수의하나님?, 이일례역 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2014), 15ff; 차준희, 시편신앙과의만남 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2004), 3340. 23) R. Albertz, Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion, P. Stuhlmacher and C. Westermann, eds., Calwer Theologische Monographien 9 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978), 44. 24) Ibid. 25) E. 쨍어, 복수의하나님?, 15-20. 26) C. de Vos, Klage als Gotteslob aus der Tiefe, 24; E. Haag, Psalm 88, 155; B. Janowski, Die Toten loben JHWH nicht. Psalm 88 und das alttestamentliche Todesverständnis, 9; Lindström, Suffering and Sin. Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms, CB.OT 37 (Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994), 202; H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen II, 773. 27) E. Haag, Psalm 88, 155. 28) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 207.

94 성경원문연구제35호 편에나타나고있는이러한표현들은시인의고난의상황을첨예화하고있 다고야노브스키는지적하고있다. 이와같은일반적인견해와는달리그로스(W. Groß) 는시편 88편에서원 수들의등장을인정하고있다. 비록원수들이시인의고난을악이용하지는 않지만시인을업신여기며경멸하고있다. 물론이러한현상을그의주변 인의의도적인비방이라고보기에는어렵다할지라도시인에게고통을주 고있는것은사실이라고평가하고있다. 또한베스터만(C. Westermann) 은시편 88편의구조속에서원수-탄원부 분을분명하게지적하고있다: 7-8, 15, 19a절의하나님- 탄원; 4-6, 9b-10b, 16, 19b절의자기- 탄원; 9a, 17-18절의원수- 탄원. 그렇다면우리는시편 88 편에서원수- 탄원을어떻게이해할수있을까? 원수-탄원이시편 88편에서 차지하는신학적인가치는무엇이며어느정도인것일까? 시편 88:11-13의 의문문을이해하는데어떤열쇠를제시해줄수있는것일까? 2.3.1. ytib.v;x.n< 와 Wrz")g>nI 에나타난원수들 (5-6 절) 시편 88편의전체구조는 5 부분으로이루어져있다: 1. 고난에대한묘사(4[3] 절) 와자기탄원(2-3[1-2] 절) 2. 원수탄원에서나타나는제삼자의판단(5-6[4-5] 절) 3. 죽음의상황에처하게한하나님에대한탄원(7-9[6-8] 절) 4. 죽음의영역까지확대되는하나님의전능에대한질문(10-14[9-13] 절) 5. 신정론과하나님에대한하나님에대한신뢰(15-19[14-18] 절) 시편 88 편의 원수- 탄원 문제를해결하기위해 3행으로이루어져있는 두번째단락(5-6 절) 을분석해볼수있다: `ly")a/-!yae( rb,g<åk. ytiyyi h' (V. 5b) rab= yder>ayæ-~[i ytib.v;x.n<â (V. 5a) rb,q,ªybek.voï ~yli l'x] (V. 6b) AmÜK. yviîp.x'ñ ~ytiªmeb; (V. 6a) `Wrz")g>nI ^ïd>y"mi hm'heªw> (V. 6d) da[+ ~T'är>k;z> al{å rv<üa} (V. 6c) 두번째단락에서시인의 원수들 이누구인지, 그리고시인과그들이형성하고있는논쟁의기류를이해하기위해서우리는두동사, ytib.v;x.n< 와 Wrz")g>nI 가어떻게사용되고있는가를물어야한다. 29) 시인은자신의고난에대한 29) I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten, 174.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 95 탄원을동사 ytib.v;x.n< 로시작하며(5 절), 동시에동사 Wrz")g>nI로(6 절) 닫고있다. 단락의처음과마지막에각각나타나고있는이두동사는니팔형태이며, 5-6 절의두번째단락의틀(Rahmen) 을형성하고있다. 여기서시인은수동 형문장을구성하면서간접적인주어를시사하는문학적인특징을통해서, 자신의고난과관련하여 제삼자 (Dritten) 의존재에대하여명백하게지적 하고있다. 그러므로시편 88 편에서 원수 (Dritten) 가직접적으로지명되는 것은아니지만, 배후관계(Hintergrund) 속에서충분히 원수 를인식할수있 으며, 원수 가존재하고있다고정확하게말할수있다. 그리고이러한현 상은원수- 탄원의장르로이해될수있다. 여기서우리가 제삼자 (Dritten) 를시인의 원수 로규명할수있다면, 그들이원수인근거를제시할수있는것일까? 5절의수동태의표현을살 펴보자. 두문장, rab= yder>ayæ-~[i ytib.v;x.n<â ( 수동형: 무덤에누운자처럼간주되 며) 와 `ly")a/-!yae( rb,g<åk. ytiyyi h' ( 힘없는용사와같으며) 에서시인은 제삼자 가 자신을어떻게판단하고있는지를표현하고있다. 자신의상태를희망이 단절된버려진상황으로이해하는제삼자를폭로하고있다. 그들의판단이 자신에게고통이되고있음을하나님께탄원하고있다. 그러므로우리는 이부분을시편의양식비평이제시하는개인탄원시의구조중에서자신에 대한탄원이며동시에적( 원수) 에대한탄원으로볼수있다. 이처럼시편 88편에서원수- 탄원은시인을이미죽은자로, 죽음의세계로접어든자로 간주하는 제삼자 (Dritten) 에대한탄원으로시작된다. 30) 시인에대한 제삼자 의판단은 6 절에서더욱심각하다. 시인은 6a절에 서 ~ytiªmeb; 죽은자들과 ( ) 6b 절에서 rb,q,ª ( 무덤) 란용어를통해서자신의실 제적인고난을물리적죽음의현상과동일시하고있다. 구약성서에서 5절 과 6 절에표현되어있는정황은실제적인물리적죽음을의미한다. 31) 구약 성서에서죽은자를위한장소는수직굴무덤(Schachtgrab) 으로표현할수 있다. 땅속을깊이수직적으로파고들어가죽은자를위한방을만들고그 곳에죽은자를안치하는형식이다. 32) 이부분의논지에관해서는시인과 그의원수의생각이일치한다고볼수있다. 그러나문제는그리간단하지 가않다. 왜냐하면질병으로인한시인의현상을보는관점은시인과제삼 자가일치하지만신학적관점의양분화는첨예하기때문이다. 이와같은배경속에서두번째단락의신학적인중요한주제는 6c절과 6d 30) I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten, 176. 31) B. Janowskie, Konfliktgespräche mit Gott. Eine Anthropologie der Psalmen (Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 228. 32) Ibid., 228.

96 성경원문연구제35호 절에서절정으로나타나고있다. 6c-d절의 rv<üa]-문장에는두동사 ~T'är>k;z> ( 그들 을기억하다) 과 Wrz")g>nI( 끊어진자이다) 가나타나고있다. 제삼자 (Dritten) 의시 인에관한이해는 5절에서시작하여 6 절후반부의 da[ ~T'är>k;z> al{ ( 그들을더 이상기억하지아니하시니) 표현에서절정을이루고있는셈이다. 동사 ~T'är>k;z> 을분석해보자. 3인칭복수형태목적어를가진 2인칭단수형태의동 사로구성되어있다. 여기서 2 인칭동사는하나님을, 3인칭복수형태목적 어는불특정다수가되는 죽음의세계에존재하는사람들 을규명한다. 시 인은이러한형식을통해서죽음의세계에존재하는사람들을언급하고, 그들과하나님과의관계를설정하여보여주고있다. 그러나연구사가말 하는것처럼 33) 문장구조상시인이 죽음의세계에존재하는사람들 에게 서제외될수없다. 시인은이무리들중의하나로자신을취급하는원수들 을고발하고있다. 원수탄원에서무슨일이벌어진것일까? 6d절의니팔형의동사 Wrz")g>nI는 ( 그들은당신의손에서끊어진자이다) 삶 의땅으로부터다시말하면하나님의집으로부터단절됨/ 제외됨, 또는하 나님으로부터분리됨을의미하는동사의그룹에속한다. 34) 이표현은또한 보호, 강함, 안전함을의미하는 하나님의손 (^ïd>y"mi) 이란단어를통해서그 들의세계가더욱명확하게표현되고있다. 35) 이탄원은동시에 제삼자 의 죽음의세계에대한이해(Totenweltvorstellung) 로인한시인의경직과트라 우마를의미한다. 36) 하나님과죽음의영역사이에극복될수없는단절을 주장하는주변인의하나님이해를시인은맹렬하게비판하며하나님에게 탄원하고있다. 시인은이러한문학적인특징을통해서단지 죽음의세계에있는사람 들 (die Menschen in der Totenwelt) 과 자신 (das Ich) 사이의긴장감만을보 여주는것이아니다. 자신을죽음의세계에있는사람들과동일시하는제 삼자와의갈등만을말하는것도아니다. 오히려시인은자신을하나님과 관계가단절된죽음의세계에있는사람들과동일시하고있는제삼자를하 나님께고발하며견딜수없는두려움을탄원하고있다. 그러므로우리는 시인이탄원하고있는 제삼자 (Dritten) 를시인의원수로이해할수있으며 이단락(5-6 절) 을원수탄원으로어렵지않게동일시할수있다! 33) 2.2. 연구사참조. 34) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 211, 참조하라. 겔 37:11; 애 3:54. 35) 참조, Ps 31:6, 16; 37:24; 80:18; 95:7; B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 211-212. 특별히야웨의 오른손 또는 오른쪽 은시인을강하게하며보호한다( 시 18:36; 109:31; 110:5; 121:5). 36) I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten, 176.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 97 제삼자 의죽음의세계에대한테제와관찰은본래의고난과관련하여 다양한문제에접근하게한다. 시인의트라우마는원수들의하나님이해로 부터발생하고있다. 시인은그들의하나님이해를위협적인고난으로간 주하고있다. 질병중에있는시인의상황을하나님의힘의영역에서벗어 나죽음의세계에있는것으로간주하는원수들의하나님이해로인해시 인은그의고난이더욱가중됨을탄원하고있다. 시인과그의 원수 ( 제삼자) 와의긴장감으로부터그리고고난과죽음에 대한서로다른이해로빚어지는논쟁, 원수-탄원의주제는시편 88편전체 주제의서막을알리고있다. 2.3.2. 원수-탄원속에나타나는원수들의하나님이해 두번째단락(5-6 절) 은고난당하는시인과하나님의관계를그의원수인 제삼자 37) 가어떻게이해하고있는가를보여주고있다. 제삼자 는시인 의고난을죽음의세계에관한전통적이해에근거하여하나님으로부터단 절된상황으로이해하고있으며, 그와는반대로시인은그들의판단(Urteil) 을악(Übel) 으로규정하며탄원하고있다( 비교, 4[3] 절). 38) 시인의고난을한 층가중시켜그의영혼을재난으로피폐하게한것은원수들의하나님이 해이다. 원수들의이해에따르면시인의고난은하나님으로부터의단절되며잊 혀진상황을의미한다. 무덤으로내려가는자 (5 절) 의상황속에있는시 인을하나님이더이상기억하지않기때문이다. 39) 그러므로시인은하나 님으로부터구원을기대할수없다. 40) 시인의원수들은죽음의세계가하 나님의권한밖에존재하는것을주장하며그의영향력으로부터전적으로 소외되는것으로이해한다. 결론적으로우리는여기서 제삼자 의하나님 이해를유추해볼수있다: 그들에의하면, 죽음의세계는하나님의범주를 벗어나있으며, 그러므로하나님(JHWH) 의권한은삶의세계에제한된다; 또는죽음의세계는하나님(JHWH) 이지배하지않은힘의세계이다. 이러 한이해는다신론적인성격을보이고있으며, 이러한논리적관계성속에 37) 본논문은 5-6 절에나타나고있는 제삼자 의존재를마지막절에서등장하고있는시인의친구, 사랑하는사람, 그의지인들과동일시하고있다. 그러므로이이후부터는주변인개념을사용하고자한다. 38) 참조, I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten, 177: 여기서 4[3] 절에관한주석을다루지않지만학위논문에서는상세하게다루고있다. 39) 참조, H. Eising, rkz, ThWAT II (1977), 578. 40) Ibid., 578. 다른경우, 창 30:22; 삼상 11:19; 삿 16:28.

98 성경원문연구제35호 는하나님이유일신으로이해될수없다. 그렇다면 5-6절에나타나는죽음 의세계에서하나님의권한에관한시인과제삼자의이해는상충된다. 이 러한이해는 11-13 절의 연속되는질문 해석에어떻게작용할수있는것일 까? 왜지금까지연구사는 11-13 절의 연속되는질문 을수사학적인질문으 로주장하는것일까? 이들은 5-6 절을어떻게이해하고있는것일까? 11-13을수사학적인질문으로보는연구사의공통적인이해는시편 88편 의시인의고난을죽음에처한상황으로규정하는것이다. 시인의 물리적 인실제적인죽음 에연구사는관심을기울이지않는다. 삶의실존적인위 협과동일시할수있는질병으로인한 고난의절정에서의구원 에집중하 고있다. 문제는여기에서시작된다고볼수있다. 야노브스키(B. Janowski) 는시편 88편죽음에대한이해와관련하여새로운단계가태동되고있다 고주장한다. 41) 그에따르면개인탄원시시편 88편에나타나고있는고난 에대한이해는, 죽음의위협으로부터(aus) 구원에대한소망또는회복될 수없는죽음에서(vor) 보호되는희망을표현한다. 42) 즉시편 88편에서하 나님에의한죽음으로부터(aus) 구원의경험을증명하고있지만그러나죽 음에서의(im Tod) 치유를말하는것이아니라고말한다. 그는개인탄원시 나감사시에서고난의경험을, 죽음과접촉하는것과동일하게이해하며 고난으로부터구원은죽음으로부터의구원으로이해한다. 그러므로그는 시편 88 편의전체적인하나님이해는 산자의하나님 이해이다. 바르트(C. Barth) 는시편 88편과관련하여실제적인죽음의경험과상응 하여반대되는경험이있다고주장한다. 여기서고난극복은하나님의간 섭을통한 삶의실존의위협으로부터뿐아니라죽음으로부터, 죽음의영 역내부로부터, 그리고죽음의폭력으로부터구원받는것을의미한다. 43) 이러한상황에서게제 (H. Gese) 는인간의질병으로부터구원을하나님의 완전한치유행위로이해한다. 왜냐하면하나님은삶의하나님이며, 모든 생명의창조주이시며이스라엘의구원자이며이스라엘을만드신분이기 때문이다. 그리고이스라엘의하나님은죽은자의하나님으로이해될수 없으며, 그이유는그렇게경험되지않았기때문이라고그는주장한다. 44) 살펴본것처럼지금까지의연구사는시편 88편의신학적인주제를시인 41) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 233. 42) 비교, 시편 6:6; 30:10; 115:17; 사 38:18; 시락 17:27-28. 43) C. Barth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten Testaments, Mit zwei Anhängen, einer Bibliographie und Registern neu herausgegeben von B. Janowski (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2 1987), 93. 44) 비교, H. Gese, Tod, 41-45.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 99 의고난을죽음과같은상황으로동일시하며시인의고난극복의문제를 죽음으로부터의구원이아니라죽음과같은고난으로부터의구원으로이 해했다. 이본문에서연구사는죽음의세계에서하나님의권능이불가능하 다고말하는원수들의하나님이해에몰입하여이신학적인테제를전체 시편 88 편의주제로이해하는데머물고있다. 그들은시인의탄원을 죽은 자에게야웨는어떠한기적도행하지않고, 행할수없으며, 죽은자는하나 님을찬양하기위해일어서지않기 45) 때문에고난에서하나님의구원을 기도하는것으로이해했다. 그러므로우리는여기서지금까지연구사가 11-13 절을수사학적질문으로이해하게된단초를찾을수있다. 5-6 절에서시인과그의원수들의논쟁의주제는 실제적죽음과그죽음 의세계에서하나님의권한 에관한것외에는다른무엇이될수없다. 시 인은자신을 나는무덤에내려가는자같이인정되고힘없는용사와같으 며(5 절), 죽은자중에던져진바되었으며죽임을당하여무덤에누운자같 으며, 주께서그들을다시기억하지아니하시니그들은주의손에서끊어 진자(6 절) 로간주하는그들을그와다른하나님이해에근거하여원수들 로규명하며그들의괴롭힘을폭로하고있기때문이다. 시인은분명히그 리고명확하게그들의이해에저항하고있다. 부설: 죽음의세계에대한이해 철기시대이스라엘과유다에서죽음의세계와피안의세계에대한연구 는지난 20 년동안종교사적, 고대비문학, 고고학의작업을통해서괄목할 만한성과를거두었다. 죽음의영역과하나님(JHWH) 과의단절(Distanz) 에 대한견해는, 고대시리아- 팔레스타인과요시아시대, 씨족종교에비로소 야웨외의신에대한배타성(Exklusivitaetsanspruch JHWHs) 이영향을미치 기시작하는시대까지, 유다와이스라엘에서도종교의식에서자리하고있 다. 46) 죽음의세계에대한이해는 4 가지형태로나눌수있다: 구약성서에는죽 은자의부활에대한이해가기나긴과정을통해서나타나고있다. 첫번째 단계는고대셈족의이해이다. 그들은산자와죽은자그리고그의세계와 의밀접한접촉이가능하다고생각하였다. 죽음의세계는종교의식을통해 45) B. Janowski, Die Toten loben JHWH nicht. Psalm 88 und das alttestamentliche Todesverständnis, 18. 46) B. Janowski, Konfliktgespräche mit Gott, 226; K. Butting, Der Tod wird nicht mehr sein, JK 66 (2005), 1-4.

100 성경원문연구제35호 서특징지을수있으며, 이러한종교의식은죽은자와산자의유대관계를 사회적인영역( 가족, 씨족, 부족) 안에서또한지역적인영역( 무덤, 신성한 곳) 에서중재한다. 이단계의경우죽은자는그의조상들과( 창 25:8; 35:29; 49:33; 민 27:13 등등) 만난다. 그러나두번째단계부터는종교의식을통해서산자가죽은자와만나는 전통적인견해는부인되며, 7세기야웨- 유일성운동(JHWH-allein-Bewegung) 과관련된다. 죽음의세계는신으로부터극단적으로분리된영역이기때문 에죽은자의소멸( Ausblendung der Toten ) 이특징으로나타나고있다. 야 웨- 유일성운동(JHWH-allein-Bewegung) 과요시아종교개혁( 비교, 출 22:17, 28) 은이와같은모든이해를민족종교(offizielle Religion) 의범주에 서추방시킨다. 47) 신명기사가의운동의영향력아래서요시아시대부터 무엇보다도유다의멸망이후전통적인피안의세계에대한신앙과마술 - 점복술(magisch-mantischen Praktikan) 은신랄한비평을받게된다( 신 18:9-14). 이러한발전단계는보완적으로죽음의세계에야웨의권한과연 결하고있다. 세번째단계는포로기이전( 후기)/ 포로기/ 포로기이후개인탄원시에서 나타나고있다: 죽음으로부터구원에대한이해가피안의세계에대한희 망의형식을소개하고있다. 영원한삶, 소멸하지않는하나님과의관계와, 죽은자의부활, 죽음에서부활로넘어가는과정(Übergänge) 이풍부하게나 타나고있다. 지혜문학적인사고의영향아래서오랫동안새로운존재의 형식에의해서 영원한삶, 소멸되지않는하나님과의관계 를태동되는 것과관련하여생각할수있다. 48) 세번째단계로서, 유대의묵시록 (juedischen Apokalyptik) 에서새로운삶의부활의약속이발생하였다. 야웨 를모든현실의근간(Grund) 으로믿고경험하기때문에, 야웨-신앙은내세 (Jenseit) 의, 예를들면죽음의한계를극복해야만했다. 47) B. Janowski, De Gott des Lebens, 226-229. 48) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 232. 비교, D. Michel, Ich aber bin immer bei dir. Von der Unsterblichkeit der Gottesbeziehung, D. Michel, ed., Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte alttestamentlicher Texte, TB 93 (Gütersloh: Christian Kaiser, 1997), 155-179, 특히 159. 이러한영향은미헬(D. Michel) 에따르면 2 가지관점으로나타난다. 기원전 4-5세기사회정치적관계의점차적인변화와함께, 이스라엘의하나님야웨의계명을알지못하고일반적인윤리에따라살아가는대한사람들이행복한삶을영위하게된다. 이때문에하나님의정의가미치는영향력의범위와그정의의효력에대한질문은불가피하게된다. 만약우리가현실세계, 다시말하면죽음앞에있는순간(Leben) 에이질문을하게될때, 이질문은우리를 [ 명제의] 해결불가능성(Aporie) 에이르게한다. 현실세계속에서이루어지는이러한한계의경우하나님의정의에대한믿음은그리고그것을통한 세상 의최종적인가치부여에대하여회의적이다.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 101 네번째단계는헬레니즘시대에텍스트에나타나고있다. 헬레니즘의 유대교에서, 죽지않는영혼이하늘로승천한다는것에대한약속이네번 째단계로나타나고있다. 49) 죽음이후의삶에대한묵시록적인희망은초 기유대교와원기독교의부활신앙에대한전통적인이해라고볼수있다. 그러나야웨와죽은자들의관계에관한이해또는죽음의극복에대한이 해는부활의소망(Auferstehungshoffnung) 과관련하여우선헬레니즘시대 에일어났다는견해에야노브스키(B. Janowski) 는반대한다. 다시말하면 주전 4 세기중반부터죽음의한계의극복의문제에관심을갖기시작했다. 하나님은죽음을이기며( 사 25:8a) 모든죽은자들은부활할것이다. 이사야 26:7-21 의최후의심판(Endgericht) 과기도의마지막부분에, 시온의신들의 왕야웨가오실때, 하나님백성의출생의묵시적인(apokalyptisch) 모티브 가나타난다. 여기서유일신개념의발전성, 다시말하면인과응보사상의 위기와개인탄원시편과감사시에나타나는죽음에관하여계속해서발전 하고있는사상이새롭게자리하고있다. 하나님의유일성에관한고백의배경에는이사야 25:8; 26:19 시편 22:28-32와다니엘 12:2 이후등과같은후기텍스트에서, 또한구약성서에 서죽은자의소생(Auferweckung) 과 이한계의최종적인극복 50) 이언급 되고있다는것은놀랄일이아니다. 앞에서살펴본것처럼이스라엘에서죽음의세계에관한이해는뚜렷한 발전의단계를특징으로갖고있다. 그러므로시편 88편에나타나는시인 과제삼자의죽음의세계에대한서로다른이해를 이스라엘과유일신세 계 에서유추해서로적용시켜이해해볼수있다. 2.4. 7-9절에나타나는하나님탄원 문제를해결하기위한좀더구체적인노력으로, 다양한해석가능성을 갖고있는 5-6절과 7-9 절의관련성을분석해보자. 죽은것과다를것없는 저자의상황을묘사하고있는두부분은모두 죽음의세계에대한이해 가 공통적인주제이다. 이와관련하여야노브스키는 5-9절의부분을극복될 수없는하나님과의단절된저자의하나님과의관계상황으로해석해야한 49) B. Lang and C. Mc Dannell, Der Himmel. Eine Kulturgeschichte des ewigen Lebens (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1996), 17-25, 비교; Lang, Leben nach dem Tod, NBL 2 (1995), 599-601 und im Anschluß an Lang: Bieberstein, a.a.o., 13ff, 비교. B. Janowski, Jenseitsvorstellungen II/2, 4 RGG, Bd. 4 (2001), 406-407; 비교, B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 226-227. 50) D. Michel, Ich aber bin immer bei dir. Von der Unsterblichkeit der Gottesbeziehung, 159.

102 성경원문연구제35호 다고주장하고있다. 51) 야노브스키의주장은지금까지의연구사의경향을 대표한다고볼수있다. 아주틀린이야기는아니다. 그러나그의이해는두 단락의공통주제에만집중하므로두단락이 죽음의세계에대한이해 에 대한서로상이한신학적인 하나님이해 를전개해가고있는것을놓치고 있다. 수박겉핥기식으로정말중요한구문상의큰차이점을보지못하고 있는것이다. 두단락을아우르는공통적인주제는 죽음의세계에서하나님의권능에 대한이해 속에서, 시인과하나님과의관계속에서살펴본다면, 5-6절은원 수탄원으로이루어진시인자신에대한묘사(Ich-Aussage) 이다. 이와는달 리 7-9 절은하나님탄원으로이루어진하나님에대한묘사(Du-Aussage) 이 다. 두단락은서로구문상의큰차이점을보이고있다. 셋째단락(7-9 절) 에 서시인은 5-6절에나타나있는원수들의하나님이해에대한구체적인반 론을 2 인칭표현(Du-Aussage) 을통해서강조하고있다. 두부분에걸쳐분 명하게나타나는구문상의차이점을통해서시인은두부분에함축되어있 는신학적인주제를담아내고있다. 7-9절에서시인은그의주변인과다른 하나님이해를어떻게펼쳐나가고있는것일까? 여기서표현되는그의하 나님이해는 11-13 절의 연속적인질문 과어떤관련성을형성하는것일까? 2.4.1. ynit;v; 에나타난하나님 새로운단락을형성하고있는 ynit;v; 로단락을마무리한다. 52) 7-9 절은 ynit;v; 으로시작하고동일한단어 `tal)com.bi ~ykiªv;x]m;b. (7b 절) tay=tix.t; rabæb. ynit;v;â (7a 절) ^t<+m'x] hk'äm.s' yl;['â (8a 절) `hl's,( t'yniï[i ^yr<ªb'v.mi -lk'w> ynim<ïmiñ y[;ªd"yum. T'q.x;îr>hi `ace(ae al{åw> aluªk' Aml'_ tabå[eat ynit:åv; (8b 절) (9a 절) (9b 절) 7a절과 9b 절에동일하게반복되는단어 ynit;v;â ( 당신이나를 에두다) 는 세번째단락의테두름을이루고있다. 동시에단락전체의후렴구기능을 하고있다. 그렇다면이형식을빌려시인은무엇을말하고자하는것일까? 여기서우리는이형식에담겨진내용상중요한신학적인주제와이를통 51) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 209. 52) I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten, 186.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 103 해전면에내세우고하는시인의의도를충분히읽을수있어야한다. 53) 7a절과 9b 절에나타나는동사, ynit;v;â 의테두름속에있는단어들은모두 고난으로인한절망의깊이를말해주는명사구들을형성하고있다. 여기에 서시인은세개의전치사구( 깊은웅덩이와; 어둠속에; 음침한곳에) 를통 해서죽음의세계에가까이감으로써경험하는고난의 처참함 을표현하 고있다. 그리고그절정의표현을, ynit;v;â 동사를통해서이고난이하나님 으로부터출발( 기인) 하고있다는것을명확히하고있다( 비교, 7, 9b 절). 죽 음의세계에서하나님의존재와행위(7, 9b 절) 54), 그리고그행위에관한기 록이이단락의(7-9 절) 중심을이루고있는 8-9a절을통해서한층구체적인 현실로표현되어있다. 단락의시작을열고있는문장, 주께서나를깊은 웅덩이와어둡고음침한곳에두셨사오며 (7 절) 는두번째단락(5-6 절) 에서 이미살펴본것처럼, 죽음과같은시인의고난을강조하는것이아니라실 제적인죽음과동일시되는시인의고난의정황이다. 55) 이제구체적으로이단락을살펴보자! 우리의주의를끄는것은 7a절의 rab 를통해위협적인시인의상황과그상황으로부터경험되는부정적인 하나님경험이다. 새로운단락이시작되는 7절에서시인은의도적으로이 미 5 절에서사용된동일한단어 rab (5a 절) 로자신의상황을표현하고있 다. 전단락, 5-6 절에서살펴본것처럼시인은그의원수들( 제삼자) 과서로 다른하나님이해로인한이차적인고난을탄원하고있었다. 그러므로여 기서시인은의도적으로자신의현재의고난상태를그의원수들이사용한 언어층(Wortebene) 을사용하므로그들과논쟁을시도하고있다. 그러나 5절과 7 절에서각각구별되는중요한것이있다. 5절에표현되어 있는시인의상황이 주께서그들을다시기억하지않기때문에주의손에 서끊어진상태 (6 절) 인것과는달리, 7a 절에서는깊은 rab ( 웅덩이) 에시인을데려다놓은분 (ynit;v;; 1인칭접미사를가진 2 인칭동사) 이하나님자신 인것을시인은표현하고있다(7a, 9b). 이와같은동일한주제어를가진구 절의내용상대비구조를통해서시사하고자하는시인의의도는무엇일 까? 죽음의세계에서하나님의권한 에대한그의생각을원수들의생각과 대조시킴으로서, 시인은원수와대조적인하나님이해를피력하고있는것 은아닐까? 문제의답을찾기위해우리는이단락을구성하고있는단어들의특별 한특징들을살펴볼수있다. 이단락에서시인은인칭대명사어미를갖고 53) Ibid., 186. 54) Ibid., 187. 55) 각주 26 번을참조하라.

104 성경원문연구제35호 있는언어들을통해고난을표현하고있다. 이인칭대명사어미는특별히 1 인칭과 2 인칭으로이루어져있다: yl;[' ( 나를) 는 ^t<+m'x] ( 당신의노하심) 와 ^yr<ªb'v.mi -lk'w> ( 당신의모든파도가) 와대구를이루고(8a, 8b); ynim<ïmiñ ( 내게서) 는 T'q.x;îr>hi ( 당신이멀리떠나게하시고) 와연결되며, ynit:åv; ( 당신이나를 에두다) 는 ace(ae ( 나는나가다) 와연결된다(9a, 9b). 시인은이와같은문장 과어휘의관련성으로하나님의진노하심과너무나약한시인자신에관한 은유를대조시키며, 그의고난과하나님과의필연적관계를표현하고있 다. 그리고하나님에의해서죽음의세계로던져졌다는사실을강하게주 장하고있다. 그러므로죽음의세계또한야웨의권한의영역이라는사상 은이단락에서분명하게인식되고있다. 다시말하면시인을실제적인죽 음의세계로데려가신분은하나님이다(7a, 9b). 이와같은신학적인주제는 두번째단락이후(5-6 절) 세번째단락 7-9절에서구문상뿐만아니라내용 상대비를통해서그의하나님이해를명확하게하고있다. 2.4.2. 하나님- 탄원속에나타나는시인의하나님이해 세번째단락에서시인은다시죽음의세계에대한주제를하나님의권 한과관련하여파악하고있다. 동시에두번째단락과는달리시인은이주 제를더욱발전시키고있다. 야웨의절대적개입을통해서삶의위협으로 부터뿐아니라죽음으로부터 (Errettung aus dem Tod), 죽음으로부터(in), 죽 음의폭력으로부터 56) 구원받는것이시인에게있어서중요하다. 이것은죽 음은모든것이사라지는것이아니며하나님과의단절이결코아니라는 이해에길을터주고있다. 그러므로비록시인의이해가과도기적인시 점 57) 에있다고우리가규정할지라도, 그는죽음과죽음의영역을지배하는 하나님의권한에관해서유일신론적인이해를갖고있다는것은분명하다. 죽은자와야웨의관계에대한그의이해는구약성서의죽음에대한새로 운이해의빛을제시한다. 56) C. Barth, Errettung vom Tode, 93. 57) 위의 부설: 죽음의세계에대한이해 참조. 앞에서제시한것처럼시인과그의주변인들의죽음의세계에서행하시는하나님의권능에관한이해를두번째단계를거치는과도기적인시기에있는지아닌지를명확히구분하기는어렵다. 왜냐하면이시편의저작시기를명확히결정하기쉽지않기때문이다. 시편 88편의편집시기를일반적으로포로기후기로산정할수있을지라도그것은또한저작시기와차이가있기때문이다. 그러므로본논문은내용상분석을통해서시인과그의주변인인원수들사이의서로다른하나님이해가상충되어있다는주장을위해서제시하는이스라엘의 죽음의세계에대한이해 의단계에서자유롭다.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 105 성서의언어에는고난과최종적인죽음사이의차이점이실제화되어있 지않기때문에, 58) 시인은극복할수있는고난과최종적인죽음사이의차 이를그의탄원시에서설명하고있는것이아니다. 그에게죽음의세계에 서도하나님의권능을희망할수있듯이질병의회복은말할것도없다. 왜 냐하면시인을 ( 실제적인) 죽음의세계로데려가신분은하나님이시고그 러므로그를죽음의세계에서구원할수있는신이있다면그것은또한하 나님만이유일하다. 그의하나님이해에의하면주변인의이해와는달리, 엄격한야웨의 유 일신숭배요구 (Alleinverehrungsanspruch) 의발생과함께또한죽음의영역 에서어떠한다른신이경배될수없다. 59) 시인은자신이죽음의세계에하 나님없이방치되는것으로부터저항하고있다. 이러한시인의유일신론적 인신앙은이스라엘의죽음에관한이해에서하나의통찰의도약을작동시 킨다. 죽음의세계는야웨의통치밖에놓여있는한영역이될수없다. 그 곳에다른힘이존재하면서하나님의권능이죽음의한계를극복할수없 는단지삶의하나님이라면그는유일하신신이될수없기때문이다. 시인 은( 이스라엘) 하나님에의해이루어지는죽음으로부터(in) 구원의경험을 증명함으로써, 그는죽음의세계저편에서(jenseits) 지금까지전혀알려지 지않았던야웨- 신앙이점차적으로발전되었다는것을보여주고있다. 2.5. 죽음의세계에서행하시는하나님의권능 지금까지 시편 11-13절을수사학적질문으로보는연구사의신학적인근거는 88편에죽음에대한이해와관련하여죽음과접촉하는것과동일한 고난의경험을, 고난의절정으로이해하며고난으로부터구원을죽음으로 부터의(aus) 구원으로이해하는것이다. 60) 이와같은이해는필연적으로하 나님을산자만의하나님으로규정했고 11-13 절을수사학적으로해석했다. 앞에서살펴본것처럼, 연구사는두번째단락에서나타나있는 제삼자 의 하나님이해를몰입한나머지실제로시편 88편본문전체에서진행되는 논쟁속에담겨있는서로다른하나님이해에대한논쟁을간과하고있다. 58) I. Lee, Der Streit um das Gottesbild des leidenden Israeliten, 185. 59) R. Liwak, ~yaip'r>, ThWAT VII (1993), 625-636; B. B. Schmitt, Israel s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromany in Ancient Israelite Religon and Tradition, FAT 11 (Tübingen; Mohr, 1994). 60) B. Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens, 233; H. Gese, Tod, 41-45; D. Michel, Ich aber bin immer bei dir. Von der Unsterblichkeit der Gottesbeziehung, 156-158.

106 성경원문연구제35호 그러므로본논문은지금까지앞단락의신학적분석을통해서 11-13절의 의문문이수사학적질문외에일반의문문이될수있다는가능성을지적 하면서그근거를충분히제시했다. 그렇다면 11-13절에서시인은무엇을 말하고있는것일까? 2.5.1. 11-13 절의서론(10 절) 시인은 3절이후의탄원속에나타나는하나님이해에관한논증을 10절 이후에서더욱구체화하고있다. 시인은 10 절에나타나는개념 내눈 (yniïy[e) 을 3 절의 당신의귀 (!z<ao) 개념과관련시키며이를통해서자신의상황을 그의실존적위기와죽음의영역에인접한상황으로탄원하고있다. 여기 서또한시인은하나님의이름야웨를통해서 2절이후표현되고있는야웨 와의능동적인관계성을연상시킨다. 물론이러한의도적인문학적관련성 은시인에게있어하나님의행위를표현하는것이일차적인목적이아니 다. 오히려하나님과자신과의관계를나타내는것이그의일차적인목적 이다. 그는그의탄원(Anklage) 의과정을더깊이심화시키면서근본적으로 그의하나님의이해를설정해가고있다. 오랜질병으로인한그의고통을 하나님의숨어계심을고발하는탄원으로표현하고있으며, 야웨의하나님 되심(Gottsein) 을요청하고있다. 10절은그이후에나타나는연속적인질문 의도입부분으로이해할수있다. 이러한배경속에서시인은 11 절로그의논증을 하나님의권한 에관한 질문으로열고있다. 그리고그는 12절이후에나타나는네가지명사를통 해서죽음의세계와관련된하나님이해를더명확히하고있다. 시인은그 의연속되는질문들을제삼자(Dritte) 의죽음의세계에관한이해와대치시 키고있다. 이를통해서시인은궁극적으로그의하나님이해를제삼자의 의견과첨예한반명제로발전시키고있다. 2.5.2. 일반의문문으로이루어진탄원 시인은그의주변사람들의하나님이해에반대하며, 그의논쟁을의문 사 h] 와 ~ai 으로이루어진의문문을통해서펼치고있다: al,p,_-hf,[]t; ~ytiîmel;h] (11a) `hl's,( ^WdìAy WmWqÜy" ~yaip'r> -~ai (11b) 죽은자에게당신이기이한일을행하실겁니까? 아니면[ 또는] 유령들이일어나당신을찬송해야합니까? ( 셀라)

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 107 11a절과 11b절의주제는이미앞의단락에서다룬중요한신학적인개념 (Terminus) 을통해표현되고있다. 이의문문은내용적인반복과두단어 (~ytiîmel;h]/ 죽은자와 ~yaip'r> / 유령들) 의동일한끝음(~ ) 으로 동의적평행 법 (synonymen Parallelismus) 을이루고있다. 핵심어 죽은자 (~ytiîmel;h] ) 로 제삼자 ( 원수) 와시인의논쟁이계속되고있다( 비교, 6a 절의 ~ytiªmeb; ). 11a절 에서행위의주체로서하나님 (al,p,_-hf,[]t;) 뿐만아니라죽음의세계에있는 사람들 (~ytiîmel;h]/ 죽은자와 ~yaip'r> / 유령들) 에게집중되고있으며그들의관계 를다루고있다 (al,p,_-hf,[]t;/^wdìay WmWqÜy"). 하나님의행위로시작하는 11-13절까지의연속적인질문에서중요한등 장인물은 하나님 과 죽은자들 이다. 이질문의첫등장인물은하나님이 다(11a). 하나님이행위의주체로나타나며하나님의행위가전면에표현되 고있다. 하나님께서죽은자에게기적을행하실것인지에관한질문을직 접제시하고있다. 11a과상응하여 11b절이후의질문의등장인물은모두 예외없이 죽은자들 이다. 이들과관련하여 11b절에서특별히문장끝에 위치하고있는동사, ~wq 과 hdy 가눈에띈다. 이들은문법상으로는모음 W (paenultima-bedeutung) 와단어의모음 a-u-u와 o-u-a를통해서두단어의 관계가서로맞물려있음을보여준다. 11a절이한개의동사로이루어진것 과구별된다. 우리는이문장이하나님의구체적인행위를표현하고있는 11a절뒤에위치하면서 죽음의세계에있는사람들의일어섬과찬양을 표현하고있는것을알수있다. 이와같은 11a절과 11b절의구문상차이가 암시하는것은 11-13 절의연속적인질문이내용적인 포크형단락 (sukzessive Versgabelung) 61) 을구성하고있음을말해준다. 설명해보자! 11a 절은간략한문장을구성한다. 그리고바로 11b절이후 12-13절까지는 문장구조상뿐만아니라, 내용상으로도 11a절과확연한구별을이루며장 황한설명형식의문장구조로이루어져있다. 11a절의야웨의긍정적인행위 (al,p,_-hf,[]t;/ 기적을행하심) 가 11b절의죽 은자의긍정적인행위 (^WdìAy WmWqÜy" ) 와평행을이루면서, 이어서죽은자들의 행위가 13 절까지길게나열되고있다. 11b절에서 13절까지의행위가 11a절 하나님의행위를전제로하고있는것처럼보인다. 좀더명확한이해를위 해서뒤따르는 11-12 절의구문상특징을분석해보자. 도입부첫번째의문문후 12절에서시인은더나아가계속해서두가지 질문으로죽음의세계에서행하시는하나님의행위를주제로다루고있다. 61) K. Seybold, Die Psalmen: Eine Einführung, UB 382 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986), 60.

108 성경원문연구제35호 각각 4 문장마다(mit interlinearen Parallelismus) 죽음의특징을나타내고있 는개념을위치시키고있다. 또한죽음의세계와하나님의특성을서로대 조시키면서표현하고있다. 12절에서는교차대구법이형성되며두명사가 주요개념으로작용되면서하나의쌍을이루고있다 : rp:åsuy>h; 선포될수있습니까? (12 절) rb,q<åb; 무덤에서 ^D<+s.x; 당신의인자하심이 ^D<+.n"Wm)a/ 당신의성실하심이 `!AD)b;a]B' 멸망중에서 죽음의세계에서의하나님의권능에관한연속되는질문(Totenreich) 을표현하기위해시인은강조수동형동사 (rp:åsuy>h;/pual) 를사용하고있다. 62) 시 인은 12절을긍정적인하나님의특징으로마무리하면서동시에 13절의표 현 알다 ([d:äw"yih] ) 와연결시킨다. 그리고그는하나님의권능에관한표현으 로전체연속적인질문을닫고있다 : %v,xoåb; [d:äw"yih] (13 절) 흑암중에서인식될수있습니까? ^a<+l.pi 주의기적과 ^t.q'd>ciw> 주의공의가 `hy")vin> #r<a,äb. 잊음의땅에서 13절에서의동사는 12 절과같이수동형이쓰이고있다. 11절에서질문의 형태와는달리 12-13 절의질문은일반적인 의문사 (h] ) 를가진문장으로구 성되어있다. 11 절에서하나님께서 행하실것인지 (h] ) 아니면 죽은자가 일어나야하는지 (~ai) 의양자택일의문제가전면에대두되고있다. 동시에 12-13절에서 11절과다르게취한의문문의형태는이러한양자택일의문제 와는또다른문법양식을통해서시인의간청을표현하고있다. 위에서살 펴본것처럼 12절과 13절에서사용되고있는수동태를가진교차대구법을 통해서시인은위에서사용하고있는양자택일의의문문형식을소화해내 고있다고볼수있다. 두절에서동일하게사용되고있는수동형동사는하 나님의행위와죽은자의반응을동시에표현하고있다. 11절에서의문사 h] 와 ~ai 은능동형문장을이루며동시에행위의주체들은 당신 과 죽 62) B. Janowski, Die Toten loben JHWH nicht, 21. 수동형동사를지니고있는 5절이눈에띈다. 여기서 5-6a절과 12 절이후사이의통일성을볼수있다.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 109 은자 로나타나고있다. 그러나 12-13 절이수동형문장으로대치되면서, 11 절에서드러나고있는주체들에관한관심사와는달리, 수동형문장을 통해주체들이행하는행위에우리를집중하게한다. 12 절에서 하나님의 인자하심 과 하나님의성실하심, 그리고그것의 선포 가중심주제이다. 13 절도동일하다. 주의기적 과 주의공의 가 앎 과조화를이룬다. 12절 과 13 절의공통적인장소는 무덤 과 흑암 중이다. 포크형단락 (sukzessive Versgabelung) 으로 11a절에서시작되는내용이 11b절에이어서 12-13 절에서계속진행되고있다. 12 절에서 무덤에서당 신의인자하심을 (12a) 과 멸망중에서당신의성실하심을 (12b) 이대구를 이루면서 12절첫번째단어인선포의주체는내용상 11a 절의 하나님 ( 비 교, 당신) 과 11b 절 죽은자 가된다. 13절도 12절과동일한구조를취하고 있다. 그러므로 11-13절은그어디에도수사학적인질문이어야하는당위 성이존재하지않는다. 우리는문장의구조상으로뿐만아니라내용상으로 도이들이일반의문이라고말할수있다. 일반의문문, 11-13절에서시인은죽음의세계에서의하나님의권능에 대한이해를직접표현하고있을뿐만아니라(11 절) 간접적으로도표현하 고있다(12-13 절). 그는그의원수들의이해와연결하여그의유일신론적인 하나님이해를구체화하고있다. 연속적인질문형식속에서, 다시말하면 그는하나님을향하여그의실존적인질문을제시하며하나님께서죽은자 에게기적을행하고있는지, 행할수있는것인지, 행하실것인지를알기를 원한다. 그리고죽은자가다시살아나서하나님을찬양할수있는지를묻 고있다. 물론질문형식을가진탄원을통해서이다! 형식적으로보면 11절은야웨의긍정적인행위 (al,p,_-hf,[]t;/ 기적을행하 심) 가죽은자의긍정적인행위(^WdìAy WmWqÜy" ) 와평행을이루고있다. 죽은자 들의행위는하나님의행위를전제로하고있다. 그러므로이것을통해서 이연속적인질문형태는하나님의행위혹은답변과관련하여가능성높은 기대를암시하고있으며, 하나님의행위를소망하는긍정적인표현으로이 해할수있다. 하나님을통한기대되는기적과관련하여기도하는시인인 나 는죽음의세계에서도그에게속할수있다. 63) 내용상으로우리는여기 서이질문에관한대답을기대할수있는데, 그것은하나님의대답뿐만아 니라 나 를통한대답이다. 여기서시인의자기이해, 다시말하면그는깊 은웅덩이와어둡고음침한곳, 죽음의세계에서(7 절) 일어날것이며(11 절), 더욱이그곳에서야웨를찬양하기위해서일어나길원한다(11-12 절). 63) B. Janowski, Die Toten loben JHWH nicht, 219.

110 성경원문연구제35호 2.5.3. 죽음의세계에서하나님권능 11-13 절의질문으로시인은제삼자의하나님이해(5-6 절) 에최종적으로 반대하고있다. 5-6절에서시인의주변인물들이주장하는것처럼그는하 나님으로부터잊혀지는자가아니며, 하나님으로부터단절된자는더더욱 아니다. 연속적인질문, 11-13절은일반의문문형식을취하면서실제로죽 음의세계에서하나님의권능을강조하는형식으로이루어져있다. 그는 12-13 절에서하나님과관련된개념, 인애, 신뢰, 기적 그리고 정의 를표현함으로하나님의행위의특징과능력을다루고있다. 이를통해시 인은죽음의세계에서하나님의구체적인행위의능력을강조하고있다. 시인은이와같은특별한형식으로죽음의세계에서도경험하게될하나님 의속성을찬양할수있다는것을암시하고있다. 그러므로필자는 11-13절을수사학적인질문으로이해한지금까지의노 력에관하여매우회의적이다. 64) 그리고시편 88:11-13의다양성을간과한 많은해석자들의관점을지적하고있다. 지금까지의연구사는 하나님과 죽음과의관계에관한구약성서적인언급에매우닫힌그림(Bild) 과연결되 어있다. 65) 우리는앞에서신학적인분석을통해서살펴본것처럼, 시적인형태를 근거로시편 88:11-13의중심에어떤굳혀진사상이있는것이아니라단순 한질문이표현되어있는것이다. 그러므로우리는 11-13절의질문은수사 학적인질문이아니라오히려 일반의문문 (echte Fragen) 이라고말할수 있다. 66) 이연속되는질문의특징을정확히살펴보면, 단지하나님이죽은 자에게기적을행하거나(tut), 행할수있거나(tun kann), 행할때만이(tun wird), 단지하나님이침묵을깨고새로운찬양과감사를불러일으킬때만 이, 여기서 기도하는나 는비로소다시그런기적을행하심에대한새로운 찬양과감사를할수있을것이다. 67) 64) F. Crüsemann, Rhetorische Fragen!? Eine Aufkündigung des Konsenses über Psalm 88, 11-13 und seine Bedeutung für das alttestamentliche Rede von Gott und Tod, 351: 지금까지연구사의경향과달리크뤼제만은 11-13절을수사학적질문으로보는것에관하여부정적이다. 65) J. Schiller, Für die Toten wirst Du ein Wunder tun, 61. 66) F. Crüsemann, Rhetorische Fragen!? Eine Aufkündigung des Konsenses über Psalm 88, 11-13 und seine Bedeutung für das alttestamentliche Rede von Gott und Tod, 347. 67) Ibid., 351.

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 111 3. 나가는말 이상의연구에서우리는 11-13절을신학적해석과관련하여수사학적의 문문으로이해하는연구사의일반적인경향을살펴볼수있었다. 지금까지 의그들의견해는 5-6절에나타나는원수들의하나님이해를시편 88편의 전체적인신학적주제로삼았다. 시인의고난을죽음과같은절대절명의 위기와동일시하며시인의고난극복의문제를죽음으로부터의구원이아 니라죽음과같은고난으로부터의구원으로이해했다. 그러나시편 88편전체의본문에서시인은자신의고난속에서그의주 변인의하나님이해와는달리새로운하나님이해에접근해간다. 68) 지금 까지하나님이부인되는, 또는다른힘에의해지배되는영역으로이해되 었던고대죽음의세계에대한새로운이해를통해서그는그의유일신사 상을구체화한다. 시인은죽음의세계에서권능을행사하시는하나님에 대한새로운이해를피력해내고있다. 본논문은먼저 5-13절에이르기까지내용상분석을통해서 11-13절의질 문은크뤼제만이지적한것처럼수사학적인질문의형식에담겨있는어떤 한 주장 (Behauptungen) 이될수없다는것을밝혔다. 69) 11-13절의질문은 죽은자에게야웨는기적도행하지않고, 죽은자는하나님을찬양하기위 해일어서지않는다 70) 는내용을표현하고있다고볼수없다. 오히려죽은 자와동일한시인은죽음의세계에서도하나님의권능을찬양하기를소망 하며, 그소망이이루어질수있도록하나님께서먼저기적을이루기를일 반의문문형태로탄원하고있다. 그러므로 11-13절을수사의문문으로보 는지금까지의연구사의경향은시편 약하다. 88편의신학적인관점에서설득력이 본논문은시편 88편이이루고있는구조와형식을통해서도 11-13절의 연속적인질문을수사학적인질문으로이해할수있는지를분석해보았다. 11-13 절은 포크형단락 (sukzessive Versgabelung) 이다. 11절에서실제적으 로의문사 h] 와 ~ai 으로일반의문문을구성하고, 특별한형태를통해서 11절뿐만아니라그이후의 12-13절도일반의문문의가능성을제시할수 68) O. Kaiser, Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott, BZAW 392 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 226-227. 69) F. Crüsemann, Rhetorische Fragen!? Eine Aufkündigung des Konsenses über Psalm 88, 11-13 und seine Bedeutung für das alttestamentliche Rede von Gott und Tod, 351. 70) B. Janowski, Psalm 88, 18.

112 성경원문연구제35호 있다. 시인은고난의상황에서그의하나님에대한신앙을고수하며구원과새 로운회복을간절히간청하고있다(11a 절). 그의탄원에서죽음의세계로부 터구원혹은고난의회복을위한필연적인개입을위해서는단지하나님 만이존재할뿐이다(11a, 12-13 절). 더욱이하나님만을통한구원은죽음으 로부터(vom Tod) 뿐만아니라죽음에서(in dem Tod) 가능한구원을의미한 다. 이와같은역동적인신학을시인은특별한형식, 원수들과의논쟁을띤 탄원형식과하나님을향한탄원형식, 그리고 긍정 을요구하는 11-13절 의질문속에담아내고있다. 그러므로우리말성경, 개역개정, 새번역그리고공동번역은시편 88:11-13 을수사학적으로번역하고있는것이적절한지생각해보아야한 다. 왜냐하면지금까지살펴본것처럼시편 88:11-13은일반의문문으로서 죽음의세계에서하나님의권능 에관한신학적인주제를시인이새롭게 이해한유일신하나님사상의단단한토대위에역동적으로주장하고있기 때문이다. 또한우리는시편 88:11-13 의적절한번역을통해서, 예를들면 죽은자에게당신이기이한일을행하실겁니까? 아니면( 또는) 유령들이 일어나당신을찬송해야합니까? 당신의인자하심이무덤에서, 당신의성 실하심이멸망중에선포될수있습니까? 흑암중에서주의기적과잊음의 땅에서주의공의가인식될수있습니까? 시편 88편의시인이그의탄원의 절정에서표현하고있는하나님만을통한유일한구원신앙을이해할수있 기때문이다. < 주제어>(Keywords) 수사학적질문, 고난, 탄원, 유일신론, 죽음의세계에대한이해. Rhetorical Question, Suffer, Claim, Monotheism, Imagination of the world of the death. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 30 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 113 < 참고문헌>(References) 차준희, 시편신앙과의만남, 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2004. C. 베스터만, 시편해설 : 시편의주제, 구조그리고메시지, 노희원역, 서울: 도서 출판은성, 1996. E. 쨍어, 복수의하나님?, 이일례역, 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2014. Albertz, R., Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion, P. Stuhlmacher and C. Westermann, eds., Calwer Theologische Monographien 9, Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978. Anderson, A.A., Psalms I-II, NCeB, London: Oliphants, 1972. Baethgen, F., Die Psalmen, HK II:2, 3rd ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904. Baldermann, I., Einführung in die Bibel, UTB 1486, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Barth. C., Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten Testaments. Mit zwei Anhängen, einer Bibliographie und Registern neu herausgegeben von B. Janowski, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2 1987. Butting. K., Der Tod wird nicht mehr sein, JK 66 (2005), 1-4. Craigie, P. C., Psalms 1-50, Word Biblical Commentary 19, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004. Crüsemann, F., Rhetorische Fragen!? Eine Aufkündigung des Konsenses über Psalm 88, 11-13 und seine Bedeutung für das alttestamentliche Rede von Gott und Tod, Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003), 345-360. Dahood, M., Psalms 1-50, AncB 16, Garden City: New York, 1965. Dahood, M., Psalms II, AncB 17, Garden City: New York, 1968. Dahood, M., Psalms III, AncB 17 A, Garden City: New York, 1970. Delitzsch, F., Biblischer Kommentar über die Psalmen, BC IV:1, Leipzig Sachsen: Dörffling & Francke, 1894. Duhm, B., Die Psalmen, KHC XIV, Tübingen: Mohr, 1922. Eising, H., rkz, ThWAT II (1977), 571-593. Gese. H., Der Tod im Alten Testament, Gese. H., ed., Zur biblischen Theologie. Alttestamentliche Vorträge, Tübingen: Mohr, 3 1989. Gerstenberger, E. S., Psalms, Part 1: with an introduction to cultic poetry, FOTL 15, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gerstenberger, E. S., Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentation, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Goldingay, J., Psalms: Psalms 1-41, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.

114 성경원문연구제35호 Groß, W., Gott als Feind des einzelnen? Psalm 88, W. Groß, ed., Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern, SBAB 30, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel- werk, 1999, 159-171. Gunkel, H., Die Psalmen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Haag. E., Psalm 88, Freude an der Weisung des Herrn, E. Haag, and F.-L. Hossfeld ed., Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen (FS H. Groß [SBB 13]), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel- werk, 1986, 149-170. Hossfeld, F.-L. and Zenger E., Die Psalmen I, J. G. Plöger and J. Schreiner, eds., Die Neue Echter Bibel 29, Würzburg: Echter, 1993. Hossfeld, F.-L. and Zenger E., Die Psalmen II, Psalm 50-100, J. G. Plöger and J. Schreiner, eds., Die Neue Echter Bibel 40, Würzburg: Echter, 2002. Hossfeld, F.-L. and Zenger E., Psalmen 51-100, HThKAT, Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder, 2000. Janowski, B., Konfliktgespräche mit Gott. Eine Anthropologie der Psalmen, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Janowski, B., Der Gott des Lebens, Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Janowski. B., Die Toten loben JHWH nicht. Psalm 88 und das alttestamentliche Todesverständnis, F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger, eds., Auferstehung Resurrektion, WUNT 135, Tübingen: Mohr, 2001. Janowski. B., Jenseitsvorstellungen II/2, 4 RGG, Bd. 4 (2001), 406-407. Jenni, E., Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments, Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1981. Kaiser, O., Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott: Studien zur spätbiblischen Weisheit und Hermeneutik, BZAW 392, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008. Keel, O., Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament. Am Beispiel der Psalmen, Zürich; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Göttingen, 1996. Kraus, H.-J., Psalmen I: Psalm 1-59, BK XV 1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. Kraus, H.-J., Psalmen II: Psalm 60-150, BK XV 2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. Lang, B., and Mc Dannell, C., Der Himmel. Eine Kulturgeschichte des ewigen Lebens, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996. Lee, I., Das Gottesbild der leidenden Israeliten: Monotheismus und Theoldizeefrage in ausgewählten Klagepsalmen des Einzelnen, Verlag-Europäische

시편 88:11-13 은수사의문문인가? 일반의문문인가? / 이일례 115 Hochschulschriften Reihe XXIII Theologie, Bd. 937, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2013. Lindström, F., Suffering and Sin. Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms, CB.OT 37, Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Liwak. R., ~yaip'r>, ThWAT VII (1993), 625-36. Loretz, O., Die Psalmen. Teil II, AOAT 207:2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukircher Verlag, 1979. Michel, D., Ich aber bin immer bei dir. Von der Unsterblichkeit der Gottesbeziehung, Michel. D., ed., Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte alttestamentlicher Texte TB 93, Gütersloh: Christian Kaiser, 1997. Oeming, M., Das Buch der Psalmen. Psalm 1-41, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 13:1, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000. Preuß, H. D., Psalm 88 als Beispiel alttestamentlichen Redens vom Tod, A. Strobel, ed., Der Tod - ungelöstes Rätsel oder überwundener Feind?, Stuttgartt: Calwer, 1974. Schiller, J., Für die Toten wirst Du ein Wunder tun, Protokolle zur Bibel 14 (2005), 61-66. Schmitt, B. B., Israel s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromany in Ancient Israelite Religon and Tradition, FAT 11, Tübingen; Mohr, 1994. Seybold, K., Die Psalmen: Eine Einführung, UB 382, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986. Seybold, K., Das Gebet des Kranken im Alten Testament, Stuttgart; Berlin; Koln, Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1973. de Vos, C., Klage als Gotteslob aus der Tiefe: Der Mensch vor Gott in den individuellen Klagepsalmen, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Weiser, A., Die Psalmen, ATD Bd. 14:15, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963, 8 1973. Weber, B., Werkbuch Psalmen 1- Die Psalmen 1 bis 72, Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln: Kohlhammer, 2001. Wolff, H. W., Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 3 1977.

116 성경원문연구제35호 <Abstract> Is Psalm 88:11-13 a Rhetorical or General Question? Il-rye Lee (Seoul Theological University) In the studies, we relate verses 11-13 to theological translation, and understand it as a rhetorical question. We are able to examine a general tendency in these studies where researchers saw the enemies comprehension of God in verses 5-6 as the main theological topic in Psalm 88. The suffering of the poet is seen as death. The poet gets redeemed through a suffering like death, but not through actual death. Therefore, the suffering poet approaches the monotheistic understanding of God in the whole body of Psalm 88. Through the new comprehension of the ancient world after death controlled by might from a different area, his monotheistic idea takes shape. The question in verses 11-13 contains JHWE does not carry out any miracle to the dead, the dead does not rise up to praise god. The article analyses whether the continuous questions in verses 11-13 should be understood as rhetorical questions through the structure that forms Psalm 88. Verses 11-13 are a fork-formed statement. In verse 11, this fork-formed statement forms a general question with the interrogative h] and ~ai. And not only in verse 11, the following verses of 12-13 also suggest the possibility of a general question through a particular structure. In midst of suffering, the poet adheres to his belief in God, and entreats eagerly for salvation and a new recovery. In his entreaty, only God can provide the inevitable intervention for salvation from the world after death or recovery from his suffering. Furthermore, the salvation through God refers to salvation not only from the death (von Tod) but also in death (in dem Tod). We must therefore reconsider whether it is appropriate to translate verses 11-13 of Psalm 88 rhetorically in Korean and other language Bible translations. For as we observed, verses 11-13 of Psalm 88 are an interrogative clause. The poet asserts the theological subject of God s authority after death based on the poet s new understanding of monotheistic ideology. In addition, only through appropriate translation of verses 11-13 of Psalm 88, we are able to understand the poet s monotheistic faith which is expressed at the climax of the entreaty that salvation comes only through God.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 117 예레미야 33:1-3의새로운이해 - 소통과계시 - 민경구 * 1. 들어가는말 한국교회의강단에서행해지는예언서본문들을분석한차준희 1) 는한 국교회의강단이이사야서와예레미야서에치중되어설교한다는점을지 적하였다. 그가제시한도표를근거로볼때, 예레미야서는이사야서만큼 은아니지만, 설교되는구약성서중에서적지않은비중을차지하고있다 는것을확인할수있다. 예레미야가아직시위대뜰에갇혀있을때에여호와의말씀이그에 게두번째로임하니라이르시되일을행하시는여호와, 그것을만들며 성취하시는여호와, 그의이름을여호와라하는이가이와같이이르시 도다너는내게부르짖으라내가네게응답하겠고네가알지못하는크 고은밀한일을네게보이리라( 렘 33:1-3) 예레미야 33:1-3 은한국교회에지대한영향을끼치고있다. 특별히기도 와관련된것으로해석되어, 본문은 부르짖음과응답 이라는도식으로이 해되고있어, 부르짖어기도하는형태의모습을지지해주는것으로해석되 어왔다. 2) 또한본문은 환난날에부르짖는기도 라는의미로해석되어왔 * Universität Münster에서구약학으로박사 (Dr. theol.) 학위를받음. 현재한세대학교구약학강사. 92vision@hanmail.net. 1) 차준희, 최근한국교회의예언서설교, 구약사상문고 7 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2013), 24 그리고 29 참조. 그는연구표본선정에있어서 주일오전예배 에서행해진것가운데해당교회의인터넷홈페이지에올라와있는것을분석하였다고밝히고있다(19 참조.). 그의분석에따르면선별된한국의대형교회는이사야서를 175 회, 예레미야서를 63회설교하는것으로나타났다. 2) 장성길, 하나님의심판과무조건적구원의긴장: 예레미야 30-33 장주해와적용, 예레미야 1: 어떻게설교할것인가, 두란노 HOW 주석 25, 목회와신학편 ( 서울: 두란노아카데미, 2009), 269-293 참조; 동일한것으로보라. 박동현, 예레미야 II, 대한기독교서회창립 100 주년기념성서주석 23:2 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2006), 224; 그밖에도기독교신문과인터

118 성경원문연구제35호 는데, 그것은예레미야가시위대뜰에갇혀있는것과무관하지않을것이 다. 본논문은한국교회에적지않은영향을끼치고있는본문을분석하는 것을통하여첫째로, 본문의의미를찾으며, 둘째로그의미를통하여본문 이말하는기도는무엇을지향하는것인가를제시하고자한다. 그리고마 지막으로미묘한차이로인하여교회에영향을끼치고있는만큼, 본문의 올바른해석을제언하고자한다. 그것을위하여본소논문은언어/ 문학적 분석을기반으로하여본문의전체구조(2.1) 를살펴본후에예레미야 33:1-3 의한글성서번역사를잠시고찰할것이다(2.2). 그이후에관용구인 la arq을어떻게번역할것인가를살펴볼것이며것을기반으로하여전체문맥에서 la arq의 하는가를서술할것이다 (2.6). (2.3-2.5), 위에서언급한 의미가어떻게이해되어야 2. 본론 2.1. 구조 예레미야 33:1-3은 1절을근거로해서전체적인맥락에서예레미야 32장 과연결되어서이해되어야한다( 렘 32:2). 예레미야 32장이아나돗밭을사는 구원의메시지를담고있기때문에예레미야 30-31장의구원선포와연결될 수있음에도불구하고, 32:1은 31 장과분리를시도하는것으로평가된다. 1 절은예레미야가말씀을받은장소와시간을가르쳐준다. 시위대뜰이 라는장소와갇혀있다는시점은이미위에서언급한것처럼예레미야 32 장에서도발견된다( 렘 32:2). 그리고 32:1에서는느부갓네살통치 18년이 었고, 유다왕시드기야통치 10년이라는시간을알려주는것으로주전 587 년상황임을보도하고있다( 렘 39:1-2). 그와달리예레미야 36장과 37장은 시드기야이전에여호야김이왕이었다는것( 렘 36:1) 과시드기야가바벨론 에의해왕이되었다는것을기록하고있다( 렘 37:1). 더나아가예레미야 37:11 이하는예레미야가투옥되는과정을묘사하고있고, 38:14-26은바벨 론공격에대한시드기야의염려를기술하고있는것을볼때, 예레미야 넷등에서도예레미야 33:1-3 을본문으로삼은설교문을찾아볼수있는데, 이것들역시예레미야 33:1-3 을부르짖음과응답도식으로해석하였다. 하근수, 응급전화 333을아십니까, 국민일보 2010. 3. 24.; 김성광, 부르짖는기도의축복, 크리스천투데이 2011. 1. 3.; 김홍도, 왜기도해야만하는가, 크리스천투데이 2012. 9. 2.; 예레미야 33:1-3을본문으로한인터넷설교모음에대해서 http://tv.c3tv.com/sermon/partsearch/bible_ list.asp 참조.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 119 32-33장은연대기적으로 37-38 장이후에위치할수있다( 참조, 렘 39:1-2). 3) 그러므로예레미야 ( 참조, 렘 37:3). 4) 32-33장이편집과정을거쳤다는것은자명한것이다 야웨의말씀이예레미야에게임했다(whymry-la hwhy-rbd yhyw) 라는표현 은이미노이만 (P. K. D. Neumann) 이지적한것처럼예레미야서에서빈번 하게발생한다. 5) 이공식적인문구를통하여예레미야 33:1은새로운말씀 3) J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 21b (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 499; W. Thiel, Die deueronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26-45: Mit einer Gesamtbeurteilung der deuteronomistischen Redaktion des Buches Jeremia, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 52 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 30 참조; J. Schreiner, Jeremia II 25,15-52,34, Die Neue Echter Bibel 9 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984), 190. 4) 적지않은학자들은예레미야 32:1-5* 이후대편집층이라는것에동의하고있는데, 1인칭보도로되어있는 32:6-15과비교할때 32:1-5는 3 인칭보도로되어있기때문이다. A. Weiser, Der Prophet Jeremia 25,1-52,34, Altes Testament Deutsch 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955), 300-301 참조; J. Schreiner, Jeremia II 25,15-52,34, 190; G. Wanke, Jeremia 25,25-52,34, Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 20:2 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), 299; W. H. Schmidt, Das Buch Jeremia Kapitel 21-52, Altes Testament Deutsch 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 153; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 500; 박동현은예레미야 32-33장이현재위치에놓인이유를 30-31장과 32-33장이유사한성격을묘사하고있기때문이라고설명한다. 박동현, 주께서나를이기셨으니: 설교를위한예레미야서연구 ( 서울: 한국성서학연구소, 2000 2 ), 292; 그와유사한설명으로김근주, 특강예레미야 ( 서울: 한국기독학생회출판부, 2013), 199-200; W. Thiel, Die deueronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26-45, 29-37. 틸(W. Thiel) 은 1-6a절을신명기사가이후의것으로이해하고있다; 그와달리예레미야 32:6-15에기록된아나돗밭을사는이야기는예레미야본래적인것으로평가된다. 참조, 둠(B. Duhm) 은 1-15절이후대의편집자에의해오늘날예레미야서의위치로자리잡게되었지만 1-15 절의기원을바룩에게서찾았으며, 16-44절은그것보다후대편집자를통해유래한것으로보았다. B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament XI (Tübingen und Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901), 260; 룬드붐(J. R. Lundbom) 은예레미야 32장은 31 장에기록된 새언약 과유사한신탁( 영원한언약 ~lw[ tyrb) 을함유하고있으며( 렘 32:36-41), 그런이유로예레미야 31장과동일한편집적작업으로이해된다는것을제시한다. J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 499; 룬드붐의의견을따라서예레미야 32장을 31장과유사한편집층으로이해한다면오경편집 (Pentateuchredaktion) 이후의것으로이해된다. 참조, 민경구, 토라를둘러싼율법학자의논쟁 - 포로기이후신학, 구약논단 53 (2014), 256-279; 브라이트(J. Bright) 역시예레미야 32:36-44가예레미야 31:33 과동일하다는것을지적하고있다. 하지만그에따르면 36절 (hwhy rma hk!kl) 은 28 절(hwhy rma hk!kl) 과함께 27절과연결되므로예레미야 32:36-44 는본래예레미야것으로추정한다. J. Bright, Jeremiah, Anchor Bible 21 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 289-290. 5) P. K. D. Neumann, Das Wort, das geschehen ist. Zum Problem der Wortempfangsterminologie in Jer. I-XXV, Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973), 172-217 참조, 노이만은이와유사한표현을말씀사건공식(Wortgeschehensformel) 과말씀경험공식(Wortereignisformel: rmal yla hwhy-rbd yhyw - 렘 1:4, 11, 13; 2:1) 을나누었고, 말씀사건공식을 A(whymry-la hwhy-rbd hyh rva - 렘 1:2; 14:1) 와 B(rmal hwhy tam whymry-la hyh rva rbdh - 렘 7:1 (G); 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 25:1) 로세

120 성경원문연구제35호 이시작되는것으로이해된다( 참조, 렘 11:1; 29:30; 32:26; 36:27). 마찬가지 로 4 절은다시 이스라엘하나님여호와께서말씀하시니라 라는공식적인 문구로시작하고있기때문에예레미야 33:1-3은내용적으로완성된최소 한의틀을형성하고있다고볼수있다. 6) 하지만 1절에서기록된 tynive( 쉐닛) 은이본문이독립적인것이아니라, 첫번째사건과연결되어서이해될수 있음을보여주는것이다( 렘 1:13; 13:3). 슈미트(W. H. Schmidt) 는 두번째 로임한것을야웨의두번째응답으로이해한다. 슈미트에따르면예레미 야는 32:16-25 에서기도하였고, 그기도에대한첫번째응답이예레미야 32:26-44 에서기록되었다. 그리고뒤이어나오는예레미야 33:1-13이예레 미야기도에대한두번째응답이라는것이다. 7) 그와달리룬드봄 (J. R. Lundbom) 은예레미야 32:6 이하에기록된것을첫번째계시로이해한다. 8) 하지만말씀이예레미야에게임했다는것은이미예레미야 32장에서여러 번예레미야에게임한것이기록되고있으며(1, 6, 26 절), tynv는두번째라 는의미도가능하지만 다시한번/ 한번더 라는의미를포함하고있기때문 에, 9) 여기에서는 다시 라는의미로이해되는것이더적절하다. 10) 따라서 예레미야 33장은 32 장과함께이해되어야한다. 예레미야 33:1b 는예레미야가말씀을받은장소를알려준다: 아직시위 대뜰에갇혀있을때에. 시위대뜰(hrjmh rcxb) 이라는장소는이미예레 미야 32 장에서기술되었는데(32:2, 8, 12), 여기에서그는이미구류의몸이 라는것을알수있다 (hrjmh rcxb awlk, 렘 32:2). 상이한동사가사용되기 는했지만 (rc[/alk), 두동사모두분사수동태 Qal의형태를동일하게취하 분화하였다. 노이만에따르면말씀경험공식은소명환상에서주로나타나며(182), 말씀사건공식은말씀경험공식과달리 hwhy-rbd와완료형 hyh 동사가전형적으로나타난다; 헤르만은노이만의분석을수용하였고, 더많은각각의양식에수용될수있는본문들을구체화하였다. 헤르만에따르면말씀경험공식은노이만이언급한이외의본문에서도나타난다 ( 렘 13:3, 8; 16:1; 18:5; 24:4). S. Herrmann, Jeremia, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XII Lfg. 1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 10. 6) J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 526; 참조, 물론예레미야 33:4-5에기록된것은예레미야 32:24, 26 과연결되어있다. 하지만 6절이하는그러한상황을넘어서포로귀환에대해서서술하고있는것을볼때, 시기적으로는포로기혹은포로기이후로이해될수있다( 참조, 렘 32:7-15). 7) W. H. Schmidt, Das Buch Jeremia Kapitel 21-52 (Altes Testament Deutsch 21), 169 참조. 8) J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 525 참조. 9) W. Gesenius, Wilhelm Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte, R. Meyer, hrsg. (Berlin: Springer, 1987-2005), 1394 참조. 한글성서번역사를볼때에 1911년번역본셩경젼셔에이것은 다시 라고번역되었지만, 1930 년도번역본에는 두번째 로번역되어있다는것이확인된다. 10) W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 224 참조.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 121 고있으며, 의미도동일하게사용되었다. 그렇다면예레미야 32장에기록 된것을예레미야가갇혀있을때경험한첫번째말씀으로이해할수도있 을것이다( 참조, 렘 32:26). 예레미야 33:2 는메신저공식(Botenformel) 으로시작한다. 2절은 2개의 (hnykhl htwa rcwy hwhy hf[ hwhy) 과하나의명사문장 (wmv hwhy) 이그것에뒤이어나타나고있는데, 이문장들은모두야웨를수 Qal 능동형분사구문 식하고있으며, 본문이야웨의말로시작하고있으므로야웨의자기계시 적성격으로볼수있다( 참조, 렘 32:17). 이미 33:1에서말씀경험공식이언 급되었음에도불구하고 2 절에서메신저공식이반복되고있으며, 나아가 야웨의자기계시가세번에걸쳐서나타나고있는것을볼때, 2절은뒤이 어나타나는 3 절을보증하는것으로이해된다. 11) la arq 명령형으로시작하는 3 절은야웨하나님을부르는것을기록한다. 은 이미곳곳에서찾아볼수있는형태로서누군가를부르는것을보여주고 있다. 12) 대답하는것과알게하겠다는것은미래형으로기록되어있으며, 위에서술된것처럼신적인자기계시를기반으로하는약속을보여주는 것이다. 첫번째약속이 부르는것과대답 즉소통에관한것이라면, 두번 째약속은 크고은밀한일을보이겠다 는소통을넘어서는계시에대한약 속을제시하고있다. 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 말씀경험공식 계시의시간과장소 메신저공식 야웨의자기계시 첫번째약속 - 소통 두번째약속 - 계시 2.2. 예레미야 33:1-3의다양한해석 성서가한글로번역되기시작하면서예레미야 33:3은여러번역의단계 11) J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 528 참조. 12) 창 3:9; 19:5; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 28:1; 49:1; 출 3:4; 8:21; 10:24; 19:3; 24:16; 34:31; 36:2; 레 1:1; 10:4; 신 4:7; 5:1; 15:9; 20:10; 24:15; 29:1; 수 4:4; 10:24; 삿 9:54; 15:18; 16:28; 18:23; 삼상 3:4, 9; 9:26; 12:17-18; 16:8; 17:8; 26:14; 29:6; 삼하 1:7; 2:26; 9:9; 14:33; 15:2; 18:26; 22:7; 왕상 8:43, 52; 13:21; 17:10-11, 20-21; 18:3; 22:9; 왕하 4:22, 36; 6:11; 7:10; 20:11; 에 4:11; 시 4:4[3]; 99:6; 사 40:2; 48:13; 58:1; 렘 7:27; 11:14; 42:8; 겔 9:3; 호 7:7; 욘 1:6, 14; 3:8.

122 성경원문연구제35호 를거쳐왔다. 한글로번역된구약성서는 1911년 3 월에구약젼셔라는이 름으로일본요코하마에서출간되었고, 그이후 1930 년관쥬셩경젼셔가 출간되었고, 1938 년개정이완성된셩경개역이출간되었다. 13) 이러한 한글역본들은예레미야 33:1-3 을다음과같이번역하였다: 예리미야가아직감옥 에갓쳣슬 에여호와의말 이다시뎌희 게림 야 샤 일을니리키신이도여호와요일을 야그대로 일우게 시 이도여호와시니라그일홈을여호와라 신이가말 시기를너는내게부르지져구 라내가네게응 기시오 네가아지 못 큰일과비밀 일을네게보이리라 14) ( 구약젼셔 ) 예레미야가아직시위 에가쳣슬 에여호와의말 이뎌의게 두번재림 야 샤 일을 쟈도여호와요경영 고셩 쟈도여호와니그일홈이여호와라 이가이처럼닐 시기를내게 부르지지라네게응답 고네가아지못 크고비밀 일을보이리 라 15) ( 셩경젼셔 ) 예레미야가아직시위대 에가쳣슬 에여호와의말삼이그의게 다시림하니라갈아샤대일을행하는여호와그것을지어셩 하는여 호와그일홈을여호와라하는쟈가이갓치닐아노라너는내게부르지 즈라내가네게응답하겟고네가아지못하는크고비밀한일을네게보 이리라 16) ( 성경개역 ) 위에언급한 1911년도번역본들을살펴보면예레미야 33:3의 arq는 부 르지져구 라 로번역되어서 부르짖는 것뿐만아니라그것을 구하는 것과연결시키고있다는것을확인할수있다. 하지만 구하라 라는언급은 본문에서확인되지않는첨가이다. 그와동일한것이 1930년도번역본에는 13) 이책에는예레미야서를포함하여, 그때까지개정이이루어진 17 권의 개역구약 이포함 되어출간되었다. 류대영, 옥성득, 이만열, 대한성서공회사 II ( 서울: 대한성서공회, 1994), 149. 14) 성서번역자회, 구약젼셔 ( 경성: 대영셩셔공회, 1911). 미국셩셔공회에서발간된것역시 동일하게기록되어있다. 참조, 성서번역자회, 셩경젼셔 ( 발행지미상: 미국셩셔공회, 1911). 예리미야가아직감옥 에갓쳣슬 에여호와의말 이다시뎌희게림 야 샤 일을니리키신이도여호와요일을 야그대로일우게 시 이도여호와시 니라그일홈을여호와라 신이가말 시기를너는내게부르지져구 라내가 네게응 기시오 네가아지못 큰일과비밀 일을네게보이리라 15) 성서번역자회, 셩경젼셔 ( 경성: 대영셩셔공회, 1930). 16) 성서번역자회, 셩경개역 ( 경성: 죠션셩셔공회, 1938).

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 123 부르지지라 라고번역되었고, 마찬가지로 아래아 [ ㆍ] 가탈락되어오늘 날글자체와더가까워진셩경개역에서도 부르지즈라 라고번역되었 다. 1998년 8월 31 일성경전서개역개정판 ( 이하개역개정으로표기) 이출간되고, 2001년 1월 19 일한국기독교의주요교단에서개역개정을 공식적으로사용하기로결정하기전까지 1961년 7월 10 일출간된성경전 서개역한글판 ( 이하개역으로표기) 이한국기독교단체에서공식적으 로사용되었다. 개역역시다음과같이예레미야 33:3을기록하고있으 며, 이번역은개역개정과다르지않다: 너는내게부르짖으라내가네게응답하겠고네가알지못하는크고 비밀한일을네게보이리라 이러한번역본들을볼때한국기독교는예레미야 33:3 을 부르짖음과응 답 의도식으로이해해왔음을알수있다. 물론개역과다르게번역된것 이공동과표준에서확인된다. 하지만공동성서는 1977년부활절 에, 그리고표준은 1993년 1월 30일에출간되어상대적으로늦게세상에 나왔을뿐아니라, 한국의주요개신교교단에서는외면을받아왔기때문 에, 한국교계에별다른영향을끼치지못한것이사실이다. 개역개정표준 17) 공동 18) 1 예레미야가아직시위대 뜰에갇혀있을때에여 호와의말씀이그에게 두번째로임하니라이 르시되 2 일을행하시는여호와, 3 그것을만들며성취하 시는여호와, 그의이름 을여호와라하는이가 이와같이이르시도다 너는내게부르짖으라 내가네게응답하겠고 네가알지못하는크고 은밀한일을네게보이 리라 1 예레미야가여전히근위 대뜰안에갇혀있을 때에, 주께서그에게두 번째로말씀하셨다. 2 땅을지으신주, 그것을 빚어서제자리에세우 신분께서나에게말씀 하셨다. 그이름이 ' 주' 이 신분께서말씀하셨다. 3 네가나를부르면, 내가 너에게응답하겠고, 네 가모르는크고놀라운 비밀을너에게알려주 겠다. 1 예레미야가아직근 위대울안에갇혀 있을때야훼의말 씀이그에게두번 째로내렸다. 2 땅을만든나야훼 가말한다. 땅을빚 어든든히세운나 의이름은야훼다. 3 너는나를불러라. 내가대답하리라. 나는네가모르는 큰비밀을가르쳐 주리라.

124 성경원문연구제35호 세본문을비교하는것을통해서몇가지차이점들이확인된다. 첫번째로 개역개정은 일을행하시는여호와 라고기록하고있지만, 동그리고 표준과공 2005 년한국천주교중앙협의회에서발간된가톨릭성경에서는 땅을지은/ 만든 야웨라고서술되었다. 이러한차이는신학적이해에대한 차이를확연하게드러내는데, 왜냐하면 땅을지은/ 만든 이라는것은 창조 사건 을염두에두고있는것이기때문이다. 그와달리개역개정에서는 땅 을대신하여 일 이라고번역되었다. 그것과동일한차이점을독일어번 역본에서도발견할수있다. 루터번역(LUT) 과 2007년출간된취리히성서 (ZUR) 에서는 모든것을만든주님/ 야웨 라고번역되었고, 반면에로마-가 톨릭에서사용하는독일어번역(EIN) 은 땅을지으신야웨 라고서술하고 있다. MT 본문에따르면동사(hf[ ) 는분사의형태이며 3인칭여성단수를목 적으로취하고있다. 뒤이어나타나는분사문장(htwa rcwy hwhy) 에서동사는 바뀌었지만동일한분사구문형태이며, 목적어역시 3 인칭여성단수(htwa) 로기록되었다. 그러한것을볼때 MT 본문은목적어를정확하게제시하고 있지않다. 그와달리 LXX는 MT의첫분사구문을다음과같이이해하고있 다 : ku,rioj poiw/n gh/n ( 땅을만드신주님). MT와마찬가지로 LXX는분사 구문형태이지만, MT 와는다르게목적어인 땅 (gh/n) 을명확하게포함하고 있다. 그러므로 2aba절을 땅을지으신야웨 로이해하고있는번역본들(EIN, NIV, ESV, 표준, 공동, 성경 19) ) 은 LXX 전통을따르고있는것으로이 해된다. 20) 이러한이해는동시에예레미야서에서창조신학이자리잡고있다 는것을보여주고있는데, LXX에서목적어를땅으로이해한것은예레미야 32:17 과연결시키고있기때문인것으로보인다: 슬프도소이다주여호와여 주께서큰능력과펴신팔로천지를지으셨사오니 (#rah-taw ~ymvh-ta tyf[) 주에게는할수없는일이없으시니이다 ( 렘 32:17). 두번째로개역개정은 3a 절을이렇게기록하였다: 너는내게부르짖 으라내가네게응답하겠고 ($n[aw yla arq ). 여기에서카라(arq) 동사는명 령형으로 (ar"q.) 기록되어있고, 대답한다/ 응답한다 라는아나(hn[ ) 동사는 PK(Präformativ-Konjugation) + w의형태로되어있어서 내가대답하겠다/ 응 17) 표준은 2001 년개정판 ( 표준새번역개정판) 으로출간되었고, 2004 년부터새번역 으로명명하였다. 대한성서공회홈페이지(http://www.bskorea.or.kr) 제공. 18) 공동개정이 1999 년출간되었다. 예레미야 33:1-3 의번역은공동과동일하다. 19) 공동은대한민국가톨릭에서사용되었던성서이다. 이것과로마-가톨릭독일어성서 (EIN) 는장절에따라서번역이서로상이한것이확인되기때문에구별하여기록하였다. 뿐만아니라 2005 년한국천주교주교회의는독자적으로성경을편찬하여발간하였다. 20) 박동현, 예레미야 II, 224 참조.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 125 답하겠다 는것은 약속 을내포하고있다. 3절본문에서특별히이목을끄 는것은 부르짖으라( 개역개정 ) 와 부르다( 표준, 공동, 성경 ) 의 차이이다. 부르짖으라 라는표현은 야웨께소리치면서도움을요청한 다, 21) 하나님께적극적으로부르짖을것 22) 이라는식으로해석된다. 그 와유사하게 부르짖다 의본래의미는 큰기쁨이나슬픔, 고통따위의격 한감정을억누르지못하여소리높여크게떠들다. 23) 이다. 그러한해석은 야웨의대답이인간의 부르짖음 에좌우될수있다고곡해되기도한다. 그 것과비교할때 부르다 는것은감정적행위를포함하지않으며, 그것의일 차적의미는 말이나행동따위로다른사람의주의를끌거나오라고하 다. 24) 이다. 그렇다면예레미야 33:3 에기록된야웨의 대답 은인간의 외 침/ 부르짖음 에좌우되는것이아니라, 오히려인간과신의소통을위한부 름의결과로해석된다. LXX 는 부르다 라는것을 ke,kraxon로표현하였다. 이동사는 kra,zw에서 파생한것으로전쟁에서사용되었던 [wr( 큰소리로외치다, 수 6:16) 또는 그와유사하게이방인의압제로인해부르짖는것 q[z( 울부짖다, 삿 3:9, 15; 삼하 13:19; 19:5) 또는 q[c( 울부짖다, 삿 4:3) 을표현할때사용되었으 며, 25) 마지막으로주로시편의탄원시에서사용되었던 arq( 부르다, 시 17:6; 18:7[6]; 22:3[2] 28:1; 30:9) 가번역된것이다. 26) 신약성서에서이헬라 어동사 (kra,zw) 는악령(Dämon) 에사로잡혀제정신이아닌상태에서외침 ( 마 8:29; 막 5:5; 눅 9:39) 을서술할때사용되었다. 27) 그밖에도고난, 질병 ( 마 9:27), 두려움( 마 14:27) 그리고죽음의위협( 마 14:30; 참조, 마 20:31; 27:23) 을목전에두고외치는것을표현하기도하였다. 그러므로개역또 는개역개정에서 부르짖으라 라고번역하고있는것은 LXX와신약성 서전통과연결되어있는것으로볼수있다. 예레미야서에서특별히예레미야개인의고난이담겨있는탄원시( 렘 11:18-23; 12:1-6; 15:10-21; 17:12-18; 18:18-23; 20:7-18) 를어렵지않게찾아 볼수있고, 예언자예레미야가 아직시위대뜰에갇혀있을때 라는상황 21) Ibid. 22) 장성길, 하나님의심판과무조건적구원의긴장: 예레미야 30-33 장주해와적용, 289. 23) 표준국어대사전, 국립국어원 (http://www.korean.go.kr) 제공. 24) Ibid. 25) C. J. Labuschagne, arq, E. Jenni und C. Westermann, hrsg., Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament II (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976), 666-674, 667 참조. 26) W. Grundmann, kra,zw, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Bd. III ( Θ- Κ) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938), 898-904, 899 참조. 27) Ibid., 900-901 참조.

126 성경원문연구제35호 을전제로하고있다는점에서예레미야 33:3의 arq를 부르짖으라 라고해 석할수도있을것이다. 하지만예레미야 32-33장은예레미야가자신의대 적들과대치하는모습을묘사하고있지않다( 참조, 렘 18:18, 22; 20:10). 아 나돗밭을사는것에대해질문하고있는모습을볼때( 참조, 렘 32:25), 예 레미야의탄원시성격과는전혀다른기도를예레미야 32장은서술하고있 으며, 심지어구원의약속을기술하고있는것도확인된다( 렘 32:15, 25, 40). 28) 그러므로탄원시에서 arq를 kra,zw로 번역하였듯이 arq를 부르짖 으라 로번역하는것은예레미야의 32-33 장상황에서재고해보아야한다. 2.3. 관용구해석: 인간 하나님 부르짖다 arq 의의미를올바로이해하기위해서는사용된표현에좀더집중할필요 가있다. 예레미야 33:3에서사용된 la arq은이미위에서기술하였다. arq는 동사이기때문에자연스럽게무엇이주어로사용되고있는가에대해살펴보 아야한다. 마찬가지로전치사 la은접미어와함께누구를지칭하고있는가, 즉대상이누구인가를확인해보아야한다. 따라서주어와목적어의사용을 기반으로나눈다면, 우리는 la arq 관용구가사용된것을크게 3 가지( 인간 인간; 하나님 인간; 인간 하나님) 로분류할수있다. 29) 인간 인간 창 19:5; 28:1; 49:1; 출 8:21; 10:24; 34:31; 레 10:4; 신 5:1; 20:10; 수 4:4; 10:24; 삿 9:54; 18:23; 삼상 9:26; 16:8; 26:14; 29:6; 삼하 1:7; 2:26; 9:9; 14:33; 15:2; 18:26; 왕상 13:21; 17:10-11; 18:3; 22:9; 왕하 4:22, 36; 6:11; 7:10; 에 4:11; 사 40:2; 58:1; 렘 7:27; 42:8; 겔 9:3 하나님 ( 사자) 인간 / 사물창 3:9; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 출 3:4; 19:3; 24:16; 레 1:1; 삼상 3:4, 9; 사 48:13 인간 하나님 신 4:7; 15:9; 24:15; 삿 15:18; 16:28; 삼상 12:17-18; 삼하 22:7; 왕상 8:43, 52; 17:20-21; 왕하 20:11; 시 4:4[3]; 99:6; 렘 11:14; 호 7:7; 욘 1:6, 14; 3:8 위도표가보여주고있는것처럼 la arq 은주어와목적어가 1 인간 28) W. Thiel, Die deueronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26-45, 29, 31; J. Schreiner, Jeremia II 25,15-52,34, 190; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 499 참조. 29) 이것은주어와목적어관계를나타내는것이다. 예를들어, 인간 하나님 은인간을주어로, 그리고하나님을목적어로표현하고있는것을말한다.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 127 인간, 2 하나님 ( 사자: 참조, 창 21:17; 22:11, 15) 인간그리고사물( 참조, 사 48:13) 에서발견된다. 30) 인간이인간을부르는경우를보면그것은질문 을하기위해서( 창 19:5; 삿 18:23), 또는정보( 창 49:1), 당부/ 명령( 신탁) 전달 ( 창 28:1; 왕상 18:15; 렘 42:8) 또는말을걸기위한수단으로사용되었다는 것을알수있다( 출 8:21; 삼하 1:7). 그것과비교할때하나님이인간/ 사물 관계에서사용되는이관용구 (la arq) 는하나님께서인간을 찾는것 을묘 사하고있다( 창 3:9; 21:17; 레 1:1; 삼상 3:4). 우리는특별히인간이하나님을부르는것에관심을가질필요가있다. 예 레미야 33:3에서도기록하고있는것처럼야웨또는하나님이예레미야에 게명령하고있기때문에, 부르는주체는인간이며부름의대상은하나님, 즉인간이하나님을부르는경우이다. 공통적인요소들이몇몇본문들에서 확인된다. 신명기 15:9와 24:14-15 는가난한사람들(!wybaw yn[ ) 에대한조치 라는것을인지하게된다. 그들은고용된사람들로서일일노동으로근근이 살아가는자들로묘사되었다. 신명기 24:14는그들을억울하게해서는안되 며, 그들이야웨께호소하지않도록해야한다(hwhy-la $yl[ arqy-alw). 이본 문에서고난을당하는사람과고난을주는사람이있다는것을확인하게 된다. 사사기 15:18과 16:28 은삼손에대한이야기이며, 삼손이고난( 목마 름, 붙잡힘) 가운데있을때에마찬가지로 arq 동사가사용되고있다. 가난 한사람들이고용주에의해고난을당하는반면, 삼손이야기에기록된고 난은자연적인것이다. 시편 4:4[3] 와사무엘하 22:7은보다분명하게환난 (rc; 참조, 신 4:30) 이라는단어가등장하는데, 이것은대적( 민 10:9; 신 32:43; 시 3:2), 원수( 신 32:27; 시 13:5[4]) 와같은것으로번역되었고, 시편에 서빈번하게사용되는용어이다( 참조, 시 99:6). 열왕기상 8:43, 52는포로로 끌려갔을상황을고려한것이며( 왕상 8:48 ~ta wbv-rva ~hybya #rab), 열왕 기상 17:20-21 은과부아들의죽음이라는고난을배경으로기록되었다( 참 조, 왕하 20:11). 예레미야 11:14 은 고난으로말미암아(~t[r d[b) 를통하 여재앙의때를말하고있고( 참조, 욘 3:7), 그것과유사한것이호세아 7:7 에서도기술되었다 (~hyjpv-ta wlkaw ). 요나서에서기록된것역시죽음이 라는공포에직면한사람들의반응으로볼수있다( 욘 1:6, 14). 이러한서술 을근거로하여인간이하나님께 la arq( 호소하다, 부르짖다) 하는원인을 확인하게된다: 1. 사회적계층을배경으로하여빈자그리고약자의호소 ( 신 15), 2. 죽음의위기에서하는부르짖음( 왕하 17; 욘 1), 3. 자연, 환경이 원인이된개인적고난으로인한부르짖음( 삿 15; 16), 4. 포로상황을배경 30) 세번째경우는아래를참조.

128 성경원문연구제35호 으로하고있으며, 개인보다는공동체가함께겪는고난( 왕상 8). 여기에서 la arq 은 특별히환난, 고난, 죽음그리고재난과같은것에직면하여서인 간이하나님께기도하는것을나타낸다. 그런점에서이경우에사용된문 구는탄원시의특성과유사하다고볼수있고, 부르짖다, 호소하다, 구하 다 라는말로번역될수도있다. 위에서살펴본바와같이 la arq 관용구는하나님께 부르짖다, 호소하 다, 구하다 라는의미로충분히해석될수있다. 이미나열한상황에서볼 때 la arq 이 부르짖다, 호소하다, 구하다 라는의미로해석되기위해서는 한가지공통점이확인된다. 기도하는자는전적으로환난, 곤경또는죽음 과같은위기에빠져있는경우로서술되며, 마치탄원시와도상황이유사 한것을발견하게된다. 그러므로예레미야 33:3의 la arq을 부르짖으라 로해석하기위해서는동일한상황이전제된다고볼수있다. 예레미야에 게서개인탄원시가빈번하게발견됨에도불구하고( 렘 11; 12; 15; 18; 20 장) 예레미야 33:3 에서예레미야가탄원해야할조건을발견하기는쉽지않다. 시위대뜰에갇혀있을때 라는것역시이미 32 장에서기록되고있으며, 아나돗밭을샀다는기록을볼때 33장은구원메시지를전제로하고있는 것으로해석되기때문이다. 그러므로 la arq을 부르짖다, 호소하다, 구하 다 라는의미로해석하기위해서는전체적인상황을살펴보아야한다. 2.4. 예레미야 33:3 Context 위에서예레미야 33장이 36-38장이후에배치될수있음을간략하게지 적하였다. 예레미야 38:28 은 예레미야가예루살렘이함락되는날까지감 옥뜰에머물렀더라 라고기록하고있고, 39:1 은 시드기야왕의제구년 열째달에 라고보도한다. 예레미야 33:1은예레미야 38:28과유사하게 예레미야가아직시위대뜰에갇혀있을때에 라고보도한다. 이러한서 술은예레미야 32 장에기록된 유다의시드기야왕열째해 와 예레미야 는유다의왕의궁중에있는시위대뜰에갇혔으니 라는기록을통하여연 결된다. 그러한이유로예레미야 33장의상황은예레미야 37-38장과연결 될수도있다. 그런점에서우리는먼저예레미야 37장이하를살펴보아야 한다. 예레미야 37:1-2 은이렇게기록하고있다: 요시야의아들시드기야가여호야김의아들고니야의뒤를이어왕이 되었으니이는바벨론의느부갓네살왕이그를유다땅의왕으로삼음 이었더라그와그의신하와그의땅백성이여호와께서선지자예레미야

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 129 에게하신말씀을듣지아니하니라 ( 렘 37:1-2) 그와그의신하와그의땅백성이여호와께서선지자예레미야에게하 신말씀을듣지아니하니라 (hwhy yrbd-la #rah ~[w wydb[w awh [mv alw) 라 는서술은왕을비롯하여모든신하들이순종하지않은것 ([mv alw) 을기록 하고있다. 예레미야 37:1-2은 36:1과시간적인간격을보여줄뿐만아니라 ( 참조, 렘 45:1), 예레미야 37 장의표제어와같은역할을하는것이다. 이단 락은예레미야의선포를듣는사람들의전체적인반응에대해신학적판단 을하는편집적인단락으로볼수있다. 31) 듣지않는다([mv alw) 라는표 현은전형적으로죄를지적하는표현으로서( 참조, 신 28:15, 45) 신명기 18:18-19 에따르면야웨는모세와같은한예언자를일으킬것이고( 참조, 렘 1:9), 32) 그가야웨의이름으로말하는것을듣지않는 ([mvy-al) 자에게는 재앙이있을것임을말한다. 그러므로예레미야 37-38장은예언자예레미 야가탄원할수있는상황임에틀림없다. 예레미야 37-38장뿐만아니라예 레미야 32:1은예레미야가시드기야통치 10년째가되는시점까지여전히 시위대뜰에갇혀있다는보도는 왕, 신하그리고그땅의백성 들이선지 자예레미야의말을듣지않는상황이예레미야 32장까지이어지는것을 고려하게되며, 그것은탄원의원인으로해석될수있다( 렘 20:2). 그와달리예레미야 32:7 이하에는소위상징행위(Symbolische Handlung) 가나타나는데, 아나돗에있는밭을사는것이다. 아나돗은예레미야의출 신지였지만( 렘 1:1), 예레미야 11:18-23에따르면아나돗사람들은예레미 야를죽이려는계획을하였으며, 그것은예레미야가탄원을하는계기가 되기도하였다( 렘 11:19-20). 7 절의보도에따르면음성학적으로샬롬(~wlv) 과유사한예레미야의친척 살룸(~lv) 은아나돗에땅을가지고있는자로 서기업을무를권리를가지고있는예레미야에게그땅을살것을제안한 다( 참조, 룻 3:12). 33) 이러한관념과가장유사한것을우리는소위성결법 전에서확인하게된다 : 31) G. Wanke, Jeremia 25,25-52,34, Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 20:2 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), 339; W. Thiel, Die deueronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26-45, 29, 52 참조. 틸(W. Thiel) 은예레미야 37:1-2 를신명기사가적편집으로이해하였다. 32) G. Fischer, Jeremia 1-25, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 136 참조. 피셔(G. Fischer) 는이것을신명기 18:18에나타난약속의성취로이해하는반면, W. Thiel 은이스라엘에게 마지막기회(die letzte Chance) 라고서술한다. W. Thiel, Die deueronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 41 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 71. 33) 7절에기록된것과달리 8 절에서는 살룸 이라는명칭이나타나지않고있다.

130 성경원문연구제35호 만일네형제가가난하여그의기업중에서얼마를팔았으면그에게 가까운기업무를자가와서그의형제가판것을무를것이요만일그 것을무를사람이없고자기가부유하게되어무를힘이있으면그판 해를계수하여그남은값을산자에게주고자기의소유지로돌릴것이 니라( 레 25:25-27). 34) 예레미야가시위대뜰안에서갇혀있는상황에서그리고바벨론에게멸 망당하기직전에땅을사는상징행위를통하여예레미야는포로로잡혀간 이들과땅에서유린당하는사람들에게희망을선포하는것이다. 그것은완 전한멸망이아니라하나의과정이며, 다시자유하게된다는것과나아가 경제적풍요도약속되고있다( 렘 32:42-44). 35) 이러한사실은예레미야 37-38 장, 32장그리고 33장에서동일하게발견 되는 예레미야가아직시위대뜰에갇혀있을때 라는본문이동일한의미 로해석되어서는안된다는것을보여준다. 37-38장은탄원의원인으로해 석될수있을가능성을제공하지만, 그와달리 33장의상황은 32장과연결 을통해서탄원과는무관한상황이전개되고있음을알수있다. 그것을위 하여중요한역할을하고있는것이상징행위를통하여선포되는약속이 la arq 다. 따라서예레미야 33:3에기록된을 부르짖으라 라는의미로해 석하는것은지양되어야한다. 2.5. 관용구해석: 인간 하나님 부르다 이미인간을주어로하고하나님을목적어로삼는 la arq을 부르짖으 라 라는의미로해석되는경우를위에서기술하였다. 만약예레미야 33:3에 기록된것을 부르짖으라 라는의미가아니라면, 어떻게해석될수있을지 숙고해보고자한다. 인간이하나님을부르는경우의용례에서우리는탄 34) G. Fischer, Jeremia 26-52, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2005), 196-197 참조. 피셔(G. Fischer) 에따르면레위기 25:25 이하본문이예레미야 32:7-8 에전제되었다. 예레미야 32장을성결법전보다후대의것으로평가하는것은이본문을포로기이후의것으로산정하는것으로이해된다. 슈미트(W. H. Schmidt) 는성결법전을포로기로추정한반면(W. H. Schmidt, 구약성서입문 I, 차준희ㆍ채홍식역 [ 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2000], 171), 그와달리오토(E. Otto) 는성결법전을슈미트보다후대의것으로평가하였다. E. Otto, Das Heiligkeitsgsetz Leviticus 17-26 in der Pentateuchredaktion, W. Thiel, - P. Mommer, hrsg., Altes Testament - Forschung und Wirkung, Forschung und Wirkung: FS H. Graf Reventlow (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994), 65-80 참조. 35) G. Fischer, Jeremia 26-52, 190 참조.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 131 원적배경을포함하지않는성서구절을발견할수있는데, 그것은신명기 4:7 그리고사무엘상 12:17-18 이다. 사무엘상 12:17-18은사무엘의기도를다 루고있는본문이다. 이본문에는백성의죄곧왕을요구한것이기술되어 있는것으로사무엘상장을반영하고있으며 8, 36) 여기에서언급된 la arq 은자신의고난을외치는것이아니라백성의죄악을알게하기위한것이 므로 부르짖다 라는해석과는거리가있다. 37) 그이외에도신명기 4:7 을살펴볼필요가있다. 이본문에는이스라엘민 족이다른민족들보다위대하다는것이서술되었고, 그근거로 부를때마 다 (wyla wnarq-lkb) 하나님이 가까이에계시는것 (wyla ~ybrq), 즉하나님을 부를수있으며(anrufbar), 신뢰할수있는(vertrauenswürdig) 하나님의특성이 제시되었다. 38) 하나님의근접성에대한이와같은서술을신명기에서다시 찾아보기힘들다. 하지만신명기 30:11-14에따르면토라가백성들의입에 아주가까이있다 (dam rbdh $yla bwrq-yk) 는것이묘사되어있다. 이미신명 기 4:5 에서도모세를통해규례와법도(~yjpvmw ~yqx) 가전해진것을고려한 다면( 참조, 신 4:2, rbdh; 4:8, hrwth), 신명기 4:7에기록된하나님의근접성 은모세가전해준규례와법도의근접성과동일한것으로볼수있다(5 절, #rah brqb). 흥미로운것은이토라를 낭독 하는것에 arq 동사가사용되고 있다는점이다( 신 31:11, ~hynzab larfy-lk dgn tazh hrwth-ta arqt). arq 동 사와 hrwt가목적어로사용되고있는것은그밖에도여호수아 8:34, 느헤미야 8:8과 18절그리고느헤미야 9:3 에서확인되는데, 39) 이본문들에서 arq 동사는공통적으로토라를 낭독하다, 읽어주다 는의미로해석된다. 신 명기 4:7 은그러나말씀낭독이아니라, 하나님을부르는것이다. 가까이 있다는것 과 부르는것 의연결은구원확신을갖게하는이유가되며( 사 55:6; 시 145:18), 하나님과의올바른관계를서술하고있는것으로이해된 36) R. Kessler, Sozialgeschichte des alten Israel. Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: WBG, 2006), 82. 37) 밀을거두는시기는일반적으로 5-7 월사이로, 이때는강수량이가장적은시기이다. 악천후는대부분 3-4월그리고 11-12 월에나타난다. lawmv-taw hwhy-ta dam ~[h-lk aryyw( 삼상 12:18) 본문은디트리히 (W. Dietrich) 에따르면 wdb[ hvmbw hwhyb wnymayw hwhy-ta ~[h waryyw( 출 14:31) 과문학적인유사성이발견되므로사무엘을모세와같은자리로격상시켰고, 그러한이유로사무엘상 12:18 본문은 DtrN( 신명기사가적율법) 에귀속된다고설명한다. W. Dietrich, 1 Samuel 1-12, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament VIII:1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 2010), 547. 38) L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium 1-6*, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament V:1 (Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 314 참조. 5절에따르면이것은모세가전하여준규례와법도와연결된다 ; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 131. 그는이것을하나님과의 친밀성 으로이야기한다. 39) C. J. Labuschagne, arq, 672 참조.

132 성경원문연구제35호 다( 신 1:42, 45). 40) 그런이유에서신명기 4:7에기록된 arq 동사는가까이 있는하나님에게 부르짖는다 라는의미보다는의사소통을시도하고자하 는행위인 부르다 라는의미로해석될수있으며, 41) rma( 사 61:6; 62:4) 또 는 rbd 출 ( 34:31) 와유사한의미로이해된다. 42) 따라서이미위에서기록한 것처럼예레미야 33:3은외부의압제로인한탄식을말하는것이아니므로 부르짖으라 라는의미로해석되기보다는( 참조, 렘 32:37-44), 오히려하나 님과의사소통을위한 부르다 라는뜻으로이해되어야한다. 그렇다면 예레미야 33:1-3 전체는어떻게이해되어야하는가? 하는것 을바라볼필요가있다. 2.6. 예레미야 33:1-3 1 야웨의말씀이예레미야에게다시임했다. 43) 그가여전히근위대뜰에갇혀있었을때에말씀하시기를 2 야웨께서말씀하셨다. 그것을만드신분. 그것을빚어서견고하게하신야웨, 그의이름은야웨이다. 3 나를불러라! 내가대답할것이다. 그리고내가네가알지못하는크고비밀한것들을너에게알려주겠다. 1절은예레미야 33:1-3 단락이시간과공간적으로예레미야 32장과연결되 어있다는것을알려준다( 렘 32:2, 8, 12). 본문은예레미야에게야웨의말씀이 다시임했음을서술하며, 마찬가지로예레미야 32장과문자적으로결부되어 있다는것을보여준다 (whymry-la hwhy-rbd yhyw, 렘 32:26; 참조, 렘 32:6). 그런 점에서예레미야 33 장은결코탄원의상황이아니다. 특별히예레미야 32:36 은바벨론에함락된예루살렘성의상황 (lbb-$lm dyb hntn ~yrma) 을인용하 고있다. 그런상황에반대되는신탁을 37 절에서확인하게된다. 37절에는 #bq와 bwv 동사들이사용되었는데, 이두단어의연결은이미예레미야 23:3과 29:14 에서도확인되는것으로, 포로기의삶을전제로하는것이다 ( 렘 23:3, ~v ~ta ytxdh-rva twcrah lkm). 44) 38절에서는언약공식 40) M. Rose, 5. Mose 1-11 und 26-34, Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 5:2 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994), 494 참조. 41) C. J. Labuschagne, arq, 668 참조. 42) Ibid. 43) 본문사역. 박동현, 예레미야서번역의몇가지문제, 성경원문연구 16 ( 서울: 대한성서공회, 2005), 39-61 참조. 특별히 50쪽각주 35. 여기에서박동현은예레미야 33:1의번역이순서가뒤바뀌었다는것을올바르게지적하였다.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 133 (Bundesformel) 이기록되고있는데, 이것은문자적으로예레미야 31:33과 근접해있다( 참조, 출 6:7; 신 29:12[13]). 따라서예레미야 33:1-3은심판이 아니라구원의상황에직면해서선포된말씀으로이해된다. 45) 예레미야 33:1은말씀경험공식과공간적장소를제공하며 rmal로끝나고있기때문 에 2 절의도입부역할을하고있다. 2 절은명사문장으로구성되어있다. 메신저공식이서술되고난이후에, 야웨와언급된분사가두번에걸쳐서나타난다. 첫번째분사는 3인칭여성 단수목적어를내포하고있다 (Hf'[o). 이미 LXX 는이목적어를 땅 으로이해 하였으며 (poiw/n gh/n), 그런이유로 LXX는예레미야 33장에서창조이야기가 전제되어있다는것을보여주며, 46) 그러한이해는예레미야 32:17을볼때 인정될수있다 (#rah-taw ~ymvh-ta tyf[ hta). 47) 창세기 1장에서기록된창 조는 arb 동사로나타나지만, 창세기 2:4 이하에서창조는예레미야 32장과 44) G. Fischer, Jeremia 26-52, 211 참조; D. Rom-Shiloni, The Prophecy for Everlasting Covenant (Jer XXXII 36-41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction?, Vetus Testamentum 53 (2003), 201-223, 210. 45) 그런의미에서브라이트(J. Bright) 는본문을위로의책( Book of Consolation ) 의두번째부분이라고말한다. J. Bright, Jeremiah, 297; 만약예레미야 31:31-34가예레미야 32:38과연결되어있다면, 예레미야 33:1-3 은포로기가지난이후상황으로해석될수있다. 예레미야 31:31-34는신명기 31장에서서술된모세토라의제사장책임과그것을가르치는제사장의임무에반응하고있으며( 신 31:9-13), 예레미야 31:31-34는오히려제사장적토라가르침을수정하며, 심지어예언자적토라를관철시키고있기때문이다( 참조, 렘 31:33-34). 참조, 민경구, 토라를둘러싼율법학자의논쟁 - 포로기이후신학 ; E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 196. 46) W. H. Schmidt, Das Buch Jeremia Kapitel 21-52, 170; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 528 참조. 47) J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 598 참조. 그는예레미야 33장을크게두구조 ( 렘 33:1-13, 14-26) 로나누었으며, 후반부가 LXX 에서누락되어있다는것을지적하였다. 예레미야 33:1-13 을다시세부분(1-9, 10-11, 12-13) 으로나누었고, 이것은다윗에대한야웨의약속을강조하고있는것으로주장한다. 하지만그가지적한것처럼 14-26절은 LXX 에서확인되지않으며, 다윗에대한언급은이누락된부분에서만언급되고있기때문에 ( 렘 33:15, 17, 21-22, 26), 예레미야 33:1-13이다윗에대한약속을강조하고있다는이해는재고되어야한다; 참조, R. P. Carroll, The Book of Jeremiah, The Old Testament Library (Philiadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 634. 캐롤(Carroll) 은틸(W. Thiel) 을의지하여예레미야 32장에서신명기사가적편집이발견된다는것과예레미야 33장에서는신명기사가이후의흔적들이발견된다고서술한다. 캐롤은또한예레미야 33장이두모음들로구성되어있다는것을지적하고, 14-26절본문이 LXX에서누락되어있다는것을근거로해서 1-13절보다후대편집으로산정하였다 (R. P. Carroll, The Book of Jeremiah, 637). 더나아가서둠 (B. Duhm) 은동일한사실을바탕으로해서예레미야 33:14-26을 LXX 보다후대의것으로평가한다. B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, 270.

134 성경원문연구제35호 마찬가지로 hf[ 동사로묘사되었다 (~ymvw #ra ~yhla hwhy twf[ ). 그와상응 하게창세기 (hf[ / rcy 는이미이사야 다. 48) 예레미야 2:7에서서술된인간창조는 rcy 동사로기록되었고, 두동사 ) 44:2, 24의창조기사에서사용되는것을볼수있 33:1이전체도입부역할을하고 rmal로인해 2절과연결된 다면, 2절의야웨를수식하는명사문장들은부정사와연결하여해석될수 있으며, 그것은야웨의자기선언으로이해된다. 하지만메신저공식이야 웨의자기선언을전하려는것이아니라면, 그것은필연적으로 3절의내용 과연결되어야한다. 기도 를의미하는본래히브리동사(llp) 는예레미야 32장에서발견되 며(16 절, hwhy-ta lptaw), 49) 따라서 26절에서나타나는말씀경험공식은예 레미야의기도에대한야웨의응답으로해석될수있다. 3절은 llp이아니 라 arq의명령형으로시작한다. 앞에서지적한것처럼 arq 동사는여기에 서 부르짖으라 라는의미보다는 부르다 라는의미로해석되며, 그것은소 통을위한것이다. 50) 마찬가지로 hn[ 동사는기도에대한 응답 이아니라 소통을위한 대답 으로이해될수있다. arq 동사가 부르짖으라 는의미가 아니라, 부르다 라는의미로해석된다면, 신적대답은부르는자의행위의 정도에좌우되지않는다는것을보여준다. 오히려 대답하다(hn[ ) 라는동 사는이러한관계성을보다명확하게보여주는데, hn[ 동사는칼(Qal) PK형 태로서술되었다 ($n[aw). 접속사 w> 는 부르라 라는명령형뒤에위치해있어 서목적절또는결과절로해석되며, 51) 야웨의대답은부름의근거가된다. 즉야웨의대답은인간의부름에좌우되는것이아니라, 반대로야웨의대 답에대한확신이인간으로하여금야웨를부르게만드는것이다. 그것은 3b 절에서도확인된다. 3b 절은 내가너에게알려주겠다($l hdygaw) 라는서 술로시작한다. 3b절에서 hdygaw는히필(hifil) 형태로표현되었고청유형 (Kohortativ - dgn) 이덧붙여졌는데, 52) 그것은대답하는자, 다시말해야웨의 48) K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja 40,1-45,7, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XI:1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 123-124, 388 참조. 그는특별히 hf[ 동사가 arb( 사 41:20; 45:7, 12) 그리고 rcy 동사( 사 44:2) 와도평행하게사용되었다. hf[ 동사는하나님의행위를생생하게나타내는용어라고설명하였을뿐만아니라, rcy 동사와함께제2 이사야에서가장빈번하게사용되는동사이기도하다(p.123 각주 2 번참조). 49) 그것으로부터기도를의미하는 hlpt가파생되었다. H.-P. Stähli, llp, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament II, E. Jenni und C. Westermann, hrsg. (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976), 427-432. 50) C. J. Labuschagne, arq, 668 참조. 51) L. Köhler und W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament - א Bd. 1.ע (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 248 참조. 52) W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 224 참조.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 135 행동의지 와 자기격려 를표명하는것이다. 53) 따라서 3 절은 야웨가대답하는것(3a) 을넘어서 야웨가알려주기원하는것 을표명하고있다. dgn 동사의히필형태는이미구약성서에서빈번하게확인된다. 그것은사람을 주어로취하고사람을 3 격목적어로할경우에 알려준다, 보도한다 라는 뜻으로사용되었다. 54) 그것과구별되게하나님을주어로사용하고사람을 3격목적어로사용되는 경우를확인할수있다. 창세기 41:25b에서요셉은바로의꿈을해석하면서 하나님이그가하실일을바로에게보여주었다 (h[rpl dygh hf[ ~yhlah) 라 고이야기한다. 여기에서꿈은야웨의계획을보여주는계시의수단으로 기록되고있으므로, 55) 하나님을주어로사용하는 dgn 동사는여기에서신 적계시를 알려주는것 으로이해된다. 사무엘하 7:11은야웨가주어로사 용되었으며소위 나단신탁 으로알려진본문이다. 이본문에따르면야웨 는나단이라는선지자를통하여야웨의약속을천명한다: 여호와가너를 위하여집을짓고 (hwhy $l-hf[y tyb-yk ). 그와유사하게계시중재자를통 하여신적계시가중재되는것을확인할수있으며( 신 5:5; 삼상 3:15; 9:8; 사 21:10), 여기에서도마찬가지로 dgn 동사는히필형태로사용되었다. 계 시중재자가주어로사용되고있음에도불구하고, 중재자는신적계시를 알린다는점에궁극적주체는신적존재로이해되며, dgn 동사는신적계시 를알리는것으로볼수있다. 따라서예레미야 33:3에기록된 hdygaw는마찬 가지로하나님의자기계시를알리는것으로해석된다. 56) 이것은지금껏 이해되어온자신의필요가채워지는것또는난관이극복되는것으로해석 된것과전혀다른이해로평가된다. 왜냐하면예레미야 33:1-3에서보도하 는야웨를부르는것은일차적으로는커뮤니케이션을위한것이며, 자신의 뜻을관철시키는것이아니라, 오히려야웨의뜻을아는것, 즉야웨의계시 53) K. Kautzsch, Gesenius Hebrew Grammer, A. E. Cowley, trans. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 130 참조. 54) 사람- 사람; 창 9:22; 12:18; 14:13; 21:26; 24:23, 28, 49; 26:32; 29:12, 15; 31:27; 32:6; 37:5, 16; 41:24; 42:29; 43:6; 45:13, 26; 46:31; 47:1; 48:2; 49:1. 55) 김정우는꿈이계시의수단으로사용되고있기는하지만, 메소포타미아와가나안과비교할때구약에서꿈이차지하는비중이높지않다는것을지적하고있다. 참조, 김정우, 구약계시에있어서꿈의위치와가치, 성서마당 (1996), 3; 차준희, 구약의계시이해 구약사상이해, 구약사상문고 1 ( 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2011), 125-155. 특별히 139-143; H. D. Preuß, Offenbarung II: Altes Testament, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 25 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995), 117-128. 56) W. Gesenius, Wilhelm Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 777 참조; F. García-López, dgn, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament V (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986), 188-201, 193; H. D. Preuß, Offenbarung II: Altes Testament, 125.

136 성경원문연구제35호 로자신을채우는것을보도하기때문이다. 지금까지서술을바탕으로예레미야 33:3 에기록된 너는내게부르짖으 라 라는개역개정의번역은하나님과소통을지향하는 하나님을부르 라 는의미로이해되어야한다는것을알수있었다. 예언자의부름에응해 줄것이라는하나님으로부터주어진확답이하나님을부르는것을가능하 게한다. 하지만하나님을부르는행위의궁극적인목표는하나님과의소 통을넘어선다. 오히려하나님은소통을통하여하나님의사람을자신의계시로채워주기를원하는모습으로나타난다 (hdygaw). 그러므로예레미야 33:3 은나의의지를관철시키기위해야웨께부르짖는것이아니며, 야웨를 부르는것은소통을넘어서, 야웨의계시즉신적의지로인간을채워가는 것을지향하고있다. 3. 나가는말 본소논고는예레미야 33:1-3 에대해서조명하였다. 이본문은교단을초 월하여한국교회의 부르짖음과응답 이라는기도습관에대해언급할때 종종언급되는본문이다. 이러한도식은성서번역과무관하지않다. 성서 가한글로번역되기시작하면서성서는지속적으로번역되어왔다. 한글 로기록된성서는한국기독교인들에게지속적인영향을끼쳐왔고, 한국 기독교인들이성서를이해하는기준이되어왔다. 그런점에서한글성서 번역은한국인의신앙을뿌리내리게하는기반이되었다는것을부인할 수없다. 예레미야 33:3 에기록된 너는내게부르짖으라내가네게응답하겠고 라 는의미는그런점에서중요하다고할수있다위에서살펴본것처럼. la arq 은탄원의상황에서 부르짖다 라는의미로해석된다. 예레미야 33:1에기 록된 예레미야가아직시위대뜰에갇혀있을때 라는표현을통해서예레 미야 33장은문맥적으로 32 장과연결된다. 하지만예레미야 32:36-44과연 결을고려할때, 예레미야 33 장은결코탄원의상황이아니라, 구원을전제 한상황으로이해되어야한다. 그러므로 la arq은 부르짖다 라는의미보 다소통을요구하는 부르다 라는의미로번역되어야한다. 인간이하나님 을부를때하나님은대답해주겠다는약속을기록하고있는것이다( 참조, 신 4:7). 하나님의대답은인간의 부르짖음 의정도에의존되는것이아니라, 오

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 137 히려 하나님이대답하실것 이라는기대가인간으로하여금하나님을부 르게만드는동인이된다. 더나아가야웨를부르는것은소통을넘어서, 야 웨의계시즉신적의지로인간을채워가는것을지향하고있다. 인간의연 약한부름에도하나님의대답은주어질것이다. < 주제어>(Keywords) 예레미야, 렘 33 장, 부르다, 부르짖다, 응답, 탄원, 소통. Jeremiah, Jer 33, Call, Cry out, Answer, Lament, Communication, Revelation. ( 투고일자: 2014년 6월 2 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

138 성경원문연구제35호 < 참고문헌>(References) 성서번역자회, 구약젼셔, 경성: 대영셩셔공회, 1911. 성서번역자회, 셩경젼셔, 경성: 대영셩셔공회, 1930. 성서번역자회, 셩경젼셔, 발행지미상: 미국셩셔공회, 1911. 성서개역자회, 셩경개역, 경셩: 죠션성서공회, 1938. 김근주, 특강예레미야, 서울: 한국기독학생회출판부, 2013. 민경구, 토라를둘러싼율법학자의논쟁 - 포로기이후신학, 구약논단 53 (2014), 256-279. 박동현, 예레미야 II, 대한기독교서회창립 100주년기념성서주석 23:2, 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2006. 박동현, 주께서나를이기셨으니 : 설교를위한예레미야서연구, 서울: 한국성서 학연구소, 2000 2. 장성길, 하나님의심판과무조건적구원의긴장: 예레미야 30-33 장주해와적용, 두란노 HOW 주석 25, 목회와신학편, 예레미야 1: 어떻게설교할것인 가, 서울: 두란노아카데미, 2009, 269-293. 차준희, 최근한국교회의예언서설교, 구약사상문고 7, 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2013. 김성광, 부르짖는기도의축복, 크리스천투데이, 2011. 1. 3. 김홍도, 왜기도해야만하는가, 크리스천투데이, 2012. 9. 2. 하근수, 응급전화 333 을아십니까, 국민일보, 2010. 3. 24. Bright, J., Jeremiah, Anchor Bible 21, New York: Doubleday, 1965. Carroll, R. P., The Book of Jeremiah, The Old Testament Library, Philiadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Craigie, P. C., The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Dietrich, W., 1 Samuel 1-12, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament VIII:1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 2010. Duhm, B., Das Buch Jeremia, Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament XI, Tübingen; Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901. Elliger, K., Deuterojesaja 40,1-45,7, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XI:1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Fischer, G., Jeremia 1-25, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Freiburg: Herder, 2005. Fischer, G., Jeremia 26-52, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Freiburg: Herder, 2005. García-López, F., dgn, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament V,

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 139 Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986, 188-201. Gesenius, W., Wilhelm Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, R. Meyer, hrsg., Berlin: Springer, 1987-2005. Grundmann, W., kra,zw, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Bd. III ( Θ- Κ), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938, 898-904. Herrmann, S., Jeremia, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XII Lfg., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. Holladay, W. L., Jeremiah 2, Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Kautzsch, K., Gesenius Hebrew Grammer, A. E. Cowley, trans., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Kessler, R., Sozialgeschichte des alten Israel: Eine Einführung, Darmstadt: WBG, 2006. Köhler, L., und Baumgartner, W., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, - א Bd. 1,ע Leiden: Brill, 2004. Labuschagne, C. J., arq, E. Jenni und C. Westermann, hrsg., Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament II, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976, 666-674. Lundbom, J. R., Jeremiah 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 21b, New York: Doubleday, 2004. Neumann, P. K. D., Das Wort, das geschehen ist. Zum Problem der Wortempfangsterminologie in Jer I-XXV, Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973), 172-217. Otto, E., Das Heiligkeitsgsetz Leviticus 17-26 in der Pentateuchredaktion, Altes Testament - Forschung und Wirkung, Festschrift für H. G. Reventlow, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994, 65-80. Otto, E., Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Perlitt, L., Deuteronomium 1-6*, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament V, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013. Preuß, H. D., Offenbarung II: Altes Testament, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 25, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995, 117-128. Rom-Shiloni, D., The Prophecy for Everlasting Covenant (Jer XXXII 36-41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction?, Vetus Testamentum 53 (2003), 201-223.

140 성경원문연구제35호 Rose, M., 5. Mose 1-11 und 26-34, Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 5:2, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994. Schmidt, W. H., 구약성서입문 I, 차준희, 채홍식역, 서울: 대한기독교서회, 2000. Schmidt, W. H., Das Buch Jeremia Kapitel 21-52, Altes Testament Deutsch 21, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Schreiner, J., Jeremia II 25,15-52,34, Die Neue Echter Bibel 9, Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984. Stähli, H.-P., llp", E. Jenni und C. Westermann, hrsg., Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament II, von Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976, 427-432. Thiel, W., Die deueronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 41, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. Thiel, W., Die deueronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26-45: Mit einer Gesamtbeurteilung der deuteronomistischen Redaktion des Buches Jeremia, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 52, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Thompson, J. A., The Book of Jeremiah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Wanke, G., Jeremia 25,25-52,34, Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 20:2, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003. Weiser, A., Der Prophet Jeremia 25,1-52,34, Altes Testament Deutsch 21, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. http://tv.c3tv.com/sermon/partsearch/bible_list.asp. http://www.bskorea.or.kr. http://www.korean.go.kr.

예레미야 33:1 3의새로운이해 소통과계시 - / 민경구 141 <Abstract> Eine neue Interpretation von Jeremia 33:1-3 - Kommunikation und Offenbarung - Kyunggoo Min (Hansei University) Die koreanische Bibelübersetzung von 1911 ist immer wieder bearbeitet und sprachlich modernisiert worden. Die Redewendung $n[aw la arq in Jeremia 33:3 wird jedoch immer noch mit Schreie zu mir auf wiedergegeben. Die Fassung von 1961, die 1998 neu revidiert worden ist, versteht den Ausdruck somit weiterhin im Rahmen der Relation von menschlichem Aufschrei und göttlicher Antwort. Im Gegensatz dazu wird dieser Ausdruck in anderen Versionen Ruf mich an, dann will ich antworten wiedergegeben. Aufgrund dieses Unterschiedes ist die Bedeutung von Jeremia 33:3 zu untersuchen. Dies Schema dient zum Ausdruck religiösen Eifers, worauf der Text an sich jedoch gar nicht abzielt, denn dies Verständnis setzt zwingend eine Notsituation voraus. Dies ist jedoch in Jeremia 33 nicht der Fall, weil dieser Abschnitt durch einige Redaktionsphase bearbeitet worden ist und das Heil in Jeremia 32:37-44 schon vorausgesetzt ist. Deshalb ist la arq in Jeremia 33:3 also nicht als aufschreien, sondern als anrufen zu verstehen, denn Jeremia 33 ist durch die Heilsankündigung geprägt. Im Text geht es natürlich auch um die Kommunikation Gottes mit den Menschen, doch im Zentrum steht die göttliche Verheißung, die die Ermöglichung der Erfüllung des göttlichen Willens bedingt. Ferner weist der Ausdruck $l hdygaw für die Offenbarung hin, die sich in Gen 41:25 findet. Deshalb zielt der Anruf Jahwes, der in Jeremia 33:3 zum Thema wird, sowohl auf die Kommunikation mit Jahwe als auch auf die Übernahme der Offenbarung Gottes ab.

142 성경원문연구제35호 에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 민유홍 * 1. 들어가는말 에스겔연구에서에스겔서의형성사( ) 는아직까지많은논란가운 데있다. 19세기의비평적연구에서에스겔서는한명의저자에의해쓰인 문학작품으로이해되었지만, 1) 예언전승들의본래의삶의자리에관심이 집중되었던 었다. 2) 20세기전반기동안에는단순한예언들의모음집으로간주되 1970년대이후에는편집사비평과3) 공시적분석에서 4) 연구의중점 이개별예언들에서전체본문에대한문학적분석으로옮겨가면서에스겔 서의최종본문이다시주목을받기시작했다. 편집사비평에서는에스겔 서가수세기에걸친여러번의편집과정을통해최종형태에도달한것으 로본다. 여기에서는역사적예언자의활동이나예언전승의본래의삶의 자리, 그리고전승단계는거의고려되지않은채편집단계와그신학적의 도에연구의중점이놓인다. 이때문에편집자의신학과에스겔의선포사 이에극단적인단절이생기는경향이있다. 이와달리공시적분석에서는 * Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel에서구약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재감리교신학대학교구약학강사. rathenau@ hanmail.net. 1) 참조, U. Feist, Ezechiel. Das literarische Problem des Buches forschungsgeschichtlich betrachtet (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995). 2) 이러한연구경향은 J. Herrmann, Ezechielstudien (Leipzig: Keichert, 1908) 의영향아래처음시작되었으며이후 20 세기중반까지에스겔연구를지배하였다. 3) J. Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von 1-39, (Frankfurt am Mein: Herbert Lang, 1974); K.-F. Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien. Zur redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992); A. Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34-39 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). 4) M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (New York: Anchor Bible, 1983); M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37 (New York: Anchor Bible, 1997); E. F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll. Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel s Prophecy (Sheffield: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1989); J. F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000).

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 143 에스겔서의대부분을포로기중에스겔자신혹은그의제자들에의해 한 번에 쓰인통일적인문학작품으로간주하고최종형태의본문을해석하는 데주력하고있다. 이접근법의단점은에스겔서에서분명히관찰되는편 집과단계적성장의흔적들을고려하지않는다는점이다. 각자의장단점을 가지고있는이두연구방향들은에스겔서형성과정에관한견해에서서 로대립하면서해결의실마리를찾지못하고있는상황이다. 현재의연구상황을고려할때에스겔서의형성사에관한가장바람직한 모델은에스겔서가예언전승들의종합으로이루어진통일적인문학작품 이라는사실을잘반영하는이론이되어야할것으로보인다. 이이론에서 는최종본문과개별예언전승들을동시에고려하면서개별예언전승들이 예언서로종합되는과정을해명하고그신학적동기를파악하는데연구의 초점이놓일필요가있다. 이목적을위해가장적절한분석방법론은필자 의견해로구성비평(composition criticism) 이다. 5) 구성비평에서는두개이 상의독립적인전승본문들이종합되어서더큰규모의통일적인본문복합 체를이루는과정을연구한다. 6) 구성비평의관점에서에스겔서의형성사 를재구성하기위해서요구되는것은개별에스겔예언전승들이예언서로 종합되는과정에서행해진문학적인작업들에대한규명이다. 이러한연구방향의테두리안에서필자는에스겔서의독특한현상인예 언담화의 드라마화(dramatization) 에주목하고자한다. 드라마화란본래 이야기의형태를갖지않았던본문을이야기의형태로변화시키는문학적 작업을의미한다. 7) 에스겔서에서는환상보고밖에놓여있는두본문 12:1-16; 24:15-24 와더불어환상보고들안에삽입되어있는일련의예언 담화들에서 8) 드라마화현상이뚜렷하게인지된다. 에스겔서가유기적인 5) 구성비평에대한보다자세한논의는 G. Fohrer, Exegese des Alten Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1973), 136-144 를참조하라. 6) 구성비평과편집비평은종종서로혼동되지만다루는영역이분명하게구별되는방법론들이다. 구성비평에서는미리존재하는자료들이하나의커다란본문복합체로종합되어가는과정에연구의초점이놓여있다. 여기에서는원자료들이어떻게서로결합되었는지, 이과정에서어떤변화를겪었으며어떤구문이이차적으로추가되었는지등이연구된다. 반면에편집비평에서는본문에추가되어있는첨가문들을다루며거시적인맥락에서이들이어떤기능을하는지밝히는데에연구의초점이놓인다. 하지만구성비평이원자료들에첨가된이차적구문들의기능을거시적인맥락에서다루기시작할때편집비평과유사한양상을띠게된다. 7) 이야기 란실제혹은허구적인사건이어떻게발생하고전개되며최종적인결말에이르게되는지그과정을기술하는본문을말한다. 구약의전형적인이야기본문은 Waw-연속형문장들의연쇄로이루어져있다. 본연구에서필자는어느한본문이일련의 Waw-연속형문장들을통해서사건의흐름을기술할때이본문이 이야기의형태 를가지고있다고간주한다. 8) 본연구에서는본문단락 2:3-8; 3:4-9, 10-11; 11:1-13, 14-21; 37:11-14; 44:4-46:18; 47:13-48:35

144 성경원문연구제35호 구성의잘짜인서사구조를가지고있음을감안할때본문에내러티브성 격을부여하는드라마화에대한분석은에스겔서의형성과정을파악하는 데있어서중요한실마리를제공해줄것으로기대된다. 이어지는 2장에서는에스겔서의예언담화들이공통적인구성도식에 따라구성되었음을논의한후, 3장과 4장에서는이구성도식에근거하여 환상보고밖과안에서행해진예언담화들의드라마화를분석하고그구 성적기능을살펴볼것이다. 5장에서예언담화의드라마화가에스겔서의 형성사와관련하여어떤의미를갖는지고찰한후, 마지막 6장에서는최종 적인결론과함께전체논의를마무리짓도록하겠다. 2. 예언담화의기본구성도식 에스겔서는서로독립적인 50 여개의단위본문들로구성되어있다. 9) 이 단위본문들은크게두종류의문학양식, 즉 환상보고 와 예언담화 로구 분된다. 환상보고는10) 에스겔이환상중에경험한사건들을일인칭시점 으로기술하는서사문으로서정형화된구성도식없이비교적자유롭게구 성되었다. 예언담화는예언자에의해선포된야훼의말씀을기술하는본 문으로환상보고를제외한대부분의 11) 단위본문들이여기에속한다. 환 를환상보고내에서드라마화된예언담화로간주한다. 9) 구약본문의분석은먼저주변의본문들과구별되는독립적이며자기완결적인단위본문을결정하는것으로부터시작된다. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1-24 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979); W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel 25-48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) 는에스겔서에서독립적인 50개의단위본문들을구분하였으며이를개별적인전승단위와동일시하였다. 본연구에서는찜멀리에의해분류된단위본문을에스겔서본문분석을위한출발점으로삼았다. 이 50 개의단위본문들은다음과같다. 1:1-3:15; 3:16하-21; 3:16 상, 22-5:17; 6:1-14; 7:1-27; 8,1-10:22; 11:22-25; 11:1-21; 12:1-16; 12:17-20; 12:21-25; 12:26-28; 13:1-23; 14:1-11; 14:12-23; 15:1-8; 16:1-63; 17:1-24; 18:1-32; 19:1-14; 20:1-44; 21:1-37; 22:1-16; 22:17-22; 22:23-31; 23:1-49; 24:1-14; 24:15-27; 25:1-17; 26:1-21; 27:1-36; 28:1-10; 28:11-19; 28:20-26; 29:1-16; 29:17-21; 30:1-19; 30:20-26; 31:1-18; 32:1-16; 32:17-32; 33:1-20; 33:21-22; 33:23-33; 34:1-31; 35:1-36:15; 36:16-38; 37:1-14; 37:15-28; 38:1-39:29; 40-48. 10) 본연구에서는 4개의단위본문들 1:1-3:15; 8-11; 37:1-14; 40-48을고유한환상보고로간주한다. 단위본문 3:16 상, 22-5:17 은외형상환상보고의형태를띠고있다. 하지만서두(3:22f.) 에잠깐등장하여서막의역할을하는환상경험은편집적성격이강하고본문의대부분은상징행위와야훼의말씀들로구성되어있다는점에서다른환상보고들과구별된다. 때문에본연구에서는이본문을환상보고의범주에서제외시켰다. 11) 여기서 대부분 이라고말한이유는 33:21-22 이예언담화에포함될수없기때문이다. 이본문은야훼의말씀이아니라발생한사건을기술하는짧은보고문이다. 이밖에도본문 12:1-16 과 24:15-27은야훼의말씀을포함하고있지만이야기의형태를하고있기때문에다른예언

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 145 < 그림 1> 예언담화의기본구성도식 말씀사건공식 ß 도입부 ê 건넴말( 인자야 또는 너인자야 ) 에스겔을향한야훼말씀 ê 선포명령 ê 도입구선포되어야할야훼말씀종결구 ß ß 첫번째단계 두번째단계 상보고와는달리예언담화들은뚜렷한구조적유사성을보이고있기때 문에이들이어떤공통의정형적인구성도식에따라구성되지않았는지 질문이제기될수있다. 필자는에스겔서에등장하는예언담화들의구조 를서로비교한결과이들의근저에 < 그림 1> 과같은하나의기본적인구성 도식이놓여있다는결론에도달하였다. 12) 이구성도식에따르면예언담화는 말씀사건공식 (`rmo*ale yl;ae hw"hy>-rb;d> yhiy>w:) 으로시작된다. 말씀사건공식은이어지는본문전체를야훼의말씀으로규 정한다. 야훼의말씀전체는다시두단계로나뉜다. 첫번째단계는건넴말 과에스겔을향한야훼의말씀으로이루어지며, 두번째단계는특정한수 담화들과구별된다. 12) 지금까지에스겔서연구에서는개별적인예언담화에대하여구조분석이이루어진바는있다. 예를들어 H. Simian 은그의학위논문 Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels. Form- und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6.35.36 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974) 에서 36:1-11과 11:14-20 사이에, 그리고 36:16-32와 20:5-9 사이에구조적인유사성이있음을지적하고있다. 하지만모든예언담화들에공통적으로적용될수있는기본적인구성도식의존재는본논문에서처음으로제안되는가설임을밝힌다.

146 성경원문연구제35호 신자또는청중에게선포되어야할야훼의말씀들을포함한다. 첫번째단 계의야훼말씀은두번째단계의야훼말씀들을예비하는도입부의역할 을한다. 이두단계는선포명령에13) 의해연결되어서계층적인종속관계 를이룬다. 두번째단계에포함된야훼의말씀들은보통여러종류의도입 구와 14) 종결구로 15) 둘러싸인다. 많은예언담화들은두번째단계에하나 이상의야훼말씀들을포함하는데( 예를들어 36:16-38), 이때이야훼말씀 들은하나의포괄적주제아래서로연관되어서확장된야훼말씀을형성 한다. 에스겔서의예언담화들중그길이가짧은담화들은이와같은기본구성 도식을비교적분명하게보여준다( 예를들어 12:17-20; 14:2-5; 33:23-29). 반 면에규모가큰예언담화들은그구성에서좀더복잡한양상을띤다. 여기 에서는보통기본구성도식을따르는여러개의작은본문들이다양한방 식으로종합되어있음을인지할수있다. 이작은본문들은때로는비교적 쉽게분리되기도한다. 예를들어예언담화 17:1-24는보다작은두개의예 언담화 17:1-10, 22-24와 17:11-21 로분리될수있고, 이들각자는서로독립 적인예언전승들로간주될수있다. 16) 이러한사실은예언전승과정혹은 예언서형성과정에서여러개의작은예언담화들을종합하여더큰예언 담화를만드는구성작업이존재했을가능성을시사한다. 이기본구성도식이예언담화들의우연한구조적유사성으로부터유도 된것이아니라실제로존재했고예언담화를구성하는데이용되었던도 식임은다른구약문서들의증거를통해지지될수있다. 특별히예레미야 36:27-31; 43:8-13; 스가랴 1:1-6; 6:9-14의구조는건넴말이없는것을제외 하고는거의정확하게이기본구성도식을따르고있다. 이외에도제사장 문서( 출 6:2-8; 9:1-4; 12:1-20; 민 14:26-35 등참조), 신명기역사서( 삼하 13) 대표적인선포명령에는 rmoa/ ( 칼명령형), T'r>m;a'w> (Waw- 연속형) 그리고 rbed: ( 피엘명령형) 등이있다. 14) 대표적인도입구는메신저공식 ( hwihy> yn"doa] rm;a' hko ) 이다. 때로주의요구공식( hwihy> yn"doa]-rb;d> W[m.vi ) 이메신저공식과결합되어함께오기도한다(6:3; 13:2; 21:3; 25:3; 34:7, 9; 36:1, 4). 15) 종결구로사용되는대표적인정형구들에는야훼말씀공식 ( hwihy> yn"doa] ~aun> ), 야훼인지공식 ( hw"hy> ynia]-yki W[d>y"w> ), 말씀강조공식( ytir>b;di hw"hy> ynia] ) 등이있다. 16) 내용적으로단락 17:22-24는 17:1-10 에자연스럽게이어진다. 그렇다면 17:11-21은이두단락사이에삽입된것으로볼수있으며, 이는 17:1-10, 22-24와 17:11-21의결합이본래적인것이아니라이차적임을암시한다. 17:1-10, 22-24와같이시대상황을반영하고있는알레고리적비유는당시의청중이해석없이도어느정도그의미를파악할수있다. 따라서반드시처음부터비유가해석을동반할필요는없다( 겔 19 장참조). 17:11-21도마찬가지로 17:1-10, 22-24 가없이그의미가자명하기때문에독립적인전승의자격을가진다.

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 147 7:4-16; 왕상 21:17-19; 왕하 20:4-6 등참조), 예레미야서(2:1-3; 7:1-14 등참 조) 와같은포로기또는포로기후의문서들에서이러한기본구성도식의 흔적을발견할수있다. 반면에후대의개작혹은편집층으로간주되는이 사야 38:4-6( 병행왕하 20:4-6) 을제외한다면17) 포로기이전문서예언자들 의예언서에서는이러한구성도식이전혀발견되지않는다. 이와같은구 약의본문증거들은예언담화의기본구성도식이대략포로기때처음등 장했음을시사한다. 에스겔서예언담화의저자는아마도당시에이미널 리알려져있던정형화된구성도식을받아들여서예언담화를구성하는 데사용했을것이다. 에스겔서에서는이기본구성도식이체계적이고광 범위하게적용됨으로말미암아책전체에걸쳐문체상의균일성이이루어 지게되었다. 하지만주의해야할점은이기본구성도식이예언담화의구성에서항 상기계적으로엄격하게적용되지는않았다는사실이다. 예언담화의내용 에따라첫번째단계의에스겔을향한야훼말씀이생략되기도하고 (6:1-14; 19:1-14), 두번째단계가생략되기도한다(3:16하-21). 18) 또한선포명령없이두번째단계가!kel' + 메신저공식 에의해유도되기도한다 (15:1-8; 26:1-21; 29:17-21). 19) 아울러많은경우예언담화의두번째단계에 서야훼말씀이도입구혹은종결구가없이온다. 이러한변형들은기본구 성도식의존재를부정하는반증이라기보다는이도식을자신의목적에따 라자유롭고융통성있게적용한저자의문학적재능에서비롯된것으로 볼수있다. 지금까지논의된것처럼기본구성도식의존재를지지해주는여러증거 들이있지만근본적으로이구성도식은현재의본문에대한분석으로부터 얻어진귀납적가설이다. 때문에최종적인확실성이담보될수는없으며 단지가능한한많은예언담화들의분석을통해서그신뢰성을높일수있 을뿐이다. 만일에스겔서의예언담화들이기본구성도식을바탕으로해 서구성되었다면이구성도식은예언담화들에행해진편집작업들과이 차적인추가구문을구별해내고본래의전승본문을재구성하는데있어서 17) C. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas. Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation des Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 18-20 und Jer 37-40 (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter Inc., 1990), 287-306은히스기야-이사야이야기가본래 BC 588년의역사적상황속에서등장했다고주장한다. 그에따르면이이야기는당시의친바빌론정책을반대하기위한목적으로만들어졌다. 18) 두번째단계가없는예언담화는야훼와에스겔사이의사적인대화를내용으로한다. 19)!kel' + 메신저공식 은구약의심판예언에서심판의근거와심판선언사이를연결해주는전형적인정형구이다.

148 성경원문연구제35호 중요한분석도구로사용될수있다. 다음장들에서필자는기본구성도식 을예언담화의드라마화과정을분석하는데적용하고자한다. 이분석과 정은동시에기본구성도식에관한가설의타당성을실증적으로확인하는 과정이될것이다. 3. 환상보고밖의드라마화된예언담화들 단위본문 12:1-16과 24:15-24 20) 는네개의환상보고들과단위본문 3:16 상, 22-5:17, 그리고 33:21-22의짧은보고문을제외하고는에스겔서에서내 러티브적성격을가장강하게보이는본문들이다. 21) 이두본문은모두예 루살렘에대한야훼의심판을상징행위로제시하고그의미를해석하는것 을핵심내용으로하고있다. 이본문들의구조는예언담화 37:15-28의구조 와매우유사하다. 때문에두본문의내러티브적성격이본래적인것인가 아니면이차적인가에관한질문이제기될수있다. 이장에서는예언담화 37:15-28의구조와단위본문 12:1-16과 24:15-24의구조를서로비교함으로 써두본문이가지고있는내러티브적성격이어디에서유래했는지알아보 고자한다. 3.1. 예언담화 37:15-28의구조 먼저예언담화 37:15-28 의구조를분석해보자. 이예언담화는이스라엘 통일왕국의회복을예견하는상징행위를내용으로하고있다. 이본문은 15 절에서말씀사건공식으로시작된다. 16-18절은야훼말씀의첫번째단 계로건넴말과에스겔을향한야훼의말씀으로구성되어있다. 이어서 19 절의서두에선포명령 ( ~h,ylea] rbed:> ) 이등장하고메신저공식에의해유도 20) 에스겔 24:15에서말씀사건공식으로시작되는단위본문이끝나는지점은형식적으로 27절이다. 하지만내용적으로볼때 24:15-24와 24:25-27 은서로구별되어야한다. 비록두본문들이상호참조를통해결합되어있지만(21절과 25 절을비교하라), 분명히서로다른주제와관심사를가지고있다. 더불어 24:25-27은 4:26-27; 33:21-22 와함께소위 언어장애모티브 를형성하고있다. 때문에 24:15-27의본문전체를통일적인단위본문으로보기보다는 24:25-27 을예언서형성과정에서이차적으로결합된본문으로보는것이타당하다. 이와유사하게 W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1-24, 578도 25-27절을에스겔 1-24장을 25-32장을넘어 33장으로연결시키는교량역할을하도록의도된편집적추가문으로본다. 이와같은이유로본연구에서는 24:25-27을제외하고 24:15-24 만을분석의대상으로간주하였다. 21) 여기서 내러티브적성격 이란 Waw-연속형의문장연결을통해사건의발생과진행과정이시간순서대로기술되는것을의미한다. 이것은구약서사문의전형적인문장구조이다.

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 149 되는야훼말씀이나온다. 20절에서야훼가에스겔에게말씀하심으로써야 훼말씀의첫번째단계가다시한번반복되고있다. 21절서두에선포명 령 ( ~h,ylea] rbed:w> 이다시등장하고 ) 21-28절에서메신저공식과야훼인지공 식에의해둘러싸인야훼말씀이이어진다. 이처럼한예언담화에선포명 령이두번등장하는것은예언담화의기본구성도식에서벗어나는것이 다. 이러한구성상의변형은이예언담화에어떤문학적작업이행해졌음 을암시한다. 이변형이두개의예언담화들을종합하는구성작업에서유 래했는지아니면이차적으로편집구문을추가하는작업에서비롯되었는 지를결정하기위해서는본문에대한보다자세한분석이필요하다. 하지 만본연구의목적상이본문의형성사를세밀하게재구성하는것은불필 요하다. 이예언담화의구성에서주의할점은 19절서두의선포명령이 18절에 서말씀선포를위한전제조건을제시하고있는부문장을통해확장되고 있다는사실이다. 22) 이에따르면에스겔은이스라엘백성들이상징행위의 의미에관해설명해줄것을요구할때야훼의말씀을선포하도록위임받 고있다. 3.2. 12:1-16의구조분석 본문 12:1-16은예루살렘주민과왕이포로로잡혀갈것을상징행위를통 해예언하고있다. 이본문은 1 절에서말씀사건공식으로시작된다. 이어서 6절까지야훼는에스겔에게낮에행구를준비하고밤에벽23) 을뚫고밖으 로옮기는상징행위들을포로들앞에서실행할것을명령하신다. 7절에는 에스겔이야훼의명령대로이행했음을확인하는일인칭시점의보고가이 어진다. 사건의경과( 에스겔이행한일) 를기술하고있는이짤막한보고가 본문전체에내러티브적성격을부여하는데중요한역할을하고있다. 8절 22) 에스겔서에서 37:15-28과유사한구조를가지고있는또다른예로에스겔 21:6-7( 히 21:11-12) 을들수있다. 이본문은에스겔의깊은탄식과그이유에대한설명을내용으로하고있다. 여기에서는말씀선포의전제가되는이스라엘백성의문의가접속사 rv,a]k; 대신 yki에의해유도되는조건문을통해제시되고있다. 23) 한글성경개역개정에스겔 12:5, 7 에는 ryqi 가 성벽 으로번역되어있다. 하지만에스겔이포로로잡혀가있던그발강가의유대인정착지가성벽으로둘러싸여있을가능성은매우낮다. 설사그럴지라도이성벽을반나절만에 손으로 뚫는다는것은생각하기어렵다. 여기서이벽은에스겔이머물던집의외벽으로이해하는것이가장적절하다. 상징행위의실행에서에스겔은먼저자신의방으로부터행구를끄집어내서어느정도외부인에게개방된집안의뜰로내어놓고, 저녁무렵집의외벽을뚫고행구를밖으로옮긴것으로볼수있다.

150 성경원문연구제35호 에서는말씀사건공식을통해다시야훼말씀으로되돌아가고있다. 이말 씀사건공식에삽입되어있는 아침에(rq,BoB; ) 라는시간표현은 4 절의 저녁 에 (br<[,b') 라는표현과연관되어이야기내의시간흐름을선명하게부각시 키고본문의내러티브적색채를강화한다. 9절에서야훼는에스겔에게이 스라엘백성들이상징행위의의미에대해묻고있지않느냐는수사적질문 을던지신후, 10 절의서두에서에스겔에게선포명령을내리신다. 이어서 두개의야훼말씀이나온다. 메신저공식과야훼인지공식에의해둘러싸 인첫번째야훼말씀에서는상징행위의의미가해석되고있다. 이어지는 두번째야훼말씀은도입구없이시작되고야훼인지공식으로종결된다. 이야훼말씀은상징행위에대한직접적인해석은아니지만심판행위의목 적을제시하고있다는점에서전체야훼말씀을적절히종결시키는역할을 하고있다. 에스겔이야훼가부여하신임무를실행했음을보고하는 7절을제외한다 면이본문은예언담화의기본구성도식을거의그대로따르고있다. 이 본문을예언담화 37:15-28 과비교해보면, 두본문모두공통적으로상징행 위의의미에대한이스라엘백성의문의를말씀선포의전제로제시하고있 다. 단지 37:15-28 에서백성들의문의가조건절로제시되고있는반면에, 12:1-16 에서는이문의가야훼의말씀안에직접인용되고있다. 3.3. 24:15-24의구조분석 예루살렘의함락을상징행위를통해보여주는본문 24:15-24는 15절에서 말씀사건공식으로시작된다. 이어서 17절까지야훼는에스겔에게그의아 내가갑자기죽게될것임을통보하시고그죽음에대해애도하지말것을 명령하신다. 여기에서에스겔아내의갑작스러운죽음이상징행위가아니 라상징행위를위한전제조건임에주의할필요가있다. 에스겔에게명령 된진정한상징행위는아내의죽음을애도하지않는것이다. 18절에서에 스겔은야훼의명령대로행했음을일인칭시점으로보고하고있다. 19절에 서이스라엘백성은에스겔에게그가한행위의의미를설명해줄것을요 구한다. 이에대해 20절에서부터에스겔은그들에게야훼의말씀을전한 다. 20절하반절부터는말씀사건공식을통해서야훼의말씀이직접인용되 고있는것처럼구성되어있다. 여기에는예언담화의기본구성도식의요 소들이다시나타난다. 21절의처음에선포명령이내려지고이어서메신 저공식과야훼인지공식(24 절) 으로둘러싸인야훼의말씀이등장한다.

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 151 하지만자세히살펴보면 21-24절의단락안에는문학적인혼란과긴장이 존재한다. 우선야훼가일인칭으로말씀하시는부분(21 상반절, 24 절) 과에 스겔이일인칭으로말하는부분(22, 23 절) 이서로얽혀있다. 24) 이와함께 에스겔아내의죽음이한편으로는성전의파괴로(21 상반절), 다른한편으 로는예루살렘이함락될때벌어질예루살렘주민들( 포로들의자녀들) 의 죽음으로해석되고있다(21 하반절). 이두가지해석중에서후자가에스겔 아내의죽음에대한일차적이고직접적인해석이며, 25) 전자는신학적으로 확장된이차적해석이다. 자기아내의죽음을애도하지않는에스겔의행 위가무엇을의미하는지에대한설명은 22절과 23 절에서제공되고있다. 에스겔이일인칭으로말하고있는이설명은야훼가일인칭으로말씀하시 는 21상반절이아니라 21 하반절과연결되어야한다. 이상의관찰에근거하 여 20-24절의본문형성과정을재구성해본다면다음과같이설명이가능 하다. 에스겔이일인칭으로말하고있고아내의죽음과상징행위의의미를 보다직관적이고직접적으로설명하고있는 21 하반절, 22, 23절이 20상반 절에연결되어있었고, 여기에아내의죽음을신학적으로확대하여해석하 고있는야훼말씀 20 하반절, 21 상반절, 24절이이차적으로결합되어현재 의본문에이르렀을것이다. 26) 본문 24:15-24에서이차적추가문인 20 하반절, 21 상반절, 24절이제외된 나머지부분과 37:15-28을비교하면분명한구조상의병행을발견할수있 다. 두본문모두상징행위와그설명을내용으로하고있으며, 동일하게도 입구( 말씀사건공식) 와건넴말, 에스겔을향한야훼말씀을가지고있다. 두 본문모두상징행위의설명이이스라엘백성들의문의에대한반응으로서 선포되는것으로기술되고있다. 차이점은 37:15-28에서는상징행위에대 한해석을위해야훼말씀이직접인용되고있는반면에, 24:15-24에서는말 씀계시에대한언급없이에스겔자신이상징행위의의미를설명하고있 는것이다. 유일하게 37:15-28에서발견되지않는요소는에스겔이야훼의 24) 한글성경개역개정에는 22절과 23절에서야훼가일인칭으로말씀하시는것으로번역되어있다. 하지만히브리성경에서는에스겔이일인칭으로말하고있다(24:22 상반절참조: ytiyfi_[' rv,a]k; ~t,yfi[]w: ). 25) 아내와자녀들은모두가족의구성원이기때문에아내의죽음이포로들의 자녀들 의죽음에대한적절한상징이될수있다. 26) 이와달리 W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1-24, 570은에스겔아내의죽음을성전의파괴로해석하고있는 21상반절을본래적인것으로보고 22, 23절을 16, 17절에근거해서만들어진이차적추가문으로판단한다. 하지만찜멀리는상징행위를위한전제( 아내의죽음) 를상징행위로보는오류를범하고있다. 에스겔서에서상징행위는미래에이스라엘백성이하게될행위를미리에스겔이상징적으로보여주는것이다. 이런의미에서본문 24:15-24의고유한상징행위는에스겔아내의죽음이아니라아내의죽음에대한에스겔의반응으로보아야한다.

152 성경원문연구제35호 명령을실행했음을확인하는 24:18 의짧은보고이다. 3.4. 예언담화의드라마화 단위본문 12:1-16과 24:15-24에대한구조분석은이본문들과예언담화 37:15-28 사이에주목할만한구조적병행이존재함을보여준다. 37:15-28 에서찾을수없는구성요소는야훼가위임한명령을수행했음을확인하는 에스겔의짤막한보고이다. 이보고는에스겔이야훼로부터부여받은명령 의수행여부만을기술하고있기때문에사실상이보고를통해서새롭게 알려지는정보는전혀없으며선행하는내용의반복에불과하다. 이보고 는에스겔에대한야훼의위임명령과상징행위의의미에관한이스라엘백 성들의문의사이를연결하여매끄러운이야기흐름을만드는역할을한 다. 12:1-16과 24:15-24 는과연본래부터이야기의형태로전승된것일까, 아 니면예언담화들로부터유도된것일까? 이질문에답하기위해서는무엇 보다먼저에스겔서에서이두본문을제외한다면야훼의말씀은항상이 야기의형태가아닌예언담화의형태로주어져있다는사실을주목해야 한다. 27) 이와더불어서이두본문에는잘구성된이야기에서기대할수있 는요소들이결핍되어있다는사실이고려되어야한다. 즉, 배경설명이너 무빈약하고이야기의플롯이없을뿐만아니라이야기가야훼의말씀으로 갑자기종결된다. 이러한사실들에근거해서판단할때이두본문은전승 단계에서는예언담화의형태를가지고있었으나후에어떤특정한목적 아래이야기의형태로개작되었을것으로판단된다. 그렇다면과연이두본문이예언담화의형태에서이야기의형태로변 화된이유는무엇일까? 이에대한가능성있는대답은이본문들이야훼말 씀의형태보다이야기의형태로구성되는것이더적절했던상황이있었으 리라는것이다. 두본문은현재의에스겔서가에스겔의자서전적인기록 혹은역사기록으로보이도록하는데중요한기여를하고있다. 이런사실 을감안한다면이상황은아마도최초의예언서구성작업과연관되었을것 27) 게르하르트폰라트, 구약성서신학 II, 허혁역 ( 왜관: 분도출판사, 1977), 41-42에따르면이야기형태로된예언전승은이스라엘예언사의초기에속하고, 후대에는말씀( 로기온) 의형태로수집되고전승되었다. 마찬가지로 C. Westermann, Grundformen prophetischer Rede (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1978), 65도고전예언자이전시기에예언은이야기안에포함되어전승되었지만 BC 8세기또는 BC 7 세기부터는예언말씀이그자체로수집되어전승되었다고주장한다.

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 153 으로생각할수있다. 이런추측의타당성은두본문과에스겔서의거시적 구조를결정하는모티브및다른내러티브요소들과의연관을통해서뒷받 침될수있다. 두본문에서는공통적으로에스겔의집이상징행위의배경 이되고있으며에스겔의가정이상징행위의핵심요소로서예루살렘의운 명을예견하는데사용되고있다. 여기에서에스겔의집은예루살렘을, 그 리고에스겔과그의아내는예루살렘주민을상징한다. 이것은 3:24의감금 모티브에서에스겔의집이예루살렘에대한상징으로사용되고있는것과 간과할수없는연관관계를가진다. 28) 또한에스겔이그의집에감금되어 있음을암시하는 8:1; 14:1과 20:1 의상황설명과도연관된다. 29) 이러한거시 적맥락에서의연관성은본문 12:1-16과 24:15-24의드라마화가에스겔서 의형성과정에서비롯되었음을암시한다. 4. 환상보고내의드라마화된예언담화들 에스겔서의환상보고내에는예언담화의특성을뚜렷이보이는단락들 이있다. 여기에서는이본문들을자세히분석하고이들의구성적기능에 관해고찰해보고자한다. 4.1. 환상보고 1:1-3:15 내의예언담화 환상보고 1:1-3:15 는야훼의현현( 顯現 ) 에관한환상(1:4-28) 과에스겔의 파송(2:1-3:11) 에관한환상으로구성되어있다. 파송환상은다시세개의 짧은파송보고들(2:3-8; 3:4-9, 10-11) 과두루마리환상(2:9-3:3) 으로나뉜다. 두루마리환상도에스겔의파송을내용으로하고있으므로사실상파송환 상에는모두네번에걸쳐파송이반복되고있다. 28) 3:24 에서에스겔에게주어진, 스스로를집에가두라는야훼의명령은에스겔연구사에서다양하게해석되었다. 필자는이 감금 이예루살렘의포위를의미하는상징행위로서에스겔서에서최초로등장하는심판예언으로이해한다. 즉 감금 모티브에서에스겔자신과그의집은예루살렘주민과예루살렘을상징한다. 또한이모티브는 3:26 의 언어장애모티브 와결합되어서예루살렘이함락되기전까지에스겔사역의첫번째시기의선포내용과활동양상을규정하는거시적기능을하고있다. 이러한해석으로부터에스겔이예루살렘이함락되기전까지항상자신의집에머물러있어야만했다는결론이유도되는데이는실제로현재에스겔서의서사구조속에서일관되게잘반영되고있다. 29) 8:1; 14:1; 20:1의상황설명은에스겔의활동영역이자신의집으로제한되어있음을암시한다. 이는 3:24 에서시작된감금상태가유지되는것으로이해할수있다.

154 성경원문연구제35호 처음두개의파송보고(2:3-8; 3:4-9) 는두루마리환상을앞뒤로둘러싸서 대칭적인구조를이루고있다. 여기서에스겔은 이스라엘의자녀들 (2:3) 또는 이스라엘집 (3:1, 4, 5, 7) 으로파송되고있다. 이두명칭은주로유다 왕국의상류층으로이루어졌던바빌론포로의범위를넘어서고있으며이 스라엘백성들전체를공통의조상 야곱- 이스라엘 에서유래한한가족으 로규정하고있는신학적개념이다. 세번에걸친파송의반복은에스겔의 예언자직분에최고의신적권위를부여해준다. 대칭적구조에서는흔히 그중심부에본문전체를지배하는주제가놓인다. 30) 따라서에스겔에게 위임된선포의핵심은두루마리환상에포함되어있는것으로볼수있으 며그내용은두루마리에적힌심판의글들이암시하는바와같이이스라 엘백성에대한야훼의심판임을짐작할수있다. 하지만이러한짙게드리 운심판의암울함속에서도 그들가운데예언자가있음을알지니라 (2:5) 는말속에서미래의희망이암시되고있다. 야훼의말씀을전하는예언자 가존재한다는것은야훼와이스라엘백성들사이의관계가완전히파괴되 지않았음을의미하기때문이다. 31) 이대칭구조의본문에이어서짧은파송보고(3:10-11) 가다시한번등 장한다. 여기서는앞의두파송보고들과비교할때파송의대상이바빌론 포로들로구체화되어있는것을제외하면새롭게추가된내용은없다. 이 보고의주된목적은에스겔이선포할메시지의일차적인수신자를바빌론 포로로제시하는데있다. 32) 이는바빌론포로들에게어떤특권이주어졌 음을의미하는것이라기보다는대표성의관점에서이해될수있다. 즉 포 로 는약속의땅에서추방되어이방민족들사이로흩어진이스라엘의상 황과자기인식을표현하는것으로볼수있다. 파송환상에서두루마리환상을제외한세개의파송보고들은예언담 화에속하는많은요소들을포함하고있다. 건넴말과여기에이어지는에 스겔을향한야훼의말씀, 선포명령, 메신저공식에의해유도되는야훼말 30) 참조, R. Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric (Sheffield: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1998), 122, 146-147. 31) 이구절은모세와같은한선지자를주시겠다는신명기 18:15의야훼의약속을강하게연상시킨다. 야훼의말씀을전할선지자의존재는심판에도불구하고이스라엘백성이여전히야훼의인도와다스림아래있음을암시한다. 32) 서사비평에서는본문의독자를실제독자와내재적독자 (implied reader) 로구분한다. 실제독자는본문에직접적으로언급된메시지의수신자를말하며, 내재적독자는실제독자에의해상징되며본문의저자가실질적으로의도하고있는수신자를의미한다. 세번째파송보고에서바빌론포로가상징적으로대표하는내재적독자는야훼의백성으로서의이스라엘전체로볼수있다.

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 155 씀, 인지공식등이쉽게구별된다. 하지만말씀사건공식대신인용공식 ( yl'ae rm,ayow: 이파송보고들을유도하고있는데 ) (2:3; 3:4, 10) 이는야훼가 인격화되어등장하는환상보고의문맥에말씀사건공식보다인용공식이 더적합하기때문으로설명할수있다. 이와같이파송보고들에서분명하 게인지되는예언담화의요소들은이보고들이본래독립적인예언담화 들이었거나또는최소한예언담화의영향아래에서편집적개작을거친 단락임을암시한다. 내용상어느정도자기완결적인처음두개의파송보 고 2:3-8과 3:4-9는독립적으로전해졌던예언담화형태의파송에관한예 언전승으로간주하는것이타당해보인다. 하지만세번째파송보고의경 우는독립적인전승으로보기에는그내용이너무빈약하다. 여기에나오 는내용은사실상앞의두파송보고들의반복에불과하다. 더구나에스겔 서에서바빌론포로가언급된곳은대부분편집적성격이강한상황설명 1:1; 3:15; 11:24 하, 25 들이다. 33) 때문에이단락은처음의두파송보고를바 탕으로구성되었을것으로추정할수있다. 이세개의파송보고들에서선포해야할구체적인야훼말씀없이등장 하는선포명령(2:4 하, 7; 3:4, 11) 은이후에등장하는예언담화들의개별적 인선포명령들을대표하고있다. 이를통해이파송보고들은에스겔서에 포함된모든예언담화들을시야에담고있으며, 이들을야훼가에스겔에 게위임하신말씀으로예비하고있다. 이처럼파송보고들이에스겔서의 넓은문맥에서예언담화들을담기위한틀을형성하고있다는사실은이 들이환상보고안에결합된것이예언서구성작업과밀접하게관련되어 있음을암시한다. 4.2. 환상보고 8-11장내의예언담화 이환상보고에서분석의대상이되는단락은 11:1-13과 11:14-21 이다. 9 장과 10장에서예루살렘주민을모두없애라는야훼의명령이완전히실행 되었음에도불구하고 11:1에서는다시성전동문에모여있는 25명의예루 살렘지도자들이묘사되고있다. 야훼는에스겔에게이들을향해심판을 예언할것을명하신다(5-12 절). 에스겔이그명령에따라예언했을때지도 자들중한명이죽게된다(13 절상반절). 그러자에스겔은야훼에게이스라 33) 에스겔서전체에서에스겔이바빌론포로지에서포로들을대상으로사역하고있음을명시하고있는구절은뜻밖에매우적다. 1:1; 3:15; 11:24 하, 25의상황설명을제외하면 3:10-11과 11:24 상반절만이에스겔의사역장소를바빌론포로지로제시하고있다.

156 성경원문연구제35호 엘의남은자들을위해간구하고(13 절하반절), 이에대한응답으로야훼는 이스라엘의회복에관한말씀(14-21 절) 을주신다. 먼저 11:1-13 의구조를살펴보자. 2-3절에서제기된지도자들의주장에 대하여 5-12절에서야훼의반론이제시되고이어서심판이선언되고있기 때문에이본문의문학장르는논쟁담화(disputation speech) 로분류될수있 다. 34) 주목해야할점은 5절에서이논쟁담화의토론상대자가예루살렘의 지도자들이아니라이스라엘백성 문자적으로이스라엘의집 (laer"f.yi tybe) 으로제시되고있다는점이다. 선포된심판의내용도예루살렘주민전 체에일반적으로적용되는것들이다. 이와더불어서 5-12절에서선포된심 판은 13절에서실제로실현된심판지도자들중한명의죽음과그내 용이다르다. 이러한긴장들은이논쟁담화가본래예루살렘의지도자들 을대상으로한것이었는가에관해의혹을불러일으킨다. 예루살렘의지도자들과직접관련된 1, 4, 13절을제외하면나머지본문 에서는이스라엘백성을말씀의수신자로하는논쟁담화의모습이뚜렷하 게드러난다. 이본문은예언담화의기본구성도식을따르고있다: 2절에 서인용공식을통해서야훼의말씀이유도된다. 건넴말다음에오는야훼 의말씀에는이스라엘백성들( 예루살렘주민) 의오만한주장이야훼의입 을통해인용되고있다. 5 절상반절에서는선포명령앞에영( 靈 ) 수여공식 ( hw"hy> x:wr yl;[' lpotiw: 과인용공식이선행되고있다 ). 4절때문에삽입되었을 이두정형구로인해본문의내러티브적성격이강화되고있다. 선포명령 에이어서메신저공식에의해유도되는세개의야훼말씀이차례로등장 한다. 이처럼이본문은예언담화의기본구성도식을잘반영하고있고내 용적으로자기완결적이다. 따라서현재의본문 11:1-13은본래독립적으로 전승된논쟁담화가환상보고에추가될때예루살렘지도자들에관한심 판환상과결합됨으로써형성된것으로판단할수있다. 11:14-21 에서는예언담화의기본구성도식이쉽게인지된다. 이본문은 예외적으로 14 절에서인용공식이아닌말씀사건공식으로시작되고있다. 이어서건넴말과에스겔을향한야훼의말씀이이어진다. 여기에는예루살 렘주민들의두가지주장이인용되고있다: 먼저그들은바빌론에포로로 잡혀간자들이야훼로부터멀어졌다고말한다. 35) 이와함께그들은이스라 34) A. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 1984), 42-86에따르면에스겔서에는총 9개의논쟁담화가등장한다(11:2-12; 11:14-17; 12:21-25, 26-28; 18:1-20; 20:32-44; 33:10-20; 33:23-29; 37:11하-13). 35) BHS 본문에서 Wqx]r: 는칼 2 인칭복수명령형으로서 떠나라 는의미를가지고있다. 라틴어성경(VUL) 에서도 BHS 와동일한독법 recedite (2 인칭복수명령형) 을보여준다. LXX

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 157 엘땅이그들에게기업으로주어졌다고주장한다. 첫번째주장에대한야 훼의반론이 16 절에주어지고, 두번째주장에대한반론은 17-21절에주어 진다. 각각의반론은선포명령으로시작되고메신저공식에의해유도되 고있다. 따라서이본문은본래독립적으로존재했던예언담화였을것으 로볼수있다. 내용적으로이본문의문학장르는논쟁담화에속한다. 하지만 16절과 17 절에서두번의선포명령( rmoa/ ) 에의해야훼말씀이 인도되고있다는점에서이본문의구조는예언담화의기본구성도식에 서다소벗어나있다. 뿐만아니라 15절에는서로필연적인연관성이없는 두개의논쟁주제가함께등장하고있다. 첫번째주제에대한야훼의대답 (16 절) 에서는포로들이 3 인칭으로지칭되는반면에, 두번째주제에대한 대답(17-21 절) 에서는 2 인칭으로지칭되고있다. 이러한사실들은이본문 이두개의작은논쟁담화들이결합되어이루어졌을가능성을암시한다. 이본문은에스겔서에서가장첫번째로등장하는회복예언이다. 이본 문이예루살렘에대한야훼의심판을핵심주제로하고있는환상보고가 운데서갑자기포로들의회복을말하고있기때문에많은주석가들은이 본문이적절치못한위치에놓였다고생각한다. 36) 하지만이본문이가지 고있는이중적인의미는현재의위치가의도적임을암시한다. 여기에서 야훼는예루살렘주민의교만한주장을포로들을위한회복선언을통해서 반박하신다. 즉야훼는자신이포로들을위해일시적으로성소가되시겠다 는약속과, 포로들을이스라엘땅으로되돌아오도록하시겠다는약속을주 신다. 야훼의답변은우선적으로예루살렘주민들의잘못된생각을비판하 고있다는점에서 8-11 장의전체문맥과어울린다. 동시에이비판이포로 들을위한회복예언의형태로간접적으로제시됨으로말미암아지금까지 예루살렘에대한심판에놓였던에스겔서의신학적관심이처음으로포로 들에게로돌려지게된다. 이러한시각의전환은 14:1-14와 18 장, 그리고 20 의독법 avpe,cete 는명령형이나직설형으로읽는것이모두가능하다. 직설형일경우그의미는 떨어져있다 가된다. 개역개정에는 멀리떠나라 로번역되어있는데이는 BHS 본문의독법을따르고있음을의미한다. 하지만이미잡혀간포로들에게야훼로부터떠나라고말하는것은문맥상적절하지않다. 오늘날많은학자들은 BHS의독법대신칼 3인칭완료형인 Wqx]r" ( 그들은멀어져있다) 를본래적인것으로간주하고있다. 이와관련하여 W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1-24, 200 을참조하라. 36) 참조, W. Eichrodt, Der Prophet Hesekiel 1-18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1968), 74; W. H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19 (Waco: W Pub Group, 1986), 163-164; J. Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von 1-39, 296-297; F. L. Hossfeld, Die Tempelvision Ez 8-11 im Licht unterschiedlicher methodischer Zugänge, J. Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 1986), 151-165.

158 성경원문연구제35호 장과의연관관계하에서이해되어야한다. 에스겔서 1-24장에는예루살렘 에대한돌이킬수없는야훼의심판이내용의대부분을차지하고있지만 14:1-14; 18 장; 20장에서는이스라엘의미래와회복에관한주제들이다루 어지고있다. 본문 11:14-21은이처럼에스겔서전체의문맥에서예루살렘 에대한심판과이스라엘의회복에대한전망을이어주는가교의기능을 하도록의도된것으로볼수있다. 이는이본문이야훼의심판에직면하여 이스라엘의남은자들의구원을간구하는에스겔의기도(13 절) 에대한야 훼의대답이라는점에서도어느정도암시되고있다. 4.3. 환상보고 37:1-14 내의예언담화 환상보고 37:1-14는 1-10절과 11-14 절의두본문으로나뉜다. 첫번째본 문에서는마른뼈들이부활하는환상이묘사되어있고, 두번째본문에서 는이스라엘백성이바빌론포로상태에서풀려나이스라엘땅으로되돌아 가리라는회복의말씀이담겨있다. 여기에서두번째본문은서두에말씀 사건공식대신인용공식이사용된것을제외하면전형적인예언담화의기 본구성도식에따라구성되었다. 11 절에는건넴말다음에에스겔에게주어진야훼의말씀이나온다. 이 뼈들은이스라엘의온족속이라 는진술은두단락 1-10절과 11-14절을주 제적으로연관시키는가교의역할을한다. 이어서멸절되어아무런소망이 없다는이스라엘백성들의한탄이인용되고있다. 12-14절에는선포명령 후에두개의야훼말씀이차례로이어진다. 첫번째야훼말씀은 12절에서 메신저공식으로시작하고 13 절에서야훼인지공식으로종결된다. 이말씀 에는이스라엘을무덤에서꺼내어이스라엘땅으로돌아가도록하겠다는 야훼의약속이주어진다. 14절에서이스라엘백성에게영을주시겠다는약 속을담고있는두번째야훼말씀은별도의도입구없이시작되고인지공 식과야훼말씀공식 ( hw"hy>-~aun> ) 으로종결되고있다. 1-10절의환상과 11-14절의야훼말씀사이에는내용적으로인상적인병 행이존재한다. 11절에서마른뼈는이스라엘백성들의좌절과절망의상 태에대한상징으로해석되고있다. 37) 12, 13절에서마른뼈의부활은포로 상태로부터해방되어이스라엘땅으로돌아가는구원사건에대응되고있 다. 14 절에서의이스라엘백성들에게수여될야훼의영(x:Wr) 은 10절에서육 체속에들어가생명을주는영과대응된다. 이영은또한 11:19와 36:26, 27 37) 시편 32:2 에서도인간의절망적인심리상태를뼈의손상과연결짓고있다.

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 159 에서이스라엘백성들을영적으로갱신시키는영과연관된다. 결과적으로 마른뼈의부활은야훼의구원행위를통해서이루어지게될이스라엘백성 의영적인부활과갱신을상징하고있다. 이처럼이환상보고에서환상과야훼의말씀은매우정교하게종합되어 있다. 그럼에도불구하고환상과야훼말씀사이의간과할수없는문체상의 이질성과 11-14절의구조가운데뚜렷하게드러나고있는예언담화의모 습, 그리고두본문을연결시켜주는 11 절상반절( 이뼈들은이스라엘온족 속이라 ) 의편집적성격은이두본문의결합이이차적임을추측케한다. 더 구나 11-14절은 1-10절의환상이없더라도내용적으로어느정도자기완결 적이어서독립된전승으로서의자격을갖추고있다. 때문에 11-14절이본래 는독립적으로전승된논쟁담화였으며이차적으로환상보고안에결합되 었을것으로추측할수있다. 이두본문의결합은마른뼈환상의초월적인 사건을역사적인구원사건과연관시키려는신학적의도를가지고행해진 것으로보인다. 38) 이편집작업이에스겔서의구성작업과관련되는지는정 확하게판단하기어렵다. 하지만 11-14절의구원예언이 11:14-21( 그리고 20 장) 과유사하다는사실은39) 이편집작업이환상보고 37:1-14에만국한된 것이아니라거시적인문맥을고려하면서행해졌음을암시한다. 37:1-10 의마른뼈환상안에서도예언담화의여러구성요소들의흔적이 발견된다. 3절에는건넴말다음에에스겔에게주어진야훼의수사적질문 이나온다. 4 절에는선포명령이, 그리고 5-6절하반절에는야훼말씀이메 신저공식과야훼인지공식에둘러싸여등장한다. 마찬가지로 9절에서도 건넴말, 선포명령, 메신저공식에의해유도되는야훼말씀이등장한다. 이 구절들에서는 7-8, 10절에서발생하는마른뼈의부활사건이미리예언되 고있다. 여기에서에스겔이말씀선포를통해야훼의창조행위에직접참 여하고있는것으로묘사되는데, 이를통해에스겔서전체에서에스겔에 의해선포된모든말씀들에최상의신적권위가덧입혀지고있다. 하지만 이와같은사실에근거해서하나의독립적인예언담화가환상보고안에 결합되어있다고결론을내리는것은성급하다. 이구절들은마른뼈환상 과불가분하게결합되어있고내용적으로이에강하게의존하고있기때문 38) 이에관해서는단락 4.5 에서보다자세하게논의될것이다. 39) 환상보고안에포함되어있는예언담화 11:14-21은에스겔서의거시적인문맥에서신학적관심을예루살렘에대한심판에서이스라엘의회복으로돌리는기능을가지고있음이앞에서논의되었다(4.2 단락을참조하라). 이본문에서제시된중요한회복의전망들가운데이스라엘백성이이스라엘땅으로되돌아가는것과내적인갱신에대한약속이 37:11-14에서도동일하게발견된다.

160 성경원문연구제35호 에환상으로부터분리될경우독자적인의미를갖기어렵다. 이러한구성 은독립적인예언담화가드라마화과정을거쳐서환상보고안에결합된 것이아니라반대로마른뼈환상이예언담화의기본구성도식의영향아 래개작되어이루어진결과로보인다. 본래의환상보고는아마도야훼와 에스겔사이의대화없이순수하게마른뼈가되살아나는환상으로만구성 되었을것이다. 이러한개작이이루어진때는마른뼈환상의전승단계일 수도있지만그보다는마른뼈환상과예언담화 보는것이더적절하다. 11-14절이결합했을때로 4.4. 환상보고 40-48장내의예언담화 미래의새성전에관한마지막환상보고는그안에서로이질적인많은 전승사적자료들을포함하고있다. 여기에서우리가특별히주목해야할 부분은 44-48 장에포함되어있는규례와규정들의모음집이다. 이모음집 은환상경험을이야기체로기술하고있는단락 46:19-47:12의삽입으로인 해두부분으로나뉘어져있다. 이단락을제외하면규례와규정들의모음 집을구성하는본문은다음과같다: 44:4-46:18; 47:13-48:35. 이본문의구조 는전체적으로예언담화의기본구성도식을따르고있다. 먼저 44:4에는 야훼가에스겔에게규례와규정의선포를위임하기위한상황설명이주어 진다. 43장의내용을전제하고있는이상황설명은야훼말씀의형태로이 루어진규례와규정의모음집을환상보고의이야기문맥속에매끄럽게 결합시키는역할을한다. 44:5에서는말씀사건공식대신환상보고의전형 적인도입구인인용공식이오고이어서건넴말과에스겔을향한야훼말씀 이차례로등장한다. 여기에나오는 성전의입구와성소의출구 라는표현 은 40-42 장전체내용을요약적으로가리키고있다. 46절의선포명령에이 어서매우긴예언담화의두번째단계가이어진다. 이두번째단계는일 곱개의메신저공식(44:6, 9; 45:9, 18; 46:1, 16; 47:13) 에의해서일곱개의 야훼말씀들로구분된다 (44:6-8; 44:9-45:8; 45:9-17; 45:1-25; 46:1-15; 46:16-18; 47:13-48:35). 환상보고 40-48장에대한최근의전승사적연구들은규례와규정들의 모음집이제2 성전의존재를전제하고있으며, 따라서그연대를포로기직 후로잡아야한다는결론을내리고있다. 40) 이와더불어서학자들사이에 40) 참조, S. S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); T. A. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40-48 (Berlin: Gruyter,

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 161 서는이환상보고의기본문서는본래순수한환상만포함하고있었으리라 는견해에대하여폭넓은의견일치가이루어지고있다. 41) 이와같은최근 의연구결과에근거해서판단할때규례와규정들의모음집은본래독립적 으로존재했으며, 에스겔서의형성과정중비교적후기의단계에서환상 보고안에도입된것으로보는것이적절하다. 이본문이환상보고안에도 입되기이전부터이미예언담화형식으로구성되어있었는지는확인하기 어렵다. 하지만최소한현재의본문이예언담화의기본구성도식을따라 구성되었음은분명하다. 4.5. 환상과예언담화의결합뒤에놓여있는유비( 類比 ) 적사고 지금까지에스겔서의환상보고안에는많은예언담화들이존재하며이 들은다양한방식으로드라마화되어서내러티브문맥속에결합되어있음 을보았다. 그렇다면이와같은이질적인환상과예언담화의결합은어떤 신학적구상에따라이루어진것일까? 이질문에답하기위해서는환상에 서에스겔이경험한것과예언담화의내용이무엇을의미하는지를생각해 볼필요가있다. 먼저예언담화는 지상에서 일어나게될야훼의심판과 구원의행위들을선포하고예견한다. 이와달리환상은 천상의 사건들과 관련되어있다. 무엇보다에스겔서에서야훼의현현과활동들이환상속에 서만목격되고있음에주목해야한다. 이는모세오경에서야훼가세상의 역사에직접개입하시는것과대조된다. 모세오경에서천상세계와지상 세계의경계가모호하다면, 에스겔서에서는이두영역을구분하는이원론 적인사고가뚜렷하다. 에스겔은야훼의영에의해신적인세계로끌려올 라간후에야야훼의현현과활동을경험할수있다. 환상안에서이루어지 는야훼의현현과활동은환상의사건들을우선적으로천상의영역에서 실제로 벌어지는사건들로이해할것을요구한다. 하지만야훼의현현과는달리환상속의다른사건들에는이와같은해 석이쉽게적용되지않는다. 에스겔이두루마리를먹은사건, 예루살렘에 서벌어지는우상숭배들, 예루살렘이천상적존재들에의해파괴되는사 2000); M. D. Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezehiels (Ez 40-48) (Berlin: Philo Fine Arts, 2001). 41) 참조, W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel 25-48, 1240-1243; E. Vogt, Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), 147-149; S. S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, 35-46; M. D. Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezehiels (Ez 40-48), 239.

162 성경원문연구제35호 건, 마른뼈들의부활, 야훼가새성전의보좌에오르시는장면, 성전으로부 터흘러나온강물에의해온땅의생명이회복되는사건들은과연무엇을 의미하는가? 여기에는현재적인요소와미래적인요소, 지상적인요소들 과천상적인요소들이뒤섞여있다. 이사건들은야훼의현현처럼천상의 영역에서 실제로 벌어지는사건으로이해되기에는난점을가지고있다. 환상보고안에도입된예언담화들은환상속의사건들을현재벌어지고 있거나혹은앞으로일어나게될지상의사건들과연결시키고있다. 이때 문에단순하게본문을읽을경우이환상속의사건들은지상의사건들을 위한상징또는비유로이해되기쉽다. 특히예루살렘에대한심판처럼장 래에일어날사건들과연관된환상경험의경우는상징이나비유로해석되 는것이자연스러운듯보인다. 하지만이러한이해가과연고대이스라엘인들이가지고있었던환상의 의미를적절히반영하고있는지숙고해볼필요가있다. 환상이단지어떤 지상적인실제를상징과비유로서전달하기위한문학적수단에불과한 가? 환상경험을상징으로이해할경우이사건들에포함되어있는야훼의 현현도마찬가지로하나의상징으로해석되어야한다. 그렇다면야훼의현 현에대응되는지상적사건이란도대체무엇인가? 에스겔서에서야훼의 현현은그자체로실제적인사건이며어떤다른사건을지시하는상징이 아님이분명하다. 환상을상징적으로이해하는것은천상적영역에접근하 는통로인환상으로부터모든초월적힘과의미를박탈하고단지해석되어 야할수수께끼정도로그의미를축소시켜버린다. 이에따라환상속의사 건들은지상의사건들을근거지우는원형적힘을상실하고지상의사건들 에종속되어버린다. 야훼의말씀과같이환상도지상의사건을규정하는, 저항할수없는야훼의의지와뜻을담지하고있다는점에서단순한상징 이나비유그이상이다. 이와같은이유에서필자는에스겔서에서환상의의미를이해하기위한 개념으로서 유비( ) 적사고 를제안하고자한다. 유비 에관하여폰라 트(G. von Rad) 는현실경험들로부터궁극적인의미와가치를찾고세계를 질서지우는근본원리를발견하려는인간의인식과정이라고설명한다. 42) 그에따르면플라톤의철학에서뚜렷하게발견되는이유비적사고가고대 근동에서는 천상과지상의포괄적인상응관계 라는신화론적개념으로등 장했다. 43) 실제로고대의신화와종교에서천상적인사건과지상적인사건 42) 참조, 클라우스베스터만, 구약해석학, 박문재역 ( 고양: 크리스챤다이제스트, 1995), 17-40. 43) Ibid., 18.

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 163 이 원형- 모형 의관계로연결되어있다는생각은매우폭넓게퍼져있었으 며구약성경에도이영향의흔적이남아있다. 44) 이사고에따르면지상에 서벌어지는사건은천상적인사건의모형이고, 천상적인사건은지상에서 벌어지는사건의궁극적인원인이자근거로간주된다. 에스겔이바빌론포로지에서이러한메소포타미아신화의유비적사고 를접했을때이를자신의신학에받아들였을가능성이있다. 특별히마지 막미래의새성전에관한환상을보면에스겔은지상의모든사물에대응 되는원형적인대상들이천상의영역에존재하는것으로생각한듯보인 다. 45) 유비적사고는바빌론에의한예루살렘의함락과같이야훼의직접 적인개입을주장할수없는역사적사건들을야훼의초월적인활동의결 과로서제시하는데사용될수있는유용한신학적도구이다. 환상보고와 예언담화의결합은예언에서선포된미래의사건들을그원형적인천상의 사건들과연결시킴으로써예언의확실성에대한흔들리지않은근거를확 보하고자하는목적을가지고행해진것으로볼수있다. 하지만메소포타미아신화와 한다면 에스겔이유비적사고를받아들였다고 에스겔서의유비적사고사이에는간과할수없는중요한차이점 이있다. 메소포타미아의신화에서는현재의세계질서를천상적인질서로 설명하려는관심이지배적이다. 반면에에스겔서에서는환상속의사건들 이미래에이루어질사건들을근거지우고그실현의확실성을보장하고있 다. 이는메소포타미아의유비적사고가에스겔서에서는 예언자적 으로 변화되어적용되고있음을의미한다. 44) Ibid., 19. 폰라트는야훼가시내산에서모세에게보여준성막의모델( 출 25:9, 40) 과에스겔에게건네진두루마리( 겔 2:8 이하) 를구약에남겨져있는신화론적유비의흔적으로언급한다. 45) 마지막환상보고에서규정과규례들을제외한순수한환상경험만을고려할때에스겔이목격한성전과보좌에오르시는야훼, 그리고성전으로부터흘러나오는생명의강물은천상적이고원형적인세계의사건들이라는인상을준다. 특별히 40:2 에서 지극히높은산 이라는신화적표현과에덴동산을연상시키는생명의강물은환상속의이스라엘땅을지상적인이스라엘땅과구별시키고이상적이고신화적이며천상적인색채를강하게덧입힌다. M. Greenberg, The Design and Themes of Ezekiel s Program of Restoration, J. L. Mays and P. J. Achtemeier, eds., Interpreting the Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 215-236; S. S. Tuell, Devine Presence and Absence in Ezekiel s Prophecy, M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong, eds., The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspective (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000), 97-116; T. A. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40-48, 41은이환상보고에서묘사된성전을지상성전의천상적인원형으로간주한다. 이환상보고로부터영향을받았음이분명한요한계시록도( 특별히계 21:10-23; 22:1-2과에스겔서의밀접한연관성을주목하라) 마지막때에지상에내려올천상의새예루살렘에관해말하고있다.

164 성경원문연구제35호 환상보고를유비적사고로이해할때환상적사건이갖고있는초월적 이고원형적인힘이잘드러난다. 하지만이러한해석에도전혀문제가없 는것은아니다. 예루살렘에대한심판에서불타고있는예루살렘은천상 의원형적인예루살렘인가, 아니면지상의예루살렘인가? 지상의예루살 렘이라면원형적인사건속에서지상적인실제가파괴되는것을과연어떻 게이해할수있는가? 원형적인예루살렘이라면지상에서벌어지는모든 사건들에대응되는천상적인사건들이존재한다는의미인가? 이러한혼란 의근본적인원인은환상보고의저자가얼마나철저하게유비적사고를 하고있는지에관해우리가더이상알수없다는데있다. 만일저자가지 상의모든사건들에대응하는천상적사건들이존재한다고생각했다면이 와같은해석상의혼란들은자연스럽게해결된다. 하지만이와달리환상 보고의저자가유비적사고를철저하고일관성있게적용하지않았을가능 성도있다. 에스겔은일관된논리로체계를세우는조직신학자라기보다는 풍부한레토릭으로청중을설득하는연설가에가깝다. 때문에비록환상에 대한그의이해의근저에유비적사고가놓여있었을지라도때때로그는 자신의목적에맞게환상의사건을현재혹은미래적사건을위한단순한 상징이나비유로구상했을수있다. 5. 예언담화의드라마화가에스겔서의형성사에서갖는의미 지금까지환상보고의내부와외부에서발견되는드라마화된예언담화 들을분석하였다. 이제이드라마화가에스겔서의형성사에서어떤역할을 했는지생각해보도록하자. 우선드라마화된예언담화들은개별적으로전승된예언담화들의존재 를전제하며, 예언전승들을사용하여더큰본문복합체를구성하고자했던 문학활동이존재했음을말해준다. 또한이문학활동의의도가내러티브형 태의본문복합체를만드는데있었음을보여준다. 이는현재에스겔서의 잘구성된서사구조를감안할때드라마화의역할에대한의미심장한암시 를던져준다. 에스겔서는두개의다른이야기문맥을가지고있다. 하나는 에스겔의사역을시간순으로기술하는자서전적문맥이고, 다른하나는네 개의환상보고들안에서벌어지는천상적사건들을인과적인관계로기술 하고있는이야기문맥이다. 46) 이두개의이야기문맥은서로긴밀하게얽 46) 주제적으로에스겔서의네개의환상보고들은 파송(1:4-3:14)- 심판(8-11 장)- 구원(37:1-14)-

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 165 혀서에스겔서서사구조의핵심적인틀을형성하고있다. 드라마화된두예언담화 12:1-16과 24:15-24는현재에스겔서에서드라 마화되지않은많은예언담화들사이에포함되어있기때문에본래어떤 본문복합체를구성하고자의도되었는지확실하게결정할수가없다. 하지 만이두본문에서에스겔의행위들을시간순서로기술하고있는것은에 스겔의사역을기술하고있는에스겔서전체의자서전적문맥에잘들어맞 는다. 이러한사실은두예언담화의드라마화가본래에스겔의자서전적 이야기를구성하고자하는목적에서행해졌으리라는추론을가능케해준 다. 한걸음더나아가이두본문이현재의에스겔서내에서에스겔의일대 기를구성하는내러티브요소들과함께가장초기의예언서를구성했을것 으로추정해볼수있다. 환상보고들안에이차적으로추가된드라마화된예언담화들은환상보 고들이에스겔서에들어오기이전에는본래순수한환상경험들만으로구 성되어있었음을시사한다. 현재의에스겔서에서서로이질적인환상보고 들과예언담화들이함께종합되어통일적인본문복합체를형성하고있는 것은환상보고들안에포함된예언담화들의교량적역할에기인하는바 가크다. 특별히첫번째환상에포함되어있는파송에관한예언자담화들 의경우에본래부터다른예언담화들을예비하기위한교량적역할을목 적으로했음이비교적뚜렷하다. 네개의환상보고들이현재에스겔서의 중요한구조적틀을이루고있음을감안하면환상보고에예언담화들이 추가된것은예언서구성작업의일부였을것으로판단할수있다. 이상의논의에서볼때예언담화의드라마화는현재의에스겔서의거시 적서사구조를결정짓는두개의중요한이야기문맥과밀접하게연관되어 있다. 만일이두개의이야기문맥을구성하는것이에스겔서의형성사의 핵심적인단계에해당한다고한다면 한가설이다 필자의생각으로이것이가장적절, 예언담화의드라마화도마찬가지로에스겔서형성과정에 서핵심적인문학활동이었다고말할수있다. 하지만본연구의범위내에 서는이에관한최종적인결론을내릴수없으며, 에스겔서구성에관한향 후의보다포괄적이고자세한연구를필요로한다. 6. 결론및나가는말 회복장이라는뚜렷한구조를가지고있다또한야훼의영광의모티브는네환상 (40-48 ). 들을결합시켜서매우역동적이며극적인이야기흐름을만들어내고있다.

166 성경원문연구제35호 지금까지필자는에스겔서에서예언담화들이이야기의형태로변화되 는 드라마화 에관해분석하고이것이에스겔서의형성사와관련하여어 떤의미를가지고있는지생각해보았다. 에스겔서에서예언담화의드라마화는두가지서로다른문맥에서이루 어지고있다. 첫번째는에스겔예언자사역의자서전적인문맥으로서, 예 언담화가에스겔의사역을일인칭시점으로서술하는내러티브안에결합 되도록드라마화가행해졌다(12:1-16; 24:15-24). 두번째로는환상보고안 에삽입된예언담화들이각환상보고들의내러티브의문맥과조화를이 루도록하기위한목적으로드라마화가행해졌다. 여기에서환상보고와 예언담화를결합시킨구성작업의근저에놓여있는신학적원리는천상 적사건과지상적사건을 원형- 모형 의관계로파악하는유비적사고로판 단된다. 드라마화된예언담화들에대한분석결과는드라마화가본래적인전승 요소가아니라이차적인편집활동의결과임을가리킨다. 이와동시에예 언담화의드라마화가개별단위본문의문맥을넘어서에스겔서전체의 거시적인서사구조와관련되어있음을보여준다. 이와같은결과는드라 마화가에스겔의개별예언전승들을종합하여예언서를구성하고자했던 문학활동의일부였음을시사해준다. 본연구에서는예언담화의드라마화현상에대한분석을통해서에스겔 서의형성과정가운데작은일면에대한실마리와개략적인윤곽을얻을 수있었다. 이단계를보다정확하게재구성하기위해서는드라마화이외 에에스겔서의서사구조에서중요한역할을하고있는다른내러티브요 소들에대한분석이뒷받침되어야만한다. 그럼에도불구하고에스겔서의 형성과정을규명하는데있어서구성비평의유용성을어느정도확인하였 다는점에서본연구의의의를찾을수있다. < 주제어>(Keywords) 에스겔서, 구성비평, 예언담화의드라마화, 구성도식, 유비적사고. Book of Ezekiel, composition criticism, dramatization of prophetic discourse, structural formula, analogical thinking. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 22 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 167 < 참고문헌>(References) 베스터만, 클라우스, 구약해석학, 박문재역, 고양: 크리스챤다이제스트, 1995. 폰라트, 게르하르트, 구약성서신학 II, 허혁역, 왜관: 분도출판사, 1977. Brownlee, W. H., Ezekiel 1-19, Waco: W Pub Group, 1986. Davis, E. F., Swallowing the Scroll. Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel s Prophecy, Sheffield: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1989. Eichrodt, W., Der Prophet Hesekiel 1-18, 3rd ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1968. Feist, U., Ezechiel. Das literarische Problem des Buches forschungsgeschicht- lich betrachtet, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. Fohrer, G., Exegese des Alten Testaments, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1973. Garscha, J., Studien zum Ezechielbuch. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von 1-39, Frankfurt am Mein: Herbert Lang, 1974. Graffy, A., A Prophet Confronts His People. The Disputation Speech in the Prophets, Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 1984. Greenberg, M., Ezekiel 1-20, New York: Anchor Bible, 1983. Greenberg, M., The Design and Themes of Ezekiel s Program of Restoration, J. L. Mays and P. J. Achtemeier, eds., Interpreting the Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 215-236. Greenberg, M., Ezekiel 21-37, New York: Anchor Bible, 1997. Hardmeier, C., Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas. Erzählkommuni- kative Studien zur Entstehungssituation des Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 18-20 und Jer 37-40, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter Inc., 1990. Herrmann, J., Ezechielstudien, Leipzig: Keichert, 1908. Hossfeld, F. L., Die Tempelvision Ez 8-11 im Licht unterschiedlicher methodischer Zugänge, J. Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 1986), 151-165. Klein, A., Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34-39, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Konkel, M. D., Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezehiels (Ez 40-48), Berlin: Philo Fine Arts, 2001. Kutsko, J. F., Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Meynet, R., Phetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric, Sheffield: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1998.

168 성경원문연구제35호 Pohlmann, K. F., Ezechielstudien. Zur redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Rudnig, T. A., Heilig und Profan. Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40-48, Berlin: Gruyter, 2000. Simian, H., Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels. Form-und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6.35.36, Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974. Tuell, S. S., The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Tuell, S. S., Devine Presence and Absence in Ezekiel s Prophecy, M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong, eds., The Book of Ezekiel. Theological and Anthropological Perspective (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000), 97-116. Vogt, E., Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel, Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Westermann, C., Grundformen prophetischer Rede, 5th ed., München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1978. Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel 1-24, 2nd ed., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel 25-48, 2nd ed., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.

에스겔서의드라마화된예언담화에관한분석 / 민유홍 169 <Abstract> Analysis of Dramatized Prophetic Discourses in the Book of Ezekiel Yoo Hong Min (Methodist Theological University) This article aims to analyse a remarkable literary phenomenon in the book of Ezekiel, that is, dramatization of prophetic discourses, and to account for the correlation of this phenomenon to the composition process of a prophetic book. Prophetic discourse is a closed and well-rounded text unit which contains a direct citation of Yahweh s speech and was basically built on a common structural formula. The dramatization is a literary activity through which a non-narrative text is transformed into a narrative text. In the book of Ezekiel, the dramatization of prophetic discourses was carried out in two different contexts. The first is the biographical context of the Ezekiel s prophetic activity in which two dramatized prophetic discourses 12:1-16 and 24:15-24 were integrated. The second is the narrative context of visions where the main purpose of the dramatization is to fit prophetic discourses to the flow of the narrative. In the second case, the theological principle lying behind combination of visions and prophetic discourses is considered to be the analogical thinking which understands the relation between heavenly and earthly events according to the schema archetype-image. The analysis of the dramatized prophetic discourses indicates that the dramatization should not be thought of as an original element, but rather as the result of secondary editorial activities. It shows also that the editorial intention of the dramatization goes beyond the context of an individual text unit, and is related to the broader context of the whole book of Ezekiel. On the basis of these results, it can be surmised that the dramatization was a part of the literary activity which aimed to compose a well-designed prophetic book based on Ezekiel s prophetic traditions.

170 성경원문연구제35호 성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 권성달 * 1. 들어가는말 성서히브리어학계에서는지난 100 여년간지속적으로 명사문장 (nominal sentence) 에관한연구가이루어져왔다. 명사문장과관련된논의들은 명사 문장의정의 1) 에서부터출발하여 주어와술어의정체파악, 계사 (copula), 한정성, 세구성소명사문장, 어순, 복합명사문장, 존재사를포함하는 문장, 하야(=to be) 문장과의관계 등매우다양한주제로논의되어왔으며, 그중에서도명사문장의어순(word order) 은매우중요한논제라할수있다. 성서히브리어명사문장에서는 주어- 술어 의어순뿐아니라 술어- 주어 의 어순도많이나타나므로정상적인어순을결정하기가어렵다. 정상적인어순 이무엇이냐에따라본문에대한해석이달라지기때문에 어순 에대한바른 이해는성서해석에지대한영향을미친다고할수있다. 성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한학자들의견해는다음세가지로나 타난다: 1) 성서히브리어명사문장의기본어순은주어-술어이며그반대의 순서인술어- 주어의순서는술어를강조하기위한순서이다. 2) 성서히브리 어명사문장의어순이주어-술어일때는주어가술어의정체를파악하는문 * Hebrew University of Jerusalem 에서구약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재웨스트민스터신학대학원대학교구약학조교수. sungdal61@hanmail.net. 이논문은 2012 년도정부( 교육부) 의재원으로한국연구재단의지원을받아연구되었음 (NRF 2012S1A5A802 3657). 1) 일반적으로많은학자들은 주어나술어가명사이거나그상당어구인문장 을명사문장으로정의하며 술어적분사 가들어간문장도 명사문장 에포함시킨다. 그러나본연구에서는 명사문장 을 동사없는문장 (verbless sentence) 으로정의를내린다. 일반적으로학자들은성서히브리어의문장을 동사문장 과 명사문장 ( 혹은 동사없는문장 ) 으로양분화시키고 술어적분사 가들어간문장도 명사문장 에포함시키는데, 본연구에서는성서히브리어의문장을 동사문장, 명사문장, 하야(= to be) 문장, 분사문장 으로분류한다. 이는 하야문장 과 분사문장 에서문장의통사구조나기능에따라 동사문장 과 명사문장 의두속성이모두발견되기때문이다. 본연구에서는 문장 (sentence) 이란용어를사용하는데독립절뿐아니라종속절도분석대상에포함되므로 문장 이라는용어보다는 절 (clause) 이라는용어가더정확하나많은학자들이그두용어를구분시켜사용하지않으므로본연구에서도 문장 이라는용어를사용하기로한다.

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 171 장이고술어-주어의순서일때는주어가술어를서술하거나분류하는문장이 다. 3) 성서히브리어명사문장의어순은주어- 술어, 술어- 주어로자유롭다. 이세가지견해는주어진성서히브리어명사문장에서어떤어순을정상적 혹은비정상적으로보느냐하는시각의차이에의한것이며, 비정상적인어 순에대해서는대개 강조 라는용어로표현한다. 성서히브리어명사문장에 서주어와술어의위치와의미론적범주에따라번역이가능한모든경우를 살펴보면다음과같다. < 표 1> 범주 2) 번역주어선행술어선행 이다 (1) 그는모세다. 3) (2) 그는모세다. (3) 그는모세다. (4) 그는모세다. hv,mo awh 모세그 awh hv,mo 그모세 있다 (1) 모세는이집트에있다. (2) 모세는이집트에있다. (3) 모세는이집트에있다. (4) 모세는이집트에있다. ~yir"c.mib. hv,mo 이집트에모세 hv,mo ~yir"c.mib. 모세이집트에 되다 (1) 모세는아버지가된다. (2) 모세는아버지가된다. (3) 모세는아버지가된다. (4) 모세는아버지가된다. ba;l. hv,mo 아버지로모세 hv,mo ba;l. 모세아버지로 위의표에서 (1) 번의번역은주어와술어의위치와는상관없이주어진명 사문장이정상적인어순이라고보았을때의번역이며, (2)-(4) 번의번역은 강 2) 본연구자는성서히브리어명사문장은표면적으로는나타나지않으나심층적으로나타날수있는의미론적범주가크게세가지( 이다, 있다, 되다) 임을밝힌바있다. 권성달, to be 에상응하는우리말과여러언어에서의비교연구, 언어학 16:2 (2008), 69-91. 3) 성서히브리어는시제가없는언어이며, 문맥에따라 과거, 현재, 미래 의번역이모두가능하나여기서는편의상 현재 로번역했다. 여기서볼드체와음영과밑줄은 강조 나 부각 을나타내기위한표현방법이다. 만일볼드체나음영이나밑줄과같은표현방법을사용하지않는다면, 이집트에있는이는바로모세다, 바로그가모세다 등과같은표현으로강조를나타낼수있을것이다.

172 성경원문연구제35호 조 등과같은특별한목적을갖는문장으로본번역이다. (2) 번은주어가강 조된번역이며, (3) 번은술어가강조된번역이며, (4) 번은주어와술어가모두 강조된번역이다. 기존의성서히브리어학자들이명사문장의어순을보는견해에는일부문 제점이발견된다. 어떤명사문장이정상적, 혹은비정상적인문장인가에대 한일치점이없으며, 어순에영향을미치는요인을구체적으로제시하지못 한다는점과, 또한그들의견해에반하는예외가너무많다는점이다. 기존학 자들의견해에따르면 (1) 번번역과 (3) 번번역이가능하며, (4) 번번역의경우 는 세구성소명사문장 과같이주어와술어이외의또다른요소가포함된 문장에서가능한번역이므로주어와술어만을포함하는 두구성소명사문 장 에서는불가능한번역이다. 주어 가강조된 (2) 번번역의경우는기존학 자들중명사문장에서 주어 의강조를언급하는학자가아직없으므로새롭 게시도되는번역이라할수있다. 이처럼성서히브리어명사문장에서어순이성서해석에지대한영향을끼 침에도불구하고성서히브리어학계에서이에대한명확한청사진을제시하 지못하고있는것이현실이다. 그이유는다음두가지로요약할수있다. 첫 째, 성서히브리어는 2-3천년전의언어이기때문에현대의언어학적인이론 과감각으로는완벽한해결책을제시할수없다는것이다. 성서히브리어학 자들마다명사문장의어순에대한견해를제시하기는하지만어느견해도예 외없는견해가없으며늘반론의여지가있다. 둘째, 성서히브리어학계에서 명사문장의어순에대한언급은많지만그에대한체계적이고심도있는연 구가이루어지지않았다는것이다. 따라서본연구에서는성서히브리어명사문장의어순에영향을미칠수있 는중요한요인들을문장의종류, 시대, 의미론적범주, 동질문장/ 비동질문장, 독립절/ 종속절, 의문문/ 평서문, 시제4), 한정성, 주어와술어의형태론적범주 등으로보고, 이런각각의요인들이명사문장에서의어순과실제로상관관계 가있는지, 있다면어느정도관계가있는지를통계적인방법을통해체계적 으로분석함으로써성서히브리어명사문장의어순에대한분명한청사진을 제공할것이다. 또한성서히브리어명사문장의어순에대한학자들의견해가 얼마나타당한지그적합성도검토할것이다. 4) 대다수의학자들은성서히브리어가시제가없는언어인것에동의하나일부소수학자들이, 성서히브리어에도시제가있다고주장하므로성서히브리어명사문장의어순에영향을미칠수있는요인에시제도검토대상으로두었다.

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 173 2. 연구방법 본연구에서는통계적방법을새롭게도입하였으며중요한연구방법으로 활용한다. 성서히브리어에대한많은이론들은충분한자료를기초하지않은 이론으로만그치는경우가많다. 2-3천년전의언어를불충분한자료에근거 한언어적이론만으로추론하기란거의불가능하며, 위험성도매우높다. 아 무리뛰어난학자라도그학자의직감을신뢰하기란때론어렵다. 어떠한이 론도예외없는이론은없다고보며, 그예외들은늘반론의빌미를제공한다. 또한동일한주제를놓고도서로상반된이론이등장하며, 학자들의일반적 인동의를얻는것이어려운경우가많다. 성서히브리어도예외는아니다. 아 직도많은이론들이서로치열한공방중에있으며, 본연구의주제인명사문 장의어순에대한것도마찬가지이다. 풍부한 1차자료를근거로한통계적인분석은이론적이고추상적이며예 측에근거한분석이아니기때문에그만큼위험성도감소된다. 통계학에서는 자료의정확도와신뢰도가생명이다. 부정확하거나신뢰할수없는자료에 근거한통계는아무런가치가없다. 뿐만아니라통계처리과정에서의실수 나잘못된통계처리방법의사용또한위험요소라할수있다. 그러나분명한 자료에근거한통계적방법을통한접근은이론적인추론을통한접근보다는 훨씬더사실에접근할수있는가능성이높다. 본연구에서는주제와관련하여역사서중특정텍스트를선택하여 5) 모든 명사문장을어순과함께조사하되문장의종류( 독립절/ 종속절, 서술체/ 대화 체/ 목록, 평서문/ 의문문), 시대( 표준성서히브리어/ 후기성서히브리어), 의미 론적범주( 이다/ 있다/ 되다), 문장의성격( 동질문장/ 비동질문장), 시제( 과거/ 현 재/ 미래), 한정성, 주어와술어의형태론적범주등이명사문장의어순과상관 관계가있는지, 만일상관관계가있다면어느정도있는지를구체적인수치 를통해분석함으로명사문장의어순을결정하는요인을파악할것이다. 5) 본연구를위해사무엘하, 열왕기상, 역대상, 역대하를샘플로선택한것은우리의연구주제인명사문장의어순이두시대( 표준성서히브리어시대와후기성서히브리어시대) 에따라차이점을보이는가를조사해보기위함이다. 샘플로선정한성경이두시대를대변한다는견해에동의하지않는학자들이있으나, 두시대의성서히브리어는 단어 의사용빈도수면에서확연한차이를보이고있으므로우리는사무엘서/ 열왕기서와역대서가두시대를대변한다는견해를받아들인다. 이와관련된자세한사항은다음책들을보라. R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula.: Scholars Press, 1976); A. Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible (Jerusalem: Carta, 1972); Young Ian, Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2003).

174 성경원문연구제35호 자료수집과분석을원할하게하기위해서성경관련소프트웨어들인어코 던스 9.5, 바이블웍스 9.0, 그리고마이크로소프트엑셀 2007이중요한도구들 로사용된다. 특히본연구에있어서어순과다른요인과의상관관계를조사 하기위해반드시필요한통계전문소프트웨어인 SAS(Statistical Analysis System) 가사용된다. 6) 이러한여러컴퓨터프로그램들은수천개의문장을조 사하고정리하는데있어서필수적인도구들이며, 통계처리과정에서발생할 수있는실수를최소화시키는데중요한역할을하게될것이다. 3. 학자들의견해 본주제와관련하여국내성서학자들의연구는아직까지미미하며, 국외 히브리어학자들중에서도본주제를체계적이고심도있게다룬학자는많 지않다. 본주제와관련된학자들의견해는다음과같이세가지로요약할수 있다. (1) 성서히브리어명사문장의기본어순은주어- 술어이며, 그반대의순서 인술어- 주어의순서는술어를강조하기위한순서이다. 이견해는가장오래 된견해로서성서히브리어명사문장의자연스럽고정상적인어순은주어-술 어이며, 그외의순서는모두강조를위한것이라고본다. 이견해를따르는학 자들은다음과같다. - 알브레흐트(C. Albrecht, 1888), 게제니우스(W. Gesenius, 1910), 호프타이 저(J. Hoftijer, 1973), 메르베(C. H. J. Merwe, 1999), 부쓰(R. Buth). (2) 성서히브리어명사문장의어순이주어-술어일때는주어가술어의정체 를파악하는문장이고, 술어-주어의순서일때는주어가술어를서술하거나 6) 특히본연구에서는상관관계를조사하기위해교차분석(Crosstabulation) 이라는통계학기술을사용하며, 교차분석은범주형변수(Categorical Variables) 를분석하기위해한변수의범주를다른변수의범주에따라빈도를교차분석하는교차표를작성하고두변수간의독립성과관련성을분석하는기법이다. 예를들어 화를잘내는사람들이심장병에더잘걸릴까? 에대한질문에대답하기위해화를내기위해움츠리는정도를측정한값 (Spielberger Trait Anger Scale) 과심장병(CHD - coronary heart disease) 두변수를사용하여그둘의관계를분석하는것인데카이자승(Chi-Square) 과 P- 값(P-Value) 이라는수치를통해상관관계를파악하게된다. 이와같은분석을위해 SAS 와같은전문프로그램은필수적이다. 일반적으로 P-값이 0.01보다적으면두변수는상관관계가있다고말한다. 좀더자세한설명을위해서는스톡스(M. E. Stokes, C. S. Davis, and G. G. Koch, Categorical Data Analysis Usingthe SAS System [Cary: SAS Institute Inc., 1995] 18-23, 59-79) 와무어(D. S. Moore, Statistics Concepts and Controversies, 5th ed. [New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 2001], 438-445, 469-484) 를보라.

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 175 분류하는문장이다. 이러한견해의대표적인학자는앤더슨으로, 그는성서 히브리어명사문장을정체파악적(identification) 문장과분류(classification) 문 장으로나누고, 정체파악적문장은주어-술어의순서를갖고분류문장일경 우에는술어- 주어의순서를갖는다고한다. 7) 이견해를따르는학자들은다음 과같다. - 앤더슨(F. I. Andersen, 1970), 월키- 오코너(Waltke & O Connor, 1990), 쯔비 (T. Zewi), 윌리암스(R. J. Williams, 2007). (3) 성서히브리어명사문장의어순은주어- 술어, 술어- 주어로자유롭다. 이 런견해를가지는대표적인학자는무라오카로, 그는본주제와관련하여비 교적심도있는연구를하였다. 창세기, 사사기, 사무엘상의총 453문장에대 한통계조사( 단순통계) 를하여주어- 술어의어순(313 개) 과술어-주어의어순 (140 개) 을제시하며, 어순에있어서의자유로움을주장한다. 이견해를따르 는학자들은다음과같다. - 무라오카(T. Muraoka, 1985), 데이비슨(A. B. Davidson, 1985), 블라우(J. Blau, 1993), 그로스(W. Gross, 1999). 4. 어순결정요인의자료와분석 본연구에서는성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구를통계적으로 분석하기위해사무엘하, 열왕기상, 역대상, 역대하에나오는모든성서히브 리어문장을 1 차샘플자료로선택하여범주별로분류하였다. 선택된텍스트 에서동사문장, 명사문장, 하야문장, 분사문장의분포를살펴보았더니다음 과같이나타났다. < 표 2> 문장종류동사문장명사문장하야문장분사문장기타문장 8) 합계 빈도수 7084 1135 549 353 87 9208 백분율 76.9% 12.3% 6.0% 3.8% 0.9% 100% 7) 여기서 정체파악문장 이란 그는모세다 와같이주어와술어의지시물(referent) 이동일한문장을말하며, 분류문장 이란 그는히브리인이다, 그는위대하다 등과같이주어와술어의지시물이동일하지않는문장을말한다. 대부분의학자들이그러한용어를사용하나무라오카는 분류 대신 서술/ 묘사 (description) 라는용어를사용하며, 본연구에서는 동질문장, 비동질문장 등의용어가가장적절하다고본다. 8) 여기서기타문장이란예쉬 (vye)) 아인(!yIa;) 히네 (hnehi) 오드 (da[) 를포함하는문장을가리킨다.

176 성경원문연구제35호 위표에서조사된총 9208문장중 12.3% 에해당하는 1135개의명사문장을 문장성분( 주어, 술어등) 의개수에따라분류해보았더니, 다음과같은결과 가나타났다. < 표 3> 문장성분의개수에 따른분류 한구성소 명사문장 두구성소 명사문장 세구성소 명사문장 합계 빈도수 151 968 16 1135 백분율 13.3% 85.3% 1.4% 100% 세구성소명사문장은주어와술어외에제3의요소가추가된것으로제3의 요소에대한학자들의견해가다양할뿐아니라그주제가방대하므로따로 취급하는것이바람직하다. 9) 한구성소명사문장은주어나술어가생략되어 한성분만나타나므로주어와술어의순서를다루는본연구에는적절하지 않다. 따라서본연구에서는주어와술어가뚜렷하게나타나는 968개의문장 을분석대상으로한다. 이 968개의두구성소명사문장에서주어와술어의순 서만을살펴보면다음과같은결과가나타난다. < 표 4> 주어와술어의어순 주어-술어술어-주어합계 빈도수 646 322 968 백분율 66.7% 33.3% 100% 위표에따르면두구성소명사문장의어순은 주어- 술어 가 술어- 주어 보 다약 2 배정도더높게나타난다고할수있다. 그러나이통계자료를가지고 성서히브리어명사문장의정상적인어순은 주어- 술어 라고할수는없다. 왜 냐하면 술어- 주어 의어순이 33.3% 나되기때문이다. 10) 따라서본연구에서 는어떤변수가성서히브리어명사문장의어순에영향을미치는지를살펴보 기위해다양한요소를고려해보았다. 9) 세구성소명사문장에대해서는다음글을보라. 권성달, 성서히브리어세구성소명사문장에관한연구, 성경원문연구 33 (2013), 7-33. 10) 통계학학계에서대부분인정하는유의수준은 0.05 인데( 최소주의자들은 0.01 을주장하기도함) 이는어떤현상이 95% 를넘을경우( 최소주의자에의하면 99%) 그렇다 고단정지어말할수있다는의미이다.

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 177 4.1. 서술체/ 대화체/ 목록 문장의종류중서술체/ 대화체/ 목록이어순에영향을미치는지를살펴보았 더니다음과같은결과가나타났다. 11) < 표 5> Chi-Square 54.9051 P-Value <.0001 서술체/ 대화체/ 목록과어순주어-술어술어-주어합계 서술체대화체목록합계 291 67.2% 144 52.0% 209 82.3% 644 66.8% 142 32.8% 133 48.0% 45 17.7% 320 33.2% 433 100% 277 100% 254 100% 964 100% < 표 5> 를통계전문프로그램인 SAS 에서교차분석을해보면서술체/ 대화체 / 목록과어순은서로상관관계가있는것으로나타났다. 즉서술체/ 대화체/ 목 록이라는변수는어순에영향을미친다는것이다. 그러나 SAS의분석은세 변수를합쳐서분석하기때문에세부적으로어떤변수가더영향을미치는 지, 혹은덜영향을미치는지는알수없다. 따라서이세변수를각각분석해 볼필요가있다. < 표 5> 에의하면서술체에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이 술어- 주어 의어순보 다 2 배정도높게나타나며, 이는 < 표 4> 에나타난비율과비슷하다. 대화체에 서는 주어- 술어 의어순과 술어- 주어 의어순이거의비슷한비율로나타났 다. 목록에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이 술어- 주어 의어순보다 4배정도높은 것으로나타났다. 이것은어순에영향을미치는변수는서술체가아닌대화 체와목록임을말해주는것이다. 대화체와목록이구체적으로어떻게영향을 미치는지를살펴보기위해세부적으로조사해보았다. 대화체를성격에따라분류하여어순과의관계를살펴보았더니다음과같 은결과가나타났다. 11) 서술체/ 대화체/ 목록과어순에대한고려에서는운문으로분류된네문장이제외되었다. 여기서 목록 이란 의아들은 이다 와같이사람의이름을나열하는문장의형식을말한다.

178 성경원문연구제35호 < 표 6> Chi-Square 11.2678 P-Value 0.0237 대화체종류와어순기도문서술적설명적예언적의문적합계 주어-술어술어-주어합계 8 32.0% 83 61.0% 28 41.8% 3 50.0% 22 51.2% 144 52.0% 17 68.0% 53 39.0% 39 58.2% 3 50.0% 21 48.8% 133 48.0% 25 100% 136 100% 67 100% 6 100% 43 100% 277 100% 예언적, 의문적대화에서는 < 표 4> 의비율과비슷하게나타났으나서술적 인대화에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이약간높게나타났고설명적인대화나기 도문에서는 술어- 주어 의어순이높게나타났다. 즉예언적, 의문적, 서술적 인대화는어순에큰영향을미치지못하며설명적인대화나기도문이어순 에영향을미치는요인이라는것이다. 목록의경우어순에절대적으로영향을미치는주어와술어의형태론적범 주가있음을파악하였으며, 그결과는다음과같다. 술어가지시대명사와고 유명사구와수사일때는항상(100%) 술어- 주어 의어순을갖는다. 주어가지 시대명사, 인칭대명사, 콜( 구) 일때는항상(100%) 주어- 술어 의어순을갖는 다. 또한술어가접미명사일경우는 술어- 주어 의어순(82.4%) 이 주어- 술어 의어순(17.6%) 보다훨씬더높은비율로나타났다. 따라서전체적으로는서술체/ 대화체 / 목록이어순에영향을미친다고할수있다. 4.2. 시대 표준성서히브리어시대와후기성서히브리어시대에따라성서히브리어 명사문장의어순이영향을받는지를살펴보았더니다음과같은결과가나타 났다. 12) 12) 여기서표준성서히브리어시대와후기성서히브리어시대를나누는기준은바벨론유수로

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 179 < 표 7> Chi-Square 16.2285 P-Value <.0001 시대와어순표준성서히브리어후기성서히브리어합계 주어-술어술어-주어합계 253 59.8% 393 72.1% 646 66.7% 170 40.2% 152 27.9% 322 33.3% 423 100% 545 100% 968 100% < 표 7> 에서 SAS로교차분석을해보면시대와어순은서로상관관계가있 다고말할수있다. 그러나이러한결과는시대와어순이상관관계가있기때 문이아니라서술체/ 대화체/ 목록과어순이상관관계가있기때문이다. 그이 유는후기성서히브리어에해당하는 역대상 에는목록이차지하는비율이 지나치게높은반면, 표준성서히브리어에해당하는 사무엘하 와 열왕기상 에는목록이차지하는비율이매우낮아서표준성서히브리어와후기성서히 브리어의서술체/ 대화체/ 목록비율에전체적으로영향을주기때문이다. 13) 그러므로후기성서히브리어에서역대상을제외한역대하만다시조사해 보았더니, 다음과같은결과가나타났다. < 표 8> Chi-Square 0.0086 P-Value 0.9263 시대와어순 표준성서히브리어 후기성서히브리어 ( 역대하) 합계 주어-술어술어-주어합계 253 59.8% 98 59.4% 351 59.7% 170 40.2% 67 40.6% 237 40.3% 423 100% 165 100% 588 100% 역대하의자료만조사해보았더니, 표준성서히브리어에서의비율과거의 비슷하게나타났으며 SAS의교차분석에서도시대와어순이상관관계가전 혀없는것으로나타났다. 따라서성서히브리어명사문장의시대는어순에 영향을미치지않는다고볼수있다. 사무엘하, 열왕기상, 열왕기하가표준성서히브리어시대에해당하며역대상과역대하는후기성서히브리어시대에해당한다. 13) 254개의문장중 10 개의(3.9%) 문장만이표준성서히브리어시대에서나타나고나머지는후기성서히브리어에해당하는 역대상 에서(96.1%) 나타난다.

180 성경원문연구제35호 4.3. 명사문장의의미론적범주 명사문장의의미론적범주와어순이어떤관련성이있는가를살펴보기위 해의미론적범주에따라살펴보았더니다음과같은결과가나타났다. < 표 9> Chi-Square 1.0340 P-Value 0.5963 의미론적범주와어순이다있다되다합계 주어-술어술어-주어합계 471 66.2% 170 68.0% 5 83.3% 646 66.7% 241 33.8% 80 32.0% 1 16.7% 322 33.3% 712 100% 250 100% 6 100% 968 100% SAS 의교차분석에의하면명사문장의의미론적범주는어순과상관관계 가없는것으로나타났다. < 표 9> 에있는의미론적범주 이다 와 있다 의비 율은전체평균과비슷하므로어순에영향을미치지않지만, 되다 에서는 주 어- 술어 의어순이 83.3% 로전체평균인 66.7% 보다높게나타나어순에영향 을미치는것으로보이나빈도수가높지않아큰의미를두기는어렵다. 따라 서명사문장의의미론적범주는어순에영향을미치지않는다고할수있다. 4.4. 동질문장/ 비동질문장 명사문장에서동질문장과비동질문장은의미론적범주중 이다 의범주만 해당이되며동질문장/ 비동질문장이라는변수가어순에영향을미치는지를 살펴보았더니다음과같은결과가나타났다. < 표 10> Chi-Square 110.0201 P-Value <.0001 동질/ 비동질과어순주어-술어술어-주어합계 동질문장 비동질문장 합계 278 87.2% 188 49.6% 466 66.8% 41 12.9% 191 50.4% 232 33.2% 319 100% 379 100% 698 100%

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 181 동질문장/ 비동질문장과어순은상관관계가있는것으로나타났다. 즉동질 문장에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이 술어- 주어 의어순보다높은비율로나타나 고비동질문장에서는 주어- 술어 의어순과 술어- 주어 의어순이비슷한비율 로나타났다. 그러므로동질/ 비동질문장은어순에영향을미친다고할수있다. 이결과는우리가사용하는동질문장과비동질문장이라는용어대신에정 체파악문장(identification) 과분류문장(classification) 이라는용어를사용하는 학자들의견해와는차이가있는것이다. 그들은정체파악문장( 동질문장) 에서 는 주어- 술어 의순서를갖고분류문장( 비동질문장) 에서는 술어- 주어 의순 서를갖는다고한다. 동질문장에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이높은비율로나타 나므로어느정도동의할수있으나, 14) 비동질문장에서는 주어- 술어 의어순 과 술어- 주어 의어순이거의비슷한비율로나타나므로그들의결론은우리 의자료와는부합하지않는다고할수있다. 4.5. 독립절/ 종속절 성서히브리어명사문장이독립절이냐종속절이냐하는것이어순에영향 을미치는지를살펴보았더니다음과같은결과가나타났다. < 표 11> Chi-Square 26.2739 P-Value <.0001 독립절/ 종속절과어순주어-술어술어-주어합계 독립절 601 69.4% 265 30.6% 866 100% 종속절 45 44.1% 57 55.9% 102 100% 합계 646 66.7% 322 33.3% 968 100% 독립절/ 종속절과어순에서는두변수가상관관계가있는것으로나타났다. 독립절에서는전체비율과비슷한수치가나타났으나, 종속절에서는 술어- 주어 의어순이 주어- 술어 의어순보다조금더높은것으로나타났다. 또한 종속절내에서종속절의종류( 원인절, 목적절, 관형절등) 와어순의상관관계 를살펴보았더니서로관계가없는것으로나타났다. 그러나종속절내에서 14) 동질문장에서 주어- 술어 의어순이 87.2% 라는높은비율로나타나는것은사실이나 정체파악문장( 동질문장) 에서는주어- 술어의순서를갖는다 고단정지어말하는것은위험한일이다. 각주 9 번을보라.

182 성경원문연구제35호 의미론적범주는어순과상관관계가있는것으로나타났다. < 표 12> Chi-Square 19.1693 P-Value <.0001 의미론적범주와어순 ( 종속절내에서) 이다 있다 되다 합계 주어-술어술어-주어합계 24 31.6% 20 80.0% 1 100% 45 44.1% 52 68.4% 5 20.0% 0 0% 57 55.9% 76 100% 25 100% 1 100% 102 100% 의미론적범주 되다 의경우빈도수가너무낮아의미를부여하기힘들고, 이다 의경우 술어- 주어 의어순이전체적인비율보다 12.5% 더높은반면, 있다 의경우 주어- 술어 의어순이 술어- 주어 의어순보다 4배나더높은것 으로나타났다. 명사문장의의미론적범주와어순과의관계를독립절/ 종속절의변수와함 께살펴보았더니, 이다 와 되다 의범주에서는비슷하게나타난반면 있다 의변수에서는 독립절 에서는전체비율과비슷하게나타났으나 종속절 에 서는 주어- 술어 의어순이 80% 로 술어- 주어 의비율(20%) 보다훨씬더높게 나타났다. 따라서의미론적범주와어순과의관계에서는 있다 의범주중 종 속절 에서만상관관계가있는것으로결론을내릴수있다. 종속절내에서동질문장/ 비동질문장의변수역시어순에영향을미치는것 으로나타났다. < 표 13> Chi-Square 17.0262 P-Value <.0001 동질/ 비동질과어순 ( 종속절내에서) 동질문장 비동질문장 합계 주어-술어술어-주어합계 11 84.6% 14 24.1% 25 35.2% 2 15.4% 44 75.9% 46 64.8% 13 100% 58 100% 71 100%

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 183 종속절내에서동질문장은독립절과종속절을모두포함한전체비율과비 슷하게어순의비율이나타났으나비동질문장에서는 술어- 주어 의비율이 매우높게나타났다. 4.6. 의문문/ 평서문 의문문/ 평서문과어순의상관관계를살펴보았더니다음과같은결과가나 타났다. < 표 14> Chi-Square 15.1959 P-Value <.0001 의문문/ 평서문과어순주어-술어술어-주어합계 의문문 18 40.0% 27 60.0% 45 100% 평서문 628 68.0% 295 32.0% 923 100% 합계 646 66.7% 322 33.3% 968 100% 의문문/ 평서문과어순은상관관계가있는것으로나타났다. 평서문의경우 < 표 4> 의결과와큰차이가없으나의문문의경우 술어- 주어 의어순이 주어 - 술어 의어순보다더높은것으로나타났다. 이것은 술어- 주어 의어순을갖 는총 27개의의문문이의문사를갖는경우가 19 개(70%) 이며이런현상은의 문사가문두에오는성질과의문문이술어로사용되는경우가많기때문인 것으로분석된다. 따라서의문문/ 평서문에서평서문은어순에영향을미치지않으나의문문 은어순에영향을미친다고할수있다. 4.7. 시제 시제와어순의상관관계를살펴보았더니다음과같은결과가나타났다.

184 성경원문연구제35호 < 표 15> Chi-Square 38.2163 P-Value <.0001 시제와어순 주어-술어술어-주어합계 과거 466 73.4% 169 26.6% 635 100% 현재 162 53.1% 143 46.9% 305 100% 미래 18 64.3% 10 35.7% 28 100% 합계 646 66.7% 322 33.3% 968 100% 시제와어순은상관관계가있는것으로나타났다. 즉현재에서는 주어-술 어 의어순과 술어- 주어 의어순이비슷한비율로나타난반면, 미래(64.3%) 와과거(73.4%) 에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이 술어- 주어 의어순보다더높은 것으로나타났다. 그러나시제가어순에직접적인영향을미쳤다기보다는다 른요인때문인것으로보인다. 서술체/ 대화체/ 목록과어순과의상관관계분 석에서, 대화체는두어순이비슷한비율로나타났으나서술체(67.2%) 와목록 (82.3%) 에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이 술어- 주어 의어순보다높게나타났다. 서술체(87.5%) 와목록(89.4%) 에서는과거시제가많이나타나는반면대화체 에서는현재시제가 84.7% 로많이나타났다. 독립절/ 종속절과어순의상관관계분석에서는종속절이 술어- 주어 의어 순으로많이나타났다. 독립절에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이많이나타났고과 거시제가많이나타났으며(69.2%), 종속절에서는현재시제가많이나타났다 (63.7%). 의문문/ 평서문과어순의상관관계분석에서는의문문에서 술어- 주어 의 어순으로많이나타났고, 평서문에서는 주어- 술어 의어순이많이나타났다. 의문문에서는현재시제가매우많이나타났고(97.8%), 평서문에서는과거시 제가많이나타났다 (68.9%). 따라서시제는어순에영향을미친다고할수없다. 4.8. 한정성 성서히브리어명사문장에서주어와술어의한정성이어순과상관관계가 있는지를살펴보았더니다음과같은결과가나타났다.

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 185 < 표 16> Chi-Square 63.3605 P-Value <.0001 한정성과어순 주어-술어술어-주어합계 주어> 술어15) 213 53.8% 183 46.2% 396 100% 주어= 술어 319 80.4% 78 19.6% 397 100% 주어< 술어 0 0 0 합계 532 67.1% 261 32.9% 793 100% 주어와술어의한정성과어순은서로상관관계가있는것으로나타났다. 주 어와술어의어순에관계없이술어의한정성이주어의한정성보다높은경우 는한차례도없었다는것이특징으로나타났는데, 이는명사문장에서주어 와술어를선정할때의기준과관련된것으로어떤경우라도술어의한정성 이주어의한정성보다높을수는없다는것이다. 16) 주어와술어의한정성이 동일한경우에는 술어- 주어 의어순보다는 주어- 술어 의어순이높은비율 로나타났고, 주어의한정성이술어의한정성보다높은경우에는두어순이 비슷한비율로나타났다. 이결과는동질문장/ 비동질문장과어순의상관관계 와비슷한것으로이는동질문장/ 비동질문장은한정성과밀접한관련이있기 때문이다. 따라서주어와술어의한정성은어순에영향을미친다고할수있다. 4.9. 주어와술어의형태론적범주 주어와술어의형태론적범주와어순의상관관계를살펴보기위해주어와 술어의형태론적범주의빈도수가높은것을위주로살펴보았더니다음과같 은결과가나타났다. 15) 주어> 술어 란주어의한정성이술어의한정성보다높은것을말하고, 주어= 술어 란주어와술어의한정성이동일한것을말하며, 주어< 술어 란술어의한정성이주어의한정성보다높은것을말한다. 16) 한정성과주어, 술어선정에관하여는졸저( 권성달, 성서히브리어명사문장에서의한정성에관한연구, 성경원문연구 29 [2011], 7-32.) 를보라.

186 성경원문연구제35호 4.9.1. 주어의형태론적범주 < 표 17> Chi-Square 108.9025 P-Value <.0001 주어의형태론적범주와어순 고유명사구 고유명사 인칭대명사 접미명사 접미명사구 비한정명사 비한정명사구 한정명사 한정명사구 지시대명사 콜 ( 구) 주어-술어술어-주어합계 146 90.1% 83 61.9% 69 53.1% 70 55.1% 28 93.3% 48 49.5% 12 66.7% 62 65.3% 23 60.5% 36 94.7% 39 90.7% 16 9.9% 51 38.1% 61 46.9% 57 44.9% 2 6.7% 49 50.5% 6 33.3% 33 34.7% 15 39.5% 2 5.3% 4 9.3% 162 100% 134 100% 130 100% 127 100% 30 100% 97 100% 18 100% 95 100% 38 100% 38 100% 43 100% 주어의형태론적범주와어순의상관관계는전체적으로매우높은것으로 나타났다. 어떤경우에도 주어- 술어 의어순보다 술어- 주어 의어순이더많 이나타난경우는없었으며, 주어가비한정명사인경우두어순의비율이가 장비슷하게나타났고, 주어가인칭대명사나접미명사인경우에도두어순의 비율은비슷한것으로나타났다. 주어- 술어 의어순이 90% 이상매우높은 비율로나타난경우는지시대명사(94.7%) 가가장높았으며, 다음으로접미명 사구(93.3%), 콜구(90.7%), 고유명사구(90.1%) 의순서로나타났다. 따라서주 어의형태론적범주는어순에큰영향을미친다고할수있다.

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 187 4.9.2. 술어의형태론적범주 < 표 18> Chi-Square 236.2704 P-Value <.0001 술어의형태론적범주와어순 주어-술어술어-주어합계 전치사구 189 65.6% 99 34.4% 288 100% 고유명사 194 92.8% 15 7.2% 209 100% 고유명사구 31 83.8% 6 16.2% 37 100% 비한정명사 81 57.4% 60 42.6% 141 100% 비한정명사구 13 61.9% 8 38.1% 21 100% 형용사 33 53.2% 29 46.8% 62 100% 수사 36 78.3% 10 21.7% 46 100% 접미명사 15 38.5% 24 61.5% 39 100% 지시대명사 0 0% 36 100% 36 100% 의문사 0 0% 23 100% 23 100% 한정명사 21 100% 0 0% 21 100% 한정명사구 12 100% 0 0% 12 100% 부사 5 35.7% 9 64.3% 14 100% 술어의형태론적범주와어순의상관관계는전체적으로매우높은것으로 나타났으며, 주어의형태론적범주와어순의상관관계보다훨씬더높은비 율로나타났다. 주어가고유명사나고유명사구의경우에는 주어- 술어 의어

188 성경원문연구제35호 순이고유명사(61.9%) 보다는고유명사구(90.1%) 에서훨씬더높은비율로나 타났으나, 술어가고유명사나고유명사구일경우에는 주어- 술어 의어순이 고유명사구(83.8%) 보다는고유명사(92.8%) 에서더높은비율로나타났다. 술 어가전치사구, 비한정명사( 구), 형용사, 수사인경우에는큰특징이나타나지 않았다. 술어의형태론적범주와어순의관계에서는주어의형태론적범주와는달 리 술어- 주어 의어순이많이나타났다. 술어가접미명사(61.5%) 나부사 (64.3%) 인경우에는 술어- 주어 의어순이조금더나타났으나술어가지시대 명사나의문사인경우에는 술어- 주어 의어순이절대적(100%) 으로나타났 다. 또한술어가한정명사나한정명사구인경우에는 주어- 술어 의어순이절 대적(100%) 으로나타났다. 따라서술어의형태론적범주는어순에큰영향을 미친다고할수있다. 4.10. 앤더슨의견해에대한평가 명사문장의어순에대해가장심도있게연구한대표적인학자는앤더슨이 다. 그는명사문장의어순에관한법칙을다음과같이아홉가지로소개한 다. 17) 법칙1. 주어와술어가모두한정되어있을때, 정체파악적문장18) 에서는주 어- 술어의순서이다. 법칙2. 정체파악적문장에서여분의대명사는술어전에온다. 법칙3. 분류문장에서술어-주어의순서에서는술어가주어보다상대적으 로비한정적이다. 법칙4. 분류문장에서여분의대명사는술어다음에오며법칙2와는대조를 이루나법칙3 을지킨다. 법칙5. 분류문장의상황절은법칙3, 4와는대조적으로주어-술어의순서를 갖는다. 법칙6. 대명사접미를갖는명사가술어일때주어- 술어의순서( 법칙1) 는대 명사접미를갖는명사가한정명사로서정체파악적문장이며, 술어-주어의 순서( 법칙3) 는대명사접미를갖는명사가비한정명사로서분류문장이다. 17) F. I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (New York: Abindon Press, 1970), 39-49. 18) 앤더슨이사용하는 정체파악적문장 이란용어에대해서본논문에서는 동질문장 이란용어로사용한다.

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 189 법칙7. 술어가분사( 구) 일때, 평서문에서의순서는주어- 술어이다. 법칙8. 술어가분사( 구) 일때술어- 주어의순서는기원문(precative) 문장에 서선호한다. 법칙9. 평서문의주어가부정사일때순서는술어- 주어이다. 술어는항상 비한정명사이다. 위아홉개의법칙중법칙2와법칙4는세구성소명사문장에대한것이며 법칙7과법칙8은분사문장에대한것이므로본주제와관련된법칙은 5 개( 법 칙1, 3, 5, 6, 9) 로그 5개의법칙을각각본논문의자료및분석과비교하여평 가해보면다음과같다. (1) 그는명사문장의어순을한정성과동질/ 비동질문장( 정체파악/ 분류문 장) 이라는변수에서주로분석하였고술어가접미명사일때와주어가부정사 일때만을고려함으로다른많은경우의변수를고려하지못했다는점을지 적할수있다. (2) 법칙1은대체로맞으나특히술어가접미명사인경우많은예외가발견 된다. (3) 법칙3 에대해서는예외를발견할수없었다. 따라서법칙3과대조를이 루는법칙5 에대한평가는내릴수없었다. (4) 법칙6은법칙1 과관련된것으로많은예외가발견되었다. (5) 법칙9에해당하는경우의문장은본논문의자료에서는총 9 개가있다. 그중 8개는술어- 주어의순서이고, 1개는주어-술어의순서이므로법칙으로 삼기에는위험하다고할수있다. 5. 나가는말 성서히브리어명사문장의어순은단순하게취급할수없다. 전체적으로 주어- 술어 의어순(66.7%) 이 술어- 주어 의어순(33.3%) 보다더높게나타난 다고하여 주어- 술어 의어순이정상적인어순이라말할수는없다. 어순에 영향을미치는변수를다각도로살펴보아신중하게결정해야만한다. 통계학 계의이론을받아들일경우본논문의분석에서 어순에영향을미친다 고단 정적으로말할수있는것은다음네가지경우뿐이다. (1) 목록텍스트에서술어가지시대명사, 고유명사구, 수사일때는 술어-주

190 성경원문연구제35호 어 의어순(100%) 을갖는다. (2) 목록텍스트에서주어가지시대명사, 인칭대명사, 콜( 구) 일때는 주어- 술어 의어순(100%) 을갖는다. (3) 술어가한정명사나한정명사구일때는 주어- 술어 의어순(100%) 을갖 는다. 다. (4) 술어가지시대명사나의문사일때는 술어- 주어 의어순(100%) 을갖는 앞의네가지경우외에도어순에영향을미치는변수가많기는하지만그 비율이 95% 를넘지않으므로단정적으로말할수는없고가능성이 매우높 다, 높다, 대체로그렇다, 낮다, 매우낮다 등으로표현해야할것이다. < 주제어>(Keywords) 명사문장, 어순, 주어/ 술어, 성서히브리어, 계사. Nominal Sentences, Word Order, Subject/Predicate, Biblical Hebrew, Copula. ( 투고일자: 2014년 8월 1 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 191 < 참고문헌>(References) 권성달, to be 에상응하는우리말과여러언어에서의비교연구, 언어학 16:2 (2008), 69-91. 권성달, 성서히브리어명사문장에서의한정성에관한연구, 성경원문연구 29 (2011), 7-32. 권성달, 성서히브리어세구성소명사문장에관한연구, 성경원문연구 33 (2013), 7-33. Albrecht, C., Die Wortstellung im habräischen Nominalsatz, ZAW 8 (1988), 249-263. Andersen, F. I., The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, New York: Abingdon Press, 1970. Bendavid, A., Parallels in the Bible, Jerusalem: Carta, 1972. Blau, J., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993. Buth, R., Word Order in the Verbless Clause, C. L. Miller ed., The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew 79-108. Linguistic Approaches, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1999, Davidson, A. B., Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed., Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1985. Gesenius, W., Kautsch, E., and Cowley, A. E., Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, the Late E. Kautzsch, ed., A. E. Cowley, rev., New York: Oxford University Press, 1910. Gross, W., Is There Really a Compound Nominal Clause in Biblical Hebrew?, The Verbless Clauses in Biblical Hebrew - Linguistic Approaches, C. L. Miller, ed., Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1999, 19-49. Hoftijzer, J., The Nominal Clause Reconsidered [rev. of F. I. Andersen s the Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch], Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973), 446-510. Merwe, C. H. J. van der, Naudé, Jackie A., and Kroeze, Jan H., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Moore, D. S., Statistics Concepts and Controversies, 5th ed., New York: Freeman and Company, 2001. Muraoka, T., Emphatic words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1985. Polzin, R., Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976. Stokes, M. E., Davis, C. S., and Koch, G. G., Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System, Cary: SAS Institute Inc. 1995. Waltke, B. K. and O Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

192 성경원문연구제35호 Williams, R. J., Williams Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed., Revised and Expanded by Beckman, J. C., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Young Ian, Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2003. Zvi, T., Syntactical Modifications Reflecting the Functional Structure of the Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (written in Hebrew), Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990.

성서히브리어명사문장의어순에관한연구 / 권성달 193 <Abstract> A Study on the Word Order in the Nominal Sentences of Biblical Hebrew Sung-Dal Kwon (Westminster Graduate School of Theology) Word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal sentences is one of the most important themes that have been addressed for the past 100 years in the discipline of Biblical Hebrew linguistics. It can be said that the correct understanding of word order has enormous influence on the interpretation of the Bible because the word order of predicate-subject as well as subject-predicate frequently occur actually in Biblical Hebrew and the interpretation of texts can differ depending on what is the normal word order. With semantic categories of nominal sentences, definiteness, morphological categories of subjects and predicates, chracters of sentences (identification and non-identification sentences), types of sentences (matrix and subordinate clauses, predicative and interlocutory styles, and declarative and interrogative sentences), syntactic structures (kinds of sentences, use of particular particles, and use of relative pronouns) etc. as important factors that can have influence on word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal sentences, this study tries to approach word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal sentences by systematically analyzing whether, and how far if any, such factors actually have a correlation with word order in nominal sentences. As a result of the statistical analysis of word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal sentences based on precise data along with diverse variables, we can draw the following conclusions. (1) In prayer texts, different from other interlocutory sentences, the order of predicate-subject occurs about twice as much as that of subject-predicate. (2) In list texts, the proportion of subject-predicate turns out to be high (82.3%). (3) There is a correlation between identification/non-identification sentences and word order. (4) There is a correlation between independent/subordinate clauses and word

194 성경원문연구제35호 order. (5) There is a correlation between interrogative/declarative sentences and word order. (6) There is a correlation between definiteness and word order. (7) There is a very high correlation between morphological categories of subjects/predicates and word order. The word order is of subject-predicate when the morphological category of the subject is demonstrative pronoun (94.7%), suffixal noun phrase (93.3%), kol -phrase (90.7%), and proper noun (90.1%). When the morphological category of the predicate is proper noun (92.8%), the word order is of subject-predicate. Also, in cases where the predicate is a definite noun or a definte noun phrase, the word order of subject-predicate absolutely accounts for 100%. When the morphological category of the predicate is demonstrative pronoun or interrogative pronoun, the word order of predicate-subject absolutely accounts for 100%. (8) Variables that don t have influence on word order in Biblical Hebrew nominal setnences are periods (Standard Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew) and semantic categories (simple be, exist, and become). Though tense and word order appear to have a correlation, we can say that there is no correlation between tense and word order since such a phenomenon appears because other variables have relations with tense rather than because tense itself has influence on word order.

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 195 누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 정창욱 * 1. 서론 신약성경에종종등장하는명사인 fo,boj 는다음과같이여러가지의미를 전달해준다: 놀람, 위협, 공포/ 무서움(terror), 경계, 경외/ 두려움(reverence), 존경 (respect). 1) 이가운데주로사용되는의미는 공포/ 무서움 과 경외/ 두 려움 이라고할수있다. 그렇다면이두개념은어떻게조화를이루며사용 될수있는것일까? 우선이단어들의한글의미부터분명하게정의할필요 성이있다. 한글 경외 는무슨의미일까? 이것은공포/ 무서움과는어떻게 다른가? 2) 경외 를국어사전은 공경하면서두려워함 으로뜻을풀어준 다. 3) 이것은단순히무서워겁에질려떠는공포와는다르다. 그러면 무서 움 과 두려움 의차이는무엇인가? 이두단어의의미를국어사전은다음 과같이설명한다. 두려움 은 두려워하다 와관련있는데, 꺼리거나무서 워하는마음을가짐 혹은 상대를공경하고어려워함 이라는의미를전달 한다. 공포심의개념도있으나 경외 와유사한의미로도사용되는것이다. 영어로표현하자면 awe 또는 fear 라고할수있으며, 이런의미에서 두 려움 은 무서움 과는다르다. 4) 무서움 은 무서워하다 와 무섭다 와관련 * Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam에서신약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재총신대학교신약신학교수. cwjung21@gmail.com. 1) BDAG 에따르면, 이명사는기본적으로 위협 을의미하며위협과관련된반응으로서공포를가리킨다. 더나아가, 이런반응의결과로만들어지는무서움, 경고, 놀람의의미까지전달하며거기서한걸음더나아가하나님을향해서표현하는 경외/ 외경 을, 인간에대해서는 존경 을표현해주는단어로설명한다. BDAG, 1062 를참조하라. 이와같은이해는리델과스코트(H. G. Liddell & R. Scott) 의고전헬라어사전에서도그대로나타나서, 이단어의기본적인뜻을 panic fear 로제시한다. H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1843; 9 th 1958), 1947. 2) 본논문의한글단어에대한정의는국립국어원에서편찬한표준국어대사전에근거한것이다. 이사전은웹사이트에서사용이가능하다. http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/main.jsp. 3) 이사전에따르면, 경외와비슷한의미를전달하는말로 외경 이나 존외 를들수있다.

196 성경원문연구제35호 이있으며, 이것은사전적으로 어떤대상에대하여꺼려지거나무슨일이 일어날까겁을냄 이라는의미를전달한다. 영어로는 terror, being terrified/frightened 로표현할수있다. 이와같은설명에근거하여둘사이의 차이를엄밀하게구별해보자면 두려워하다 는무서워하는마음을갖는다 는의미를전달하기도하지만공경과어려움의감정이있을때사용하고, 무서워하는것은그런감정없이겁을내고꺼리는모습을그려준다고볼 수있다. 따라서서로의의미를구별하기위하여 무서움 은 공포 로 두려 움 은 경외 로각각설명해볼수있다. 5) 앞서설명한대로, 헬라어명사 fo,boj는이렇게 무서움 혹은 두려움 이 라는뜻을나타낸다고할수있다. 그렇다면과연이명사가문맥에따라전 달해주고있는그의미를한글성경은올바르게이해하여번역하고있는 가? 이같은질문에답을찾기위해연구를진행하되, 모든신약성경을살 피기보다는누가복음- 사도행전을중심으로논의를해나가고자한다. 빈도 수로보자면신약에서 fo,boj 는 행전에 47번등장하는데그중에서누가복음-사도 12 번나타난다( 눅 7 번, 행 5 번). 6) 특히이명사가다른세개의복음 서전체에서불과 7번쓰인반면에누가복음에만 7 번등장한다. 게다가누 가복음과사도행전은서로다른시대배경속에서일어난사건을동일한 저자가기록하고있다. 곧예수님의지상생애와예수님의죽음/ 부활후의 배경을각각가지고있어서보다다양한맥락속에서사용되기에그런용 례들을비교연구할수있다. 따라서누가복음과사도행전에나타난 fo,boj 를어떻게이해해야하는지, 또한그에따라이떻게번역해야하는지를연 4) 영어단어 fear 는공경하면서두려워하는것을포함한다고볼수있다. 이에대한자세한사항은아래각주 10 번을참조하라. 5) 두렵다 에대한설명은국어사전에서볼수있는대로다음과같이제시해볼수있다: ( 무엇이) 두렵고 의 두렵고 는형용사 두렵다 의활용형으로, 어떤대상을무서워하여마음이불안하고/ 마음에꺼리거나염려스럽고 라는뜻을나타내고, ( 무엇을) 두려워하고 의 두려워하고 는동사 두려워하다 의활용형으로, 꺼려하거나무서워하는마음을갖고/ 상대를공경하고어려워하고 라는뜻을나타낸다. < 참고> 두렵다, 두려워하다 의용례나는아무것도두려울것이없었다./ 앞날이두렵다. 그는나를두려워하고있다./ 버릇없이자란아이들이어른을두려워할줄모른다. 6) 누가복음- 사도행전에서 두려움 에해당하는 fo,boj ( 주격) 이많이사용된다: fo,boj- 신약전체 12번중 7 번 ( 눅 3 번, 행 4 번, 다른복음서에는없음; 롬 2 번, 요일 2 번, 계 1 번); fobou- 9 번중 2 번 ( 눅 2 번, 마 3 번, 막 1 번,); fo,bw (Luk 8:37, BNT) 10번중 2 번 ( 눅 1 번, 행 1 번, 다른복음서들에는없음 ) fobon- 15번중 1 번 ( 눅 1 번, 막 1 번; 요한복음에 3 번쓰이는데모두 두려움때문에 란의미로 dia, 와함께사용되며, 나머지는바울서신 6 번, 다른서신 2 번, 계시록 2 번). 이상과같은통계치를나타낸다. 참조, 동사형의명령법 fobou는신약에 13번쓰이는데그중에 7번이누가복음- 사도행전에등장한다.

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 197 구하고자한다. 7) 2. 예수님의탄생기사의세가지사건속사람들의반응 예수님의잉태와탄생을기록하고있는누가복음 1, 2장에서이명사는 세번등장한다. 신적존재로서하나님의아들이신메시야의탄생과관련 하여사람들의반응을묘사하면서누가는 두려움 이나 무서움 을의미하 는명사 fo,boj를사용한다. 이명사의신약과누가복음에서의빈도수를생 각할때 1, 2 장에세번이나등장하는것은의미가있다. 하나님의아들의 탄생과관련되어있는사건들을그당시사람들이어떠한마음으로받아들 였는지를보여주기때문이다. 그렇다면이명사는세곳의문맥에서각각 어떠한의미를전달해주는가? 2.1. 세례요한의잉태고지( 눅 1:12) 요한의잉태와출생과관련하여, 천사가요한의아버지사가랴에게나타 났을때사가랴가보인반응을기록하면서누가는 fo,boj 를사용한다 : καὶ ἐταράχθη Ζαχαρίας ἰδὼν καὶ φόβος ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ αὐτό ν. 사가랴가보고놀라며무서워하니 ( 개역개정 ) 이구절의뒷부분을개역과개역개정은 무서워했다 로번역하는 반면에, 나머지네개의한글역본곧표준, 새번역, 공동, 공동개정 은 두려움에사로잡혔다 로번역한다. 이렇게무서워/ 두려워하고있을때 천사는 13 절에서사가랴에게 무서워/ 두려워하지말라 고명령한다. 이때 fo,boj의동사형이사용된다. 이것을개역과개역개정은 무서워하지 말라 로번역하고나머지네개의역본은 두려워하지말라 로표현한다. 이것은바로앞구절인우리가지금다루고있는 12절에서사용된명사의 번역을반영하여그대로했다고볼수있다. 과연그렇다면사가랴는두려 워한것인가무서워한것인가? 사가랴의상황을고려해볼때공포에가까 운감정을느꼈다고판단해볼수있다. 12절에함께쓰인 tara,ssw의의미는 급격한혼란과당혹감을담고있다. 8) 게다가신약에서이동사는 무서워 7) 참고로동사형 fobe,omai의빈도수는다음과같다: 마 18 번, 막 10 번, 눅 18 번, 행 11 번, 요 3번그외 10. 총 70번중누가복음-사도행전에 29. 명사와동사를합친수는다음과같다: 마 21 번, 막 11 번, 눅 25 번, 요 6 번. 8) BDAG 는이동사의수동태가 be troubled, frightened, terrified 의의미를전달한다고설명하

198 성경원문연구제35호 하다 라는의미를표현하기도한다( 마 14:26 [ 병행구절막 6:50]). 또한그 때사가랴는혼자있었기때문에경외심보다는간이떨어질만큼놀라서 무서운마음이들었을것이다. 9) 이상과같은사항들을고려해볼때사가랴 의 12 절의반응은두려움보다는무서움에더가깝다고볼수있다. 영어성 경은거의모두명사 fear 를사용하면서동사와함께묶어서 fear fell upon him 으로쓰거나 was seized(gripped) with fear 로번역한다. 이것은이부분 의헬라어구문을볼때적합하다고여겨진다. 한가지주목할것은이영어 단어 fear 는경외심을함께담을수도있으나무서움을표현할수도있다 는것이다. 10) 보다분명하게 외경심 이란뜻을전달하고자했다면 awe 같 은단어를사용했을것이다. 그래서모든영어성경이이단어를썼다는것 은이부분에서 무서움 의감정이더압도적이라고번역자들이생각했음 을보여준다. 11) 결론적으로 12 절에서이명사는 두려움 보다는 무서움 을표현해주며 따라서표준, 새번역, 공동, 공동개정처럼, 두려움 이란의미를 전달하는것으로번역하는것은바람직하지못하다. 물론, 두려워하다 도 무서워하다 라는의미를전달할수는있으나, 이광경에서보다분명하게 무서움, 공포 로쓰는것이더타당해보인다. 그러므로이부분에서는 개역과개역개정의번역이원문의의미를적절하게전달해주고있다 고판단해볼수있다. 12) 면서본구절을그예로들고있다. 이동사의수동태가마가복음 6:50 에등장하는데, 이것은예수께서물위로걸어오시자제자들이유령인줄알고보인반응이다. 따라서이단어는겁에질린모습을표현해준다. 또한누가복음 24:38에서도사용되는데예수께서부활하신후제자들에게나타나자어리둥절하여겁에질린모습을그려준다. 따라서사가랴는천사의등장에유령을본것처럼놀랐음을알수있다. 9) 마샬(I. H. Marshall) 은이구절에서이동사가분명하게 to terrify 를의미한다고설명한다. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 55. 10) 언뜻보면 fear 는우리말로 공포 에가깝다. 하지만 Merriam Webster 사전에따르면이동사는 to have a reverential awe of <fear God> ( 에대해서공경하는두려움을갖는것< 하나님에대한두려움>) 이라는용법으로도사용된다. 이사전은다음의웹사이트에서이용할수있다. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ 11) NRSV는앞의동사곧 tara,ssw의과거수동태를 was terrified 로번역하여이부분에서사가랴가느끼는감정이 공포 에가까운것임을표현해준다. 12) 누가복음 1:30 에서도천사가마리아에게 무서워/ 두려워말라 고말한다. 개역과개역개정은 무서워말라 로나머지는 두려워말라 로번역한다. 이때 KJV를제외한영어성경은모두 do not be afraid 로옮겨놓았다. 그런데흥미롭게도 1:12 에무서워/ 두려워했다고묘사된사가랴의경우와는달리마리아가무서워/ 두려워했다는직접적표현은없다. 그저단순히 29절에서동사 diatara,ssw 를사용하여그런뉘앙스를간접적으로전달하기는하는데이동사는 ( 대단히) 당혹스러워하다, 혼동스러워하다 는의미를전달한다. 신약에서 무서워하다 라는의미를전달하는 12절에사용된같은어원의동사 tara,ssw와는달리그

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 199 2.2. 사가랴의입열림에대한사람들의반응( 눅 1:65) 1장 65 절에서도요한의출생후사가랴의입이열리자, 사람들에게 두려 움/ 무서움 (fo,boj) 이생긴다: Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ πάντας φόβος τοὺς περιοικοῦντας αὐτού ς, καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ὀρεινῇ τῆς Ἰουδαίας διελαλεῖτο πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦ τα. 그근처에사는자가다두려워하고이모든말이온유대산골에두 루퍼지매 ( 개역개정 ) 개역과개역개정 로번역하는반면에공동, 그리고표준과새번역은모두 두려워했다, 공동개정은 무서운생각마저들었다 로번 역한다. 그런데흥미롭게도이구절에서많은영어성경은 fo,boj를 fear 로 번역하지만 NIV, NJB, NLT 등은 awe 로번역한다. 13) 이것은사가랴의천 사방문의경우와는달리이부분에서무언가 경외심 이포함되어있다고 이영어성경의번역자들이판단했음을보여준다. 사가랴가벙어리로있다가요한의작명때에입이열리고하나님을찬양 하기시작하자사람들이보여준반응은공포와무서움으로보기는어렵다. 또한 58절의사람들의반응이즐거워하는것이었음을함께고려할때더욱 그렇다. 기적적인요한의잉태와사가랴의말문막힘, 그리고요한의출생 과사가랴의입열림의사건은유대인이었던사가랴주변사람들에게공포 보다는무언가경이로움과기대를갖게해주는것이었으리라고판단해볼 수있기때문이다. 사가랴가제사장이었고경건하여의로운사람이었다는 사실에비추어볼때그의주변의사람들도종교적으로신앙심이깊은사 람들이었다고생각해볼수있다. 14) 그래서이명사는이구절에서 두려 런의미로사용되지않아서, 그속에두려움/ 무서움의감정이있는지분명치않다. 따라서 1:12 처럼문맥이분명하게그런감정을가졌으리라는것을지지해주지않는다. 그러므로마리아에게천사가 두려워하지말라 라고말한것으로번역하는것이더바람직해보인다. 13) 앞서설명한대로 fear 가하나님에대한경외심을표현할수있기때문에, 많은영어성경들이 fo,boj를위의두구절에서 fear 로번역했다고판단해볼수있으며, 한글성경도비슷한개념으로 두려워 하는것으로이해했다고볼수있다. 따라서대부분의영어성경이 65절에서 fear 를쓴이유는그속에 경외심 이포함되어있었기때문이라고설명할수도있다. 하지만여전히경외심을분명히표현하고자한다면 awe 를사용하는것이바람직하다. 14) 그렇지않은경우라할지라도제사장이었던사가랴에게일어난경이로운일들에대한사람들의반응은 공포 라기보다는그가섬기는하나님에대한 경외 라고보는것이더타당하다. 그래서마샬은이감정을 하나님의존재를느끼게하는경외심 (numinous awe) 으로표현한다. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 89.

200 성경원문연구제35호 움, 경이로움, 경외심 을의미하는것으로보는것이더타당해보인다. 따라서공동, 공동개정의번역은올바르게고쳐질필요성이있다고판 단해볼수있다. 15) 또한다른한글성경들도 경외심을갖게되었다 로번 역하는것에대해생각해볼필요가있다. 2.3. 천사의출현에대한목자들의반응( 눅 2:9) 들판에서양들을돌보던목자들에게천사들이나타났을때목자들이보인반응은어떻게이해해야하는가? 2:9 는이렇게적고있다: καὶ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς καὶ δόξα κυρίου περιέλαμψεν αὐτού ς, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν. 주의사자가곁에서고주의영광이그들을두루비추매크게무서워 하는지라 ( 개역개정 ) 이구절에서목자들은무서워/ 두려워하는데그이유는천사가나타나고 주님의영광이그들을둘러싸고비추고있었기때문이다. 목자들의반응을 번역하면서개역과개역개정은 무서워하다 로, 표준과새번역은 두려워하다 로, 공동과공동개정은 겁에질려떨다 로번역한다. 여 기서한가지고려해야하는것은함께쓰인동사와형용사다 : ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέ γαν. 동일한의미를전달하는동사 (fobe,w) 와명사(fo,boj) 를함께사 용하고거기에명사를수식하는형용사 (me,ga) 를쓰고있는이표현은공포 를강조해주며따라서엄청난공포를느끼는장면을묘사하고있다고설 명해볼수있다. 16) 따라서목자들은아주무서워하는모습으로그려진다. 어두운들판에있던목자들에게나타난천사에대한반응으로는두려움보 다는무서움이더타당하다고할수있다. 그러므로공동 본문의의미를분명하게전달한다고판단해볼수있으며,, 공동개정이 개역과개역 개정도무난한번역이라할수있다. 반면에, 표준과새번역의 두려 워하다 는의미가약하다고판단해볼수있다. 사실영어성경은이런극단 적의미를전달하기위해서이부분을다양하게번역한다 : were terribly 15) 흥미롭게도공동, 공동개정은 1:30 의마리아에게하는천사의명령을 두려워말라 로번역한반면에이부분에서는 무서운생각마저들었다 로이해한다. 객관적인상황을따지자면처녀였던마리아가홀로천사를맞이했을때놀람과두려움이더크지않았을까? 어떻든그곳에서 두려워말라 로번역한후에이곳에서는 겁을집어먹었다 로번역하는것은이치에맞아보이지않는다. 16) D. L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 215.

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 201 frightened (NAS, NAU), were terrified (NIV), were greatly afraid (NKJV), were sore afraid (KJV), were frightened (CEV), filled with fear (ESV). 17) 이와관련하여 10 절도우리의관심을끈다. 그구절에서목자들에게천 사가 무서워/ 두려워하지말라 고말하기때문이다. 개역과개역개정 은 무서워말라 로언급하는반면에다른한글성경들은모두 두려워말 라 로번역한다. 특별히공동, 공동개정이 9 절에서는 겁에질려떨다 로번역하고 10 절에서는왜 두려워하다 로번역하는지이해하기가쉽지 않다. 9절의번역이문맥에맞으므로 10 절에서도일관성을가지고 무서워 하지말라 또는 겁내지말라/ 겁에질려떨지말라 로번역하는것이마땅 하다고볼수있다. 대부분의영어성경은이명령법을번역하면서 do not be afraid 를사용 한다. 그런데 ESV 는이명령법을 Fear not 으로이해하고있다. 이것은 ESV의전신인 RSV 의번역( Be not afraid ) 과도다른것이며, 또한 ESV가 오직이곳과분명히 무서워말라/ 공포에떨지말라 라는의미를전달하는 누가복음 12:7과 32 절에서만이표현을사용하기에설명이필요하다. 18) 가 능한설명은 9절에서 ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέ γαν를 filled with fear 로번역한 후에이것의영향으로 fear not 을썼다고보는것이다. 하지만다른부분에 서도헬라어명사 fo,boj가등장하며이것을 ESV 가 fear 로번역하기에이 설명은설득력이없다. 그렇다면결국 ESV는이부분에서목자들의무서움 / 두려움은공포에가까운느낌으로이해했다는설명이가능하다. 이것은 올바른이해라할수있으며, 한글성경들중에서 두려워말라 로되어있 는성경은수정이필요하다. 2.4. 정리 누가복음의예수님의탄생과관련된세가지사건, 곧사가랴에게행한 가브리엘의요한잉태고지, 사가랴의말문트임, 목자들에게나타난천사, 이세사건의상황은무서워/ 두려워할만한것이었고, 그런반응은타당성 이있었다. 이러한반응을표현하기위해서누가는 fo,boj 를사용한다. 그 17) 이구문을놀란드(J. Nolland) 는 were deeply frightened 로번역하여 공포 의개념을분명하게언급한다. J. Nolland, Luke 1:-9:20 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 97. 18) RSV도 12:7, 32 에서는 Fear not 을사용하는데, 그부분에서동사가분명하게 무서워하다, 공포에떨다 라는의미를전달해준다: Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows. (12:7); Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. (12:32)

202 성경원문연구제35호 런데각상황에서어떤미묘한차이가발견된다. 사가랴는천사의등장에 굉장히당황하여놀라며무서워했을것이라생각해볼수있고, 사가랴의 주변에서소식을들은사람들은요한의출생과사가랴의말문트임에놀라 워하면서경외심을가지면서두려워했다는생각을해볼수있으며, 목자 들은벌어진현상에대해무서워할만했다고설명해볼수있다. 결국무서 움/ 두려움을느끼는주체와그내용에따라서동일한명사를사용하더라도 의미상의차이가있음을알수있다. 그러므로첫번째, 세번째사건의경 우에는 무서움 을강조하는방식으로, 두번째사건은 두려움/ 경외심 을 강조하는표현을가지고번역하는것이바람직하다고할수있다. 그래서 두번째경우에, 경외심이생기다, 경외하는마음이생기다 등으로이해 해볼필요가있다. 또한목자들의경우에는무서워떠는모습으로여겨지 기때문에 겁에질리다, 공포에떨다 혹은어느한글성경처럼 겁에질 려떨다 로번역하는것이바람직하다고여겨진다. 3. 예수님의기적사역에대한사람들의반응과종말예언 속의사람들의반응 예수님의지상사역속에서기적을행하실때에사람들의반응속에 fo,boj 가등장한다. 이명사는각상황속에서어떻게사용되는가? 또한예 수님의종말에대한담화에서도종말에사람들의모습을그리며이명사를 사용하는데, 그때이것은어떠한의미를전달하는가? 3.1. 중풍병자치유사건( 눅 5:26) 예수께서앉아계신집의지붕에네사람이구멍을뚫고중풍걸린사람 을그앞에내려놓자예수께서그를치유해주신후에보여준사람들의반 응을누가복음 5:26 은이렇게기록하고있다: καὶ ἔκστασις ἔλαβεν ἅπαντας καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν φόβου λέγοντες ὅτι εἴδομεν παράδοξα σή μερον. 모든사람이놀라하나님께영광을돌리며심히두려워하여이르되 오늘우리가놀라운일을보았다하니라 ( 개역개정 ) 사람들은예수님의치유사역을보며심히두려워/ 무서워하며자신들이

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 203 놀라운일 을보았다고말한다. 놀라운일 은원문에서는복수로 parado,xa 로되어있다. 그래서중풍병자가일어나, 침상을들고하나님을찬양하고, 집으로걸어돌아가는일들을모두포괄한다고볼수있다. 이단어는 70인 역에는몇번사용되나신약에서는오직이곳에서만사용된다. 19) 이명사 는인간이성으로는기대하기어렵고이해하기어려운특별하고도기이한 일들을의미한다. 다시말해인간의상식적인기준을넘어서는일들을가 리킨다. 20) 이러한특별한경이로운일들을보고서백성들은 fo,boj 로가득채워진 다. 21) 이때에 채워지다 를위해사용된동사는수동태로서 신적수동태 로이해할수있다. 다시말해하나님께서백성들을 fo,boj 로채워주셨던 것이다. 22) 그런두려움/ 무서움의감정이경이로운일에대한반응이며또 한하나님과직접연결되어있고하나님께사람들이영광을돌리고있음을 보여주기때문에이구절에서이명사는하나님에대한 경외심 또는그감 정을나타내는 두려움 으로번역하는것이가장바람직해보인다. 이러한 해석은이구절앞부분에있는명사 ἔ κστασις 의사용과도잘어우러진다. 이명사는신약에서모두 7 번사용되는데, 원래 장소에서이탈하는것 ( being put out of place ) 을의미하며그래서 황홀경 혹은 공포 나 놀라 움 을의미하기도한다. 23) 이것은사도행전에 4번쓰이는데그중세번은 황홀경 (ecstacy) 을의미한다(10:10, 11:5, 22:17). 하지만사도행전 3:10에서 당혹스러워하며의아해서깜짝놀람을뜻한다. 또한이단어는마가복음 16:8 에서혼비백산하여넋이나간모습을표현해준다. 24) 결국누가복음 19) 이단어는 70인역에서 5 번사용되는데 믿을수없는 이라는의미로쓰이기도하고(Judith 13:13), 또는 기대하지않은 (2Ma 9:24) 역설적인 (paradoxical) (4Ma 2:14) 기묘한 (Wis 19:5) 이상한 (Sir 43:245) 등의의미로사용된다. 이상의예문에서보듯이이단어는무언가정상적이지않은, 또한기대하는것과는다른, 상식적으로일어날수없는그어떤상태의일들을묘사할때사용된다. 20) BDAG(763) 에따르면이단어는다음과같은의미를전달한다: Contrary to opinion or exceeding expectation, strange, wonderful, remarkable. 21) 이부분에서개역개정은부사인 심히 를집어넣었는데, 이것은아마도 두려움이가득하다 를의역하여그렇게한듯하다. 22) 누가복음의문장의순서를볼때사람들이이렇게두려움으로채워지기전에 하나님께영광을돌렸다 고설명하고있다는데서도이런주장의근거를찾을수있다. 23) BDAG, 309; Liddell & Scott, A Greek-English Dictionary, 520. 24) 그곳에서헬라어는두가지명사를함께사용한다 : tro,moj kai. e;kstasij. 개역성경은 심 히놀라떨며 라고번역하여이명사의순서를바꾸어놓는데이것은한글의의미를보다자연스럽게만들려는시도로읽혀진다. 이문맥에서는단순한두려움/ 놀람보다는정신이빠진듯한넋이빠진모습으로볼수있다. 무서워떨면서넋이나가서는 으로번역해볼수있다.

204 성경원문연구제35호 5:26 에서도깜짝놀라경탄해마지않는모습을그려주며그러면서사람들 이하나님께영광을돌리고경외심을나타냈음을알수있다. 25) 이런생각의흐름을반영하는듯이, 한글성경은모두 두려움 으로번역 하며, 영어성경중에여러개가이명사를 공포 나 두려움 을모두나타낼 수있는 fear 대신에 경외심 을분명하게강조해주는 awe 로번역한다. 26) 다만한가지제안하고싶은것은이헬라어구문 (ἐπλήσθησαν φό βου) 을한 글로번역하면서 큰두려움에사로잡혔다 혹은 완전히두려움에사로잡 혔다 로표현하는것이다. 이것은두려움으로가득찼다는원문의의미를 잘전달해줄수있기때문이다. 그와동시에, 경외심으로가득했다 로번 역할수도있을것이다. 3.2. 나인성과부의아들부활사건( 눅 7:16) 예수께서나인성과부의아들을살려주신후에그것을본사람들은다음 과같이반응했다 : ἔλαβεν δὲ φόβος πάντας καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν λέγοντες ὅτι προφήτης μέγας ἠγέρθη ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ὅτι ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. 모든사람이두려워하며하나님께영광을돌려이르되큰선지자가 우리가운데일어나셨다하고또하나님께서자기백성을돌보셨다하 더라 ( 개역개정 ) 이구절에서도앞의 5:26 과마찬가지로 두려움 과 하나님을영화롭게 하는것 이함께연결되어있다. 그렇게볼때에이구절에서도두려움은하 나님과깊은연관이있음을알수있다. 그래서모든한글성경은이부분에 서이명사를 두려움 으로이해한다. 하나님을어려워하면서도공경하는 마음으로기대하며높이는모습인것이다. 그런데 5:26과는약간다른경향 25) 보봉(F. Bovon) 은분명하게하나님에대한경외감이놀라운일들을보고생겨났다고표현한다. F. Bovon, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, C. M. Thomas, trans. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 184. 피츠마이어(J. A. Fitzmyer) 는앞서다룬누가복음 1, 2장의구절에서는 fo,boj명사를 fear 로번역하는반면에이구절과앞으로본논문이다룰 7장 16 절에서는 awe 로번역한다. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (New York; London; Toronto: Doubleday, 1970), 586, 659. 26) RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NJB, NLT. 흥미롭게도현대적번역을추구하는 NJB, NLT가이단어를사용한다는것이다: filled with awe. 또한다른부분에서이명사를 fear 로번역하고있는벅(D. L. Bock) 도이부분에서는분명하게이단어를 awe 로번역한다. D. L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 487.

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 205 이이구절의영어성경번역에서나타난다. 앞의 5장의예에서 fo,boj를 awe 로번역했던성경들중몇개는이구절에서이명사를 fear 로번역한 다(RSV, ESV, NRSV, NLT). 이것은단순히문체의다양성을위한선택일 수도있으나그보다는이문맥에서이명사의의미에대한번역자의해석 을반영해준다. 5 장에서 awe 를선택하여단순한무서움보다는 경외심 을강조하고자했을수있고그와는다르게 7 장에서는 fear 를사용하여경 외심보다는무서움을더많이표현하려했을수도있다. 사실백성들이놀란이유는기적의사건들이하나님에의해일어난일이 라고생각했기때문인데, 그당시이스라엘백성들은당연히하나님에대 한경외심을가지고있었다. 따라서두부분에서모두 경외심, 두려움 으 로번역하는것이무리가없어보인다. 그런데 5장의사건과 7장의사건사 이의무게의차이가있는것은사실이다. 27) 5장은중풍병자의치유사건을 기록하고있고 7장은나인성과부의죽은아들을다시살리신사건을기록 하고있다. 둘다사람들을놀라게하고무섭고두려운마음이하나님앞에 서들게하는사건들임에는틀림없으나, 무서움/ 두려움의강도는 7장이훨 씬강하다고할수있다. 게다가 5장에서반응을보인사람들은예수님의 말씀을듣기위해모여든사람들이었던반면에, 7장에서는장례를위해왔 다우연히광경을보았던사람들이다. 이와같은사항을고려해볼때죽은 사람을살린 7장의사건에대한반응으로무서움이강하게포함되어있음 을기억할필요가있으며, 따라서 7:16 에서이명사를 무서움 으로표현하 는것이바람직하다고판단해볼수있다. 그래서함께쓰인헬라어동사를 고려하여 겁을먹었다, 무서워했다 로번역해볼수있을것이다. 28) 3.3 거라사인의땅에서귀신들린사람을고쳐주신사건( 눅 8:37) 27) 이것이아마도 CEV가 5:26과 7:16을번역하면서이명사에대해아주다르게이해한이유일것이다. 두구절의 CEV 번역을비교하면다음과같다: Everyone was amazed and praised God. What they saw surprised them, and they said, We have seen a great miracle today! (5:26) Everyone was frightened and praised God. They said, A great prophet is here with us! God has come to his people. (7:16) 5 장의경우에직역이아니라의역을하는데, 명사 fo,boj를 surprise ( 놀라다: 그들을놀라게했다) 를써서그의미를전달한다. 그반면에 7 장에서는 frighten 의수동을써서 겁먹다 라는의미로번역한다. 5장은놀람이강조되는반면에 7장은겁먹어서두려워하는모습이그려지고있다. 28) 무서워하다 에해당하는동사의시제는과거이며, 영광을돌리다 라는동사의시제는미완료과거다. 따라서 사람들이겁에질려버렸고하나님께영광을돌리기시작했다 로번역하면무난하다고볼수있다.

206 성경원문연구제35호 예수께서거라사인의땅에가셔서많은귀신이들려있던사람을고쳐주 신후에그근처지역사람들이보여준반응이 8:37 에설명되어있다: καὶ ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῆς περιχώρου τῶν Γερασηνῶν ἀπελθεῖν ἀπ αὐτῶ ν, ὅτι φόβῳ μεγάλῳ συνείχοντο αὐτὸς δὲ ἐμβὰς εἰς πλοῖον ὑπέ στρεψεν. 거라사인의땅근방모든백성이크게두려워하여예수께떠나가시기 를구하더라예수께서배에올라돌아가실새 ( 개역개정 ) 한글성경중에서개역, 개역개정, 표준, 새번역은 φόβῳ μεγάλῳ συνείχοντο을 크게두려워했다 로이해한다. 반면에공동, 공동개정은 몹시겁을집어먹었다 로번역하여공포심을더강조해준다. 어느것이더 적절한것일까? 이문맥에서그인근의사람들은예수님에대해서경외하 는마음보다는공포스러워하고무서워하는마음이훨씬강했다고판단해 볼수있다. 이부분의이적기사는앞의이적기사와는확연하게다른점이 있다. 우선이사건은하나님의백성이스라엘사람들이머무는유대지역 이아니라이방인지역에서일어났다. 29) 그리고이방지역에살던이방사 람들과관련하여일어난이적사건이다. 또한이구절에기록된이적에대 한반응은유대인과예수님에대해그리호의적이지않던이방인들의반응 이다. 앞의두사건에서는유대교와구약의전통을따라하나님을알던유 대인들의기적에대한반응이었던반면에이부분에서는하나님을전혀알 지못하는이방인들의반응을말해준다. 30) 또하나주목해볼것은여기서사용된동사 sune,cw의의미다. 이동사는 아주강한의미를전달하여, 심하게누르다 (press hard) 혹은 고통스럽게 하다 (distress) 라는뜻으로사용된다. 31) 형용사 me,ga와함께쓰여서엄청난 29) 이지역이어디였는가하는것은큰연구과제다. 우선사본학적인어려움이있어서이것이누가복음처럼 거라사 인지마태복음처럼 가다라 인지를결정해야한다. 이것에대한자세한논의는본연구의범위를넘어서는것이기에더이상진행하지않는다. 다만, 한가지분명한것은이지역이갈릴리맞은편지역이방인들의영토였다는사실이다. 이에대한자세한논의를위해서는 M. Wolter, Das Lukas-evangelium (Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 317 을보라. 30) 스타인(R. H. Stein) 은분명하게이사람들이가졌던무서움/ 두려움은단순히무시무시한공포에지나지않았으며따라서열매를맺을수가없었다고설명한다. R. H. Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 258. 31) BDAG, 970-971. 이단어에대해 BDAG 는 hard press 라는뜻을제시하면서그림언어로이렇게표현한다: to press in and around so as to leave little room for movement. 또한 distress, torment 라는뜻을제시하면서 to cause distress by force of circumstance 라는표현을쓴다. 이것은굉장히압박을받고고통에시달리는모습을그려준다.

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 207 고통과스트레스에시달리며겁에질린모습을그려준다. 그래서 φόβῳ μεγάλῳ συνείχοντο를이렇게직역할수있다: 무서움( 공포)/ 두려움에심하 게짓눌려있었다. 이부분의해석에서독일어성경중하나인 롭게도 EIN은흥미 Angst 라는단어를사용하여 공포 를강조하는데이단어를 fo,boj 가등장하는다른부분에서거의모든독일어성경이사용하지않는다. 32) 그러므로이부분에서는 무서워하다 로번역하는것이마땅해보인다. 모 든영어성경도예외없이이명사를 해라고할수있다. 따라서개역과개역개정, fear 로번역하는데이것은정확한이 표준과새번역의이 명사에대한이구절의번역은공포나겁에질린모습을보다분명하게묘 사하는표현으로바꾸는것이타당하다고판단해볼수있다. 그래서 완전 히겁에질리다, 크게공포심을느끼다 혹은 대단히겁을먹다 로번역할 것을제안해본다. 3.4 종말에대한예언( 눅 21:26) 예수님의종말에대한예언속에이런내용이있다 : ἀποψυχόντων ἀνθρώπων ἀπὸ φόβου καὶ προσδοκίας τῶν ἐπερχομένων τῇ οἰκουμένῃ, αἱ γὰρ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σαλευθή σονται. 사람들이세상에임할일을생각하고무서워하므로기절하리니이는 하늘의권능들이흔들리겠음이라 ( 개역개정 ) 이부분에서명사 fo,boj의의미는아주분명하다. 사람들이장차닥칠일 을생각하면서공포에질려거의죽을지경이되는모습을그려준다. 33) 따 라서이부분에서는경외심이나외경심이들어갈여지가없다. 그래서한 글성경은모두 무서워하다 나 공포에떨다 로번역하며, 영어성경도거 의모두 fear 로번역하고 NIV 는아예 terror 로번역해버린다. 이러한번 역은아주적절하다고할수있다. 32) 대신거의대부분 Furcht 로번역하여두려움/ 경외를표현한다. 참고로 EIN은 1980년에출간된독일어성경 Einheitsubersetzung 의약자어다. 33) 캐롤(J. T. Carroll) 은이구절에서세상사람들은공포와두려움에고통받으며시달릴것이라고말해준다고설명한다. 그러면서예수께서는믿는사람들에게그때에구원의소망을가지고일어나머리를들라고명령하고계심을언급한다. 그러므로이부분에서이명사는분명하게 공포 를표현해준다. J. T. Carroll, Luke (Lousville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 420.

208 성경원문연구제35호 3.5 정리 예수님의기적사역에대한반응에서도그사건의성격과반응하는사람 들의종류에따라서 fo,boj는차별적의미를전달한다. 이방인들은기적에 대해서 공포 의감정을느낀다. 그반면에유대인들은경외심을포함한무 서움을표현한다. 다만이때도상황에따라그리고대상에따라어느한쪽 이강조되기도한다. 마지막구절의예수님의종말에대한예언에서 불신 자 들은장차닥칠환란을생각하며반응하는데이때온전히 공포심 을 드러낸다. 4. 사도행전에등장하는 fo,boj 의이해 누가복음에서무서움/ 두려움을나타내는 fo,boj는예수님의탄생과사역 과관련하여일어난사건에대해서유대인들또는이방인들이보여준반응 을표현하기위해사용되었다. 그리고한번은종말에닥칠재앙에대한불 신자의반응과관련하여사용되었다. 반면에사도행전에서는이제부활하 신그리스도를믿는사람들, 특별히사도들에의해행해진일들과관련하 여사람들의반응을보여주기위해이명사를사용한다. 그렇다면각문맥 에서이명사는어떤의미를전달하는가? 4.1. 사도들의많은기사와표적( 행 2:43) 다 : 사도행전 2:43에이명사가사용되는데이구절의헬라어구문은흥미롭 ἐγίνετο δὲ πάσῃ ψυχῇ φόβος, πολλά τε τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγί νετο. 사람마다두려워하는데사도들로말미암아기사와표적이많이나타 나니 ( 개역개정 ) 앞부분과뒷부분이접속사 te 로연결되어서다양한해석이가능하다. 우선 fo,boj의의미를살펴보자면, 한글성경은모두 두려워하다 로이해하 며, 거의모든영어성경은 경외심 을의미한다고판단하여 awe 로번역한 다. KJV과 NKJV, RSV 만이이것을 fear 로언급하지만, 이것에큰의미를

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 209 부여할필요는없다. 이세성경은이명사를거의기계적으로 fear 로번역 하기때문이다. 그런데흥미롭게도 RSV를근간으로하면서도서로다른 성향을나타내는두번역본, NRSV와 ESV 는의견을같이하여 awe 를사용 한다. 이것은이부분에서 awe 가더바람직함을입증해준다. 34) 여기서 사 람마다 로번역된단어는이맥락에서믿는사람들보다는초대교회밖에 있던유대인들을가리킨다. 35) 이유대인들에게믿음의공동체는 두려움/ 경외심 을불러일으켰던것이다. 그런데이구절의앞뒤부분의논리적연결은접속사 te 와관련하여애 매하다. 이접속사는앞뒤문장을단순히연결하는역할을하며따라서 그 리고, 그와같이 등의의미를전달한다. 36) 사도들이많은이적과기사를 일으켰기에모든사람들이무서워했다는것인지, 아니면기적의행함과사 람들의무서움은인과관계없이별개였는지문장구성상애매하다. 문법 상으로는후자로보아야하지만논지의흐름상으로는전자가더적합해보 인다. 이것이아마도어떤사본들에서 43절의뒤에 fo,boj를다시한번집어 넣은이유일것이다. 37) 그래서다양한번역이제시된다. NRSV는앞뒤문장 을 because로연결하며여러영어역본들은세미콜론이나콜론을넣어서앞 뒤문장을연결한다. 38) 이렇게되면결과적으로다양하게해석이가능하 다. 어떻든두려워하는상태와기적과표적의행함은서로연결이된다고 볼수있다. 사도들이많은기적들과표적들을행하는것과사람들이그것 들을보면서두려움을가진것사이에연관이있다는것이다. 따라서이문 맥에서는경외심을포함하고있는 두려움 으로보는것이적절하다. 하나 님께서사도들을통해행하시는초자연적인일들을보고사람들이두려운 마음을가졌던것이다. 34) 그런데독일어성경중 MNT 가 Angst 를사용한다는사실이흥미롭다. 이는공포와무서움을표현해주기때문이다. 왜이단어를선택했는지에대한연구가요청된다. 35) D. L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 151. 36) BDAG, 993. 37) 이부분에서많은믿을만한사본들 ( 47, a, A, C, Y, 326, 1175) 이 43절뒤에다음과같은표현을첨가하였다 : evn vihrousalh,m, fo,boj te h=n me,gaj evpi. pa,ntaj. 이렇게될때에비로소이문장의논리적연결은완전해보인다. 사도들이많은기사와표적들을예루살렘에서행하는것을보고사람들이두려워했다고보는것이자연스럽기때문이다. 물론, 더자연스러운독법이기에이것이원문일가능성은낮다고할수있다. 다만이독법은이구절의의미의불명료성에대한사본필사자들의고민을드러내준다. 이구절의독법과관련해서는 B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2001), 262 를보라. 38) NAS, NAU, NJB, RSV 는세미콜론을사용하며, 독일어성경중 EIN 도세미콜론을쓴다. 반면에영어성경, GNV, KJV, 그리고독일어성경 Zuruecher Bibel 은콜론을쓰고있다.

210 성경원문연구제35호 4.2. 아나니아와삽비라사건( 행 5:5, 11) 아나니아와삽비라가돈을숨겨두고짐짓모두바친척하여죽음이라는 징벌을받은후에나타난결과를 5:5와 11 절은이렇게기록한다: 39) ἀκούων δὲ ὁ Ἁνανίας τοὺς λόγους τούτους πεσὼν ἐξέ ψυξεν, καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκού οντας. 아나니아가이말을듣고엎드러져혼이떠나니이일을듣는사람이 다크게두려워하더라 ( 개역개정 5:5) καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας ἐφ ὅλην τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας ταῦ τα. 5:11) 온교회와이일을듣는사람들이다크게두려워하니라 ( 개역개정 이두구절에서이명사의의미는 두려움 인가 무서움 인가? 모든한글 성경은이명사를 두려움 으로이해하여이렇게번역한다: 크게두려워하 더라. 이러한번역은타당한것일까? 사실너무도충격적이게도부부인아 나니아와삽비라가시간차를두고한날에죽어버렸다. 베드로의추상같은 호령한마디에그들은숨을거두어버린다. 이런장면은 두려움 보다는 무서움/ 공포 를표현해주지않을까? 우선이런두려움이누구에게생긴것인지결정할필요성이있다. 5절에 서는단순히 이일을듣는사람 이라고되어있어애매하나, 11 절은 온교 회 와 이일을듣는사람들 을구분한다. 11절이이사건에대한종합적반 응에대한기록이기때문에 11절에서청중이구체적으로누구인지를말해 준다고볼수있다. 결국청중에교회의성도뿐만아니라성도가아닌사람 들도포함되어있는것이라할수있다. 40) 그렇다면불신자까지포함하여 두사람의갑작스러운죽음에대한반응으로적합한것은 공포 에가까운 무서움 이아니었을까? 영어성경은거의모두 fear 로번역하며 NLT는 한걸음더나아가의역하여 was terrified 로번역한다. 무서움 이라는개 념이강하게나타나는것이다. 41) 왜냐하면아나니아와삽비라가그냥죽어 39) 아나니아와삽비라가죽음의벌을받은이유에대해서여러가지설명이제시된다. 이문제에대한자세한논의를위해서는 S. J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 183-184 를보라. 40) D. G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 211. 그는 5절에서도 듣는사람들 속에교회구성원이아닌사람도포함되어있다고설명한다.

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 211 버렸기때문이다. 따라서한글성경의 두려워하다 도수용할만하지만동 시에 무서워하다, 겁을내다/ 먹다 로번역해보는것도고려해볼만하다 고설명해볼수있다. 42) 4.3 복음의융성에대한설명( 행 9:31) 9:31 은그당시유대와갈릴리와사마리아교회의모습을요약하면서이 렇게묘사한다 : Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύ νετο. 그리하여온유대와갈릴리와사마리아교회가평안하여든든히서 가고주를경외함과성령의위로로진행하여수가더많아지니라 ( 개역 개정 ) 아주흥미롭게도오직이곳에서만개역과개역개정은헬라어명사 fo,boj를 경외 로번역한다. 이한글명사가원문의의미를제대로표현한다 고판단한듯하다. 반면에나머지한글성경들은 두려움 으로이해한다: 두려워하는마음, 두려워하며. 이러한개역개정의번역은타당한것 인가? 이구절의문맥속에서이번역은타당성이있어보인다. 주님을경 외함 에해당하는헬라어구문, τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου는구약헬라어성경에 자주등장하는데, 구약과다른것은이구절에서는 주님 이하나님이아니 라예수님을지칭한다는것이다. 43) 어떻든이때의두려움은공포/ 무서움 41) 바렛(C. K. Barratt) 은이렇게표현한다: in this verse, fo,boj must be more than reverence. C. K. Barratt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Acts of the Apostles: 14-28 (London; New York: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 270. 42) 이부분에서사람들이 무엇을 무서워/ 두려워했는지적시하고있지않기때문에이에대해서논의가있었다. 그래서스펜서(F. S. Spencer) 는그무서움/ 두려움의대상을다음과같이제시한다: 하나님( 과성령) 하나님의사역자, 베드로, 하나님의대적자마귀, 죽음, 수치/ 불명예. 그는이두려움이기독교공동체의구성원들로하여금자신들을돌아보게하고늘각성하게하는역할을했음을강조한다. F. S. Spencer, Scared to Death, S. Walton, et al., Reading Acts Today: Essays in Honour of Loveday C. A. Alexander (London; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 63-80 을보라. 하지만사도행전에서두려움의대상은하나님이라고설명해볼수있다. 만일하나님이대상이라면, 경외심을가지고무서워하고있었다 로번역해볼수도있을것이다. 43) 바렛은이헬라어명사를아주잘정의한독일학자롤로프(J. Roloff) 의표현을소개한다: Das Sich-Unterstellen unter die richtende Macht Gottes ( 올바르게판단하시는하나님의능력아래자아- 내려놓기. 곧공의로운눈으로보시고심판하시는하나님에대해인식하고겸손히떨며자신의삶을살아가는것을의미한다 ). J. Roloff, Acts 1-14, 474.

212 성경원문연구제35호 이라기보다는하나님에대해진정으로알게될때생기는자연스러운경외 의감정이라할수있다. 왜냐하면유대와갈릴리와사마리아에있는교회 들이이행동의주체이기때문이다. 이미하나님을믿어아는사람들로서 이들은하나님의존재와그의능력을체험했고따라서하나님과부활하신 예수그리스도에대한지식에근거하여경외심/ 두려움을가지고있었다고 볼수있기때문이다. 물론이명사와함께쓰인또다른명사 παρακλήσij의의미가무엇이냐에 따라약간의의미의차이는있을수있다. 만일이명사를대부분의영어성경 과한글성경들처럼 위로 (comfort) 로번역한다면 주님을두려워함/ 경외함 과성령님의위로로 가되는데, 이렇게되면주님을경외하는것이강조된다. 그래서뒤에성령의위로를넣어서로조화를이루도록했다고볼수있기때 문이다. 그런데만일뒤의명사를성령의 훈계/ 권고 (exhortation) 로번역한 다면앞의명사는주님을 무서워함 으로설명할수있다. 공포나떨림가운 데무서워하며살아가면서성령님의훈계를통해교회가성장해갔다고볼 수있기때문이다. 이렇게앞의것을 공포/ 무서움 으로번역하여 주님을 무서워함과성령님의훈계로 라고번역할수있을것이다. 44) 하지만주님 께서이부분에서교회를돌보시는분으로그려지기때문에여전히 무서 움 보다는 두려움/ 경외 로보는것이타당하며그래서 주님을두려워함/ 경외함과성령의훈계 로이해해볼수있다. 이럴때교회성장의열쇠는 예수님/ 하나님의존재에대한믿음에서오는두려움/ 경외와성령님께서주 시는훈계/ 권고가되어, 무엇보다도교회성도의신앙의기본자세를보여 준다. 성도들이두렵고떨리는마음으로예수님을인식하고성령의훈계를 받으며신앙생활을할때교회는성장해간다는것이다. 그래서결국은 fo,boj 명사는공경심을포함한무서움을의미한다. 이렇게볼때이구절에 서경외심을가진마음자세를나타낸다고판단해볼수있다. 그래서개 역개정의번역 경외함 은타당해보인다. 하지만이부분에서만이단어를 경외( 함) 로번역하는것은납득하기 어렵다. 45) 이렇게보자면앞서지적한대로누가복음의몇가지예에서도 경외 로번역하는것이더타당해보인다. 또한개역개정은 fo,boj 명사를 44) 주님을무서워함 에해당하는헬라어구문을원문그대로번역해보자면 주님의무서움 으로표현해볼수있다. 이렇게되면주님께서두려움을주시는주체가되신다. 무서움/ 두려움을주시는분은하나님이시고훈계를주시는분은성령님이되신다고이해해볼수있다. 45) 어쩌면 하나님을경외하는사람들 이라는표현을사도행전에서특별한의미로사용함으로이것과의혼동을피하기위해서 경외 라는단어를구별하여사용했다고볼수도있다. 하지만여전히 두려워하다 가 경외하다 를표현할수있기에충분한설득력을갖는다고보기어렵다.

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 213 사도행전에서언제나 두려움 으로번역한다. 그러면서이부분에서는 경 외함 으로번역하는데, 이것은문제가있어보인다. 차라리 주님을두려워 함 이라고번역하는것이더바람직해보인다. 그렇지않다면 경외 의개 념을살려서그런의미로사용되는다른부분에서도 경외심이생기다, 경외하다, 경외하는마음을가지다 등으로번역하는것이옳다고할수 있을것이다. 4.4. 제사장스게와의일곱아들사건( 행 19:17) 바울이귀신쫓아내는것을따라하던유대인제사장스게와의일곱아들 이악귀들린사람에게제압당하고상처를입고벌거벗고도망친사건이있 은후의사람들의반응을 19:17 은이렇게그리고있다: τοῦτο δὲ ἐγένετο γνωστὸν πᾶσιν Ἰουδαίοις τε καὶ Ἕλλησιν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν τὴν Ἔφεσον καὶ ἐπέπεσεν φόβος ἐπὶ πάντας αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐμεγαλύνετο τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ. 에베소에사는유대인과헬라인들이다이일을알고두려워하며주 예수의이름을높이고 ( 개역개정 ) 이구절의맥락을고려해볼때이들의감정은우선은 무서움 이라고생 각해볼수있다. 그래서대부분의영어성경은이단어를 fear 로이해하여 제시한다. 하지만, 이때에단순히 공포 만강조되는것은아니다. 그속에 경외심 도포함하고있다고설명해볼수있다. 이것이한글성경이모두 두려워하다 로번역한이유일것이며, 또한어떤영어성경이 was awestruck (NRSV) 또는 was filled with awe (NJB) 로번역한근거일것이 다. 이것은이부분에서보기에따라 경외심 이표현되고있다고해석할수 있음을보여준다. 사실이구절의후반부의표현곧 주예수의이름을높이 고 와그후의사람들의반응, 곧믿고회개하고마술을행하던사람들이수 많은값비싼마술책을태워버리는행동(18-19 절) 을고려해볼때에사람들 의감정이 공포 보다는놀라움을포함하고있는 경외심 에가까웠다고 판단해볼수있다. 따라서한글성경의 두려워하다 는타당성이있다고할 수있다. 4.5. 정리

214 성경원문연구제35호 사도행전에서 fo,boj 는기독교복음의전파와교회의성장과관련하여사 용된다. 이때에무서움/ 두려움이생기는사람들은거의모두믿음의공동 체에속한사람들이거나불신자였으나기독교에호의적인사람들이었다. 약간의예외가있으나불신자만대상인경우는없었다. 이사람들에게 fo,boj 는무엇보다도하나님에대한공경심을포함하는두려움이었고이것 이그들의하나님앞에서의믿음의순결성을지켜주는역할을한다. 또한 이런 fo,boj 의감정을갖도록능력을행하는역할이예수님에서사도들로 넘어간다. 사도들은예수님의권위를넘겨받아놀라운일을행하며그사 역과관련하여예수님의경우처럼 fo,boj가나타난다. 이때 공포, 무서움 의개념이때때로분명하게나타나기는하지만대체로 경외, 두려움 의 개념이강하게나타난다고판단해볼수있다. 이런경외심이사도행전의 교회의순결성을지키며성장하도록만드는중요한요소였던것이다. 5. 결론 이상에서누가복음-사도행전에사용되는 fo,boj의의미를추적해보았다. 그러면서한글성경에서이단어의의미가올바르게번역되어있는지를살 펴보았다. 그렇게의미를결정함에있어문맥이무엇보다도중요한역할을 한다는사실을알게되었고여러가지주위의문법적장치들에대한이해 또한중요한구실을하는것을밝혀보았다. 결국이명사가서로다른뉘앙 스를전달하는두개의뜻 - 공포/ 무서움과두려움/ 경외 - 으로사용되기에 이둘가운데어떤의미가주어진본문속에서강하게표현되는지를밝혀 내야비로소본문에대한정확한이해와번역에이를수있게된다. 한글성 경가운데어떤역본에는 두려움 이아니라 무서움 이강조되어야함에도 그렇지못했고, 그와는반대의경우도있음을확인하였다. 물론 두려움 이 무서움 의뜻을부분적으로전달하기는하지만보다분명한의미전달을 위해서두단어를구별하여사용하는것이바람직하다고할수있다. 무엇보다도어려워/ 무서워하면서도공경하는모습을어떻게표현할것 인가에대한깊은고민이필요하다. 경외 나 외경심 이무슨의미인지잘 모르는세대를배려해주는번역이필요한동시에그들을위한교육차원의 번역이또한요청된다. 아울러어느한측면이강하게나타날때과감히한 쪽의번역을택해야하는지아니면여전히두측면모두를표현해야하는 지에대한고민이필요하다. 이런맥락에서문맥에따라 경외 나 공포 라

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 215 는단어를사용할수도있을것이며, 최소한각주나난하주로처리하여그 런의미를제시할필요성이있다. 왜냐하면 fo,boj가하나님과교회/ 인간의 관계에서중요한역할을하기때문이다. 본연구에서드러난사항들을참조하여향후신약의본문에대한토론과 번역에대한제안들이활발하게이루어질수있을것이다. 뿐만아니라, 이 단어의 70인역에서의용례에대한연구도함께이루진다면성경의중요한 개념중하나를표현하는단어인 fo,boj 에대한올바른이해에도달할수 있을것이다. 그런토론과연구결과에근거하여이명사의이해와번역에 대한제안과동의가이루어진다면이명사의의미를제대로이해할수있 을것이며, 나아가그것에근거하여엄밀하고도일관성있는번역이이루 어질수있을것이다. < 주제어>(Keywords) fo,boj의번역, 경외, 두려움, 누가복음, 사도행전. Translation of fo,boj, Awe, Fear, Luke, Acts. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 31 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

216 성경원문연구제35호 < 참고문헌>(References) Barratt, C. K., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles: 14-28, London; New York: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Bauer, W., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Danker, F. W., rev. and ed., Chicago; London: The University of Chicago, 2000. Bock, D. L., Luke 1:1-9:50, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Bock, D. L., Acts, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Bovon, F., A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, C. M. Thomas, trans., Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Carroll, J. T., Luke, Lousville: Westminster John Knox, 2012. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, New York; London; Toronto: Doubleday, 1970. Kistemaker, S. J., Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon, 1843; 9 th 1958. Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2001. Nolland, J., Luke 1:1-9:20, Dallas: Word Books, 1989. Peterson, D. G., The Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Spencer, F. S., Scared to Death, Walton, S., et. al, eds., Reading Acts Today: Essays in Honour of Loveday C. A. Alexander, London; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011, 63-80. Stein, R. H., Luke, Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Wolter, M., Das Lukas-evangelium, Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

누가복음-사도행전의 fo,boj( 두려움 / 무서움 ) 에대한이해와번역 / 정창욱 217 <Abstract> Understanding and Translation of the Noun fo,boj in Luke-Acts Chang Wook Jung (Chongshin University) The Greek noun fo,boj which often occurs in the Greek New Testament signifies various meanings: terror, fear, awe, reverence, and respect. Broadly speaking, it delivers two denotations, i.e., fear/terror and awe/reverence. The distinction between fear and awe is sometimes complicated as the two words share an overlapping signification. The latter, however, distinguishes itself from the former as it contains the implication for reverence more than the former. If so, how is the Greek noun to be interpreted in given texts? Especially, do Korean Bible versions translate it precisely and appropriately? In order to determine if Korean Bible translations properly understand and accurately render the noun, this study investigates its usage in Luke-Acts where it occurs most frequently in the New Testament. This also provides a chance to look at the usage of the noun in two different environments - Jesus s earthly life and the church in his post-resurrection era. We may observe the continuous flow of the concept fo,boj and/or its different aspect between Luke and Acts. Evidently, the context plays an important role in deciding which aspect the noun betrays more strongly in a given text. Clarifying the context requires a careful examination of some grammatical ingredients. This study undertakes such research. The study demonstrates that the rendering of the noun needs to be altered in some given texts of Korean Bible versions. In some instances, the terrifying aspect of the noun should be appropriately expressed, whereas its reverential attitude has to be described in other instances.

218 성경원문연구제35호 Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases Andrei S. Desnitsky* 1. Problem: formal features in the Septuagint? Can the Septuagint (LXX) be studied as a coherent Greek text, or should it be regarded only as a series of Greek words and expressions that give us the only possible access to the Hebrew Vorlage which has been lost? A. Deissmann once called it the LXX a book from the Hellenistic world for the Hellenistic world. 1) This definition may sound strange since the LXX remained virtually unknown outside the Jewish community during the first ages of its existence. The earliest unquestionable quotation from it appears in Pseudo-Longinus (circ. 50 C.E.). All attempts to find earlier allusions are hardly convincing. 2) The situation changed with the birth of Christianity which needed new skins for its new wine. Since Hellenized Judaism was the cultural environment of budding Christianity, it was no wonder that not only the very text of the LXX was adopted, but some of its characteristic features were also widely imitated in original Christian writings. These features played a very important role in the formation of Christian culture, in particular in Greek-speaking Christian literature that has been flourishing for more than a millennium and is known today under the name Byzantine. Until recently scholars have been mostly investigating in what way the formal * Ph.D. in Biblical Studies at Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Leading Research Fellow at the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. ailoyros@gmail.com. 1) A. Deissmann, The Philology of Greek Bible, its present and future (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), 6. 2) G. Dorival, La Bible Des Septante Chez Les Auteurs Païens (jusqu au Pseudo-Longin), Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 1 (1987), 9-26.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 219 features of the Hebrew text were rendered in the LXX: its Hebraistic nature, as formulated by Tov. 3) It was rarely, if at all, regarded as a Greek text which may have its own formal features. Perhaps the shift of paradigm started with the discussion about homo(e)phony in the LXX. 4) The natural tendency of the human mind to recall foreign vocables by finding similar sounding words in one s own language always produces the so called translators false friends, i.e., words that sound similar but have different meanings such as English library and French librairie (bookstore). However debatable some particular cases may be (see in particular the criticism of J. Barr to the examples proposed by E. Tov and J. de Waard), 5) it is obvious that the LXX translators were not immune to this sort of mental fallacy. Probably they were not so naive as to rely completely on mere phonetic resemblance between two words, but it is likely that the sound of words did sometimes affect their choice of a Greek correspondence. Then, a few papers and monographs have paid attention to the influence of formal features of the Greek text on the choices made by translators. For instance, J. de Waard and Th. van der Louw 6) examine the structure of the LXX in connection with modern translational studies. Now, it is quite trivial to speak about poetic rhetoric and poetry in LXX texts: this is exactly what J. Aitken studied in Ecclesiastes 7), and D. Gera in Exodus 15 8). It is symptomatic that a collection of articles on rhetorical and stylistic 3) E. Tov, The nature and study of the translation technique of the LXX in the past and present, C. E. Cox, ed., VI Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 337-359. 4) In the scholarly literature it is spelled both with and without e. 5) E. Tov, Loan-Words, Homophony and Transliteration in the Septuagint, Biblica 60 (1979), 216-236; Jan De Waard, Homophony in the Septuagint, Biblica 62 (1981), 551-561; J. Barr, Doubts about Homoeophony in Septuagint, Textus 12 (1985), 1-77. 6) J. de Waard, The Septuagint Translation of Proverbs as a Translational Model?, The Bible Translator 50 (1999), 304-314; J. de Waard, Some Unusuial Translation Techniques Employed by the Greek Translator(s) of Proverbs, Sollamo, R. and Sipilä, S., eds., Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 185-194; T. A. W. van der Louw, Transformations In The Septuagint: Towards An Interaction Of Septaguint Studies And Translation Studies (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). 7) J. K. Aitken, Rhetoric and Poetry in Greek Ecclesiastes, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005), 55-78. 8) D. L. Gera, Translating Hebrew Poetry into Greek Poetry: The Case of Exodus 15, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007), 107-120. It shall be also noted that Gera and the author of this article independently made similar observations of

220 성경원문연구제35호 features of LXX appeared in 2011 9), a subject that would not make much sense for the old school which treated LXX as a fairly literalistic translation lacking any style at all. All this has to do with the origins of LXX. One may also ask: did the LXX bring something new to Greek literature? Was it indeed just an unattractive literal translation, a primitive auxiliary tool for a person who would not read Hebrew well? The exclusively important role played by this translation down the ages hints at a higher evaluation. To say it differently, the main question LXX scholars have been dealing with so far sounds like how did this happen? But one may also ask what impact did it make? More than one century ago scholars asked questions about the origins of Greek rhythmic poetry (as opposed to classical metric) see, e.g., the monograph by E. Bouvy. 10) More recently another French scholar, J. Irigoin, 11) suggested that such origins may be connected with the LXX. Still, this theory which deserved more attention remained mostly unexplored. Taking this into consideration we can study the LXX as a unit in its own right with its own specific structures and techniques. Some of these structures and techniques were borrowed from Hellenistic literature and some may present an attempt to transpose Hebrew features on Greek soil. Sometimes Hellenic and Semitic features are synthetically combined, but such instances must be regarded as belonging to the same literary technique. The present paper demonstrates that phonetic features would have influenced translators choices. More concretely, it is argued that at times the choices they made resulted in forms of euphony, i.e., the repetition of sounds (alliteration and assonance) and certain rhythmic patterns. The paper also deals with the this material. She has read and mentioned my yet unpublished text in a footnote to her article, now I do the same to her. 9) See, first of all, E. Bons, Rhetorical Devices in the Septuagint Psalter, E. Bons and T. J. Kraus, eds., Et Sapienter et Eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 69-82; Jennifer M. Dines, Stylistic Invention and Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of the Twelve, ibid., 23-48; Thomas J. Kraus, Translating the Septuagint Psalms some Lesefrüchte and their value for an analysis of the rhetoric (and style) of the Septuagint (Psalms), ibid., 49-68. 10) E. Bouvy, Poètes et Mélodes. Etudes Sur Les Origines Du Rythme Tonique Dans L hymnographie de l Eglise Grecque (Nîmes: Lafare frères, 1886). 11) J. Irigoin, La Composition Rythmique Des Cantiques de Luc, Revue Biblique 98 (1991), 5-50.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 221 questions of methodology (what distinguishes a coincidence from a meaningful repetition) and the history of Greek literature (what impact it had on the development of Byzantine poetry in distant future). 2. Methodology: what counts? It would be quite logical, once we are talking about poetry, to study poetic texts. The poetic passages of the Pentateuch seem to provide the best material for a closer inspection. First of all, there is a consensus in the scholarly world that the Pentateuch was the first portion of the Hebrew Bible to be translated; more than that, to some extent its rendering influenced the manner in which subsequent translations were undertaken. 12) Furthermore, there is hardly any LXX book more suitable for studying poetic features, though the word poetic is actually applicable to any form of artistic speech. In consequence, all the examples for this article will be taken from Genesis 49:2-27 (the blessings of Jacob) and Exodus 15:1-18 (the Song of the Sea). As it is usual in LXX studies, our analysis will be based on comparison of the LXX and the MT. Our focus will be the places where they differ significantly, which is also customary for LXX studies. Primarily, we examine the following features of the text: Sound repetitions; those sounds which are the result of a repetition of the same or similar grammatical forms are not mentioned as their appearance may be called merely accidental. This sort of sound repetition can be conventionally called grammatical. Besides that, the relative frequency of a certain sound is considered: four sigmas or alphas within the same line are not worth mentioning since this is a rather common case, while four lambdas or omegas should draw our attention. There is no place to discuss here what the exact sounding of a certain letter was, so we shall follow their graphic representation. Nevertheless, it can be taken for granted that some sounds, like labial vowels ο and ω, have always been close to one another. Thus repetitions of vowels of similar tone or 12) E. Tov, The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of Other Books, P. Casetti, et al., eds., Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy (Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1981), 577-592.

222 성경원문연구제35호 consonants of the same group (dentals, bilabials etc.) can be noted as well. Underlined letters (ἄρ τος) indicate the repetitions that seem to be worth examining. In accordance with the principle expressed above, cases like τὸν ἄρτον are not marked. Rhythmic patterning which can have different forms: two or more lines roughly follow the same rhythmic pattern or are roughly equal in length; sometimes syllables within one line also follow a certain rhythmic pattern. The same restriction applies as in the case with sound repetitions: the cases which can be explained as a side-effect of natural repetition of the same or similar grammatical forms should be discounted. Important textual variations between the LXX and the MT which find no reasonable explanation on the ground of textual criticism, as variations between proto-lxx and proto-mt, and can be explained as changing Hebrew poetic images and figures of speech for better Greek equivalents. An important reservation is to be made here: rhythm and sound repetitions can be merely coincidental. In our everyday life we see a lot of technical texts that can contain some of these formal elements to which no one usually pays attention: Please leave your payment on the table. (rhythm) See the sign-up sheet at the Switchboard. (alliterations) For sure we have no right to call these texts poetic. Their authors never aimed at creating alliteration and rhythmic patterns; we know it since all the other texts of the kind lack them. If, however, we had noticed in an office or a cafe that every second inscription rhymes and the personnel speaks in the same manner, we would have taken these very examples as another proof of the strange policy adopted for some reasons in this place. This is why we can hardly judge whether or not in a particular case the LXX translators aimed at producing a more phonetically ordered text. They may have done this unconsciously or semi-consciously, equally well this may have been pure coincidence. On the other hand, after studying a large number of examples we can draw some conclusions about general tendencies. So for the time being we will postpone the questions of consciousness and intentionality. When we take into account all the factors that may have influenced the translators, answering the question Why did they translate it like that?

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 223 becomes as fascinating as a good detective story. To show all the turns of the plot, we can have a closer look at just one expression from Genesis 49:15b, a part of Jacob s blessing for Issachar. In Hebrew this verse says: When he sees how good is his resting place and how pleasant is his land, he will bend his shoulder to the burden and submit to forced labour. The LXX, however, renders the last expression quite differently: καὶ ἐγενήθη ἀνὴρ γεωργός ו י ה י ל מ ס ע ב ד and became a slave at forced labour. and became a rustic man. There is no simple answer why. Even the detailed analysis by J. Wevers does not suggest any kind of solution. 13) Theoretically, there are at least five possible explanations: 1. Textual variations. This would be the easiest answer: the LXX just followed a different Hebrew original. In fact, we do not have any evidence that such an original existed; it would be hard even to imagine what the Hebrew equivalent of ἀνὴρ γεωργός would be like. 2. Poor understanding of the text. We can also suppose that the translator did not understand the meaning of מ ס ע ב ד and therefor changed it for a rather vague Greek expression that would more or less suit the context. 3. Deliberate correction of the meaning. The translator may have considered this expression too harsh: according to 1 Kings 9:21-22, in Solomon s time the forced labour was not for Israelites but only for the remnants of the pre-conquest population of the Holy Land: their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the Israelites were unable to destroy completely these Solomon conscripted for slave labor ( ל מ ס ע ב ד ), and so they are to this day. But of the Israelites Solomon made no slaves. This is why the translator may have chosen a better fate for Issachar. This hypothesis is supported by R. Syren. 14) 4. Cultural adaptation. The translator may have seen the fate of the peasants of Ptolemaic Egypt, who were almost serfs, as the closest natural equivalent to Hebrew מ ס ע ב ד. By employing ἀνὴρ γεωργό ς, he had in mind not an idyllic 13) J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta: Scholars, 1993), 828-829. 14) R. Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 (Åbo: Åbo akademi, 1986), 51-52.

224 성경원문연구제35호 Arcadian but a concrete social position in his own society. 5. The quest for a better organised text. It is worth noticing that the Greek expression ἐγενήθη ἀνὴρ γεωργός is full of alliteration ( γ) and assonance ( ε/ η) and follows a certain rhythmic pattern: two unstressed syllable plus one stressed. We cannot exclude the hypothesis that it was for the sake of sound repetitions and rhythm that passive ἐγενή θη (which is rather rare in the LXX though not completely unknown) was used here instead of a more usual medial form ἐγέ νετο, which would have broken the rhythmic pattern. Can we say that the translator sacrificed the meaning for the sounds? I think this would be too bold. Nevertheless, a number of similar examples seem to prove well that sounds were not completely neglected when the translators were making their choice. Looking for a suitable answer for the question Why did they translate as καὶ ἐγενήθη ἀνὴρ γεωργό ς? we have to remember that we cannot ו י ה י ל מ ס ע ב ד penetrate the minds of unknown people who lived two millennia and a quarter ago. Still, we can propose the following model: for some reasons the translator decided not to render the text literally (the hypothesis No 3 seems the most convincing although 2 and 4 are not impossible), while the tendency to organise the text phonetically (the hypothesis No 5) influenced his choice of words. If this is true, as we are going to demonstrate, it has an important implication for the LXX lexicography. Normally, it seeks to establish direct correspondence between the meaning of the Greek and the Hebrew words or expressions or to explain its absence when this cannot be achieved. If we accept the quest for formal regularity as yet another factor that can explain anomalous translation in some cases, it will affect lexicographic studies as well as other domains of the LXX scholarship. 3. Analysis: what is there in the text? Now, a series of examples will be presented. For the convenience of the reader, the text of each analysed verse will be quoted in four different versions: The Masoretic text according to Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia New Revised Standard Version The Septuagint text according to Göttingen Septuaginta English Translation of the

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 225 (after the Masoretic text) Septuagint The English translation of LXX basically follows L. Brenton s version which is literal enough to serve our purposes but it follows the Göttingen text edited by J. Wevers and is adjusted to the wording of NRSV. Line division basically follows traditional editions with a few minor changes wherever a slight adjustment seemed to fit better the prosody of the text. Those lines which appear too long are presented in halves with an indent at the beginning of the second half. Such conventional breaks are shown only on the following pages. At this point, we are going to investigate in more details those divergences between Hebrew and Greek which are likely to be explained by some irregularities in translator s choices, There are many more possible explanations of course but we will not seriously deal with textual criticism here, avoiding examples where this would be a major issue. Genesis 49:11 א ס ר י ל גּ פ ן עירה ו ל שּׂ ר ק ה בּ נ י א ת נ וֹ כּ בּ ס בּ יּ י ן ל ב שׁ וֹ וּב ד ם ע נ ב ים סותה Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey s colt to the choice vine, he washes his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes; δεσμεύων πρὸς ἄμπελον τὸν πῶλον αὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἕλικι τὸν πῶλον τῆς ὄνου αὐτο ῦ πλυνεῖ ἐν οἴνῳ τὴν στολὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν αἵματι σταφυλῆς τὴν περιβολὴν αὐτο ῦ Binding his foal to the vine, and the foal of his ass to the branch of it, he shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. Here we see rich repetitions, mostly grammatical (like ων - ον), and alliterations π - λ, which is best attested in the word pair ἄμπελον - πῶ λον. The word στολὴν echoes both σταφυλῆ ς (with the initial sounds) and περιβολὴν (with the final ones). There are some rhythmic repetitions at the end of lines, partially caused by the repetition of αὐτοῦ. 49:12 ח כ ל יל י ע ינ י ם מ יּ י ן וּל ב ן שׁ נּ י ם מ ח ל ב χαροποιο ῖ οἱ ὀφθαλμο ὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ οἴνου καὶ λευκο ὶ οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτοῦ ἢ γάλα

226 성경원문연구제35호 his eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk. His eyes shall be more cheering than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk. This verse is an exemplary case of grammatical sound repetitions. Nevertheless, out of five diphthongs οι two (in χαροποιο ῖ and ο ἴνου) are not Nom. Pl. endings. 49:13 ז בוּל ן ל ח וֹף י מּ ים י שׁ כּ ן ו הוּא ל ח וֹף א נ יּ וֹת ו י ר כ ת וֹ ע ל צ יד ן Zebulun shall settle at the shore of the sea; he shall be a haven for ships, and his border shall be at Sidon. Ζαβουλὼν παράλιος κατοικήσει καὶ αὐτὸς παρ ὅρμον πλοίων καὶ παρατενεῖ ἕως Σιδῶνος Zabulon shall dwell on the coast, and he shall be by a haven of ships, and shall extend to Sidon. Here we see the prefix/preposition παρ ά in the middle of each line. Unlike in the previous verse, such a coincidence cannot be called automatic since there is no Hebrew equivalent for παρά in the second line. As in many other cases, the usage of the same prefixes and prepositions within one verse seems to be the translator s choice. Besides that, in each line we see the sound complex ων, basically, due to its repetition in the proper names Ζαβουλών and Σιδώ ν. 49:17 י ה י ד ן נ ח שׁ ע ל י ד ר שׁ פ יפ ן ע ל י א ר ח ה נּ שׁ ע קּ ב י ס וּס ו יּ פּ ל ר כ ב וֹ אָח וֹר Dan shall be a snake by the roadside, a viper along the path, that bites the horse's heels so that its rider falls backward. καὶ γενηθήτω Δὰν ὄφις ἐφ ὁδοῦ ἐγκαθήμενος ἐπ ὶ τρίβου δάκνων πτέρναν ἵππου καὶ πεσεῖται ὁ ἱππεὺς εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω And let Dan be a serpent in the way, besetting the path, biting the heel of the horse (and the rider shall fall backward), In this verse we see some remarkable sound repetitions: οφ - φο in the first line; επιτρ - πτερ in the second and the third lines; πεσει - πευσ - εισ - πισ in the fourth line.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 227 One can also notice the link between the words ἐγκαθήμενος and γενηθήτω ( γε - εγκ, θη). In fact, this resemblance appeared as the result of a rather indirect translation: ἐγκαθήμενος stays instead of the Hebrew שׁ פ יפ ן which designates a certain kind of poisonous snake (presumably, Zamenis diadema). The translators may well have had difficulties with identifying the concrete species as we do today; on the other hand, they may have chosen to avoid associating Dan with such an unpleasant creature (the same way they have dealt with the donkey in the verse 14). According to Syren, 15) all the Targums, just on the contrary, retained the snake in the text. Wevers also notices 16) that the narrative in Greek is slightly remodeled in accordance with the usual narrative strategy principles which are characteristic for this language. In the MT we see a banal repetition of metaphors: Dan shall be a snake by the roadside, a viper along the path ; while the LXX starts a series of actions which is to be continued in the following lines: Dan shall be a serpent by the roadside which is lying along the path 49:20 מ א שׁ ר שׁ מ נ ה ל ח מ וֹ ו ה וּא י תּ ן מ ע ד נּ י מ ל Asher s food shall be rich, and he shall provide royal delicacies. Ασήρ, πίων αὐτοῦ ὁ ἄρτος, καὶ αὐτὸς δώσει τρυφὴν ἄρχουσιν Aser, his bread shall be fat; and he shall yield dainties to princes. The key word in this verse is Ασή ρ. Three other words: ἄ ρτος, αὐτός and ἄρχουσιν sound similar; this is perhaps what F. de Saussure would have called an anagram (the compositional device which makes the text echo the name of the main character associated with it) 17). In fact, the choice of the word ἄρχουσιν to rulers can be considered an intentional strategy since it is a rather free rendering for the Hebrew מ ל king : βασιλεῖ would have been a much closer equivalent. Perhaps this choice was influenced by the fact that the Israeli kingdom was not there anymore when this text was composed. Still, there seems to be a better explanation: such a rendering created the sound repetition at the 15) Ibid., 41. 16) J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 829. 17) P. Wunderli, Ferdinand de Saussure Und Die Anagramme: Linguistik Und Literatur (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1972).

228 성경원문연구제35호 end of the lines: ἄρτος ἄ ρχουσιν. Both words have stressed ἄρ- as their first syllable. Exodus 15:1b א שׁ יר ה ל יהו ה כּ י ג א ה גּ א ה ס וּס ו ר כ ב וֹ ר מ ה ב יּ ם I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea. ᾄσωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ, ἐνδόξως γὰρ δεδόξασται ἵππον καὶ ἀναβάτην ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν Let us sing to the Lord, for he is very greatly glorified: horse and rider he has thrown into the sea. Here we can see a pair of words from the same root (ἐνδόξως - δεδό ξασται), as well as rich rhythmic repetition, the second line almost exactly repeats the rhythm of the first one. That was achieved at the cost of the literal exactitude of translation: 1. The plural ᾄσωμεν translates the singular א שׁ יר ה (the corresponding Greek Singular ᾄσω has one syllable less). Theoretically this can be explained by the fact that Moses is mentioned as the only singer; on the other hand, elsewhere in the song we see 1 st person plural and the LXX accurately retains this feature. 2. The pronominal suffix in ר כ בוֹ his rider is left without translation: ἀναβάτην (the exact equivalent ἀναβάτην αὐτοῦ contains two extra syllables). 3. The Greek ἐνδόξως γὰρ δεδό ξασται, because he has glorified himself, כּ י ג א ה גּ אָה gloriously, as the equivalent for the Hebrew literally for triumphing he has triumphed, deserves our special attention. First of all, the Hebrew conjunction כּ י is usually translated by the Greek conjunction ὅτι even in those cases where the particle γάρ is needed according to the normative Greek usage (see for instance Exodus 15:19). Secondly, the Hebrew construction absolute infinitive + finite verb in the LXX is usually translated in three ways: (1) participle + finite verb; or (2) noun in Dative + finite verb; or (3) finite verb alone 18). Actually, models (1) and (2) sound in Greek extremely 18) See a detailed analysis in R. Sollamo, The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch, N. F. Marcos, ed., La Septuaginta En La Investigacion Contemporanea, V Congreso de La IOSCS (Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano, 1985), 101-113.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 229 unnatural while model (3) does not give full justice to the original. The translator could choose one of these options. He could also find a stylistically blameless Greek expression, something like μεγάλην γὰρ ἤνεγκε δό ξαν, because he has obtained great glory, thereby loosing all the Hebrew flavour. Here, however, the translator did not try to force the Greek usage, neither did he refuse to render this peculiarity of the original: the absolute infinitive ג א ה is rendered by the Greek adverb ἐνδό ξως. In the end, the repetition of the words from the same root is fully retained, as well as the rhythmic pattern (one stressed + one unstressed syllable). 15:2 ע זּ י ו ז מ ר ת י הּ ו י ה י ל י ל ישׁוּע ה ז ה א ל י ו אַנ ו הוּ א ה י אָב י ו א ר מ מ נ הוּ The LORD is my strength and my might, and he has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him. βοηθὸς καὶ σκεπαστὴς ἐγένετό μοι εἰς σωτηρίαν οὗτός μου θεό ς, καὶ δοξάσω αὐτόν θεὸς τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ ὑψώσω αὐτόν He was to me a helper and protector for salvation: this is my God and I will glorify him; my father s God, and I will exalt him. It is very easy to note rich phonetic parallelism in these verses. In the beginning of the third and the fourth lines we see some similar words: οὗτός μου θεός - θεὸς τοῦ πατρό ς, while the word βοηθός echoes them in the first line. Rhythmically, the two concluding lines are almost identical. To achieve this similarity, the translator has put the words in a rather unusual order: μου θεός instead of expected θεό ς μου. A similar reason may have conditioned the choice of δοξάσω αὐτό ν I will glorify him as the equivalent for אַנ ו הוּ I will praise him (Wevers, however, links this verb to a cognate Arabic word and suggests the meaning to glorify but it seems rather unlikely that the translators shared this interpretation). 19) This word sounds phonetically and rhythmically similar to ὑψώ σω. It also links this word to the words from the same root in verses 1 and 6. 19) J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek text of Exodus (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 228.

230 성경원문연구제35호 15:4 מ ר כּ ב ת פּ ר ע ה ו ח יל וֹ י ר ה ב יּ ם וּמ ב ח ר שׁ ל שׁ יו ט בּ ע וּ ב י ם ס וּף Pharaoh s chariots and his army he cast into the sea; his picked officers were sunk in the Red Sea. ἅρματα Φαραὼ καὶ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν ἐπιλέκτους ἀναβάτας τριστάτας κατεπόντισεν ἐν ἐρυθρ ᾷ θαλάσσῃ He has cast the chariots of Pharao and his host into the sea, the chosen mounted captains: they were swallowed up in the Red Sea. In this verse we see rich sound repetitions: αρ - αρα - ερρ - ρ - ερ and ατα - θα - ασσα - ατασ - στατασ - ατ - θρα - θα - ασσ. The second and the third lines show some rhythmic similarity. Again, the LXX differs from the MT in minor details which help to create this similarity: 4. The article in ב יּ ם in the sea is left without translation. This makes no real difference since the article is not reflected in the consonant spelling. At the same time, the article in Greek would have added another syllable to the first line which is already relatively longish. 5. The plural ט בּ עו they were sunk is replaced by Singular κατεπόντισεν he sank. Proto-LXX may have had a different vocalisation here, as suggested by BHS critical apparatus: ט בּ ע ; a different vocalisation may have been invented on purpose in order to point more clearly to the agent. Meanwhile, the verbal form κατεπόντισεν sounds similar to the preposition ἐν which would not be the case with any 3 rd person Plural form. 15:6 י מ ינ י הו ה נ א דּ ר י בּ כּ ח י מ ינ י הו ה תּ ר ע ץ אוֹי ב Your right hand, O LORD, glorious in power your right hand, O LORD, shattered the enemy. ἡ δεξιά σου, κύριε, δεδόξασται ἐν ἰσχύι ἡ δεξιά σου χείρ, κύριε, ἔθραυσεν ἐχθρούς Thy right hand, O God, has been glorified in strength; thy right hand, O God, has broken the enemies. Alliteration is extremely rich in this verse: δ, ε, ξ/ κ/ χ, ε/ ει, θ, ρ. Rhythmically,

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 231 the second line is quite similar to the first one, although it lacks two unstressed syllables if compared to it. Again, this effect to a large extent depends on the freedom taken by the translator: 6. The Hebrew Singular אוֹי ב enemy is rendered by the Greek Plural ἐχθρού ς. One could say that the translator did justice to the fact that there were quite a few enemies. At the same time, verses 1 and 9 speak of them in singular in both the Hebrew and Greek. It seems that the choice of the plural form is rather conditioned by the quest for alliteration: ἔθραυσεν ἐχθρούς contained one more common sound than the exact equivalent ἔθραυσεν ἐχθρό ν. 7. The same Hebrew expression י מ ינ your right hand is rendered in a twofold manner: ἡ δεξιά σου and ἡ δεξιά σου χεί ρ. In fact, usually the LXX uses a shorter rendering for the Hebrew word י מ ין. In Exodus it is used 4 times more. Only in Exodus 29:22, where it refers to a part of an animal, do we see ὁ βραχίων ὁ δεξιό ς. Elsewhere it is translated simply as δεξιά without χεί ρ (14:22, 14:29, 15:12). We may guess that here the addition of the word χείρ enriches the alliteration and makes the second line longer so that it would better match the rhythmic pattern. 15:9 אָמ ר אוֹי ב א ר דּ ף א שּׂ יג א ח לּ ק שׁ ל ל תּ מ ל א מוֹ נ פ שׁ י אָר יק ח ר בּ י תּוֹר ישׁ מוֹ י ד י The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them. I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them. εῖπεν ὁ ἐχθρός Διώξας καταλήμψομ αι, μεριῶ σκῦ λα, ἐμπλήσω ψυχήν μου ἀνελ ῶ τῇ μαχαίρᾳ μ ου, κυριεύσει ἡ χείρ μου The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoils; I will satisfy my soul, I will destroy with my sword, my hand shall have dominion. Striking alliterations are apparent in this verse: π - μψ - μπ - ψ - μ; ξ - κ - σκ, as well as χαιρ - χειρ in the third line. The rhythm of the second and the third lines is rather similar, partly because of the word pair μεριῶ - ἀνελ ῶ (it should be noticed that the MT contains verbs which match rather by alliteration than by.( אָר יק - א ח לּ ק rhythm: As noticed by Wevers, 20) the translation considerably over colours the picture drawn in the original text:

232 성경원문연구제35호 8. ἐμπλήσω ψυχή ν μου I will fill my soul stays instead will be filled with them. Here the 1 st accordance with the other verbal forms in this verse. of תּ מ ל א מוֹ נ פ שׁ י my soul person singular was introduced in ח ר בּ י 9. ἀνελῶ τῇ μαχαίρῃ μου I will destroy (them) with my sword renders I will draw my sword. In the translation, the arrogance of the enemy is אָר יק stressed even more. On the other hand, the form ἀνελῶ is metrically identical to the form μεριῶ in the second line. 10. κυριεύσει ἡ χεί ρ μου my hand shall rule replaces תּוֹר ישׁ מוֹ י ד י my hand shall destroy them. Evidently, here the hope for a single victorious action is expanded to the vision of a global triumph. Besides that, the expression κυριεύσει ἡ χείρ μου from the phonetic and rhythmical point of view makes a better match to the first half of the line (ἀνελῶ τῇ μαχαίρῃ μου) than an exact equivalent like ἀνελεῖ αὐτούς ἡ χεί ρ μου. These examples demonstrate convincingly that the translators did not neglect the form of the Greek text completely. Even if it were at a subconscious or semi-subconscious level, they gave at least some attention to their translations phonetic and rhythmic features. Any of these can be coincidental, but hardly all of them together. 4. Background: the Greek context for a Greek text It has been generally acknowledged that alliteration and rhythmic repetition (without any detectable fixed patterns) were characteristic features of Hebrew poetry. 21) Meanwhile, one may ask how these two features would have sounded for a Greek-speaking audience. We know that they were not standard poetic means employed by the original Greek writers, so could their presence or absence be noticeable or significant? First of all, it is worth noticing that for too long a time the oral (or, better, aural?) aspects of ancient literature did not receive adequate attention. Inevitably, we often visualise distant past in terms of our present. A modern 20) Ibid., 230-231. 21) See, for instance, W. G. E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 233 reader of the eighth chapter of Acts, for instance, may wonder for what particular reason the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a book aloud to himself when no other audience was present. On the contrary, in the fourth century CE Augustine was ultimately astonished when he discovered that Ambrose used to read a book without uttering a sound or even moving his lips (Confessions 6.3)! 22) Whether it was due to a poorer comprehensibility of ancient manuscripts which lacked proper punctuation and even spaces between words, or due to a venerable tradition of oral presentation of texts, the letter always remained a ghostly shadow of sound in Greco-Roman antiquity. When analysing Greek literary techniques we are in a much better position than with Hebrew texts since we possess some theoretic treatises written by rhetoricians who still belonged to the same tradition. Nevertheless, we should carefully distinguish between the practice employed by Greek writers and the theories explaining this practice in terms that significantly differ from ours. The fact that the theories keep silence concerning a certain phenomenon does not necessarily infer the total absence of it. First of all, one has to agree with M. Gasparov 23) that the extant works [of ancient rhetoricians] which are at our disposal are few in number and unrepresentative. Then, the whole categorical apparatus of the ancient rhetoricians differed a lot from our own: they may have failed to describe a certain phenomenon simply because it did not suit their models. As for alliteration, Greeks did not have anything similar to what can be found in early Latin authors. 24) More than that, Greek rhetoricians known to us never mention alliteration. Still it would not be correct to say alliteration was not present in Greek literature. As was the case with Latin speaking Romans, Greeks knew alliteration from their folk songs. Athenaeus in his Deipnosophistae (8.60) quotes such a song: 25) 22) See a brief but profound discussion of this subject in J. D. Harvey, Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul s Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 51-54. 23) М. Л. Гаспаров, Античная риторика как система, М. Л. Гаспаров, ed., Античная поэтика. Риторическая теория и литературная практика ( Москва: Наука, 1991), 27-59, 27. 24) See, for instance, fragmentum spurium 9 to Annals by Quintus Ennius: Machina multa minax minitatur maxima muris. This can be rendered into English in the following way: In the battle a battering ram breaks a breach in the bastion s bailey. 25) See a discussion in E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI Jahrhundert vor Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (Leipzig: Teubner, 1898), 823.

234 성경원문연구제35호 ἦλθ ἦλθε χελιδὼν Come, little swallow, καλὰς ὥρας ἄγουσα καλοὺς ἐνιαυτούς ἐπὶ γαστέρα λευκά ἐπὶ νῶτα μέ λαινα. παλάθαν σὺ προκύκλει ἐκ πίονος οἴκου οἴνου τε δέπαστρον τυροῦ τε κά νυστρον. bring us good times, good years! Your belly is white, your back is black. Provide us with cakes from a house of wealth, with a beaker of wine, with a basket of cheese. It can be easily seen that this verse is based on repetition and parallelism backed up with sound repetitions like δέπαστρον κά νυστρον. Presumably, this sort of alliteration is characteristic of folk songs in many corners of the world. Some literary traditions make good use of them: ancient Germanic verse based on an elaborated system of internal alliteration can serve as an example. At the same time other literary traditions leave it aside as primitive. For the Greco-Roman writers alliteration was a very marginal tool which would have been be implemented only occasionally and would have been hardly worth mentioning in theoretic treatises. In Orestes by Euripides (140-143) we can find a brilliant example of alliteration in the lines 26) : ΧΟΡΟΣ σῖγα σῖγα λεπτὸν ἴχνος ἀρβύλης ΗΛΕΚΤΡΑ τίθετε μὴ κτυπεῖτ. ἀποπρὸ βᾶτ ἐκεῖσ ἀποπρό μοι κοίτ ας. CHORUS: ELECTRA: Hush! hush! let your footsteps fall lightly! not a sound! not whisper! Further, further from his couch! I beseech ye. It is worth noticing that these alliterations are onomatopoeic: constant repetition of voiceless π, τ, κ, πτ, κτ perfectly depict the patter of a crowd. In the first century BC this very passage was chosen as a sample by Dionysius of Halicarnassus for his treatise entitled On the Arrangement of Words (De compositione verborum, 11). Amazingly, he failed to mention this striking onomatopoeic feature. The obvious reason is that Greek rhetoricians employed 26) English version by E. P. Coleridge.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 235 but paid no attention to sound repetition as a feature in their discourses on rhetoric. The only context where they did speak about alliteration was in the discussion of certain poetic techniques, mainly isocolon (ἰσό κολον, equality of cola) or parisosis ( παρί σωσις, equation). Here is the definition given prior to Aristotle by Anaximenes in Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (28): Paromoeosis ( παρομοίωσις assimilation) goes further than parisosis, as it not only makes the members equal in length but assimilates them by employing similar words to construct them. Assimilate specially the terminations of words this is the best way of producing paromoeosis. Similar words are those formed of similar sounding syllables. An few lines from Helena by Gorgias (fifth us how it was implemented in practice: 28) ἄξιος οὖν ὁ μὲν ἐπιχειρήσας βάρβαρος βάρβαρον ἐπιχείρημα sixth centuries BC) 27) can show So the barbarian who undertook a barbarian undertaking καὶ λόγῳ καὶ νόμῳ καὶ ἔργῳ in speech and in law and in deed, λόγῳ μὲν αἰτίας deserves to receive accusation in speech, νόμῳ δὲ ἀτιμίας debarment in law, ἔργῳ δὲ ζημίας τυχεῖ ν: and punishment in deed; ἡ δὲ βιασθεῖσα but the woman who was violated καὶ τῆς πατρίδος στερηθεῖσα and deprived of her country καὶ τῶν φίλων ὀρφανισθεῖσα and bereaved of her family πῶς οὐκ ἂν εἰκότως ἐλεηθείη would she not reasonably be pitied μᾶλλον ἢ κακολογηθεί η; rather than reviled? ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἔδρασε δεινά ἡ δὲ ἔ παθε: He performed terrible acts, she suffered them; δίκαιον οὖν τὴν μὲν οἰκτῖραι τὸν δὲ μισῆ σαι. so it is just to sympathize with her but to hate him. One can easily see that this text employs extremely rich isocola; usually they are stressed by distinctive rhythmic and sound repetitions. Still, outside the so-called early sophistic this approach met with little 27) This passage was discussed in Т. А. Миллер, От поэзии к прозе ( Риторическая проза Горгия и Исократа), M. JI. Гаспаров, ed., Античная поэтика. Риторическая теория и литературн ая практика ( Москва: Наука, 1991), 60-105. 28) English version by D. M. MacDowell.

236 성경원문연구제35호 appreciation. Isocrates, who may have been a disciple of Gorgias, rejected this style as unnatural in his treatise In sophistas, composed about 391 BC. It was a judgement that became normative for ages to come. Even Isocrates was later blamed for the same sort of unnaturalness. For instance, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (De compositione verborum, 19) wrote that Isocrates followers admit too much of boring sameness, also on the level of phonetics: συμπλοκῆς φωνηέντων ἡ αὐτή the same combinations of sounds. φυλακὴ A similar idea was expressed in the first century CE by Demetrius (De elocutione, 26-27) 29) who discusses homoeoteleuta (ὁμοιοτέλευτα similar endings), i.e., cola that end with similar or the same sounds. He insisted that the use of this technique was rather risky since it made the speech less natural. One may wonder what criteria he proposed for naturalness and how much of it could be found in ancient rhetoric in general, but for us it is important to notice his reservation regarding Gorgias manner of speech. Anyhow, be the rhetoricians in favour of sound repetition or not, they regarded it as merely an accessory to certain other features such as isocolon. In consequence, they were considered as belonging to the domain of rhetorical prose. It is no wonder, then, that Dionysius does not give attention to alliteration in Euripides: for him they were relevant for prose, while poetry was composed by completely different rules. Still, it would not be correct to say that Dionysius paid no attention to the sounds in poetry at all. He was was just looking for something else, namely, the quality of different sounds and their compatibility. For instance, he quoted two lines from Ilias by Homer (xi, 36-37): τῇ δ ἐπὶ μὲν Γοργὼ βλοσυρῶπις ἐστεφάνωτο δεινὸν δερκομένη περὶ δ ὲ Δεῖμός τε Φόβ ος τε. and there like a crown the Gorgon s grim mask the burning eyes, the stark, transfixing horror and round her strode the shapes of Rout and Fear. 30) One can easily notice sound repetition in these lines, especially in the second 29) See also M. JI. Гаспаров, Античная риторика как система, 51. 30) English version by R. Fagles.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 237 one: δε - δειν - δε - μεν - δε - δειμ. Besides that, the ends of the lines are full of alliteration: ἐστεφάνωτο - Δεῖμός τε Φόβος τε. Nevertheless, Dionysius (De compositione verborum, 16) did not say a word about this repetition 31). The artistry of the poet, according to Dionysius, was realised in the very choice of the sounds, in a certain phonetic toning of the text. In a word, relative links between sounds was of no importance for him: it was only absolute value ascribed to certain phonetic units that counted. Probably, this was conditioned to an extent by the general antagonism to phonetic repetitions shown by Dionysius, as well as by the whole Greek rhetorical theory as we know it. It was also demonstrated by S. Averintsev 32) that even such a serious author as Plato paid certain attention to the sounding of his prose and occasionally used plays on words (paronomasia). This is not surprising if we remember that his favourite genre, dialogue, was considered as primarily oral in its origin. Here is a brilliant sample from his Republic (495e): Δοκεῖς οὖ ν τι, ἦν δ ἐγώ, διαφέρειν αὐτοὺς ἰδεῖν ἀργύριον κτησαμένου χαλκέ ως, φαλακροῦ τε καὶ σμικροῦ, νεωστὶ μὲν ἐκ δεσμῶν λελυμένου, ἐν βαλανείῳ δὲ λελουμένου, νεουογὸν ἱμάτιον ἔ χοντος, ὡς νυμφίου παρεσκευασμέ νου, διὰ πενίαν καὶ ἐρημίαν τοῦ δεσπότου τὴν θυγατέρα μέλλοντος γαμεῖ ν; Is not the picture which they present, I said, precisely that of a little bald-headed tinker who has made money and just been freed from bonds and had a bath and is wearing a new garment and has got himself up like a bridegroom and is about to marry his master s daughter? 33) It is evident that word pairs like, πενίαν - ἐρημίαν and in particular λελυμένου - λελουμέ νου (with only one vowel slightly different!) helps in producing a strong rhetoric effect. This ironic passage, however, is by its nature close to a folkloric genre, perhaps influenced by some actual prick songs or street jokes known to the author. 31) Instead, he was drawing reader s attention to the fact that Homerus had chosen for this frightening description special sounds: as for the vowels not the strongest ones but the most discordant ones; as for the consonants the hardest to pronounce ( τῶν τε φωνηέντων οὐ τὰ κρ άτιστα θήσει ἀλλὰ τὰ δυσηχέστατα καὶ τῶν ψοφοειδῶν ἢ ἀφώνων τὰ δυσεκφορώτατα λή ψεται). 32) С. С. Аверинцев, Неоплатонизм перед лицом Платоновой критики мифопоэтического мы шления, Ф. Х. Кессиди, ed., Платон и его эпоха ( Москва: Наука, 1979), 83-97. 33) English version by P. Shorey.

238 성경원문연구제35호 We can conclude that in practice alliteration was more or less regularly used in prose and occasionally in poetry although the theory prescribed to be extremely cautious in using them. From the extant texts we can judge that Greek scholars paid little attention to sound repetitions taking them as a very marginal and secondary feature. As for rhythmic patterns, the picture is similar. Modern scholars use the word metre practically in the same sense as their ancient predecessors who usually applied it to regular patterns composed by certain numbers of long and short syllables in a certain order. At the same time the term rhythm now is used rather broadly. In this article it defines regular alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables. This, however, is rather far from ancient usage which is traced in detail in a work by A. Primmer 34) so here we can confine ourselves to giving just a couple of examples. Aristotle (Rhetorica, 3.8) used to call rhythm the measure for speech which has metres as its units (ὁ δὲ τοῦ σχήματος τῆς λέξεως ἀριθμὸς ῥυθμός ἐστιν οὗ καὶ τὰ μέτρα τμή ματα). Dionysius of Halicarnassus ( De compositione verborum, 11) listed rhythm among the four factors that make the speech pleasant, together with melody ( μέ λος), diversity ( μεταβολή) and relevance ( πρεπό ν). Melody in his system had to do with what we call prosody while rhythm, as was the case with Aristotle, apparently was used in application to quantitative versification. So for them rhythm and metre were not at all to be opposed. This is not surprising as they hardly ever considered different systems of versification. This opposition, however, emerged in late antiquity when due to linguistic changes in Greek and Latin pronunciation ancient quantitative metres became inaudible and new sorts of versification was introduced both in the East and the West. Latin rhetoricians of the epoch 35) eventually started to call these new verses rhythmic, as opposed to classical metric verses which by the way they never ceased to compose till nowadays. To our astonishment, their Byzantine colleagues never bothered to notice the existence of these two rival systems of versification, both of which flourished in their culture. 34) A. Primmer, Cicero Numerosus. Studien zum Antiken Prosarhythmus (Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1968), 17-41. 35) According to Гаспаров, Очерк истории европейского стиха, 89, the first to introduce this distinction was Marius Victorinus about 353 C. E.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 239 5. The Byzantine continuation Initially, Greeks rhetoricians and grammarians paid very little attention to stressed or unstressed syllables; they even did not have one term for such a phenomenon as stress which they called τόνος or προσῳδί α. This negligence was determined by the role (or, better, the absence of any role) plaid by stresses in classical Greek verse. There was simply no practical reason to count them; as M. Gasparov noticed, tones apparently plaid no role at all in the rhythmic structures of the ancient Greek verse 36). Things changed in late antiquity (presumably, not before the third century), 37) when the length of vowels became indistinguishable in spoken Greek and Latin. From this time, no one needed special training to be able to appreciate metric poetry. Since quantity was now inaudible, poets started to introduce order in stresses 38). In artistic prose the situation was quite different. First, it should be specified that characteristic formal features of ancient prose are seen best in rhetorical prose. Its primary aim was formal perfection and it never ceased to be the subject of careful theoretical study. 39) Ancient rhetoricians did say a few things about stressed and unstressed syllables: in fact, they advised to avoid repeating too many words that have the same number of syllables and length, or tonic structure 40). In practice, however, stresses may have been more organised, basically due to repetitions of similar grammatical forms. Let us consider the lines quoted above from Helena by Gorgias: 36) Ibid., 83-86. 37) The exact dating of these changes is a subject of constant debate. O. Shirokov, for instance, gives the diapason of 600 years: the tonic accents started to be replaced by expiratory stresses from the second century BC; by the third-fourth centuries AD the vowels length was levelled ; О. С. Широков, История греческого языка ( Москва: Московский государственны й университет, 1983), 107. 38) See hexameters by Nonnus of Pannopolis as an example in Гаспаров, Очерк истории европей ского стиха, 90-94. 39) See such classical works as E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI Jahrhundert vor Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (Leipzig: Teubner, 1898); A. Primmer, Cicero Numerosus. Studien zum Antiken Prosarhythmus (Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1968). 40) Aristotle, Rhetorica, 3.8; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De compositione verborum, 19; Hermogenes of Tarsus, Of Ideas, 1.12.

240 성경원문연구제35호 λόγῳ μὲν αἰτίας νόμῳ δὲ ἀτιμίας ἔργῳ δὲ ζημί ας... Quite probably, Gorgias did care about the regular prosodic structure, the same way he cared about phonetic repetitions. He may have been done this intuitively. Both he and his audience may have taken it as a side-effect of the feature called isocolon. When a vowel s length became indistinguishable in spoken Greek, stresses apparently became more important as a device to organise a text phonetically. In the example quoted above no one would have been able to discern regular patterns of long and short vowels. Stressed and unstressed syllables were, however, still audible. This factor initiated a change in the technique of composing rhetorical prose. By 1886 E. Bouvy 41) had formulated the syntonic principle (principe syntonique), according to which early Byzantine rhetors tended to finish each colon with a certain dactylic sequence (une dipodie dactylique): two stressed syllables followed by two unstressed respectively. A few years later, in 1891, W. Meyer 42) formulated what became known as Meyersgesetz, Meyer s rule. In the fourth century, Greek rhetoric prose started to follow a certain rule pattern: whereby two unstressed syllables should preceed the last stressed syllable in a syntagm (i.e., before a pause). The quantity of these syllables (now merely theoretic) played no role at all. Strangely enough, Greek speakers did not notice this change; it took a nineteenth century European scholar to formulate it. Greek writers did still appreciate and praise the beauty in words and rhythm ( κάλλος ἐν λέξεσι καὶ ῥυθμοῦ), to take a nice expression by Synesius of Cyrene, 43) but they never managed to determine the true nature of this rhythm, neither in later antiquity nor in the Byzantine epoch. As S. Averintsev said, for Byzantine theoreticians in general all the new developments concerning the accentual structure of Greek 41) E. Bouvy, Poètes et mélodes, 183, 353-354. 42) K. Litzica, Das Meyersche Satzschlußgesetz in Der Byzantinischen Prosa, Mit einem Anhang über Prokop von Käsarea (München: Buchholz, 1898); W. Meyer, Akzentuierte Satzschluß in der Griechischen Prosa vom IV bis XVI Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Deuerlich, 1891). See a more recent discussion in W. Hörandner, Der Prosarhythmus in der rhetorischen Literatur der Byzantiner (Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981), 26-37. 43) His witness, as well as the witnesses by other authors, is discussed in detail Ibid., 20-26.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 241 language were banned; the preconceived rhetoric theory had no conceptual and terminological apparatus to describe this change. Applied in practice, it remained outside theoretic models. 44) We know, however, that Byzantine scholars, however traditional, never refused to coin new terms and conceptions if a necessity was felt, patristic theology being the most prominent case. Indeed, where they saw no cardinal innovations they preferred to operate with the old concepts, sometimes with a slightly changed meaning: for instance, they kept calling themselves Ῥομαῖ οι, Romans, long after all actual links with the city of Rome were broken. So we can guess that the changes that took place did not introduce anything completely unknown and substantially new. The rhythmic alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables was already present in classical prose as a secondary feature. Due to phonetic changes, this feature became predominant and was not seen as a revolutionary change that would demand careful theoretical study and new terminology. 45) This process took place both in poetry and prose. In late antiquity, rhythm as alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables, previously known as a secondary feature, became a support and substitution for disappearing quantitative metres. By the late fifth century it emerged in poetry as a new system of versification. 46) As an example, these lines from the famous Akathistos hymn to Virgin Mary can be quoted (the date of the composition and the author both remain unknown): Χαῖρε δι ἧς ἡ χαρὰ ἐκλάμψει Rejoice, you through whom joy will shine forth, χαῖρε δι ἧς ἡ ἀρὰ ἐκλείψει Rejoice, you through whom the curse will cease! χαῖρε τοῦ πεσόντος Ἀδὰμ ἡ Rejoice, recall of fallen Adam, ἀνάκλησις χαῖρε τῶν δακρύων τῆς Εὔας ἡ Rejoice, redemption of the tears of Eve! λύτρωσις 44) С. С. Сергей Сергеевич Аверинцев, Византийская риторика. Школьная норма литературно го творчества в составе византийской культуры, М. Л. Гаспаров, ed., Проблемы литератур ной теории в Византии и латинском Средневековье ( Москва: Наука, 1986), 19-90, 40. 45) See E. Bouvy, Poètes et mélodes. 46) See a general description in J. G. de Matons, Romanos le Mélode et les origines de la poésie religieuse à Byzance (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), and a more specific discussion in М. Л. Гаспа ров, Очерк истории европейского стиха ( Москва: Наука, 1989), 77-84.

242 성경원문연구제35호 χαῖρε ὕψος δυσανάβατον Rejoice, height inaccessible ἀνθρωπίνοις λογισμοῖς to human thoughts, χαῖρε βάθος δυσθεώρητον Rejoice, depth undiscernible καὶ ἀγγέλων ὀφθαλμοῖς for angels eyes! The phonetic changes that eventually made the old metric poetry inaudible presumably took place after the completion of the LXX so that they apparently had no effect on it. One is therefore justified in asking: if there is any phonetic regularity, does it have to do with translation technique as such or rather with the reception of phonetic regularity by subsequent generations? Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, Greeks in the third century BCE spoke more or less classical Greek. 47) Nevertheless, it is possible that changes, such as the leveling of vowel length, may have started to take place in the pronunciation of translators and the first readers of the LXX the majority of whom were not Greeks long before they were attested in normative Greek. There is no direct proof for such a claim, but the orthography of the Oxyrinchus papyri can be cited as support: 48) long vowels were mixed with short ones and unstressed vowels occasionally became reduced. If this hypothesis is true, it becomes clear that Greek-speaking Jews would not have heard classical metres at all. They would learn them at school, but one would not expect them to imitate a complicated versification system foreign to their own indigenous natural language. This is why there is no point in trying to find any metres in the LXX. All this made J. Irigoin 49) ask: Il est donc probable que, dans les régions du monde hellénistique où le grec, devenant une Koinè, s est trouvé concurrencer d autres langues et a été pratiqué par des peuples dont la langue maternelle était autre et présentait en particulier un système vocalique et accentuel different, l évolution des phonèmes et des types d accent du grec a été plus rapide. Le grec employé en Égypte par des Juif a donc pu presenter plus tôt qu ailleurs des virtualités rhythmiques mises en œvre par les traducteurs de la Septante. Il est alors permis de se demander si le substrat rhythmique de la version hébreu n a pas servi de guide aux 47) See, e.g. an overview in G. Horrocks, Greek, A History of the Language and Its Speakers (London: Longmans, 1997). 48) Ibid., 102ff. 49) J. Irigoin, La composition rythmique des cantiques de Luc, 49.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 243 auteurs de la version, les conduisant parfois à sacrifier au respect du rhythme tel détail de la traduction. Irigoin himself did not try to answer this question. Nor do I know of any other attempt to do so. Our analysis, however, demonstrates that a cautious yes can be given in response to his hypothesis. 6. Conclusion The examples that we have analysed show that a certain quest for more formal regularity could have influenced LXX translator s choices when they were choosing non-standard equivalents. In other words, translational anomalies can be explained, alongside with other reasons, by translator s intention to produce more alliterations and assonances and more rhythmic regularities. This factor has been usually neglected so far because the Septuagint itself was not regarded as a literary text that can make an aesthetic impact on the reader. On the other hand, classical Greek theories of literary composition pay no attention to these features although they occasionally occur in practice. Things changed in late antiquity, when the length of vowels became indistinguishable in spoken Greek and Latin. Eventually a new system of versification appeared, based on stressed syllables. It can be argued that the LXX played a role in this transition, preparing some ground for these changes to take place. If D. Barthélémy is right in assuming that the LXX provided Alexandrinian Jews with liturgical texts, 50) then these passages would have been frequently recited and chanted in synagogues, creating a new tradition, continued later by Christians. We cannot speak, however, about Septuagint poetry per se, for it never existed. No clear border can be drawn between versified and prosaic LXX texts. One may argue that the degree of liberty and artistry in Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 is considerably higher than in narrative texts, but this is a matter of degree. If we approach our material from a reception perspective, we will see that 50) D. Barthélemy, Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en Grec?, Black M. and Smalley W. A., eds., On Language, Culture and Religion: In Honour of Eugene Nida (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 23-41.

244 성경원문연구제35호 these passages were regarded as songs, and more than that as sacred songs to be recited and imitated. This is the basic reason why one can speak about their influence on a new kind of Greek poetry. We can be sure that the legendary elders, whoever they were in reality, never intended to create a text that would be rejected by the Jewish community of faith as a golden calf that replaced the original Torah. But this was what actually happened. They certainly would not have imagined that a good half of Christendom would come to accept their version as its main text of the Scriptures. But this also happened. So it is justifiable to treat the LXX as a departure point of a long tradition even though the original translators would never have intended or anticipated such an eventuality. In summary, this article suggests that certain features that appeared in the LXX (first of all, sound repetitions and rhythmic patterns) would be imitated on a much larger scale by Christian Greek writers and would eventually develop into a completely new system of versification known today as Byzantine rhythmic poetry. <Keywords> Bible translation, Septuagint, Alliterations, Rhythmic patterns, Poetic features, Byzantine poetry. ( 투고일자: 2014년 6월 15 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 245 <References> Aitken, James, K., Rhetoric and Poetry in Greek Ecclesiastes, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005), 55-78. Barr, James, Doubts about Homoeophony in Septuagint, Textus 12 (1985), 1-77. Barthélemy, Dominique, Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en Grec?, M. Black and W. A. Smalley, eds., On Language, Culture and Religion: In Honour of Eugene Nida, The Hague: Mouton, 1974, 23-41. Bons, Eberhard, Rhetorical Devices in the Septuagint Psalter, Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus, eds., Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, 69-82. Bouvy, Edmond, Poètes et Mélodes. Etudes sur les origines du rythme tonique dans l hymnographie de l Eglise Grecque, Nîmes: Lafare frères, 1886. De Waard, Jan, Homophony in the Septuagint, Biblica 62 (1981), 551-561. De Waard, Jan, Some Unusuial Translation Techniques Employed by the Greek Translator(s) of Proverbs, S. Sollamo and R. Sipilä, eds., Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001, 185-194. De Waard, Jan, The Septuagint Translation of Proverbs as a Translational Model?, The Bible Translator 50 (1999), 304-314. Deissmann, Adolf, The Philology of Greek Bible, Its Present and Future, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908. Dines, Jennifer M., Stylistic Invention and Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of the Twelve, Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus, eds., Et Sapienter et Eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, 23-48. Dorival, Giles, La Bible des Septante chez les auteurs païens (jusqu au Pseudo-Longin), Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 1 (1987), 9-26. Gera, Deborah Levine, Translating Hebrew Poetry into Greek Poetry: The Case of Exodus 15, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007), 107-120. Grosdidier de Matons, José, Romanos Le Mélode et les origines de la poésie religieuse à Byzance, Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. Harvey, John D., Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul s Letters, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

246 성경원문연구제35호 Hörandner, Wolfram, Der Prosarhythmus in der rhetorischen Literatur der Byzantiner, Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981. Horrocks, Geoffrey, Greek, A History of the Language and Its Speakers, London: Longmans, 1997. Irigoin, Jean, La composition rythmique des cantiques de Luc, Revue Biblique 98 (1991), 5-50. Kraus, Thomas J., Rhetorical Devices in the Septuagint Psalter, Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus, eds., Et Sapienter et Eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, 49-68. Litzica, Konstantin, Das Meyersche Satzschlußgesetz in der Byzantinischen Prosa, mit einem Anhang über Prokop von Käsarea, München: Buchholz, 1898. Meyer, Wilhelm, Akzentuierte Satzschluß in der Griechischen Prosa vom IV bis XVI Jahrhundert, Göttingen: Deuerlich, 1891. Norden, E., Die Antike Kunstprosa vom VI Jahrhundert vor Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, Leipzig: Teubner, 1898. Primmer, Adolf, Cicero Numerosus. Studien zum antiken Prosarhythmus, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1968. Sollamo, Raija, The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch, N. F. Marcos, ed., La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano, 1985, 101-113. Syrén, Roger, The Blessings in the Targum. A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Åbo: Åbo akademi, 1986. Tov, Emanuel, Loan-Words, Homophony and Transliteration in the Septuagint, Biblica 60 (1979), 216-236. Tov, Emanuel, The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of Other Books, P. Casetti, et al., eds., Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy, Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1981, 577-592. Tov, Emanuel, The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the Past and Present, C. E. Cox, ed., VI Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Atlanta: Scholars, 1987, 337-359. Van Der Louw, Theo A. W., Transformations In The Septuagint: Towards An Interaction Of Septaguint Studies And Translation Studies, Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases / Andrei S. Desnitsky 247 Watson, Wilfred G. E., Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Wevers, John William, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Wevers, John William, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, Atlanta: Scholars, 1993. Wunderli, Peter, Ferdinand de Saussure und die Anagramme: Linguistik und Literatur, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1972. Аверинцев, Сергей Сергеевич, Византийская риторика. Школьная норма лите ратурного творчества в составе византийской культуры, М. Л. Гаспаров, ed., Проблемы литературной теории в Византии и латинском Средневек овье, Москва: Наука, 1986, 19-90. Аверинцев, Сергей Сергеевич, Неоплатонизм перед лицом Платоновой крити ки мифопоэтического мышления, Кессиди, ed., Платон и его эпоха, Ф. Х. Москва: Наука, 1979, 83-97. Гаспаров, Михаил Леонович, Античная риторика как система, М. Л. Гаспаро в, ed., Античная поэтика. Риторическая теория и литературная практи ка, Москва: Наука, 1991, 27-59. Гаспаров, Михаил Леонович, Очерк истории европейского стиха, Москва: Нау ка, 1989. Миллер, Т. А., От поэзии к прозе ( риторическая проза Горгия и Исократа), М. Л. Гаспаров, ed., Античная поэтика. Риторическая теория и литера турная практика, Москва: Наука, 1991, 60-105. Широков, Олег Сергеевич, История греческого языка, Москва, Москва: Моско вский государственный университет, 1983.

248 성경원문연구제35호 <Abstract> Euphony in the Septuagint: Genesis 49 and Exodus 15 as Study Cases Andrei S. Desnitsky (The Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Science) This article takes a closer look at some poetic passages in the Septuagint in order to determine if a certain quest for more formal regularity could have influenced translator s choices. This factor has been usually neglected so far because the Septuagint itself was not regarded as a literary text that can make an aesthetic impact on the reader. Anyway, the study demonstrates that at times translational anomalies can be explained, alongside with other reasons, by translator s intention to produce more alliterations and assonances and more rhythmic regularities than a standard equivalent would. Still, this research demands a rather balanced methodology so that meaningful solutions can be distinguished from mere coincidences. So the methodology is discussed here in detail. Another aspect which is considered in this study is the role played by the Septuagint in the history of Greek literature. One may ask if some Septuagint texts influenced to a certain degree the future rise of the Byzantine rhythmic poetry, and the present study gives a cautious approval to this hypothesis.

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 249 The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited Kyu Seop Kim* 1. Introduction What does מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים in Exodus 19:6 mean? There has been no scholarly consensus on the meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים,מ a significant title for Israel. Should priests? in Exodus 19:6 be read in the sense of Israel ruled by מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים Otherwise, a royal priesthood or a priestly kingdom? God declares Israel s unique role and identity in the expression, which is known to suggest the peculiar nature of a history of Israel. 1) Echoes of מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים are also found in the New Testament (Revelation 1:6 βασιλεί αν, ἱερεῖ ς, 20:6 ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν μετ αὐτοῦ, 1 Peter 2:9 βασίλειον ἱερά τευμα ). This designation of Israel has had a great influence on the protestant doctrine, 2) and current liturgical discussions take a kingdom of priests to describe as a people worshipping God. 3) But the meaning of this phrase is still disputed. 4) This work begins with a review of the current debates * Ph.D. in progress in New Testament at University of Aberdeen. johnstott77@gmail.com. 1) Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 11. 2) R. B. Y. Scott, A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix 6), OTS 8 (1950), 213. 3) Thomas J. Talley, ed., A Kingdom of Priests: Liturgical Formation of the People of God (Bramcote: Grove, 1988). 4) Scholars diverge into several options. For the recent views, see Georg Steins, Priesterherrschaft, Volk von Priestern oder was sonst? Zur Interpretation von Ex 19,6, BZ 49 (2001), 20-36; Henk Jagersma, Structure and Function of Exodus 19:3b-6, J. W. Dyk, et al., eds., Unless Some One Guide Me (Maastricht: Shaker, 2001), 43-48; Ludwig Schmidt, Israel und das gesetz: Ex 19.3b-8 und 24.3-8 als literarischer und theologischer Rahmen für das Bundesbuch, ZAW 113 (2001), 167-85; John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement series 395 (London: T&T Clark) 2004, 157-159; Arie Van der Kooij, A

250 성경원문연구제35호 surrounding this expression and then evaluates the options in the light of the meanings of each word. The grammatical analysis of the construct in this work will offer a new contribution of its meaning. In addition, how can we properly translate it? It is also not apparent how to translate the phrase due to the unclear meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים. מ Accordingly, this work will consider the proper translation in the end of this study. 2. Literature Review This phrase has a long history of interpretation beginning with the ancient versions, but ancient translations did not consistently translate it. This denotes that there was no consensus in antiquity on the meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים. מ The LXX translates it as βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα that is, a kingly or royal priesthood. The Vulgate understands it as regnum sacerdotale, namely a priestly kingdom. and Targum Onkelos reads kings, (and) priests as separate positions. 5) Rashbam understands priests to be nobles. 6) Likewise in recent scholarship, the interpretations are many; but fall into three categories as: (1) Israel ruled by priests; (2) a kingdom set apart like priesthood; (3) a royal priesthood. 2.1. Israel ruled by priests This phrase מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים can be used to identify a ruling priestly elite within גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ and מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים,19:6 Israel. William.L Moran argues that in Exodus form the totality of Israel together. Consequently, כּ ה נ ים is a separate group from the general people and מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים refers to a regime of priests 7). Georg Fohrer contends that מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים implies that the rulers had the attribute of priests in the early era of Israel and the phrase could have originated in the Jerusalem Kingdom of Priests: Comments on Exo. 19:6, R. Roukema, et al., eds., The Interpretation of Exodus (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 171-179. 5) I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Exodus: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (Denver: Ktav, 1990), 190. 6) Rashbam, Rashbam s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation, M. I. Lockshin, trans. (Atlanta: Scholars, 2001), 202. 7) W. L. Moran, A Kingdom of Priests, J. L. McKenzie, ed., The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (New York: Herder & Herder, 1962), 8-20.

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 251 priest tradition before the exile. 8) On the other hand, Arie Van der Kooij also makes the case that this phrase means a kingdom ruled by priests under the supreme direction of a king who is also a priest. 9) First of all, he shows ἱεράτευμα in LXX refers to a particular and official group, that is, a body of priests in LXX in distinction from ἱερατεία which denotes the priesthood in the sense of priestly office in LXX. He thinks that later understandings of this phrase support it as leaders of the people, not as a whole people. In other words, this phrase refers to the form of government of the people and the priesthood with royal status. He also suggests that Exodus 19:6 reflects a similar idea to dual kingship/priesthood of Melchizedek of Salem in Genesis 14:18. Similar political constitutions (priesthood with royal status) are found in Phoenician cities, such as Tyre and Sidon. 10) However, though van der Kooij finds the origin of this phrase in the post-exilic era, it does not fit with the post-exilic situation that a kingdom of priests allows for the rule of a king who is also a priest. 11) In addition, the concept of reigning priests fits with the context of Exodus 19. 12) The primary concern in the context is the covenant with a collective people and it s unfitting to the context that a priestly government is suddenly mentioned in the context of Israel being separated out of all nations for the covenant with YHWH. 13) 2.2. A Kingdom Set Apart Like a Priesthood This reading is called the simplest reading of the text. 14) Scott suggested 8) G. Fohrer, Priesterliches Königtum(Ex 19,6), Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte (1949-1966) (Berlin: Water de Gruyter, 1969), 151-152. 9) Van der Kooij, A Kingdom of Priests, 173-177. 10) Van der Kooij, A Kingdom of Priests, 175-178. 11) Frank Crüsemann, Israel in der Perserzeit: Eine Skizze in Auseinandersetzung mit Max Weber, W. Schluchter, ed., Max Webers Sicht des antiken Christentums: Interpretation und Kritik (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985), 225. 12) Steins, Priesterherrschaft, 27. 13) R. B. Y. Scott, A Kingdom of Priests, 217; Gowan also says, I doubt that the two Hebrew words can support the idea that priestly rule is implied. Parallelism suggests the meaning ought to be similar to be similar to holy nation, D. E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical theology in the form of a commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 177; Davies calls this view the active-elite interpretation and says, It is commonly held that vv. 3b-8 must in some way be an introduction to the theophany, yet, on the active-elite interpretation, these verses are seen as rather intrusive, John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood, 81.

252 성경원문연구제35호 that this phrase describes Israel as a kingdom set apart like a priest among other nations. Just as the priesthood has a privileged position within a society, so Israel as a priestly kingdom is set apart from among all people 15). He says this phrase simply designates Israel as worshippers of Yahweh, a positive counterpart of the idea of separation from the worship of other gods expressed in function as synonyms in גּוֹי and מ מ ל כ ת Houtman, And according to. גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ 19:6. 16) Furthermore, Houtmann argues that מ מ ל כ ת and גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ are understood in terms of the term ס ג לּ ה in 19:5. As priests occupy a privileged position with their own obligations compared to ordinary people, so Israel occupies a special position with their own duties and responsibilities, because they are a holy nation and distinct from the nations. Finally, he contends that this phrase refers to Israel s unique position as a people in its entirety, not the position of the individual Israelite. While Scott and Houtman contends that כּ ה נ ים means set apart among all people, 17) neither Scott nor Houtman takes into acount נ ים,כּ ה which occurs in Exodus 19:22 and provides an important hint about the meaning of כּ ה נ ים in Exodus 19:6. Let us now review the final possible meaning a royal priesthood. 2.3. A Royal Priesthood.מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים John Davies understands the whole of Israel to be designated as He argues that Israel was given the divine grant of kingly authority, as found in ancient Near Eastern literature, but this perspective has been overlooked so far. Davies does not see this grant as separate from the grant of priesthood. He explains that royalty is the honorific status of Israel, and it makes Israel participate in the royal court of the divine king with reference to the priesthood. In this way, he accepts Martin Buber s view that priesthood involves a secular meaning, related to a court office. 18) But we need to consider that in the general order of constructs, the second noun usually modifies the first, and so the reading of a royal priesthood is 14) D. E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), 1994, 177. 15) R. B. Y. Scott, A Kingdom of Priests, 218, 219. 16) C. Houtman, Exodus (Kampen: Kok, 1994), 445. 17) R. B. Y. Scott, A Kingdom of Priests, 219. 18) John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood, 76-102.

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 253 unlikely. 19) מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים stands in a parallel relationship to the second title are observed as a common word pair in the Old גּוֹי and מ מ ל כ ת and, גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ Testament 20) This supports the idea that מ מ ל כ ת functions as a noun, not an adjective. For this reason, a royal priesthood reading of this phrase cannot be sustained. 3. Meaning of Each Word מ מ ל כ ת.3.1 Meaning of Does מ ל כ ת מ mean kingdom or king? Moran and Fohrer argue that means king. Moran writes, We can now point to a greater number of מ מ ל כ ת passages in which mamlaka most probably means king, royalty ; and among them there are some in which mamlaka together with a goy constitutes a state. 21) He explains the evidences that are used to support the meaning of מ מ ל כ וֹת king in the Old Testament. He explains from Jeremiah 1:15 that in the of the North, the throne is made for a king, not for a kingdom, and represents royal authority. And in Psalm 135:11, the psalmist mentions the mighty kings. מ מ ל כ וֹת כּ נ ע ן finally, such as king of the Amorites and the king of Bashan and Moran argues that in this case, מ מ ל כ וֹת undoubtedly refer to kings, not kingdoms, and he gives other examples (1Sa 10:18; 1Ki 5:1; 10:20; Isa 13:4; Jer 25:26; Amo 7:13; Psa 68:33; Lam 2:2; 2Ch 12:8; 17:10). Moreover he seeks from Phoenician inscriptions evidence that מ מ ל כ ה and מלך are synonyms. For these reasons, it seems that מ מ ל כ ת includes the meaning of king. Yet, it is not clear that all of these examples definitely mean king ; The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew indicates that these perhaps mean king. 22) However, the BDB lexicon does not even include this meaning of king 23). 19) J. B. Wells, God s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2001), 50-52. 20) 1Sa 8:20; 1Ki 18:10; 2Ch 32:15; Psa 46:7; 105:13; Isa 13:4; 60:12; Jer 1:10; 18:7, Eze 37:22; Dan 8:22; Zep 3:8. 21) W. L. Moran, A Kingdom of Priests, 17. 22) David Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 331. 23) Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament is an exception, but they quote only

254 성경원문연구제35호 Though the term can be used to signify the occupant of the office, such a use is abnormal. 24) Moreover, as Davies says, If it is taken as a construct phrase, which is the most natural reading, the concrete reading king will not suit, as king(s) of priests yields little sense. 25) Contrary to Moran s view, it is natural to understand מ מ ל כ וֹת כּ נ ע ן as nations of Canaan rather than kings of Canaan in Psalm 135:11. 26) And it should be noted that in Psalm 105:13, מ מ ל כ ה and גּוֹי are used not only as parallels but also as synonyms. 27) Even Moran acknowledges this point. 28) Thus, although the term may have the meaning of king, the context in Exodus 19 requires the meaning of kingdom. Therefore we can conclude kingdom. refers to מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים 3.2. Meaning of As with מ ל כ ת,מ scholars diverge on the meaning of,כּ ה נ ים 29) but there are two main interpretations a literal meaning which refers to a priestly group among Israel, and a metaphorical meaning, which refers to the whole Israel. E. Schüssler Fiorenza discusses the basic meaning of כּ ה ן as people who are assigned in a sanctified area or who serve the deity. 30) In other words, כּ ה ן is literally the group of the cultic officers in Israel. 31) However, I will show that Caspari s opinion and do not consider other s. 24) William Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenant (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 86. 25) John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary And Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 78. 26) ESV, NKJV and NRSV adopt the reading kingdoms of Canaan. 27) Steins, Priesterherrschaft, 26. 28) Against Caspari the principal objection has been that the comparision with Phoenician mmlkt is irrelevant, because in biblical Hebrew mamlaka does not mean king ; W. L. Moran, A Kingdom of Priests, 11. 29) E. Schüssler Fiorenza organizes the possible meanings into four sorts. First, כּ ה נ ים can mean the separated and chosen people from other nations. Secondly, it can stand for the priestly fuction of Israel as a mediator and a servant for all nations. Thirdly, it can indicate the accent and superiority about Israel s access to Yahweh as priests can approach Him. Fourthly, כּ ה נ ים can be a synonym of ק ד וֹשׁ and be understood as a sanctified worshipper of Yahweh or the bigger intensity of holiness of Israel; E. Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse (Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1972), 115-117. 30) Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott, 114. 31) The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew explains it means usually Israelite cultic officials of

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 255 reasons. in Exodus 19:6 can be used in a metaphorical sense for two כּ ה נ ים First, it does not fit the context that a specific group among Israel is abruptly mentioned, so a literal meaning of כּ ה נ ים in Exodus 19:6 (cultic officers) is unlikely. It is obvious that Exodus 19:4-6 is a proclamation for the whole of Israel according to 19:3b ת גּ יד ל ב נ י י שׂ ר א ל).(ו Mentioning the polity or cultic group does not fit in the context of the proclamation of the privileges and obligations of the whole of Israel. Secondly, though Van der Kooij argues כּ ה נ ים cannot be used metaphorically and that there is no parallel of such a use of כּ ה נ ים elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, 32) כּ ה ן is used in the Old Testament as a title of honor which refers to the king s sons and to high court-officials, and none of these had any special relationship to the cult. In this sense, we can understand the Israelites are called priests and that they are intimate friends of the king Yahweh in Exodus 19:6. 33) In 1 Kings 4:5, Zabud who is Nathan s son is called כּ ה ן ר ע ה ה מּ ל (a priest, the king s friend). As well, in 2 Samuel 8:18, it should be noted that David s sons are called priests.(וּב נ י ד ו ד כּ ה נ ים הי וּ) 34) One might read this text as proof that kings of Israel held the office of a priest. 35) But in 1 Samuel 13:8-14, Saul, a king of Israel, is denied the office of a priest; rather, he was strongly denounced for his cultic behavior by Samuel and disqualified for kingship. Accordingly, we can conclude that כּ ה ן can hold a secular and metaphorical meaning in the Old Testament 36) and that it can refer to a high court-officer or Yahweh offering sacrifice., David Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol 2, 364. 32) Van der Kooij, A Kingdom of Priests, 176. 33) Buber says, the word kohanim, which usually means priests, is synonymous, where it describes a secular court office, with the first at the hand of the king:, or with companion, adjutant. Martin Buber, Moses (Oxford: East and West Library, 1946), 106; Israel as a kingdom of priests, could not be adopted, because in the Exodus passage kohanim simply means direct servants, while Deuteronomy its meaning is naturally the sacred position of sanctuary officers. Martin Buber, The Prophetic Faith (New York: Harper, 1960), 160; Schüssler Fiorenza refutes this view, contending that it could be only a honored title or David s sons might have served the cults and especially the author might have regarded it as a technical term. But there is no evidence that is used as an honored title and David s son were related to the cult in the Old Testament. 34) LXX also interprets ק ד וֹשׁ as chiefs of the court ( αὐλά ρχαι). 35) Gordon J. Wenham, Were David's Sons Priests?, ZAW 87 (1975), 79-82; Carl Edwin Armerding, Was David s Sons really Priests?, Gerald F. Hawthorne, ed., Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by his Former Students (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 85.

256 성경원문연구제35호 an intimate friend of a king. In the same manner, we can metaphorically understand כּ ה נ ים in Exodus 19:6. מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים.4 Grammatical Analysis of Now that the meanings of כּ ה נ ים and מ מ ל כ ת have been explained, we turn to analyzing the relationship between these two words in the construct form. If this phrase is obviously a construct form, it can be understood as a sort of genitive. 37) Therefore, the most important question should be what kind of genitive this is, because this determines the meaning of the phrase. Possible genitive meanings can be divided into three categories: (1) genitive of agency (a kingdom with priests as rulers); (2) genitive of quality (a royal priesthood); (3) attributive genitive (a priestly kingdom). 38) 36) As the priesthood meant a variety of things and exercised a range of functions, it will be necessary to ask which particular aspect or aspects of priesthood may be intended by the use of the word in Exo 19.6, John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood, 91. 37) One can think מ מ ל כ ת is absolute because many ancient readers chose not only as a construct form (of the usual absolute מ ל כ ה (מ but also as an absolute such as readings of the Syriac Peshitta (kingdom and priests), Targums (kings (and) priests) and Jub 16:18. Among modern interpreters, J. B. Bauer rejects the general understanding in favor of a construct. He presents the similar cases in the Old Testament. For example, he argues יּ ל ת א ה ב ים ו י ע ל ת ח ן א (a loving doe, a grace deer) in Proverbs 5:19 has absolute noun + absolute noun - absolute noun + adjective structure just like גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ // מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים in Exodus.19:6 But יּ ל ת א should be understood as a construct and each pair of loving doe, a graceful deer can be regarded as construct relations most naturally. He also presents two other examples in Psalm 48:17 and Zechariah 1:13. But both of these cases are ambiguous. A possible alternative explanation is that each pair is introduced by a plural construct followed by an enclitic mem, as Davies points out. Therefore we can conclude that each example which Bauer presents does not provide proofs for his argument and that מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים is finally a construct form. See J. B. Bauer, Könige und Priester, ein heiliges Volk (Ex 19, 6), BZ 2 (1958), 283-286; John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood, 83. 38) But Steins suggests 5 possible genitive meanings as following: (1) genitive of agency: a kingdom with priests as rulers; (2) genitive of quality: a royal priesthood; (3) objective genitive: the royal ruling over priests or a kingdom having priests; (4) attributive genitive: a priestly kingdom; (5) genitive of genus: a kingdom which priests belong to. (Steins, Priesterherrschaft, 23-24.) But we can more narrow down the possible genitive meaning into (1), (2) and (4) because (3) and (5) are seldom supported by contemporary scholars. If we accept objective genitive view (3), means a body of priests subject to kingly rule or a kingdom possessing a legitimate priesthood. But this view should be rejected for the reason following. Scott explains that first of all, this view is not fit for the context, where Israel collectively as a

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 257 4.1. Genitive Of Agency (A Kingdom With Priests As Rulers) If we understand this phrase as a genitive of agency, it refers to a priestly group within Israel identified as a ruling priestly elite. Moran argues that are complementary to each other in their relationship גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ and מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים and that the two together refer to the totality of Israel. 39) Van der Kooij argues that in terms of מ מ ל כ ת ע וֹג (the kingdom of Og) in Num 32:13 and Deuteronomy case, more likely points to the leaders of the people. In this מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים 3:13, גּוֹי and מ מ ל כ ה And Moran argues that.מ מ ל כ ה is the genitive of agency to כּ ה נ ים constitute one nation in Jeremiah 18:7-8, 27:7-8. But this cannot be the only an alternative. In Jeremiah 18:7-8 and 27:7-8, גּוֹי can be understood as the whole national entity and מ מ ל כ ה and גּוֹי as synonyms. 40) Indeed, they occur together and are interchangeable terms in Psalm 105:13 and 1 Chronicles 16:20. 41) However, the context of Exodus 19:4-6 does not support this reading. clause, is the privilege as the result of obedience to the conditional מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים If you hear my voice and keep my covenant, and it is implausible that the covenantal privilege is the political constitution of a government under the priestly leaders. 42) On the contrary, Van der Kooij argues that 19:6 is not related people or kingdom is contrasted with other peoples, not her priesthood with theirs, and the royal ruling over priests cannot convey the notion of fellowship with YHWH in the covenantal context, Scott, A Kingdom of Priests, 217. And the genitive of genus view (5) includes the idea that all of citizens individually have the right of direct approach to God. This view is supported by Revelation 1:6, 5:9-10 and 20:6. But this view cannot be sustained in that the primary interest in the context is the covenant as made with a collective body, the house of Jacob.the children of Israel (v.3), not individually in Scott, A Kingdom of Priests, 217; The point is Israel s unique position as a people in its entity to God (cf. 19:3b, 5), not the position of the individual Israelite. The notion of the universal priesthood of believers lies outside the horizon of Exo. 19, Houtman, Exodus II, 446. 39) W. L. Moran, A Kingdom of Priests, 13. 40) Davies observes, Synonymous parallelism would even appear to be the simplest explanation of such passages as Jer 29:18, 51:20 and Psa 46:7, where the remaining terms in each hemistich are synonymously parallel, John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood, 80. 41) Houtman says, Apart from the question whether מ מ ל כ ת can mean king in Hebrew doubtful in my view it should be noted that the duality ruler(s)-ruled ill fits the subject you, and leads to a strained interpretation, in Houtman, Exodus II, 445. 42) The supporters of this view seeks the grounds of the argument in historical reconstruction of this text. But this text should be understood in the final form. Cf, Modern scholars have, I believe, failed to do justice to this passage, and that for two reasons. On the one hand, they have been unable to agree on its literary source, which has in turn hampered them in its interpretation. On the other hand, in their obsession with historical origins and parallels, they

258 성경원문연구제35호 to the conditional clause in 19:5, and that 19:6 introduces a new aspect to organize the people of YHWH as a political entity - the ruler and the ruled. 43) He suggests the structure of 4-6 as below. א תּ ם ר א ית ם.v 4 ו ע תּ ה א ם שׁ מ וֹ תּ שׁ מ עוּ.v 5 ו א תּ ם תּ ה יוּ ל י.v 6 Van der Kooij argues that this whole structure denotes that it begins with the use of the plural pronoun תּ ם,א as in 19:4, and that 19:6 syntactically does not belong to the sentence of 19:5. The focus of 19:5 is the status of Israel among other nations, and this sentence is completed with the last clause - for all the earth is mine. Van der Kooij also contends that 19:6 begins the new focus, which is a new statement about organizing the people of God. Finally, he thinks that mentioning a specific group among Israel fits the context. 44) However, Van der Kooij overlooks the parallel of the verb ה י ה in 19:5 and 6. He mentions that the element ה י ה is common to both verses, but he insists the setting between the two verses is different, although how the setting is different is unclear in his article. 45) Yet, he misses the inverted parallel structure of 19:5-6 as below. 46) A וה י ית ם ל י ס ג לּ ה B מ כּ ל ה ע מּ ים B כּ י ל י כּ ל ה א ר ץ A ו א תּ ם תּ ה יוּ ל י מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים ו ג וֹי ק ד וֹשׁ have overlooked its significance within the present arrangement of Exodus, John W. Kleinig, On Eagles Wing: An Exegetical Study of Exodus 19:2-8, Lutheran Theological Journal 21 (1987), 18. 43) Van der Kooij, A Kingdom of Priests, 177. 44) Along with his syntactical argumentation, he deals with early reception history of the text such as LXX, 2 Maccabees and Targumim, and historical arguments in his article. But these arguments are beyond the range of this paper. 45) He only says, it makes sense to have Hebrew term ג לּ ה.ס combined with the phrase among all peoples, but this does not apply to the expressions of v. 6. This verse bears upon the people of Israel as a political entity (,(גּוֹי with a particular emphasis on the issue of its constitution 177. Priests, Van der Kooij, A Kingdom of, (מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים ( 46) John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood, 59; Wells suggests the similar structure. See Wells, God s Holy people, 47.

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 259 מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים ו ג וֹי ק ד וֹשׁ and ס ג לּ ה This chiasmus makes the relationship between כּל ה ע מּ ים in, A while מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים ו ג וֹי ק ד וֹשׁ in A corresponds to ס ג לּ ה clearer. pairs up with כּ ל ה א ר ץ in B-B. That is, ס ג לּ ה and מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים ו ג וֹי ק ד וֹשׁ do not refer to different objects. This structure is plausible because this chiasmus clearly shows the parallel of ה י ה ל י between A-A and כּ ל of between B-B. In this chiasmus, Israel is positioned on either end with the verb י ה.ה This chiasmus can explain the complicated structure in 19:3-6 better than Van der Kooij s, and we can conclude that 19:5 and 19:6 are not seperate. Likewise Jagersma explains: 47) The two instructions in verse 5a are, therefore, not only textually but also functionally at the center of the LORD s speech.if, therefore, on the basis of the Lord s three acts referred to in the first series (v. 4), the Israelites carry out the two instructions of verse 5a, they will be able to function completely according to the three characterizations mentioned in the third series (vv. 5b-6a). That is to say, if Israel keeps the two requirements of listening to God s voice and covenant, Israel can function according to three characterizations, namely, These characterizations of Exodus,19:5b 6a are.גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ and מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים,ס ג לּ ה subordinate to the two instructions in verse 5a, 48) and this gives us the foundation against the interpretation of כּ ה נ ים as a specific group separated from general people. Therefore, we can conclude that כּ ה נ ים is not a separate group from,גּוֹי and that מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים is not a genitive of agency. 4.2. Genitive of Quality (A Royal Priesthood) The genitive of quality denotes that the first term of the chain has the quality of the second term, 49) and this is a plausible reading in Exodus 19:6 based on the ancient Near Eastern context and the Sinai pericope. 50) This interpretation would 47) Henk Jagersma, Structure and Function of Exodus 19:3b-6, 48. 48) Rudolf Mosis, Ex 19, 5b, 6a: Syntaktischer Aufbau und lexikalische Semantik, BZ 22 (1978), 7. 49) Bruce K. Waltke and M. O Connor, An Introduction to Bibical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 145.

260 성경원문연구제35호 mean that Israel has not only a priestly but also kingly function among other nations. However, it is doubtful that מ מ ל כ ת can contain the meaning of royalty in Exodus 19:6, because it is semantically located in the same field as,גּוֹי and they are a common word pair in the Old Testament. 51) Furthermore, in Exodus 19:6, this interpretation misses the parallel with ק ד וֹשׁ.גוֹי As Fohrer notes, 52) (the מ מ ל כ ת (the modifier), and ק ד וֹשׁ (the modifier) correspondes to כּ ה נ ים גּוֹי and מ מ ל כ ת (the modified). It is the most natural to say that גּוֹי modified) to מ מ ל כ ת have the same nominal function as the modified in terms of the fact that and גּוֹי are a common word pair in the Old Testament. Therefore the parallel between מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים and גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ is evidence against the view of genitive of quality. 4.3. Attributive Genitive: A Priestly kingdom Interpreting מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים as an attributive genitive is the view most suitable to the context. As גּוֹי is qualified by ד וֹשׁ,ק so מ מ ל כ ת is qualified by כּ ה נ ים (a plural of abstraction). 53) This appears to be the simplest understanding of grammar. Scott argues that מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים means a kingdom set apart like a priest. 54) His.גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ analysis mainly depends on synonymous or conceptual parallelism with If מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים and גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ have the same meaning, they constitute synonymous parallelism. Stephen Geller explains the members of synonymous parallelism belong to semantic paradigms the numbers of which are essentially ק ד וֹשׁ and כּ ה נ ים definition, interchangeable logically. 55) According to Geller s should be interchangeable in support of synonymous parallelism. But the meaning of כּ ה נ ים denotes the broad meaning in the Sinai pericope. Wells points out that priesthood in Exodus means distinctive to the Nation of Israel, Covenant Identity of God s people, drawing near to God like Moses, holy to YHWH, Acting on behalf of Israel, to serve the cult as YHWH commanded and revealing YHWH s holiness. 56) כּ ה נ ים is used as holy to 50) John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood, 93, 170-188. 51) Psa 46:7; 79:6; 102:23; 105:13; 2 Chr 16:20; 1 Kgs 18:10; Isa 60:12; Neh 9:22. 52) Georg Fohrer, Priesterliches Königtum, 151. 53) Rudolf Mosis, Ex 19,5b, 6a, 21. 54) R. B. Y. Scott, A Kingdom of Priests, 218. 55) Stephen A. Geller, Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry (Missoula: Scholars, 1979), 34. 56) Jo Bailey Wells, God s Holy People, 50-51.

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 261 YHWH (e.g., 29:44), but it cannot be confined into solely that meaning. Therefore we can conclude כּ ה נ ים and ק ד וֹשׁ are not interchangeable in Exodus and so this point enables readers to conclude that מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים and גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ are not synonymous parallelism. Geller suggests semantic parallelism includes synonym, list, antonym, merism, epithet, proper noun, pronoun, whole-part or part-whole, concrete-abstract or abstract-concrete, numerical, identity, and metaphor. In these categories, מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים and גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ is the list. Geller defines the list as the semantic parallelism whose members belong to a type of paradigm that members of this category are related by an understood common denominator and are not logically interchangeable, even in the most general way. 57) Therefore, this parallelism should be regarded not as synonymous parallelism, but as a list according to Geller s category. The meaning of נ ים כּ ה should be defined in the adjacent context. The background of Exodus 19:3-8 is the covenant story with YHWH and the introduction of Exodus 19-24 which proclaims the unique privilege of Israel and emphasize their binding with YHWH. 58) מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ is one of the analogies about it. It should be considered that מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ points to the relation between YHWH and Israel, and denotes the special feature of Israel, their closeness to God (Nähe zu Gott). Let us look at Exodus 19:22a: Exo 19:22a ו ג ם ה כּ ה נ ים ה נּ גּ שׁ ים א ל י הו ה We trace the meaning of Israel s priestliness with this feature in this verse. That is, Israel is the priestly kingdom in that it is near to God and hears his voice, 59) as we find a similar idea in Isaiah 60-62. 60) As Wells observes, 61) The essence of the role of priest is to draw near to YHWH. Thus we should not overlook the priestly role to have an access to YHWH and it s an important 57) Geller, Parallelism, 35. 58) Georg Steins, Priesterherrschaft, 28-32. 59) According to Buber, כּ ה נ ים in Exo 19:6 signifies the intimate of YHWH. See Martin Buber, The Prophetic Faith, 160. 60) Cf. Isa 61:6 But you shall be called priests of YHWH. 61) Jo Bailey Wells, God s Holy People, 51. She also writes, Moses is the most priestly of all. This status is measured by the extent of the access priests are given in drawing near to YHWH and thus responsibility they take in the role of mediating between YHWH and his people.

262 성경원문연구제35호 conception of priesthood in Sinai periscope and the priestliness of Israel in Exodus 19:6 can be understood in this context. Therefore, we conclude that this construct uses the attributive genitive (a priestly kingdom). That is, Israel is the kingdom which has a priestly attribute. However, in contrast to Scott and Houtman s view, מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ should be understood as a kingdom near to God, not a kingdom set apart from the nations. 5. Translation in Exodus 19:6 has been translated by current English versions מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים as follows: Versions KJV RSV NIV NRSV NKJV NLT NASV ESV Translations a kingdom of priests a kingdom of priests a kingdom of priests a priestly kingdom a kingdom of priests my kingdom of priests a kingdom of priests a kingdom of priests As shown above, מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים is usually translated into a kingdom of priests except for NRSV and NLT. The dynamic equivalence translation such as NIV literally reads the phrase as a kingdom of priests and NLT adds my to kingdom of priests. However, this work argues that, in the dynamic equivalence translation, מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים in Exodus 19:6 should be translated into a priestly kingdom or a kingdom near to God since a priestly kingdom or a kingdom near to God is the translation which clearly indicates that מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים is the attributive genitive. מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים does not refer to a royal priesthood or Israel ruled by priests, but means the kingdom which has a priestly attribute, as discussed above. Thus, a priestly kingdom or a kingdom near to God is the

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 263 most suitable translation, particularly for the dynamic equivalence translation. 6. Conclusion After reviewing the current debates about this issue, מ מ ל כ ת was shown to be better read as kingdom, not as kings. Furthermore, the metaphorical meaning of not as a specific group in Israel but as the whole of Israel, was shown to,כּ ה נ ים be best. Synthesizing these two meanings, therefore, it is concluded that the relationship between two words is attributive genitive, and so מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים can be read as a priestly kingdom. Specifically, a priestly kingdom means not a kingdom set apart from all peoples, but a kingdom near to God. In addition, a priestly kingdom or a kingdom near to God is the most suitable interpretation.מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים and translation of <Keywords> Exodus 19:6, a Kingdom of priests, Grammatical analysis, Biblical parallelism. ( 투고일자: 2014년 9월 1 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 27 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 27 일)

264 성경원문연구제35호 <References> Alexander, T. D., The Composition of The Sinai Narrative in Exodus XIX 1- XXIV 11, Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999), 1-20. Armerding, Carl E., Was David s Sons Really Priests?, Gerald F. Hawthorne, ed., Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by his Former Students, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 75-86. Bauer, J. B., Könige und Priester, ein heiliges Volk (Ex 19, 6), Biblische Zeitschrift 2 (1958), 283-286. Brown, Francis, Driver, S. and Briggs, C., Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Hendrickson, 1996. Buber, Martin, Moses, Oxford: East and West Library, 1946. Buber, Martin, The Prophetic Faith, New York: Harper, 1960. Blum, Erhard, Studien Zur Komposition Des Pentateuch, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990. Clines, David J. A., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol 2, 1st ed., Sheffield Academic, 1995. Coggins, Richard. The Book of Exodus, Epworth Commentaries, Peterborough; England: Epworth Press, 2000. Cüsemann, Frank, Israel in der Perserzeit: Eine Skizze in Auseinandersetzung mit Max Weber, Wolfgang Schluchter, ed., Max Webers Sicht des antiken Christentums: Interpretation und Kritik (Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft), Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985, 205-232. Davies, John A., A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement series 395, London: T&T Clark, 2004. Dozeman, Thomas B., God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19-24, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 37, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Dozeman, Thomas B., Spatial Form in Exod. 19:1-8a and in the Larger Sinai Narrative, Semeia 46 (1989), 87-101. Dumbrell, W. J., Covenant & Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986. Faley, Roland J., The Kingdom of Priests, Rome: Pontificum Athenaeum Internationale Angelicum, 1960. Fohrer, Georg, Priesterliches Konigtum, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 265 und Geschichte (1949-1966), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1962, 149-153. Fretheim, Terence, Exodus, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gowan, Donald E., Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Himmelfarb, Martha, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Jagersma, Henk, Structure and Function of Exodus 19:3b-6, Janet W. Dyk. et al. eds., Unless Some one Guide Me, Maastricht: Shaker Pub, 2001, 43-48. Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed., Roma: Biblical Institute Press, 2006. Keil, C. F and Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume I, The Pentateuch, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951. Moran, William L., A Kingdom of Priests, John L. Mckenzie, ed., The Bible in current Catholic thought, New York: Heder and Heder, 1962, 7-20. Mosis, Rudolf. Ex 19,5b, 6a: Syntaktischer Aufbau und lexikalische Semantik. Biblische Zeitschrift 22 (1978), 1-25. Patrick, Dale, The Covenant Code Source, Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977), 145-157. Propp, William H. C., Exodus 19-40, The Anchor Bible, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Schmidt, Ludwig, Israel und das Gesetz: Ex 19.3b-8 und 24.3-8 als literarischer und theologischer Rahmen fur das Bundesbuch, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113 (2001), 167-85. Scott, R. B. Y., A Kingdom of Priests, Old Testament Studies 8 (1950), 213-219. Schenker, Adrian, Drei Mosaiksteinchen: Königreich von Priestern, Und Ihre Kinder gehen Weg, Wir tun und wir Hören (Exodus 19,6; 21,22; 24,7), M. Vervenne, ed., Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction - Reception Interpretation, Leuven: Peeters, 1996, 367-380. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler, Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts-und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, Neue Folge Band 7, Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1972. Schwartz, Daniel R., Kingdom of Priests - a Pharisaic Slogan?, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christitianity, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2001, 57-80.

266 성경원문연구제35호 Smith, Mark S., The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement series 239, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Steins, Georg, Priesterherrschaft, Volk von Priestern oder was sonst? Zur Interpretation von Ex 19.6, Biblische Zeitschrift 49 (2001), 20-36. Van der Kooij, Arie, A kingdom of priests: Comments on Exod. 19:6, Riemer Roukema, et al., eds., The Interpretation of Exodus, Leuven: Peeters, 2006, 171-179. Waltke, Bruce K., and O'Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Wells, Jo Bailey, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology, Sheffield: T. & T. Clark, 2000. Wenham, Gordon J., Were David's Sons Priests?, ZAW 87 (1975), 79-82. Wildberger, Hans, Jahwes Eigentumsvolk; Eine Studie Zur Traditionsgeschichte Und Gie Des Erwahlungsgedankens, Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1960.

The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited / Kyu Seop Kim 267 <Abstract> The Meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6 Revisited Kyu Seop Kim (University of Aberdeen) This study explores the meaning of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ in Exodus 19:6, and considers its proper translation. מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ have been interpreted in various senses in the ancient and modern interpretation history. In the contemporary scholarly views, the interpretation falls into three categories. First, it is interpreted in the sense of a kingdom ruled by priests. Secondly, it is read as a priestly kingdom or a kingdom set apart from the nations. Thirdly, some scholars read it as a royal priesthood. William Moran and Georg Fohrer argue that מ מ ל כ ת means kings, not kingdom. However, if we read it as kings, the meaning of the construct would be rather confusing (kings of priests). Rather, גּוֹי and מ ל כ ת מ should be regarded as a common word pair which refers to the same entity (Israel). Moreover, scholars in favour of a kingdom ruled by priests take the meaning of כּ ה נ ים as literal (i.e., the cultic officers), not as figurative. Arie Van der Kooij contends that was not figuratively employed in the OT. However, we find כּ ה נ ים metaphorical usage of כּ ה נ ים in 2 Kings 4:5 and 2 Samuel 8:18. Furthermore, Moran and van der Kooij maintain that מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים and refers to מ מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים form the totality of Israel together and that גּוֹי ק ד וֹשׁ leaders of Israel. However, in the context of the covenantal privilege in Exodus 19, it would seem that designating the political entity for Israel does not fit with the context. Rather, מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ should be interpreted as attributive genitive which refers to the privileged status of Israel among the nations. Yet, כּ ה נ ים does not mean holy. In the context of Exodus 19:22, God. may indicate the feature of priests who can approach near to כּ ה נ ים Therefore, מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ refers to Israel s covenantal status as a kingdom near to God. In addition, the proper translation of מ ל כ ת כּ ה נ ים מ should be a priestly kingdom or a kingdom near to God.

268 성경원문연구제35호 And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure Robert A. Bascom* 1. Introduction First we will make a brief digression into biblical poetry: James Kugel titles the opening chapter to his famous work The Idea of Biblical Poetry The Parallelistic Line: A is so, and what s more, B. He goes on to qualify this in many ways (as there are indeed many kinds of parallel structures in the Hebrew Bible), yet he maintains that the basic structure or parallelism is still this A, what s more, B pattern: What s more is in itself an inexact version of the concept of subjunction. But it has been stressed in the belief that this approach ultimately leads to a proper orientation toward all [poetic] lines. 1) Robert Alter agrees with Kugel in this regard. Alter uses as the basis of his analysis of parallelism those couplets which contain numbers (3,4; 7,8) which he rightly asserts overwhelmingly support an intensification in the second line of biblical Hebrew poetry:...the logic of numbers in parallel versets is not equivalence but an assertion of a fortiori, how much more so, and this impulse to intensification is also the motor force in thousands of lines of biblical poetry where no numbers are present. 2) Neither Kugel nor Alter base their arguments for this motor force on specific grammatical relationships or structures (though Kugel in particular does make use of grammar for the analysis of specific parallel lines). In any case, most often all the grammatical connection that exists between parallel poetic * Ph.D. in Biblical Studies at Claremont Graduate University. Global Translation Advisor of United Bible Societies. rbascom@biblesocieties.org. 1) J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 1, 57. 2) R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 11.

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 269 lines in biblical Hebrew is a simple vav ( and ). Thus the term semantic (and one might add structural ) parallelism is most often used to describe the most famous element of biblical Hebrew poetry. Apparently all that is needed for the most salient (to this point at least) element of Hebrew biblical poetry is pure structural conjunction combined with semantic subjunction (to use Kugel s term) of an intensifying kind. 3) An example of this can be found in Psalm 38:11, translated in the NRSV as follows: My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction, and my neighbors stand far off. The Good News Translation understands the Hebrew yb;arq.w not as neighbors but as family : My friends and neighbors will not come near me, because of my sores; even my family keeps away from me. The GNT rendering is consistent with the A is so, and what s more, B understanding of biblical Hebrew parallelism in this verse. And the argument for that understanding is based not on grammar or even so much on lexical semantics per se as on the simple structural and logical relationship of the two lines. This seeming digression from the topic of Hebrew narrative structure into biblical poetry is simply to lay the groundwork for a logical and structural analysis of the texts in question as opposed to a grammatical (or some other methodological) treatment. My point will be that just as with semantic parallelism, simple ordering and repetition of elements combined with content related in some possible logical way(s) is often enough to recognize narrative discourse strategies which in turn can be important for translation. In particular, there are a number of texts (and most likely quite a few more than have been gathered below as first examples) which follow a kind of summary/unfolding narrative pattern. In this pattern, there is a brief summary statement, followed by a detailed unfolding of the narrative. The summary is then repeated later on (in some form), as if to catch the reader up to the story in progress. The unfolding section forms a kind of back-story for the summary and the subsequent continuation of the narrative. Often it clarifies the summary/unfolding structure to translate (literally or imaginatively) the equivalent of and it happened like this, or a relevant 3) Though important work has been done in biblical Hebrew poetry since the time of Alter and Kugel, the basic outline of semantic (and structural) parallelism has remained unchanged. See for e.g. J. K. Kuntz, Biblical Hebrew Poetry in Resent Research, Part II, Currents in Research 7 (1999), 35-79.

270 성경원문연구제35호 variant. The examples below should illustrate this point clearly. As with semantic parallelism, all that connects the elements of the summary/unfolding structure (if anything at all does) is the simple conjunction and (Hebrew vav) which otherwise functions as a straightforward narrative element in the text. This structure is a kind of repetition, and as such takes its place alongside a number of repetitive structures in the Hebrew Bible. Besides semantic parallelism, there are numerous other repeated words and phrases which are used in various literary devices such as inclusio and as means of achieving emphasis. Perhaps the most common repetitive pattern in the Hebrew Bible are the many cases of extended instructions followed by word-for-word descriptions of compliance to those instructions. This particular pattern is repetitive not so much at the word or phrase level (though it can be), but as with the majority of cases of semantic parallelism, is rather at the level of basic content and logic. It will be argued that once one understands one element of the structure as a summary, the unfolding falls into place and the whole makes more sense than otherwise would be the case. This structure also looks like an interruption in many cases (see below). As such, translators will perhaps wish to consider restructuring so as to remove the interruption. But restructuring would not always be practical (moving Gen 11:1-9 before Gen 10, for example), and such a restructuring would necessarily do away with either the summary statement or the return to the main narrative thread. Instead, understanding (and perhaps even translating) a phrase such as And it happened like this... between the summary and the unfolding reveals the structure of the pattern and makes the interruption disappear. This corresponds to the parallel structure in poetry necessitating (at least at times) in translation an addition of not only... but even more so. What follows below are eleven different examples of this phenomenon of summary/unfolding, chosen for their clarity in illustrating the structure. The conclusion will deal with implications for translators, including possibly translating And it happened like this... in some languages and/or cases to clearly represent this often not-recognized narrative structure. 2. Examples:

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 271 2.1. Creation 2.1.1. Text: Gen 1:1, 2ff: 1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 4) 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters... 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created 5) 2.1.2. Commentary: Genesis 1:1ff is so well-plowed a field that one hesitates to comment further on it. The UBS Handbook for translators states: All the ancient versions as well as many modern ones understand verse 1 to be an independent sentence, which serves as a general heading for the entire story of creation and affirms the creation of the earth in the formless state described in verse 2. Other scholars point out that the Hebrew form of the phrase translated In the beginning should be translated as a subordinate time clause, and so In the beginning when God created 6) Nahum Sarna seems to take the first view, and sees taking verse 1 as an independent clause as a momentous assertion about the nature of God: that He is wholly outside of time, just as He is outside of space, both of which He proceeds to create. 7) Claus Westermann goes further: The sentence in 1:1 is not the beginning of an account of creation, but a heading that takes in everything in the narrative in one single sentence... 8) 4) All biblical citations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted: B. M. Metzger, et. al., The New Revised Standard Version Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). 5) The text examples will be formatted to show the summary/unfolding structure more clearly, except for Genesis 14, where both the standard format and the summary/unfolding structure are represented. 6) Thus NRSV. But even in this case, a slight variant of our model [And] It happened like this... fits quite nicely here. 7) N. M. Sarna, Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 5.

272 성경원문연구제35호 If one follows the summary/unfolding narrative structure to interpret the passage, 1:1 is taken as a kind of title or section heading, and what follows thereafter is an explanation/expansion of that general summary statement. Seeing it this way actually supports the interpretation of the focus of creation in Genesis as being that of order out of chaos more naturally than that of creation as ex nihilo (which is then simply not in view), since it throws the narrative back to the start of the story. One way to make that relationship of summary/unfolding explicit would be to translate (or at least understand) And it happened like this... or something similar before verse two. This makes the text sound like a story-teller inviting his or her audience to lean in and absorb the details of the up-coming tale, having back-grounded the grandiose opening general summary statement. 2.2. The Flood 2.2.1. Text: Gen 6:5-10; 6:11-9:19: 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them. 8 But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord. 9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God s sight, and the earth was filled with violence... 9:18 The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled. 8) C. Westermann, A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1 11 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 94.

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 273 2.2.2. Commentary: This example and the next one are complex variations on the summary/unfolding structure in that they form a kind of chain of summaries/unfoldings. 9) This already was true of Genesis 2:4a above, but only works once (for Gen 2:4a itself as both an inclusio for Gen 1:1 as well as the summary for the story of creation in Gen chapter 2), while here the structure is first chained (Gen 9:18) with the next example and then that example is in turn interwoven (Gen 10) with the one following it. It is tempting to see the inclusios at 6:9-10; 9:18-19 as each beginning new sections (see the NRSV section headings). But seen as structural elements in the summary/unfolding pattern they form nice bookends to the detailed story of the Flood that comes in between. Furthermore, the Flood story begins nicely in 6:11: Now the earth was corrupt in God s sight, and the earth was filled with violence... and the following story of Noah s drunkenness (9:20-28) also begins nicely after the mention of the sons of Noah: 20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard... Of course in these chains of summaries/unfoldings each inclusio ending once section begins the next one, and so has a double function (see thus 6:9-10; 9:18-19; 10:1, all of which say with only slightly different wording that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth). 2.3. Noah s drunkenness 2.3.1. Text: Gen 9:18-19; 9:20-10:32: 9:18 The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled. 20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine and became drunk... 10:32 These are the families of Noah s sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood. 9) These examples as well as those from Deuteronomy were pointed out to me in private correspondence by Lénart de Regt.

274 성경원문연구제35호 2.3.2. Commentary: This example not only is chained to the previous and following examples, but is interwoven with the following example. Thus while 9:18-19 are closely echoed in 10:32, including not only the names of Noah s sons but the fact that the earth was populated by them after the flood, but in 10: we get an extra mention of the sons of Noah formula, and the next opening inclusio ( These are the descendants of Shem... ) comes at 10:31, just before the closing bookend to this cycle in 10:32 ( 32 These are the families of Noah s sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood... ). 2.4. The Tower of Babel 2.4.1. Text: Gen 10; 11: 1 These are the descendants of Noah s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; children were born to them after the flood... 10:24 Arpachshad became the father of Shelah; and Shelah became the father of Eber. 25 To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother s name was Joktan. 26 Joktan became the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 27 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28 Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29 Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the descendants of Joktan. 30 The territory in which they lived extended from Mesha in the direction of Sephar, the hill country of the east. 31 These are the descendants of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations. 32 These are the families of Noah s sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood. The Tower of Babel 11:1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 275 ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. 6 And the Lord said, Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. Descendants of Shem 10 These are the descendants of Shem. When Shem was one hundred years old, he became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood;... 2.4.2. Commentary: This example is easy to overlook, since it comes at a chapter break as well as a switch in discourse type from summary to unfolding. In chapter 10 we find what is sometimes called the table of nations, a list of the descendants of Noah after the Flood. At the end of this list comes the summary statement which also functions as a kind of inclusio to the chapter (see 10:1). Then in chapter 11 the discourse abruptly changes to a folk narrative (unfolding): the story of the Tower of Babel. The problem in this case is sometimes noticed by sharp-eyed translators, who point out that it is illogical that all the people of the earth speak one language and live in one place (Shinar), when in chapter 10 we see them dispersed in various places and seemingly speaking different languages. In fact, the text of 10:25... for in his days the earth was divided... seems to presuppose exactly the story of the Tower of Babel. Interestingly, the UBS Handbook passes over this issue without comment. When commentators do notice, it is usually to simply document the inconsistency:...note does need to be taken that the way in which humanity spread, and language developed [in chapter 10], is at odds with the story told in Genesis 11... 10) 10) D. W. Cotter, Genesis (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2003), 65.

276 성경원문연구제35호 There are several possibilities to explain this situation. One is that in the transmission of the text these elements were arranged not in terms of strict chronology, but by some other narrative logic (as with the Gospel of John vs. the Synoptics, for example). Another is that there were two dispersions, one in chapter 10 and another in chapter 11. Yet another, quite close to our suggestion, is that chapter 11 is a flashback to the situation at the beginning of chapter 10. But the summary/unfolding proposal accounts for the data in the most elegant and comprehensive way. Understanding (and perhaps even putting in some translations) And it happened like this... at the beginning of chapter 11 makes clear what was arguably the narrative intention of the collocation of chapters 10 and 11 next to each other in order with their specific content. Sarna has understood this well without explicitly dealing with the literary issue:...the biblical Narrator is disturbed by the vast diversity of languages that characterizes the human race. Given the Bible s presupposition that all mankind constitutes one great family traceable to a common ancestry, it becomes necessary to account for the rise of a polyglot humanity. The present narrative deals with this development. 11) Westermann seems not to understand the literary structure as presented here. He says of 10:32b: And from them the nations spread on the earth after the flood, does not suit the context very well. Nevertheless, he does capture much of the force of the beginning of 11:1: The is more like our once upon a time which introduces the situation at the ויהי beginning of the tale. 12) 2.5. Abraham, the king of Sodom, and Melchizedek 2.5.1. Text: Gen 14:17, 18ff: Abram Blessed by Melchizedek 17 After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King s Valley). 18 And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. 19 He blessed him and said, 11) N. M. Sarna, Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 80. 12) C. Westermann, A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1 11 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 513, 542.

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 277 Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; 20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand! And Abram gave him one tenth of everything. 21 Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself. 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have sworn to the Lord, God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, 23 that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, so that you might not say, I have made Abram rich. 24 I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. Let them take their share. 2.5.2. Commentary: This example is one of those most difficult for translators to understand as it stands. Not only are the king of Sodom and the king of Salem mentioned in close proximity to each other, but the king of Sodom remains unnamed, while the brief story of Melchizedek (somewhat rudely) interrupts what otherwise seems to be a story of the encounter of Abram with the king of Sodom after Abram returns from rescuing Lot along with much of the king s wealth. To make matters worse, the format (and title) of the text in most versions does not expose the narrative structure of the Hebrew text, but rather reflects a decision about the theological prominence of the role of Melchizedek in the story(ies). Thus the title in NRSV is Abram Blessed by Melchizedek, and there are no breaks of any kind in verses 18 and 21 (where the story of the king of Sodom changes to that of Melchizedek and back again). Finally, the fact that most of the Melchizedek section is in poetry means that the format (over-)reflects that structure while ignoring the basic narrative form. The UBS Handbook only deals with half of the problem. It suggests, with no explanation of how to handle the text as it is, that verse 17 may be the result of some kind of textual corruption. For verse 21ff they do better: Verse 21 continues the narrative that was interrupted at verse 18 with the Melchizedek episode. In some languages it may be necessary to make a transition to verse 21 that will show that the main story line now continues. Sarna does better when he states:...the intrusive nature of the report here, interrupting the smooth

278 성경원문연구제35호 sequence of verses 17 and 21, is obvious... [yet]. The artfulness with which the Melchizedek episode is integrated into the narrative is proven by the priest-king s mention of Abram s victory... 13) Westermann agrees: rmayw at the beginning of v. 21 follows directly on acyw in v. 17. 14) One can see how the underlying narrative structure could be made more explicit by arranging the text (and title) above as follows: Abram returns victorious from battle 17 After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King s Valley). 18 And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. 19 He blessed him and said, Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; 20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand! And Abram gave him one tenth of everything. 21 Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself. 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have sworn to the Lord, God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, 23 that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, so that you might not say, I have made Abram rich. 24 I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. Let them take their share. Although it is a bit of an unusual example, it fits the summary/unfolding pattern as well. If one imagines understanding (or even translating) And it happened like this... before verse 18, then verse 17 becomes a general statement about Abram s return and encounter with the king of Sodom, and 18 begins that 13) N. M. Sarna, Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 109. 14) C. Westermann, A Continental Commentary: Genesis 12 36 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 202.

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 279 story with Abram s prior encounter with Melchizedek. That story picks up on with its main line again in verse 21, but seen in this way, 17-20 is simply the first small act in the two-part structure of the triumphant return of Abram from battle. 2.6. The Lord appears to Abraham at Mamre 2.6.1. Text: Gen 18:1, 2-33: 1 The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He looked up and saw three men standing near him... 33 And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place. 2.6.2. Commentary: One immediately notices that in this example the inclusio is not so prominent as in other cases, yet the Lord and Abraham are repeated, as are verbs of appearing and speaking, leaving and returning. 15) It is also a clear case of where a translator could easily get confused about whether what happened in 18:1 was a separate incident to what happened in 18:2-33. And in that sense it is very relevant to the study of the summary/unfolding pattern. 2.7. Joseph tells his dream to his bothers 2.7.1. Text: Gen 37:5, 6-8: 5 Once Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him even more. 6 He said to them, Listen to this dream that I dreamed. 7 There we were, 15) L. de Regt, Flashbacks and Other Forms of Non-Chronological Arrangement in Hebrew Narrative, Tulkojums Kultūrvēsturisks Notikums Bībeles tulkojumi: teorija, vēsture, mūsdienu prakse (Valsts Valodas Komisija Raksti 5) (Riga: Latvijas Valsts prezidenta kanceleja, Zinātne, 2009), 132.

280 성경원문연구제35호 binding sheaves in the field. Suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright; then your sheaves gathered around it, and bowed down to my sheaf. 8 His brothers said to him, Are you indeed to reign over us? Are you indeed to have dominion over us? So they hated him even more because of his dreams and his words. 2.7.2. Commentary: This is a small, but classic example of the form in question. It is easy to miss the structure here. For example, Westermann states: vv. 5 6 are introductory and announce the dream; v. 7 presents the dream itself and v. 8 the reaction of the brothers. 16) This comment misses the fact that the reaction of the brothers is already found in v. 5 in summary form. 2.8. From Sinai to Paran 2.8.1. Text: Num 10:11-12; 10:13-12:16: Departure from Sinai 11 In the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month, the cloud lifted from over the tabernacle of the covenant. 12 Then the Israelites set out by stages from the wilderness of Sinai, and the cloud settled down in the wilderness of Paran. 13 They set out for the first time at the command of the Lord by Moses... 12:16 After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran. 2.8.2. Commentary: Here the UBS handbook recognizes the phenomenon: A typical narrative pattern in the Pentateuch is to begin with a short 16) C. Westermann, A Continental Commentary: Genesis 37 50 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 38.

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 281 summary of the account to come and then to give the details. Part II-A begins with a very short summary of the journey from Sinai to Paran, near the Land of Canaan (10:11-12). The same journey is then presented again in what follows, but in much greater detail (10:13 12:16). Thus, the Israelites same encampment in the wilderness of Paran, which was already mentioned in the summary (in 10:12), is mentioned again at the end (in 12:16). 17) Though the handbook authors claim it is a typical narrative pattern in the Pentateuch, (and indeed it may well be), it has rarely been discussed either in the biblical commentaries or in translation studies. As to the summary in Numbers 10:11-12, the handbook goes on to (correctly) state: This opening paragraph gives a summary of what is to come in 10:13-12:16, as explained above. Chronologically, then, 10:13-12:16 does not follow after this opening paragraph, but overlaps it. If this is not understood, the reader will draw the wrong conclusion that the people arrived in Paran (10:13) before they came to Kibroth-Hattaavah and Hazeroth (11:35) and somehow went back to Paran again (12:16)! 18) And finally again at 12:16 they conclude: This verse brings the Israelites journey from Sinai to Paran (10:13-12:16) to its conclusion. The encampment in the wilderness of Paran was mentioned already in 10:12 (in the initial summary of this journey in 10:11-12). 19) An added phrase such as And it happened like this : (or a well-placed sub-title) may be justified in some translations just before 10:13ff. That this is such an extended unfolding makes it a bit more difficult to represent in translation. The careful use of subtitles at 10:11 ( From Sinai to Paran ) and in chapter 12 (Miriam punished; arrival at Paran ) may help to show the itinerary 17) L. de Regt, and E. Wendland, A Handbook on the Book of Numbers (New York: UBS, forthcoming, 2015). Page numbers are not cited as the document is still in pre-publication (electronic) form, but the citations will be easily found according to the biblical references. 18) Ibid. 19) Ibid.

282 성경원문연구제35호 structure within which the various story elements play out. 2.9. The Israelites spy out the land of Canaan 2.9.1. Text: Num 13:21, 22 24: 21 So they went up and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near Lebo-hamath. 22 They went up into the Negeb, and came to Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the Anakites, were there. (Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) 23 And they came to the Wadi Eshcol, and cut down from there a branch with a single cluster of grapes, and they carried it on a pole between two of them. They also brought some pomegranates and figs. 24 That place was called the Wadi Eshcol, because of the cluster that the Israelites cut down from there. 25 At the end of forty days they returned from spying out the land. 2.9.2. Commentary: If the previous example involved a long explanation, this one is extremely short. Again the UBS handbook on Numbers has noted this case: It is recommended to start a new paragraph at verse 22, since verses 22-24 are a more detailed description of the journey in the south of the land, while verse 21 is a short, more general, summary of the journey throughout the land, from south to north. But they miss the fact that the unfolding actually ends in v. 25 ( spied... spying ) and not in v. 24. Both NRSV and CEV have a new section start in v. 25, but according to the summary/unfolding structure in vv. 21-25, v. 25 should come at the end of the previous section. 2.10. David mourns Saul and Jonathan 2.10.1. Text: 2Sa 1:11-12; 13ff: 11 Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them; and all the men who were with him did the same. 12 They mourned and wept, and fasted

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 283 until evening for Saul and for his son Jonathan, and for the army of the Lord and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. 13 David said to the young man who had reported to him, Where do you come from? He answered, I am the son of a resident alien, an Amalekite. 14 David said to him, Were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the Lord s anointed? 15 Then David called one of the young men and said, Come here and strike him down. So he struck him down and he died. 16 David said to him, Your blood be on your head; for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, I have killed the Lord s anointed. 17 David intoned this lamentation over Saul and his son Jonathan. 18 (He ordered that The Song of the Bow be taught to the people of Judah; it is written in the Book of Jashar.) He said: 19 Your glory, O Israel, lies slain upon your high places! How the mighty have fallen! 20 Tell it not in Gath, proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon; or the daughters of the Philistines will rejoice, the daughters of the uncircumcised will exult... 2.10.2. Commentary: Below we will look some at the neuroscientific underpinnings of the move from correlation to causation and its relation to creating and recognizing the summary/unfolding pattern, but the next example is one of the better examples of the role of logic in this pattern. The story we have in the first chapter of 2 Samuel is that of David resting at Ziklag after defeating the Amalekites in battle. A man (interestingly also an Amalekite, but a resident alien in Israel and presumably a soldier in Saul s army) comes to David with the news of Saul s defeat at the hands of the Philistines. He claims to have killed Saul himself, and as proof Saul s death, hands David Saul s crown and armlet. He apparently expects a reward (or at least a commendation) from David in that he offers the treasure to David, apparently as booty. It would appear that he tries to cover the possibility that David might not be entirely pleased by stating that Saul was going to die anyway when he killed

284 성경원문연구제35호 him at Saul s request as an act of mercy. Then in verses 11-12 we have a brief statement of David s reaction, as well as that of David s soldiers: 11 Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them; and all the men who were with him did the same. 12 They mourned and wept, and fasted until evening for Saul and for his son Jonathan, and for the army of the Lord and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. What happens next (if the text is taken as strictly chronological) is a bit surprising for a couple of reasons. David, having already heard the Amalakite s story, apparently now dries his tears for a moment and turns to the man and asks where he is from. After hearing he is an Amalakite (something he had already been told in verse 8), David angrily accuses him of daring to raise his hand against the Lord s anointed and has the man killed immediately. 20) By itself this would not be so strange. But what follows in vv. 17ff is the famous lament that David makes over Saul and Jonathan, meaning (in this reading) that David interrupts his mourning to have the man killed and then immediately returns to his mourning already in progress. But also strange is the fact that the Amalakite (in a straight chronological reading) would be waiting around all afternoon to receive a reward that would look less and less likely as time wore on and the mourning by David and his men continued. 21) Far more intelligible and logical is that the reader of this text is meant to understand an implicit And it happened like this... before verse 13. In this reading the first act of David s mourning would be to have the Amalakite killed, from whence he goes on to the lament proper (summarized already in verses 11-12). Understanding verses 11-12; 13ff as an example of a summary/unfolding narrative pattern solves the apparent logical inconsistencies 20) While the text indicates that David has the man killed for daring to kill the Lord s anointed, it may not be irrelevant that he is also an Amalakite (see 1:1). It still is strange that David would ask where the man was from, given that he already should know from verse 8. 21) Commentators generally agree that this was the Amalakite s intention: to get credit for killing Saul from Saul s presumed enemy and successor David, while at the same time walking the line as a resident alien as to his freedom to take such action. Clearly it was a miscalculation. See J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (Dover: Van Gorcum, 1986), 638ff.; A. F. Campbell, 2 Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 21.

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 285 in the text, and reveals the story of the execution of the Amalakite as the opening act of the larger narrative of the lament by David and his soldiers summarized in verses 11-12. 2.11. Elijah at Horeb 2.11.1. Text: 1Ki 19:9b; 11ff: 9b Then the word of the Lord came to him, saying, What are you doing here, Elijah? 10 He answered, I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away. Elijah Meets God at Horeb [move section head to before 9b?] 11 He said, Go out and stand on the mountain before the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by. Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; 12 and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence. 13 When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. Then there came a voice to him that said, What are you doing here, Elijah? 14 He answered, I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away. 15 Then the Lord said to him, Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus; when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael as king over Aram. 16 Also you shall anoint Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel; and you shall anoint Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah as prophet in your place. 17 Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall kill; and whoever escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall kill. 18 Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.

286 성경원문연구제35호 2.11.2. Commentary: Of all the examples given here, this one is the least like the rest. The summary is odd, since it consists of nothing more than the core question and answer, succinctly stated in nearly the exact wording contained in the expanded story that follows (see bold text above). This appears nearly exactly (but for slightly different first phrase) as here buried in the text of the story that follows. But if this is taken as a summary (understood as something like The time the word of the Lord came to Elijah saying What are you doing here, Elijah? or even simply moving the NRSV title of 11ff Elijah Meets God at Horeb to before 9b), the repetition of what follows the mention of the word of the Lord or the Lord speaking to Elijah no longer is strange, and the reader is not forced to think of verse 9b-10 as a sort of flash-forward once he or she has read the story in 11ff. Again the combination of the collocation of 9b-10 just before 11ff along with the illogic of the repetition should encourage the reader to consider a summary/unfolding reading here. Otherwise the modern reader is forced to consider some kind of long-range textual issue of homoeoarcton or homoeoteleuton. 22) Verses 15-18 return the reader to the narrative main line, and contain the encounter for which vv. 11-13 are merely an introduction. Apparently there is considerable variation in the form a summary can take (see Gen 10-11). One must assume that if this is not an error of some kind, the ancient readers and hearers would very likely already have come to the text with the necessary expectations to immediately recognize the summary/unfolding pattern, even when the summary consists in nothing more than the repetition of the core statement in the unfolding. This could be made clearer in printed translations by moving the NRSV section heading Elijah Meets God at Horeb to just before 1 Kings 19:9b to better reflect the summary/unfolding structure of the text. Here the UBS Handbook records the fact that verse 14 repeats exactly the content of verse 10, but makes no further comment on the matter. Other 22) This commentary simplifies somewhat the situation in the passage. One could argue that the summary in fact includes verses 11-12, or even through verse 13. And it could even be argued that there is a summary/unfolding (vv. 11-12, 13ff.) within a summary/unfolding (vv. 9b-10, 11ff). But it seems the best place for the unfolding And it happened like this is in verse 11. See J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 274ff.

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 287 commentaries divide up the text in various ways, but without taking the view presented here. 23) 3. Implications for translators: What implications does the above have for translators? We have seen how often the commentaries do not deal with the issue of summary/unfolding, even when the commentaries are intended for translators. But there are languages and cultures which seem to require more explanation than translators have been accustomed to look for or provide in the past. The reason for this seems to be both linguistic and cultural. Mayan languages and cultures in particular are often quite insistent on details often not clearly provided in the biblical texts or in majority language translations. Some of this is straightforwardly a matter of grammar and lexicon: if the language is inclusive/exclusive, or if it is ergative, or if it resists nominalization, certain adjustments will need to be made. And if directionality is a part of the verbal system, this aspect will have to be present in the translation even if it is not explicitly a part of the source texts. And if brother/sister family relationships are instead rendered with older sibling/younger sibling, the translator will have to try to guess which people in the text are older and younger when the text does not say. It may not be an accident then that the examples above all were uncovered in translation checking sessions, most with Mayan language projects. The seeming desire on the part of many translators from this linguistic and cultural group to have things as specified as possible has led through the years to having to answer questions such as why the people of the earth all lived in one place and spoke one language after the text clearly states they lived in many places speaking various languages. Having to answer these questions as a matter of curiosity is one thing, but translators are generally interested in having their audiences understand the text as close to as well as the original receptors did as possible. Thus one can see a 23) V. Fritz, A Continental Commentary: 1 & 2 Kings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 197.; S. J. DeVries, 1 Kings (Dallas: Word Inc., 2003), 235.

288 성경원문연구제35호 range of options, from preserving the verbal structure of the form and letting the modern receptors discover the pattern implicitly (as the original receptors presumably did), to highlighting the structure in the format of the text, to using various helps, to finally even putting And it happened like this... or its equivalent in the text. <Keywords> Summary, Unfolding, Structure, Inclusio, Repetition. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 19 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure / Robert A. Bascom 289 <References> Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Poetry, New York, Basic Books, 1985. Campbell, A. F., 2 Samuel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Cotter, D. W., Genesis, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2003. de Regt, L. and Wendland, E., A Handbook on the Book of Numbers, New York: UBS, forthcoming, 2015. de Regt, L., Flashbacks and Other Forms of Non-Chronological Arrangement in Hebrew Narrative, Tulkojums Kultūrvēsturisks Notikums Bībeles tulkojumi: teorija, vēsture, mūsdienu prakse (Valsts Valodas Komisija Raksti 5), Riga: Latvijas Valsts prezidenta kanceleja, Zinātne, 2009. DeVries, S. J., 1 Kings, Dallas: Word Inc., 2003. Fokkelman, J. P., Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Dover: Van Gorcum, 1986. Fritz, V., A Continental Commentary: 1 & 2 Kings, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Kugel, J., The Idea of Biblical Poetry, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Kuntz, J. K., Biblical Hebrew Poetry in Resent Research, Part II, Currents in Research 7 (1999), 35-79. Metzger, B. M., et. al., The New Revised Standard Version Bible, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Sarna, N. M., Genesis, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Walsh, J. T., 1 Kings, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996. Westermann, C., A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1 11, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

290 성경원문연구제35호 <Abstract> And It Happened Like This : Summary and Unfolding in Biblical Hebrew Narrative Structure Robert A. Bascom (UBS, Global Translation Advisor) In a number of passages in the Hebrew Bible, one finds what at first seem to be repetitions in the text. Not simply repetitions of events, but also at the beginning and end of the repetitions of the events, repetitions of actual wording. What is more, these seeming repetitions make it appear that the biblical author is confused about temporal sequence, since the same events are being repeated and in the repetition even earlier events are being related following later events (see Gen 10-11). But upon closer examination a distinctive structure appears: one of summary and unfolding. First will appear a summary statement, followed by a repetition of the contents of the summary in detailed form (the unfolding). Finally, a phrase repeated from the summary (an inclusio) closes the unfolding section and brings the reader back to the main narrative line. Eleven different examples of this will be documented, and a brief concluding comment made on the implications of this structure for translators of the Bible.

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 291 He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation*1) Alexey Somov*2) 1. Introduction In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31, verse 23 introduces the dialogue between the rich man and Abraham that takes place in verses 24-31. The expression evph,ren tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtou/ (literally, he lifted up his eyes ), which appears in 16:23, is a Septuagintalism that can be translated either as simply look at or with reference to the spatial differentiation between the rich man and Lazarus. Commentators are divided on this issue. Just to give a brief example, I. Howard Marshall and C. F. Evans regard it simply as a conventional expression, 1) while Alfred Plummer, Robert G. Bratcher, John Nolland, and François Bovon emphasize its spatial meaning. 2) How does this expression work in the context of Lucan parable of the Rich man and Lazarus and how should it be translated? For instance, NLT omits the spatial difference: There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side. However, many translations indicate the spatial aspect of this expression: he lifted up his eyes (KJV, RSV), he looked up (NIV, NRS, NJB). I suggest that this decision is correct, because Luke uses these words intentionally, in order to * Ph.D. in Biblical Studies at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Translation Consultant of the Institute for Bible Translation, Russia/CIS; Stellenbosch University, South Africa, Department of Old and New Testament, research fellow. absomov@yandex.ru. 1) I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 637; C. F. Evans, Saint Luke (London: SCM Press, 2008), 614. 2) Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner s Sons, 1920), 394; Robert G. Bratcher, A Translator s Guide to the Gospel of Luke (New York: United Bible Societies, 1982), 273; John Nolland, Luke 9:21 18:34, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds., WBC35B (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 829; François Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, EKKNT III:3 [Lk 15:1 19:27], Zürich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), 122.

292 성경원문연구제 35 호 emphasize the spatial differentiation between the abode of the righteous and that of the wicked that takes place in the afterlife. I believe that these issues can be better explained when considered not only in the context of the traditional Literarkritik but also in light of the cognitive approach to spatial differentiation in Luke s otherworld. 3) In support of my argument, I combine a traditio-historical enquiry with textual analysis at a synchronic level, and also exploit the elements of cognitive linguistics, i.e., Cognitive Metaphor Theory (CMT), whose basic features I introduce below. 2. Cognitive Metaphor Theory Cognitive Metaphor Theory (CMT) was developed by the American linguists G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, who argue that metaphor is not just a characteristic of language, but rather an integral part of the process of human thinking and acting, because our conceptual system, in terms of which we think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. 4) As the human thinking process is largely metaphorical, it allows us to comprehend some aspect of a more abstract concept in terms of another, lower level concept from everyday human experience. Therefore, a conceptual metaphor makes a series of comparisons between an everyday experience and an abstract concept. This process can be called mapping, i.e., an operation that associates some elements of the source domain with one or more elements of the target domain or vice versa. 5) In mapping, some aspects of the source domain are highlighted in the metaphor, while others are hidden in order to focus on certain specific aspects of the target domain. The use of CMT can be very productive for exploring religious texts, such as the Bible. Indeed, each culture expresses its religious beliefs by means of special 3) The part of the material in this article has been adapted from chapters 2 and 5 of my Ph.D. dissertation, which is not yet published; Alexey Somov, Representations of the Afterlife, Ph.D. Dissertation (VU University Amsterdam, 2014). 4) George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (London; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980); George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989). 5) Mapping is a term borrowed from mathematical terminology; Joseph E. Grady, Metaphor, Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistcs (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 190.

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 293 metaphors. 6) Therefore its religious conceptual system is predominantly metaphorical. 7) This allows it to comprehend supernatural realities in terms of human everyday or embodied experience. As Jan G. van der Watt puts it: if a person wants to speak about the D/divine it should be done by means of metaphors. Although human concepts are used, reference is made to a divine reality (which differs from the ordinary referents of the concepts). 8) In religious language, an abstract, transcendent, and divine reality is articulated by using finite expressions derived from the experiences of human existence. 9) Therefore the religious experience of a certain culture is conveyed via the production of a set of central metaphors. 10) In some conceptual metaphors one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another (structural metaphors), 11) while in other metaphors the source domain is centered in embodied experience (orientational metaphors). Indeed, the features of the human body and its orientation with the physical world provide many basic dimensions for metaphorical extensions. Therefore orientational metaphors emerge from how we use our bodies to interact with our environment. 6) Moreover, metaphor is a central feature of human language as a whole; Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), 38. 7) There are several important studies of religious language as a metaphorical system. See, e.g., Karsten Harries, Metaphor and Transcendence, Sheldon Sacks, ed., On Metaphor (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1979), 71 88; S. McFague, Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1982); Janet Martin Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985); Paul Ricoeur, Naming God, Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative and Imagination (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995), 217 235. 8) Jan G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel According to John, Biblical Interpretation Series 47 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 22. 9) Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 22. 10) A good example of religious metaphor attested in the New Testament is Jesus is the son of God. It should not be understood literally (i.e., biologically), as it describes the unique relations between Jesus and God. See also the investigation of the biblical metaphors of kingship in Beth M. Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John s Eternal King, Linguistic Biblical Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 11) George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 14.

294 성경원문연구제 35 호 In CMT the categorization of reality is often made in the form of so called image-schemas. An image-schema is a pre-conceptual, structural primitive that constitutes the building blocks of cognition. Image-schemas reflect our physical characteristics and bodily interactions with the world, which then can be encoded in the semantic structure of language. 12) There are several such basic primitives providing different types of meaning closely associated with a particular kind of embodied experience: Up Down, Inside Outside, Center Periphery, Close Far, Container, Whole Part, Left Right, Front Back, and some others. For instance, the Inside Outside image-scheme is based on our sense that our skin defines the extent of our bodies so that there are things inside and outside of it. The Center Periphery image-scheme is connected with our sense that our head and torso are central and the limbs are peripheral. Central is more important for our life. The Container image-scheme is built on our view that we take things into the body and expel them from it. 3. Lifting Up the Eyes in the Old Testament and in Luke As stated above, the expression evph,ren tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtou/ occurs in the LXX and corresponds to the stereotypical Hebrew ויניע תא (or א שנ (א שיו ( he lifted up his eyes ) in the Hebrew Bible. On the one hand, it occurs in contexts that imply a certain spatial aspect. For instance, in Genesis 18:11-12 Abraham, who was sitting at the door of his tent, looked up and saw three strangers coming to his place. In 1 Chronicle 21:15-16 David looked up at the angel staying by the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. Similarly, in Zechariah 5:1 the prophet looked up to see a scroll flying in the sky. On the other hand, there is no direct indication of looking up in, for instance, Gen 43:29; Jdg 19:17; 2Sa 18:24; Job 2:12; Eze 8:5; Dan 8:3; 10:5; Zec 1:18 (BHS Zec 2:1). Moreover, this expression may also indicate one s respectful or honorable position: Whom have you mocked and reviled? Against whom have you raised your voice and haughtily lifted your eyes? Against the Holy One of Israel! (NRS 2Ki 19:22; cf. 12) See, e.g., Leonard Talmy, Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000); M. Johnson, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 295 Isa 37:23). Thus, this expression is used in the biblical contexts in several meanings. Joseph A. Fitzmyer argues that this Septuagintalism may have been preserved in Luke 16:23 from material Luke uses in this parable. 13) However, Luke himself is responsible for this story in its written form, 14) and it is therefore unlikely that he retains this Septuagintalism without any specific purpose but simply because it belongs to the earlier tradition he uses. How does it function in Luke-Acts? In Luke 6:20, which can be considered to be derived from Q, 15) this expression does not appear to imply any lower to higher position: Jesus stays on the plain (6:17) and looks at his disciples to start his teaching. However, as Christiane Nord indicates, in the cultural context of Palestine in the 1st century C. E. Jesus could have sat down before starting his teaching because a teacher or a rabbi would sit while teaching, with his disciples standing in a circle around. 16) Certainly, in Matthew 5:1 Jesus sat down before starting his teaching, in Mark 9:35 he did the same. The third occurrence of lifting up the eyes in Luke is 18:13. Here it clearly refers to a spatial dimension: the tax collector did not dare to raise his eyes to heaven. What is the meaning of this expression in Luke 16:23? In order to answer this question, one must first of all explore the representations of the otherworldly abodes of the righteous and the wicked in Luke-Acts. 4. The Imagery of the Underworld in Luke-Acts To start with the underworld, which is typically associated with the abode of 13) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB28A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 1132. 14) Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, NovTSup 123 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 27. 15) James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg. eds., The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress & Peeters, 2000), 46 47. 16) Christiana Nord, What about function(s) in Bible Translation?, ATA Chronicle 33 (2003), 34-38.

296 성경원문연구제 35 호 the wicked, Luke s general image is Hades (a[ dhj), which is a traditional term in the Greek pagan religious system. In the archaic period, it was seen as the neutral realm of the dead, neither as a place of reward nor as a place of punishment. 17) However, over the course of the centuries the concept of Hades changed and it came to be regarded as the place designed for punishment, especially for the wicked. 18) In the LXX the Greek term a[ dhj becomes a regular translation of the Hebrew concept of לוא ש ( Sheol ). The term Gehenna occurs only once in Lucan writings (Luk 12:5) and represents the place of the final punishment. Indeed, in some Jewish texts and the New Testament the final abode of the wicked assigned for their punishment is associated with Gehenna, especially due to the unquenchable fire burning there. 19) The name of Gehenna (ge,enna) is derived from Hebrew םנה יג ( the valley of Hinnom ; Jos 15:8), the short form of ~Nh-!b ayg ( the valley of the son of Hinnom ; cf. Jos 18:16; Jer 7:31), or יג םנה ינב ( the valley of the sons of Hinnom ; 2Ki 23:10). This valley, located outside the city wall of Jerusalem (topographically beneath the city), was a place of idolatrous cults in late pre-exilic times (2Ki 23:10; 2Ch 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:31; 32:35). The prophet Jeremiah prophesies that this valley will be called הגרהה איג ( the Valley of Slaughter ), because God will put the inhabitants of Jerusalem to death by the swords of their enemies and their corpses will be left unburied there (Jer 7:31 32; 19:6 9). The author of Isa 66:24 probably alludes to it as to a place of the fiery punishment of the sinners after judgment in the sight of the righteous: their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh (NRS). Later these images of fire, corpses, and the wrath of God were identified with the fiery place of punishment for the wicked located in the underworld, 20) that is, hell. 21) 17) In Homeric epics the soul descends beneath the earth to the realm of Hades and Persephone (cf. Il. 20.61-61; 23.51, 100-101; 7.330; 14.457; 6.19; Od. 10.560; 11.65; 24.10), very far away from human habitation (Od. 10.501-502). 18) See, e.g., Plato, Phaed. 114b-c; Plutarch, Sera. 563e6-564b10; Virgil, Aen. 6. 19) Mat 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 23; cf. see 4Es 7:36 38; 1En 26:4 27:2; 2Bar 59:10; 85:13; 2En 40:12-13; 42:1, Sib Or 1:101-103; 2:288-292; 4:183-186. 20) Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 271, n.25. 21) The concept of hell can be defined as a divinely sanctioned place of eternal torment for the wicked ; Alan E. Bernstein, The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds (London: UCL Press, 1993), 3.

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 297 In addition, the term abyss (a;bussoj; Luk 8:31) appears in the context of sending demons (8:33) into a place of torment. It points out its location as somewhere down below. Probably this term was adopted from Jewish traditions about the underworld as the place of the imprisonment of the fallen angels and spirits. Finally, the term perdition (avpw,leia), which Luke uses in Acts 8:20 (cf. Mat 7:13) in the context of the condemnation of Simon Magus, refers to the eternal punishment of the wicked 22) in the underworld as it is used in Hellenistic pagan and Jewish traditions (cf. 1En 51:1; 81:8). 23) For the present research, the most important terms are Hades and Gehenna. 24) How do they relate to each other in the context of Luke-Acts? If the final abode of the wicked is usually associated with Gehenna, then Hades may stand for the temporal place of the souls of the dead, who are awaiting their final destiny at the end of time. Indeed, in Acts 2:27, 31 Hades is the abode of all the dead: For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence. Fellow Israelites, I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying, He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption. (NRS, Act 2:27-31) This idea often appears in Jewish literature. According to 1 Enoch 22, the souls of the dead are gathered into four hollow places under a great and high mountain in the west, waiting for the day of the great judgment (1En 22:1 4). The souls of the righteous are separated from those of the wicked and put into various chambers in the underworld (22:8 11). The separation of different categories of people after death is found in other Jewish texts: for instance, in 4 22) Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 274. 23) Cf. o` aivw,nioj o;leqroj ( the eternal destruction ) in 4Ma 10:15. 24) In addition to the terms discussed above, the expression his own place (o` to,poj o` i;dioj; Act 1:25b) in the context of the discourse about the destiny of Judas, most probably also refers to the abode of the wicked.

298 성경원문연구제 35 호 Ezra the souls of the righteous are in storehouses, while those of the wicked wander about in torments, grieving, and sad (7:79 87; cf. L.A.B. 23:13; 32:13). The places for the souls of the righteous and the wicked are so close to one another that they can even see each other (4Es 7:85, 93, 96 cf. 1En 108:15). Both categories of souls are stored in the underworld as their temporary repository until the final judgment. However, in Luke 16:23-24 Hades is the place of the punishment of the wicked with its torments, flames of fire, and thirst (16:24) 25) immediately after death, and, moreover, with no reference to the final judgment (16:23). Besides, there is no indication that the punishment of the rich man and the reward of Lazarus are temporal. As Outi Lehtipuu states, due to the fact that there is only a single occurrence of ge,enna in Luke-Acts, both Hades and Gehenna are very ambiguous words in Luke s texts and can be used with different meanings. Probably Luke understands them as rough equivalents of the place of punishment for the wicked immediately after death. 26) Therefore, Hades in 16:23-24 can be regarded as the place of final torment. 27) Next, where are Lazarus and Abraham located in this story? This issue will be explored in the context of Luke s representations of the abode of the righteous in their afterlife. 5. The Abode of the Righteous in Luke-Acts The Kingdom of God (h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/) occurs in Luke-Acts as the reality to be granted to the believers as their reward, including in their blessed afterlif e. 28) Sometimes Luke represents it in a spatial way (cf. Luk 13:28-29; 18:17, 24 25) Cf. o` to,poj tou/toj th/j basa,nou ( this place of torment ) in Luke 16:28. In addition, Luke 10:15 also can be regarded as carrying the second meaning of Hades in Luke-Acts, but with less probability, because in this verse Hades may have been used metaphorically rather than as the direct indication of the place of the final punishment of the wicked: And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades (NRS). 26) Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 273 274. See also, e.g., John Martin Creed, The Gospel according to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1942), 213. 27) See the discussion in Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 275. 28) Luk 6:20; 9:27; 13:28-29; 14:15; 18:17, 24-25; 22:29-30; 23:42; Act 14:22.

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 299 25, 28; 23:42; Act 14:22). 29) For instance, in Luke 13:28-29 it is depicted as an eschatological banquet with clear future characteristics: There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. (NRS, Luk 13:28-29) This Kingdom also occurs in the context of the afterlife in Luke 23:42 and again can be understood in a spatial sense. Moreover, in the next verse it is parallel with paradise (para,deisoj) as another representation of the blessed reality: Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom 30) (eivj th.n basilei,an sou). He replied, Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise. (para,deisoj; NRS, Luk 23:42-43) Luke could combine Jewish ideas of paradise as a blessed dwelling place of the righteous characterized by peace, joy, and eternal life (cf. Isa 51:3) with the belief that the Messiah reigns over it (cf. 1En 61:11-12). Thus, the reference to paradise in Jesus answer to the criminal on the cross in Luke 23:43 may imply that his Kingdom is still not total until he enters his glory and comes again at the end of time. 31) In addition to the Kingdom of God and paradise, Luke uses the image of the eternal habitations (αi` aivwni,oi skhnai; Luk 16:9) to representas the abode of the righteous and juxtaposes itthese habitations with the earthly dwellings of the debtors (oi` oi=koi auvtw/n; 16:4). Most likely this expression refers to the good lot of the righteous. 32) In Jewish literature the righteous eschatological dwelling is 29) Luke is not the originator of such a sense of this expression, since it appears in an earlier tradition (cf. Mar 9:47, omitted by Luke!; Mat 7:21). For instance, the account of Luke 18:17, 24 25 is taken from Mark 10:23 25. 30) It seems that throughout his double work Luke never distinguished between Jesus Kingdom and the Father s (cf. Luk 1:33; 11:2, 32; 17:20-21; 22:29-30). 31) See Grant Macaskill, Paradise in the New Testament, Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 74. 32) Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 285-286.

300 성경원문연구제 35 호 sometimes located in the heavenly places associated with their final reward together with the angels (e.g., 1En 39:4, 7; 41:2). 33) As demonstrated by this short survey of the representations of the abode of the dead in Luke-Acts, in contrast to the localization of the abode of the wicked somewhere below (in the underworld), Luke s representations of the abode of the righteous refer to heaven as well as to a certain higher or blessed location. 34) How does Abraham s bosom relate to these representations? A. J. Mattill argues that Lazarus occupies the blessed sectionregion of Hades reserved for the righteous (cf. 1En 22:2, 9) of which Abraham s bosom is a part. In contrast, the rich man is put into another part of Hades to be in torment until his final destiny (1En 22:10 11; cf. 103:5 8). 35) According to Mattill, Dives and Lazarus experience preliminary blessing and punishment and await the resurrection, when the souls in Hades will be united with their bodies to stand in the last judgment 36). Moreover, Mattill supposes that paradise is located in the happy side of Hades (again, similar to Abraham s bosom), referring to Jesus and the thief s intermediate state. 37) However, it is hardly possible to agree with Mattill, because, as has been shown above, Hades in 16:23-24 is the place of final punishment, not a temporary storage house. There is no indication of any further change of postmortem destiny in Luke 16:19 31. 38) In the context of this story Lazarus experiences his final bliss, while the rich man is punished with his final punishment. In addition, paradise is never located in the underworld in 33) The expression skhnai/ dikai,wn ( the tents of the righteous, LXX Psa 117:15) indicates the place of salvation and joy brought by the Lord. Later it occurs in T. Ab. a 20:14 as anthe abode of Abraham after his death. It refers to the place of bliss, peace, joy, and eternal life located in paradise. In addition, in Revlation 13:6 skhnh, is associated with the dwelling place of God and those who dwell in heaven. 34) Luk 6:23; 10:20; 12:33; 16:9; 18:22; Act 7:56 also refer to heaven as to the place of reward or the abode of the righteous. 35) A. J. Mattill Jr., Luke and the Last Things: a Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought (Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press, 1979), 29 30. 36) Ibid., 31. 37) Ibid., 33 34. J. Osei-Bonsu also regards paradise in Luke 23:43 as a place similar to Abraham s bosom and locates it not in heaven (cf. 2Co 12:2; 2En 8:1 4) but in the blessed sectionregion of Hades to serve as the temporary paradisiacal abode of the righteous. For Osei-Bonsu Acts 2:27, 31 appears as a crucial text for supporting his view. J. Osei-Bonsu, The Intermediate State in Luke-Acts, IBS 9 (1987), 125. 38) See the analysis of this issue in Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 277 284.

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 301 Jewish literature. 39) Apparently the context of Luke 16:19-31 implies that the words ko,lpoj VAbraa,m 40) refer to a certain blessed reality. However, this expression does not occur elsewhere in Luke-Acts or in the rest of the corpus of New Testament texts, nor does it appear in most Jewish writings with the exception of a few later ones. 41) It may represent several concepts: (1) a child lying on its parent s lap (cf. Joh 1:18); (2) the proximity of a guest to the host at a banquet (reclining next to the host, cf. Joh 13:23; 2Clem 4:5); (3) being gathered to one s ancestors (cf. Gen 15:15). The first and second of these concepts may be combined in Luke 16:22, suggesting Lazarus close fellowship with Abraham at a banquet. 42) Thus, the metaphor Abraham s bosom may designate the nature of the relationship between Abraham and Lazarus: they are in an intimate fellowship in a certain blessed reality. 43) Some English translations of Luke 16:23 follow such a meaning: Abraham is with Lazarus by his side (NRS); with Lazarus in his embrace (NJB); Lazarus at his side (GNB). Lazarus occupies the exalted and most honorable place at the assembly of the righteous, 44) probably at a certain heavenly banquet. 45) All in all, the place where Abraham and Lazarus are 39) Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 283. 40) Although ko,lpoj is used in the plural in 16:23, its sense is similar to that of 16:22. 41) T. Ab. A 20, b. Qidd. 72a b ל ש וקיחב).(םהרבא See more comments on these texts in Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 276, n. 39. 42) I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 636. Lehtipuu also indicates that it could represent either an honorable position at a heavenly banquet or close communion with Abraham. Moreover, these two connotations do not need to be mutually exclusive. See Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 215. 43) See Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 294. Joachim Jeremias suggests that Lazarus occupies an exalted and very honorable place at the assembly of the righteous; Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 2nd rev. ed., (New York: Charles Scribner s Sons, 1972), 184. Luke-Acts demonstrates a special interest in and sympathy for the poor and needy. They represent the type of the true righteous ones (cf. Luk 6:20b 21) and will receive the eschatological rewards and relief from their sufferings and troubles (cf., e.g., Luk 1:52 53; 4:18; 6:20 21; 14:13, 21; 18:22; 19:8). It is a common scholarly opinion, reflected in a number of studies that in Luke 16:19 31 Lazarus is one of these marginal people, who are the subject of God s special care and protection. See the list of the most important works in Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 165. In this connection, one can compare Abraham s bosom and the Kingdom of God, which belongs to the poor (Luk 6:20). 44) Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 184. 45) Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 607; Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 215.

302 성경원문연구제 35 호 dwelling in a close relationship could also serve for Luke as a representation of the concept of the honorable blessed reality destined for the righteous. 46) 6. The Differentiation of Fate and Spatial Change in Luke 16:19-31 In the context of Luke 16:19-31 the difference between the rich man and Lazarus in their social position and honor as well as in their postmortem state is marked by the spatial distinction between them throughout this whole parable. Indeed, in 16:19 21 Lazarus lies at the rich man s gate (he occupies a lower position than the rich man), while the latter feasts in his house (he is in the upper position relative to the beggar). The poor man longs to eat what falls (the lower position) from the rich man s table (the higher position). Then, in 16:22 23, after their death their fates are suddenly reversed: the angels carry Lazarus away to Abraham s bosom (presumably the higher position, which is far away from the rich man s place); the rich man is buried (the lower position). One can suggest that the differentiation of the fates of these two people is illustrated by the spatial change in altitude between them. Now, the rich man s position is not above that of Lazarus. On the contrary, in the hereafter he has to look up to see the poor man (16:23). 47) Next, in Luke 16:23 the wicked and the righteous are separated not only by altitude but also by distance. Indeed, avpo. makro,qen ( far away ) emphasizes a distance between two types of people in the otherworld, metaphorically signifying the difference between the state of the righteous and that of the wicked. The fact that the spatial difference between the righteous and the wicked is important for Luke can be demonstrated in some additional examples. First, it is seen in Luke 13:24 25, which is the part of the parable of the Narrow Door (13:22-30): 48) 46) However, there is no need to equate this place with paradise, because it is another representation of the abode of the righteous. 47) Eduard Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 172; Cf. John Nolland, Luke 9:21 18:34, 829. 48) Luke 13:24-25 is connected with Mat 7:13-14; 25:10-12; Luk 13:26-27 with Mat 7:22-23, while Luke 13:28 29 has a close parallel with Mat 8:11 12 which concludes the story of the

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 303 Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. When once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us, then in reply he will say to you, I do not know where you come from. (NRS, Luk 13:24-25) In this parable the Kingdom of God that is perceived in a spatial way and metaphorically represented as a house of salvation plays the role of a container, in CMT terminology. The righteous enter this house (they are in), while the wicked stay outside (e;xw). Luke uses similar imagery of the spatial representation of the Kingdom in Luke 18:24 25, belonged to the broader 18:24-30 episode whose material Luke derived and adopted from Mark 10:17-31: 49) How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter (eivsporeu,ontai) the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. (NRS, Luk 18:24b-25) Hence, in Luke 16:23 Luke indicates the spatial difference between the rich man and Lazarus in both altitude and distance. Such a differentiation may refer to four basic cognitive image-schemas involved in the process of metaphorical extension in this parable: Up Down, Inside Outside, Center Periphery, and Container. The Up Down polar opposition is rooted in our erect posture and some orientational metaphors are motivated by this image-scheme. Indeed, the physical basis for personal well-being such as happiness, health, and life is often expressed as up in many cultures and this is true in the culture discussed. 50) centurion s servant. Probably both Luke and Matthew had at hand a set of Q sayings, whether in similar or variant form, and used them according to their own views. See James M. Robinson, The Critical Edition of Q, 406 415. 49) Cf. Luke 24:26, where Jesus enters his glory and Mark 9:43 47, where entering life is equated with entering the Kingdom of God. 50) Discussing so-called archetypical metaphors grounded in the prominent features of experience, objects, actions, conditions, and motivations, M. Osborn indicates that vertical scale images refer to desirable objects above and undesirable objects below. In his opinion, this feature may express the human quest for power; M. Osborn, Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family, Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967), 116.

304 성경원문연구제 35 호 Contrary, the basis for personal misery is down: distress, humiliation, disease, uncleanness, and death. Certainly, in the Bible life is up, while death is down: For the wise the path of life םייח) (חרא leads upward,(הלעמל) in order to avoid Sheol below (הטמ) (NRS, Prov 15:24). 51) Further, as Mario Liverani argues in his study of the ideological issues of the Assyrian empire, the division of space into inner and outer parts played an important role in this culture. 52) An inner space (center), which is perceived as positive, is in opposition to an outer one (periphery), which is characterized as negative. Consequently, the inner zone is reassuring because it is normal... ; the outer zone or periphery is worrying because it is abnormal 53). Then again the inner space is luminous, structured and productive, while the outer one is dark, chaotic and sterile. As has been shown above, in the cognitive sense, center (in) serves as a metaphor for the Kingdom of God in Luke, while periphery (out) stands for the dark place of torment of the wicked. In Luke 16:26 a great chasm (ca,sma me,ga) plays the role of the boundary between the central (the abode of Abraham and Lazarus) and the periphery (Hades). Hence, in Luke 16:23 the evangelist demonstrates that the spatial difference between the postmortem positions of the rich man and Lazarus marks the difference in their afterlife status: the lower position the rich man occupies in Hades corresponds to his worse fate and humiliated condition, while the higher position of Lazarus (as well as Abraham), who is in a blessed reality, designates his honorable and exalted state. 54) Their states stand for the condemned or blessed realities reserved for the wicked or the righteous. On the other hand, it is doubtful that Luke tries to accentuate the exact geographical mapping of these realities or their real spatial location underground, on earth or in heaven. It seems that most likely he relies on his audience s cultural acquaintance with the prototypical representations of the abodes of the righteous and the wicked and their orientational metaphorization. As is shown above, usually the wicked are located below, in the underground or in the lower regions, while the righteous 51) Cf. Pss. Sol. 15:10: e[wj a[ dou ka,tw ( Hades [Sheol] below ). 52) See Mario Liverani, The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire, Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed., Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 306. 53) Mario Liverani, The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire, 306. 54) Luke 10:15 dealing with heaven and Hades may also be regarded as an example of the indication of the difference between the humiliated and the exalted states.

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 305 are always above or in the higher regions. These prototypical or most salient and central representations of the abode of the dead are connected with the spatial difference between the location of the righteous and that of the wicked. All in all, one can conclude that in the context of Luke 16:19-31 the expression evph/ren tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtou/ in 16:23 should be understood as follows: the rich man looks upwards to see Abraham who is somewhere above and far away, together with Lazarus in his bosom. The rich man is suffering in torments of Hades, while Abraham and Lazarus are enjoying their blessed state in a certain blessed reality. 7. Conclusions To sum up, in Luke s picture of the otherworld the spatial separation between the abode of the righteous and that of the wicked plays an important role. The wicked are located below, in the underground or in the lower regions, while the righteous are above or in the higher regions. This spatial differentiation is not geographical but cognitive: it metaphorically signifies the reality of humiliation and condemnation for the wicked and the reality of honor, blessing, and eternal life for the righteous. This cognitive differentiation is salient in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and represented by the separation in altitude and distance between the wicked and the righteous by means of four cognitive image-schemas involved into the cognitive orientational metaphor in this parable (Up Down, Inside Outside, Center Periphery, and Container). Thus, the spatial difference between the postmortem positions of the rich man and Lazarus marks the difference in their afterlife status: the lower and more peripheral or remote position corresponds to the worse fate and humiliated condition, while the higher and more central position designates the honorable and exalted state. Therefore, the Septuagintalism evph/ren tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtou/ in Luke 16:23 (as well as in Luk 6:20 and 18:13) emphasizes the spatial aspect and should be treated in this way in translation.

306 성경원문연구제 35 호 <Keywords> Bible interpretation, Bible translation, Luke-Acts, Cognitive metaphor, Image-Schema. ( 투고일자 : 2014 년 9 월 1 일, 심사일자 : 2014 년 8 월 22 일, 게재확정일자 : 2014 년 8 월 22 일 ) <References> Bernstein, Alan E., The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds, London: UCL Press, 1993. Bovon, François, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, EKKNT III:3 (Lk 15,1 19,27), Zürich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001. Bratcher, Robert G., A Translator s Guide to the Gospel of Luke, New York: United Bible Societies, 1982. Creed, John Martin, The Gospel according to St. Luke, London: Macmillan, 1942. Evans, C. F., Saint Luke, London: SCM Press, 2008. Evans, V. and Green, M., Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Ferré, Frederick, Metaphors, Models, and Religion, Sound 51 (1968), 327 345. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible 28A, Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. Grady, Joseph E., Metaphor, Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, 188 213. Green, Joel B., The Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Harries, Karsten, Metaphor and Transcendence, Sheldon Sacks, ed., On Metaphor, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1979, 71 88. Jeremias, Joahim, The Parables of Jesus, 2nd rev. ed., New York: Charles Scribner s Sons, 1972. Johnson, Mark, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Macaskill, Grant, Paradise in the New Testament, Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 64 81. Marshall, I. Howard, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids:

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 307 Eerdmans, 1978. Matill, A. J., Jr., Luke and the Last Things: a Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought, Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press, 1979. McFague, S., Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1982. Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark, Metaphors We Live By: Journal of Philosophy, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980. Lakoff, George, and Turner, Mark, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Lehtipuu, Outi, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 123, Leiden: Brill, 2007. Liverani, Mario, The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire., Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed., Power and Propaganda. A Symposium on Ancient Empires, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979, 297 317. Nolland, John, Luke 9:21 18:34, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds., Word Biblical Commentary 35B, Dallas: Word Books, 1993. Nord, Christiana, What about function(s) in Bible Translation?, ATA Chronicle 33 (2003), 34-38. Osborn, M, Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family, Quarterly Journal of Speech 53:2 (1967), 115 126. Osei-Bonsu, J, The Intermediate State in Luke-Acts, Irish Biblical Studies 9:3 (1987), 115 130. Perdue, Leo G, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Plummer, Alfred, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, International Critical Commentary, New York: Charles Scribner s Sons, 1920. Ricoeur, Paul, Naming God, in Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative and Imagination, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995, 217 235. Ricoeur, Paul, The Rule of Metaphor: The Creation of Meaning in Language, Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1977. Robinson, James M., Hoffmann, Paul, and Kloppenborg, John S., The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas, Hermeneia: Fortress & Peeters, 2000. Schweizer, Eduard, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

308 성경원문연구제 35 호 Ruprecht, 1993. Soskice, Janet Martin, Metaphor and Religious Language, Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Somov, Alexey, Representations of the Afterlife, Ph.D. Dissertation, VU University Amsterdam, 2014. Stovell, Beth M., Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John s Eternal King, Linguistic Biblical Studies 5, Leiden: Brill, 2012. Talmy, Leonard, Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000. Watt, Jan G. van der. Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel According to John, Biblical Interpretation Series 47, Leiden: Brill, 2000.

He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation / Alexey Somov 309 <Abstract> He Lifted Up His Eyes : Translating Luke 16:23 in the Context of Cognitive Interpretation Alexey Somov (Institute for Bible Translation Russia/CIS) This article investigates the meaning of the expression evph/ren tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtou/ ( he lifted up his eyes ) in Luke 16:23. This Septuagintalism, which Luke uses in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luk 16:19-31), can be translated either as simply look at or with reference to a spatial difference between these two people. Although many Bible translations prefer indicating its spatial aspect, commentators are divided on this issue. The fact of such an ambiguity raises the question again, whether Luke uses he lifted up his eyes intentionally in 16:23 or simply as a conventional expression? Discussing this question the present article uses not only a traditio-historical enquiry and textual analysis, but also Cognitive Metaphor Theory (CMT) developed by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson. CMT argues that metaphor is an integral part of the process of human thinking and acting. Moreover, metaphor allows us to comprehend supernatural realities in terms of human everyday or embodied experience, reflecting our physical characteristics and bodily interactions with the world in the form of image-schemas, i.e., pre-conceptual, structural primitives (Up-Down, Inside-Outside, Near-Far, Center-Periphery, Container). Indeed, the spatial organization of the otherworld in Luke 16:19-31 is connected with the conceptual orientational metaphorization centered in embodied experience and involves four cognitive image-schemas organizing the spatial contrast: Up-Down, Inside-Outside, Center-Periphery, and Container. The difference between the rich man and Lazarus in their social position and honor as well as in their postmortem state is marked by the spatial distinction between them throughout the whole parable. The spatial difference between their postmortem positions marks their difference in their afterlife status: the lower and more peripheral or remote position corresponds to the worse fate and humiliated condition, while the higher and more central position designates the honorable and exalted state. Thus, in this parable the righteous and the wicked are separated in altitude and distance in the afterlife. Therefore, it is suggested that Luke uses the expression he lifted up his eyes in Luke 16:23 intentionally, in order to emphasize the spatial differentiation between the abode of the righteous and that of the wicked.

310 성경원문연구제35호 From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13)*1) Inhee Park*2) The Temptation story (Q 4:1-13) is one of the most dramatic stories in the New Testament as well as in Q. Its dramatic changes of stage and the idealized confrontation of Jesus by satanic power are the main factors leading the assumption that this story is a fictional creation, according to the latest editorial work being done in the process of Q redaction. The dramatic elements of the story, however, provide a window into the socio-historical context consistent with the entirety of Q. That context includes major life-issues and values of Q people in first-century Galilee. Thus, it is likely that rather than a mere Christological narrative, the temptation story (along with the episode of John the Baptist in Q 3:7-17) can be considered a reflexive narrative functioning as a prologue of the entirety of Q as the self-defining statement of the people. This important function of the temptation story is further illuminated by exploring the narrative traits of Q 1), especially by looking at the narrative space. The temptation story provides a liminal space that guides the audience toward the world of narrative Q, which is cumulatively the kingdom of God. This paper examines the temptation story by exploring its socio-historical reality, as well * Ph.D. in New Testament at Ewha Womans University. Lecturer of New Testament at Ewha Womans University. pih@ewhain.net. This paper is based on the paper that presented in Q Section of Society of Biblical Literature, Annual Meeting in Baltimore, 25 Nov. 2013. 1) Recently significant discussions have been held among Q scholars about the narrative characteristics of Q, which supports the Q hypothesis and enriches the theological horizon of early Christianity regarding Q. For more details on this subject, see, R. Zimmermann, Metaphorology and Narratology in Q Exegesis: Literary Methodology as an Aid to Understanding the Q Text, D. Roth, R. Zimmermann, and M. Labahn, eds., Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables of Q, WUNT 315 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 16-25, 3-30. There are important monographs about narrative Q such as H. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Leuven, Paris, Dudley 2005); M. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender Die Logienquelle als Erzahlte Geschichte (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010).

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 311 as the formational process that produced it. This is done by an analysis of its narrative space, and the role of place, and the cultural traits of oral performance. 1. Narrative Space and Q Considering Q as a narrative enables perceptions of the remarkable use of narrative space in Q. Narrative space has multiple meanings. One is a process that narrative theorist David Herman convincingly illustrates by saying spatialization of the story-world, involving the process of building mental representations of narrated domains that can be understood as evolving configurations of participants, objects and places. 2) A narrative space can be perceived completely only at the end of the narrative. 3) As it advances to its conclusion, the narrative occupies a space which limits are evident at the liner point of conclusion. 4) As the audience reflects on the image that is shown by the narrator with spacial dimensions they are led by the narrations of the characters or the speaker which have fundamentally involved presenting the values and points of view of the narrative. Narrative Q 5) has a basic structure of waiting for the coming one, who is identified as Jesus and the Son of Man. This main theme holds the interest of the audience to continue listening to the story until the end: When will he come? Or has he come already? The fulfillment of this waiting period can be imagined as a realization of the kingdom of God in terms of eschatological expectation. Q presents this temporal concept of the kingdom of God as a spatial image during its narration by describing the kingdom of God as a place in which a merciful father lives through various domestic images presented to 2) David Herman, Narrative World, D. Herman, J. Phelan, P. J. Rabinowitz, B. Richardson, and R.Warhol, eds., Narrative Theory Core Concepts and Critical Debates (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2012), 98-102. 3) Paul Cobley, Narrative (London; New York: Routledge, 2008), 12-16. 4) It is like an architectural drawing that is constructed as its idea is developed. In the meantime, until the drawing is complete, this space can be revealed only as the lines are drawn and the picture appears, which the narrative provides. 5) H. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 100-110; M. Labahn, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender Die Logienquelle als Erzahlte Geschichte; J. M. Robinson, A. Lindermann, ed., The Critical Edition of Q, The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 28-36.

312 성경원문연구제35호 the audience. 6) This is one of the distinctive narrative traits of Q. In the temptation story the narration of Q has focused more sharply on the matter of space. In this story Q refers to various settings, or places, which become liminal space that opens into the entire space of the Q narrative. 2. Narrative Places and the Temptation Story Places in a narrative play a major role in the concept of narrative space. As settings places enable a protagonist and an antagonist to interact continuously. Together they establish a field that informs the audience about the identity of the protagonist and antagonist. 7) In narratives about historical events places effectively illustrate the origins and identities of both individuals and groups. Places such as countryside, a town or a battlefield offer mnemonic clues that transmit messages in regard to the narrative. 8) A concept of place is embedded as an essential dimension of human consciousness and experience. 9) Not only does it contribute to an intrinsic sense of being rooted, but also it is immediately connected to the culture and convention of a particular group. 10) Consequently, place plays a significant role in a narrative, reflecting a culture and history as well as the particular locale within the society in which the narrative is produced. The temptation story mentions significant places such as the desert, the temple and the entire world. The desert and the temple are significant not only in Q but also in the culture and traditions of contemporary Israelites. The desert 6) Daniel Smith also argues that Q sayings using or presuming a setting of domestic space. D. Smith, Knock, But it will be open for you? The Rhetoric of Domestic Space in Q, unpublished paper Society of Biblical Literature Q Section, San Francisco, 2011. 7) For more details see, Teresa Bridgeman, Time and Space, David Herman, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Narrative (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 52-65. 8) Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 45-46. 9) Edward Relph introduces various ideas about the inextricable relationship of place and human experience and consciousness in various fields of human science in his book Place and Placelessness. Here he attempt to illuminate the ideas that place is a profound center of human experience. E. Relph, Place and Placelessness (London: Pion Limited, 1988). 10) Hanri Lefebvre offers an understanding of the production of space which is socially constructed in its physical, conceptual, and symbolic aspects. H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, D. Nicholson-Smith, trans. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 36-46.

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 313 is an important place for the socio-historical context of the temptation story because it has geographical, historical and thematic significance. In addition, the temple and the kingdoms of the world in this story function to reveal that behind the story are, despite the scribal features, the common people of Galilee. 2.1. The Functions of the Desert The temptation story starts with Jesus in the desert. Jesus appears first in the desert not only in the temptation story but also throughout Q. When we consider the desert as a narrative setting 11) we see an empty stage. Thus the audience can focus on the protagonist and antagonist without being disturbed by any spatial obstacles. The attention of the audience on this empty stage is attained according to the actions of the characters. As a liminal space it can be transformed as needed to advance the narrative. This tensional potentiality continues to draw the audience s attention until the narrative ends. With this excellent function of the narrative setting, this place also could be a stage of actual history. Geographically the desert (e;rhmoj) in the Gospels includes the region north of the Dead sea, the area around Jericho, perhaps as far as Zarethan 12) as well as the lower area of Jordan Valley. The desert or wilderness in the biblical world is also understood as an access to inhabitants passing between the residences. Socio-historically the desert used to be a refuge because it is uncontrolled by political authorities, 13) as evidenced in the Essene community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. As a place that is free and uncontrolled, the desert was the appropriate location from which to initiate a new vision or movement in first-century Palestine. 11) Jonathan Reed argues that Q s configuration of places is not proper for narrative setting but adequate for historicity, however, he admits the opening scene in the all the region of Jordan for the John s appearing (3:3) and Jesus appearing in the desert (4:1) shows proper spatial coherence between two stories. However this place also functions as a historical place. See, J. Reed, The Social Map of Q, J. Kloppenborg, ed., Conflict and Invention (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 17-36, 20. 12) John Kloppenborg, City and wasteland: Narrative world and the beginning of the saying Gospel(Q), Semeia 52 (1990), 145-160. 13) John Kloppenborg illustrates about how Q places desert for the opening setting of Q which is for a description of Q social locale of resistant against city elite. See, Ibid., 150.

314 성경원문연구제35호 In this regard Q refers to this place as a strong locale for John the Baptist and Jesus. As John Kloppenborg indicates in Q 7:24 the e;rhmoj means the actual stage for John the Baptist around the Jordan River. Many would go out to this place to see him. Q 9:58 also renders some connection with Jesus and the desert. Jesus might have had some experience of dwelling in or irregularly visiting the desert since he was recognized as a public figure by John the Baptist. When we consider the fact that in all gospel materials, including Q, Jesus is always introduced to the public through John the Baptist, the desert as a narrative setting of the temptation story also engages with actual and historical events of Jesus and John the Baptist. As a thematic place, the metaphor of the desert also offers the foundation for the collective memories of the Israelites. The traditional reconstruction of the route during exodus taken by Moses and Israelites includes of the wilderness of Sinai and Negeb. 14) This desert can be also denoted as a significant place of God s protection from evil power for the minority who escape within it, as we see reflected in the Psalms and Exodus, in spite of the desert s difficult conditions of survival. Also in relation to eschatological hope, the desert, wilderness is the place for the preparation for God s blessing, and a path through which the deliverer comes (Isa 40). 15) More importantly, this place functions as a thematic setting involving a reminiscence of the exodus to become children of Yahweh. Q also links this reminiscence with a similar test of Jesus s motive when it mentions forty days in the desert. Thus the significance of desert as a historical, geographical and thematic place can provide a solid stage for Jesus, the protagonist of Q. 2.2. The Temple, the Kingdoms of the World and the Authorship In contrast, the antagonist s main stages are the temple and the entire world. The devil in this narrative plays diverse roles; at one point, the devil presents himself as a tempter/a teaser (Mat 4:3); at another point as a powerful adversary who stands against God. The activity and diversity arise primarily from the antagonist s claim that he dominates the places of power, such as the temple 14) Adrian Curtis, Oxford Bible Atlas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 78-80. 15) C. Michael Robbins, The Testing of Jesus (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 37-38.

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 315 and the kingdoms of the world (Roman Empire). These places are presented as available stages for the devil in the temptation story, making the devil look powerful. The appearances of the devil are frequent in Q. They occur in the Beelzebul controversy (Q 11:14-20) and in the story of the return of the devil (Q 11:24-26). Even Jesus was misunderstood to be a devil in the controversy of Beelzebul. Moreover, in the story of the return of the evil spirit the monologues of the devil are humorously narrated to the audience, which is very rare since in Q most sayings are articulated by the protagonist, not by the antagonist. Interestingly, in the temptation story the devil even quotes scripture as he stands on a pinnacle of the Temple. More importantly the devil functions in a significant role, because it articulates the critical issue of the identity as a son (as children) of God. The term devil (satan) includes the meaning of adversary or enemy which can be applied not only to supernatural beings, but, in Israelite tradition, also to human beings. 16) Also the meaning of the word tempter or tester can signify both human and supernatural beings. Sometimes, they work for God following his command (Job 2:1-7). The evidence of late Jewish literature has attested to the fact that after the Hellenistic period this satan becomes more dreadful, connoting great political and cosmic power. The term satan has different names such as Mastema (in Book of Julilee), Belial (1QH, 1QSb) and is translated into Greek as dia,boloj (Zec 3:1-2, Job 1). Scribes who stood in resistance to imperial power articulated that defiance by their use of various demonic images, including those that portray secular power as possessing the cosmic power of darkness, 17) even identifying Antiocus IV as dia,boloj (1Ma 1:36) the secular adversarial power. In the third test of the temptation story (Q 4:5-8) we find that Q identifies the oppressive foreign regime with satanic power. 18) Q depicts the kingdoms of the world - by which it means the Roman Empire - as the domain of the devil, 16) V. Hamilton, Satan, ABD, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 985-989. 17) Mostly in the Qumran literature, the devil is depicted as leader of forces of darkness, the worthless one, and the one who exercises control over the world. Ibid, 988. 18) G. Theissen claims this is connected with the resistance attitude against Roman empire, however we don t have to connect this view regarding Roman empire as satanic power with only Caligula s self-apothesis event as Theissen argues. Cf., G. Theissen, The Gospel in Context, L. Molony, trans. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 203-221.

316 성경원문연구제35호 according to Lukan version (Luk 4:5 oivkoume,nh). The word dia,boloj instead of sataν is employed to designate the ruler of that world and matches similar descriptions found in scribal materials. On the basis of these similarities, it can be assumed that Q s social stance may reflect the resistance of the Jewish scribes. 19) However, the second scene of this story provides another clue for the socio-historical locale of Q. Strikingly, in the second scene (Q 4:9-12) the temple is used as a stage for the devil and is a far different idea than is found in other resistance materials in Jewish literature. This radical expression reveals a sharp divergence from resistant scribal groups as seen in the Qumran. The two facts in the second test - that the author freely uses the temple as a stage for satanic power and the citation of the scripture put in the mouth of satan - cannot be shared with a scribal group that is well aware of the scripture and its religious tradition. This disturbing image is reinforced because the devil positions himself in the upper part of the temple from which he quotes scripture. The elite would hardly use those expressions since the temple definitely functions as the center of their social-space where they bring their ideas and values regardless of their direct involvement with the temple office. 20) People who reside in Jerusalem would never agree to portray the temple as a stage of the devil. Most of them may have been involved in temple business and received benefits from that related business considering the huge volume of the temple business before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. 21) Accordingly it can be seen that the temple also served as a center of the lived space of Jerusalem citizens. Although we can find many criticisms against the temple leadership among anti-temple intelligence, such as a commentary on Habakkuk in Qumran literature in which the wicked priest is harshly criticized, 22) their utterances are far from describing 19) Richard Horsley present resistant scribe activities related with Apocalyptic text, however he argues that scribal resistance to imperial rule was usually separated from popular protest due to the lack of common causes, R. A. Horsley, Revolt of the scribes Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 199. 20) When a social space is constructed by an individual or a group, a sort of prohibitions and refrains should be included depending on constructors social convention and tradition. Cf., H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 33-36. 21) For the details of the appearance of the temple and its practice, cf. M. Goodman the Temple in the first century CE Judaism, J. Day, ed., Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 459-468 22) M. Wise, M. Abegg Jr., and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scroll: A New Translation (San Francisco:

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 317 the temple as a stage for the devil. For them, the temple is still a sacred place of God s residence (1QpHab). Further, it is impossible for the scribes to make Satan quote Psalm 91:11-12 (LXX 90:11-12), a text that is used to expel the devil or evil things. 23) Harry Fleddermann considers this verse irrelevant as a condition for the test of casting down Jesus s body since this verse in Psalm 91 describes God s day-to-day care of the person of faith. 24) These observations attest to the fact that either the author didn t know the full context of his quotation or the author intentionally put this peculiar verse into the mouth of the devil to make a mockery of scribal practice. These observations allow an identification of certain characteristics of the framers of this story. Using places like the temple and the Roman Empire as stages for the devil, the framers of this story separate these places from the center of absolute authority in their minds and feel justified in resisting their unjust power. Thus the authority claimed by the temple and Jerusalem as well as the Roman world is nullified and reconstructed as an interesting element of making a narrative, by expressing it in a humorous and amusing way. This is the most outstanding case of using narrative place to illustrate the narrator s social locale. We can infer that the social locale of this temptation story is Galilee, whose people are the most oppressed by the leading social groups by the triple tax system prevalent in first-century Palestine. 2.2.1. The Quotations and Its Oral Context Although the temptation story obviously includes citations from the Old Testament, 25) this story more likely originated from an oral narrative performed by the people of Q. In quotations from LXX, the scribal features of this story can be understood to have occurred in the final stage of the process of elaborating works as they became fixed into a document. 26) Even in the case of Harper San Francisco, 2005), 79-88. 23) Robert Doran, et al., 1&2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, New Interpreter s Bible, vol. 4 (New York: Abingdon press, 1996) 493-497; C. Michael Robbins, The Testing of Jesus, 59. 24) H. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 247. 25) On the contrary, Aland Jacobson argues the temptation story is composed in the earlier stage by a scribal group who intended to present Jesus as faithful son, standing in contrast of the unfaithful generation addressed, by Moses in Deuteronomy 6-8. Cf., A. Jacobson, The First Gospel (Sonoma: Polebridge Gospel, 1992), 86-95. 26) There is a historical analogy in Korean tradition, when the oral narrative of Pansori had been

318 성경원문연구제35호 the devil s quotation in 4:10-11 from Psalm 91:11, 12 (LXX 90:11-12), C. M. Tuckett argues that the person who adduced this quotation seems to have been unaware of any broader literary context from which these verses were taken since the structure of quotations is clearly different from the original scripture. 27) The more significant aspect of these written features is that they still retain the oral culture that reflects the lived context of Q people rather than that of the scribal elites. It is noteworthy that the citations in the temptation story (4:4, 8, 10, 11, 12) include striking similarities to oral performance. It is interesting that these citations are all connected to imagery of desert. The mnemonic function of desert is helpful for the performers to remember the citations. In addition, except Psalm 91, all the citations in the temptation story are based on the story of the exodus. Q frequently mentions and implies interesting and famous legends and figures in Israelite history (such as Noah, Lot, Jonah, Solomon and Abraham). These demonstrate that both the performers and the audience of Q were familiar with these figures and frequently heard about them from old legends or tales in their culture. As one of these abundant historical stories the exodus was also familiar to them. On particular occasions like Passover, they repeatedly heard and recited those familiar and impressive verses of scripture about manna and the Ten Commandments in the desert. Accordingly they employ them during a Q performance. Scripture was also transmitted orally in rituals or festivals and similar events, even illiterate people had opportunities to hear the scripture in their daily lives. 28) In oral societies throughout history illustrate people nevertheless had a rich knowledge of their own cultural heritage. For rituals like Passover they would regularly recite the verses related with exodus stories. 29) When evil fixed as a document the scribe, named Sin Jaehyo (1812-1884), he had corrected mistakes and absurdities in oral narrative caused by the common people s ignorance about elite culture. 27) C. M. Tuckett, Scripture and Q, The Scriptures in the Gospels (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 14. 28) Cf. Martin. S. Jaffee, Social Setting of Literacy and Scribal Orality, Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200BCE-400CE (Oxford University Press, 2001), 15-27; Birger Gerhardsson, The Character and Divisions of the Oral Torah, Memory & Manuscript (Grand Rapids: Willliam B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 79-84. 29) Richard Hosley argues that the Passover is not only distinctive Judean festival but also Galilean Israelite as well. R. Hosley, Galilee: History, Politics, People (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 245-246.

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 319 occurrences happened, they would recite Psalm 91:10-12. The words they intoned did not have to be identical to the written scripture. Therefore the possibility of an oral performance of the temptation story that would include these citations among ordinary peasants is not denied. Since these verses appeal to God for daily help or comfort, performers were familiar with them and had no difficulty reciting them. Therefore the attempt to find the socio-historical locale of Q people through the sayings and the relationship of the characters and the settings is plausible. However, the most important component of this story to understand the socio-historical context is the voice of satan in the first scene (Q 4:3-4) in the desert, if you are a son of God, turn this stone into bread. 2.3. The Son of God vs. The Children of God Since the matter of sonship is an important issue of Q, as well as in other Gospel materials, it is absurd that the antagonist firstly articulates the title the Son of God in the temptation story. Also this title has generated diverse arguments among Q scholars because in the entirety of Q the title Son of God is mentioned only in the temptation story. 30) One solution used to explain this irrelevant and abrupt mention of the Son of God, is to introduce the previous episode of Jesus s baptism into Q by making a connection with the sonship of the temptation story, 31) or setting aside this matter of the sonship from the core structure of Q 32) and attributing it to a later redactional work. 33) At first glance, Jesus s confrontation with satanic power seems to make this title Son of God refer only to his own divinity. Instead, these words should be interpreted in connection with the people behind the story. Among multiple meanings of the son of God from an angelic figure to a secular king 34) the most relevant meaning for this temptation story is that it had traditionally been a metaphor for Israelites linked with a strong reminiscence of the exodus in the 30) For more details about this arguments, see, H. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 235. 31) Ibid., 235 32) John Kloppenborg Vervin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Saying Gospel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 93. 33) John Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 258-262. 34) J. Fossum, Son of God, ABD, vol. 6, 128-137.

320 성경원문연구제35호 desert. Q also confirms this with mentioning forty days in a desert. 35) If the son of God could be used to indicate the ordinary Israelite, 36) it would be possible to decode the son of God in the temptation story as a representative of the children of God, which then would mean the Q people. This is also supported by the following observations. First, Jesus did not perform any kind of miracle or give evidence of any divine supernatural power as was common in the Hellenistic culture. Second, a messianic figure in Jewish tradition could not be commanded by the devil to perform miracles in this barren field. In addition, the conditions of the test do not seem proper to test for the quality of those divine or heroic features. Moreover, the matter of sonship and inheritance is a major theme of Q from the beginning and it runs through the entire narrative (Q 3:7; 7:28; 6:35, 36; 11:2, 13; 12:30). From the previous episode, John the Baptist raised the question about the quality of Israelites, the children of God. Sequentially, in the temptation story Q mentions the son of God in terms of matter of identity of the children of God. When considering the fact that only the meaningful or representative event or anecdote can be selected as a subject of a narrative among various events, this event of testing must hold a particular meaning for the Q people. 2.3.1. Miracle and the Mission of Q 37) It is noteworthy that the devil demands magical behaviors in connection with the term son of God. Jesus frequently performed magical acts in the synoptic Gospels and in most cases the results produce positive effects in his mission. In this regard performing a miracle is regarded as an important condition of doing a mission in Gospel materials. However, Q rarely mentions Jesus' supernatural acts. When one is noted, it makes trouble as seen in the Beelzebul controversy. 38) Consistent with this atmosphere, Jesus in the temptation story 35) L. G. Perdue, The Household, Old Testament Theology and Contemporary Hermeneutics, L. G. Perdue, et al., ed., Families in Ancient Israel: The Family, Religion, and Culture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 231-232. 36) In Mark 1:9-13 Jesus is proved as the son of God during his baptism, after that he is tested by satan, therefore the test is a kind of passage ritual or kind of training. 37) For more significant discussions of the mission discourse of Q, see, Hyung-Dong Kim, The Importance of the Kingdom of God in Q Mission Discourse (Q 10:2-16), Korean New Testament Studies 9 (2002), 295-318.

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 321 decisively rejects the devil s demands for magical evidence. This strong attitude hints to us that this story likely related to the context of Q s particular mission. When considering the fact that woes against Galilean towns (Q10:13-15) 39) are directly followed after the mission discourse (10:2-12), as well as the mention of rejection in the discourse (10:10-12), the assumption that there exists some difficulties in the mission field of Q is evident. These difficulties surfaced because the agents of Q s mission were mostly ordinary people who could not perform miracles nor did they have the attraction of charismatic figures. Their way of doing mission mostly involved communicating Q s message among the other peasants. Not with magical performance but with oral narratives, they delivered the message of the kingdom of God. As we can assume in the kingdom discourse (Q 6:20-49) and Lord s Prayer (Q 11:2-4), one of their pursuits is the movement of cancellation of debts (Q 6:34; 11:4) appealing to their neighbors to be merciful as the children of God (Q 6:36). Simultaneously, the strong repetition of the saying if you are the/a son of God (eiv uiò.j ei= tou/ qeou/)in the temptation story implies that this designation children of God also was a frequently heard moniker in their lived world. It was uttered as a kind of mockery, a teasing way of attacking sayings pronounced against Q people; although, this matter is critically important for Q people s self -consciousness. Moreover, the testing conditions can be connected with the daily lives of the people of Q. When the economic crisis of the socio-historical context of Galilee is considered, the matter of hunger and injury caused by debts were certainly major issues among the people in Galilee. Jesus himself is depicted as a hungry man. Also the demand that Jesus cast his body down upon the stones enables us to imagine a threatening situation experienced by the vulnerable Q people in their daily lived contexts. In addition, the quotations in Q 4:10-11 were originally used in the context of expelling the evil occurrences or diseases, 40) and the quotations implying God s protection in Q 4:4, 8 would help them to 38) Only in Q 7:22 depicts Jesus miracle in a positive way. This verse, however, seems to be a later addition derived from a typical description of the day of Yahweh in Isaiah 28:18-19 to make a justification from the scripture to respond John s doubt. 39) For more details of the woes of Q, see Inhee Park, On the Study of Luke 6:24-26 for Q reconstruction, Journal of Biblical Text Research 27, (2010), 71-92. 40) Robert Doran, et al., 1&2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, New Interpreter s Bible, vol. 4 (New York: Abingdon press, 1996) 493-497; C. M. Robbins, The Testing of Jesus, 59.

322 성경원문연구제35호 endure their barren desert-like reality. Therefore, this testing story of Jesus is deeply related with the social context of Q people preserving deep motives to justify their lives and mission. 3. The Oral Performance of the Temptation Story This temptation story possibly originated from a sort of anecdote of Jesus spiritual experience in a desert or about religious training with popular prophets like John the Baptist. The temptation story was not formed by an individual; rather this story developed over time by collective contributors. According to oral theories, narratives about historical events are wholly dependent, not on individuals, but on members of the culture and their collective memories and values. 41) During the process of transmission, 42) this individual anecdote would have been developed as a fictional narrative incorporating the testing motive of Q and the historical reminiscence of the exodus and people s memories of the citations from Scripture. Importantly, during these performances the message of the temptation story has been accepted and approved by Q people. This story could have existed with their consent. In agrarian societies, oral performances occur spontaneously when a group of people gather in a certain place; whether in a working field while sowing or reaping their harvest, in a public place or any empty place or in some available house on some winter night. The stages of performance of the temptation story are likely to be in the villages but occasionally the desert would also be used as an open stage for a spontaneous performance. These sorts of performances were not always enacted by specialists or professional narrators since in general the audience was already aware of the stories and willingly participants. 41) Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History, 3-67; Walter. J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Thechnologizing of the Word (London; New York: Routledge, 2000), 31-76. Also, the orality itself cannot explain the culture of the poor, since elite scribal traditions are also familiar with oral traditions. Cf., Martin. S. Jaffee, Social Setting of Literacy and Scribal Orality, 15-27; Birger Gerhardsson, The Character and Divisions of the Oral Torah, 79-84. 42) James Dunn also sketches the process of transmission in the case of Jesus tradition, see Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids; Michigan; Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 238-249.

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 323 Occasionally two narrators assumed different roles according to their specialties. Otherwise the audience participated in the performance by provoking the performers. 43) The public is active. It interacts with the storyteller and the teller provokes this interaction by asking questions, welcoming exclamations and turning to a song sung by all at an appropriate point of the action (Vansina, 34). In the case of the temptation story, if two performers shared the parts of protagonist and antagonist or the audience took part, their obvious contrast made the story more amusing. Those performances offered a way of entertaining people, while, at the same time, they provided a way of building solidarity among people. All these observations reveals that this testing story was a reflexive narrative of the Q people who struggled with the daily threats to their survival from hunger and debts and injuries, but still tried to remember the Q message that they were sons of God. 44) Here, the desert metaphorically signifies Q people s lived world. Where, for example, does the voice come from that demands a proof of their identity? In reality, it illuminates some condition understood within the context of the Q mission. However, placing the intimidating words into the mouth of satan in the temptation story Q prepares 43) Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History, 34. 44) In this regard, I suggest a correction in the translation of Korean versions about this verse (Q 4:3, 9), which misleads the audience to assume the original Greek mood is subjunctive. The general Korean translation of the subjunctive mood for English or Greek is if you were, employed by the typical expression of (manil ramyeon). The Greek versions in Matthew and Luke of this verse, however, are not in the subjunctive mood. In Greek, they use a subjective verbal form with eva,n which generally deals with unrealistic or indefinite conditions. Instead, this verse uses a conditional mood using eiv with the present tense. This corresponds with my research that this verse is related with the reality of Q people, since this conditional mood can be applied to describe general situations in actual life. The Korean translation of this verse, however, can be misleading regarding a Korean translation as it changes into a subjunctive formula, using a typical phrase for translating an expression for the subjunctive mood. Nevertheless, in Greek there is a substantial difference between moods which can cause some significant difference of meanings. Thus, the deletion of the typical expression manil in the Korean translation for making this verse into the conditional mood is proper for the meaning of eiv uiò.j ei= tou/ qeou/ in The Temptation story.

324 성경원문연구제35호 the audience to listen to the voice of the Kingdom discourse (Q 6:20-49) in next scene. 4. The Temptation Story and Q The temptation story shows obvious continuity with the entirety of Q. The matter of sonship was initiated in the first episode of John the Baptist and developed in the temptation story. Finally, it becomes fully articulated in the kingdom discourse; therefore the temptation story is rightly located in a Q reconstruction. Interestingly, the essential issue of sonship is expressed by the familiar metonymy in the lived world of Q s people. It is the functioning of these words as metonymies that continually reinforce the image of sonship from the episode of John the Baptist to the temptation story: children of Abraham/stone to children (3:8), son of God/stone to bread (4:3) 45) and they are all connected with the place, the desert. These metonymic expressions continue to the kingdom discourse (6:20ff), the Lord s Prayer (11:2-4) and comforting sayings to the children of God (11:9-13; 12:22-31). Interestingly, the image of hunger in the desert is changed to the image of being fed with the appearance of the father. Further, the hostile voices in the desert turn into the merciful father s caring in the kingdom discourse. Giving Bread to his children instead of stone (11:11). It is noticeable that these metonymies are located in the sphere of the kingdom of God, no longer with the desert. Narrative Q starts in the desert. It is full of sounds of doubt and fury, the voices of warnings and attacks are heard from the first encounter with John the Baptist. In this place, however, can also be heard a voice waiting for the coming one, initiating the Q s Kingdom of God. In response with this waiting, Jesus appears in this place led by the Holy Spirit. As the story develops, this desert place becomes a part of lived space of Q people, since the voices of opponents echo the reality of the Q people. The temptation story, however, reflects how the people of Q struggle against these voices. As Jesus defeats these satanic voices using only his voice, they narrate Q, the message of 45) The word play of son and stone in Aramaic also implies the stage of oral performance of the temptation story.

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 325 forgiveness and mercy instead of magical performances. In this way, the desert place can be totally claimed as belonging to the realm of the children of God. In this temptation story, Q clearly manifests its orientation toward the kingdom of God. <Keywords> Kingdom of God, Children/Son of God, Desert, narrative space, Oral performance. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 30 일, 심사일자: 2014년 8월 22 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 8월 22 일)

326 성경원문연구제35호 <References> Bridgeman, T., Time and Space, David Herman, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, Cambridge; NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 52-65. Cobley, P., Narrative, London; New York: Routledge, 2008. Fleddermann, H., Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, Leuven; Paris; Dudley: Peeters, 2005. Fossum. J., Son of God, Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, New York: Doubleday, 1992, 128-137. Gerhardsson, B., The Character and Divisions of the Oral Torah, Memory & Manuscript, Grand Rapids: Willliam B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998, 79-84. Goodman, M., the Temple in the first century CE Judaism, J. Day, ed., Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007, 459-468. Hamilton, V., Satan, Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, New York: Doubleday, 1992, 985-989. Herman, D., Narrative World, D. Herman, J. Helan, P. J. Rabinowitz, B. Richardson, and R. Warhol, eds., Narrative Theory Core Concepts and Critical Debates, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2012, 98-102. Hosley, R., Galilee: History, Politics, People, Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995. Hosley, R., Revolt of the scribes Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Jacobson, A., The First Gospel, Sonoma: Polebridge, 1992. Jaffee, M. S., Social Setting of Literacy and Scribal Orality, Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE-400CE, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Kim, Hyung-Dong, The Importance of the Kingdom of God in Q Mission Discourse (Q10:2-16), Korean New Testament Studies 9 (2002), 295-318. Kloppenborg, J., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Kloppenborg, J., City and Wasteland: Narrative World and the Beginning of the Saying Gospel(Q), Semeia 52 (1990), 145-160. Kloppenborg, Vervin, J., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Saying Gospel, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.

From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) / Inhee Park 327 Labahn, M., Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender Die Logienquelle als Erzahlte Geschichte, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010. Lefebvre, H., The Production of Space, D. Nicholson-Smith, trans., Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. Ong, W. J., Orality and Literacy : The Thechnologizing of the Word, London; New York: Routledge, 2000. Park, Inhee, On the Study of Luke 6:24-26 for Q reconstruction, Journal of Biblical Text Research 27, 2010, 71-92. Perdue, L. G., The Household, Old Testament Theology and Contemporary Hermeneutics, L. G. Perdue., et al., eds., Families in Ancient Israel: The Family, Religion, and Culture, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 1997, 231-232. Reed, J., The Social Map of Q, J. Kloppenborg, ed., Conflict and Invention, Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995, 17-36. Relph, E., Place and Placelessness, London: Pion Limited, 1988. Robbins, M. C., The Testing of Jesus, New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Robinson, J. M., The Critical Edition of Q, A. Lindermann, ed., The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, 28-36. Smith, D., Knock, But it will be open for you? The Rhetoric of Domestic Space in Q, unpublished paper Society of Biblical Literature Q Section, San Francisco, 2011. Theissen, G., The Gospel in Context, L. Molony, trans., Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Tuckett, C. M., The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Vansina, J., Oral Tradition as History, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Wise, M., Abegg, M. Jr., and Cook, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New translation, San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005. Doran, Robert, et al., 1&2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, New Interpreter s Bible, vol. 4, New York: Abingdon Press, 1996.

328 성경원문연구제35호 <Abstract> From the Desert to the Kingdom of God: Narrative Space and the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) Inhee Park (Ewha Womans University) The following study will present the Temptation Story (Q 4:1-13) as a reflexive narrative of Q people, rather than a mere Christological narrative about Jesus. A narratological approach to the study of Q explains more about the socio-historical context of Q through a world which Q reveals, since narrative is an indicator of the culture or social locus of the behind the people. Especially, narrative space plays a significant role in a narrative, reflecting a culture and history as well as the particular locale within the society in which the narrative is produced. This paper focuses on the narrative space of the Temptation story (Q 4:1-13). Its role will be presented as a part of the prologue of the Q narrative. The prologue introduces Q as a narrative derived from the ordinary poor people of Roman Galilee who believed that forgiveness would bring God s kingdom. The Temptation story (4:1-13) intensely and symbolically displays the issues of Q in its narrative space which is involved with the social locus of the people behind Q. Nonetheless its mythical elements and obvious citations are derived from the Old Testament. Considering the fact that the narrative selectively chooses the meaningful and relevant anecdotes/events, the list of Jesus temptations implies the immediate issues of the particular circumstances of people in Roman Palestine such as poverty, and oppression under the temple and Roman world. This is enforced by the fact that narrative space is critically important for efforts to perceive the relationship between characters and objects as well as the setting and movements of the protagonist and antagonist. The socio- political symbolic places which are involved with the devil s activity in this temptation story displays Q s intention of establishing the spatial framework in this regard. Moreover, the unusual locale of the desert and the contrast between the dynamic actions of the devil and the passivity of Jesus throughout the temptation story plays a symbolic role in revealing the characteristics of the mission of the Q people. Thus, as the prologue of the Q Temptation story unfolds, the entire progression of the narrative Q moves from the desert to the kingdom of God.

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 329 Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians Jin Ki Hwang* 1. Introduction Pleasure (ἡδον ή) or what is pleasant is one of the desired outcomes a speaker should produce by his deliberation. Aristotle says, one delivering an exhortation must prove that the courses to which he exhorts are just, lawful, expedient, honourable, pleasant [ἡδέα] and easily practicable. 1) Thus, a speaker would naturally want to avoid causing his/her audience pain or grief, the opposite of pleasure. For Aristotle, pleasant things are those that cause delight [ τὰ χαρὰν ἐργαζόμενα]. 2) But it seems certain from what is written in 2 Corinthians that Paul chose to cause the Corinthians pain with his tearful letter (2:1-2; 7:8). Not only that, in chapters 2 and 7 Paul frequently used λύπη and its cognates to explain the purpose and impact of the tearful letter. This paper will examine Paul s use of the λύπη language in 2 Corinthians and articulate his attempts to balance λύπη and ἀγάπη in his ministry for the Corinthians. 2. Λύπη and Its Cognates in Ancient Rhetorical and Epistolary Traditions In Greek literature, λύπη is almost always used as a counterpart of ἡδονή 3) and at times as that of χαρ ά. 4) Λύπη can mean pain that one can feel either in body or * Ph.D. in New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. Assistant Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. jinhwang@fuller.edu. 1) Aristotle, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, 1421b. 2) Ibid., 1422a. 3) Aristotle, De anima 413b 23; 414b 4, 434a 3; Ethica nichomachea 1220b (2.2.1); [Magna moralia] 1206a (2.7.23); Plato, Leges 862d 5. 4) Xenophon, Hellenica 7.1.32; Hippocrates, Ep. 14.22. See also R. Bultmann, λύπη κτλ, TDNT 4, 313-324; BDAG, s.v. λύπη.

330 성경원문연구제35호 in spirit. When it comes to psychological pain in particular, it can mean sorrow, pain or anxiety at misfortune or death, or anger at annoyances or hurts, esp. insults and outrages. 5) One seeks ἡδον ή while hoping to flee from λύπη. 6) But the Greeks see λύπη and ἡδον ή as essentially intermingled in our human life. 7) Λύπη and ἡδον ή are presented antithetically even in the rhetorical handbooks and rhetorical speeches. In Rhetorica, Aristotle contrasts λύπη and ἡδον ή when he states: Let it be assumed by us that pleasure [ἡδονὴν] is a certain movement of the soul, a sudden and perceptible settling down into its natural state, and pain [λύπην] the opposite. If such is the nature of pleasure, it is evident that which produces the disposition we have just mentioned is pleasant [ἡδύ], and that which destroys it or produces the contrary settling down is painful [λυπηρόν]. 8) For Aristotle, what is compulsory or necessary ( τὸ βίαιον or τὸ ἀναγκαῖον) such as study or intense effort is contrary to nature [ παρὰ φύσιν] and, accordingly, painful [λυπηρόν], whereas the pleasant things (ἡδύ) include what is not compulsory [ οὐδὲν γὰρ πρὸς ἀνάγκην], such as recreation [ αἱ ἀναπαύσεις], everything of which we have in us the desire [ οὗ ἂν ἡ ἐπιθυμία ἐνῇ, ἅπαν], things which we hope for when their presence seems likely to afford us great pleasure or advantage, without accompaniment of pain [ τὰ δ ἐν ἐλπίδι ὅσα παρόντα ἢ εὐφραίνειν ἢ ὠφελεῖ ν φαίνεται μεγάλα, καὶ ἄνευ λύπης ὠφελεῖν], revenge [ τὸ τιμωρεῖσθαι], victory [ τὸ νικᾶν], loving [ τό τε γὰρ φιλεῖν] and being loved [ τὸ φιλεῖσθαι], and things which give rise to zeal or a feeling of emulation [ ζῆλος]. 9) In Charidemus, Dio Chrysostom quotes a wandering philosopher who finds pleasure and pain intertwined like the links of a chain: 5) R. Bultmann, TDNT 4, 313. 6) Aristotle, Eth. nic., 1172a 25-26 (10.1.1); 1172b 19-23 (10.2.2). 7) E.g., Plato, Phaedo, 60b c. 8) Aristotle, Rhetorica, 1.11.1-2 (1369b-1370a), J. H. Freese, trans. The English translations of classical literature cited in the paper come from the Loeb Classical Library unless specified otherwise. 9) Aristotle, Rhet. 1.11.4, 9, 17 (1070a-1071a); 2.10.11 (1388a).

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 331 This chain, he said, is composed entirely of both pleasure and pain, and these things are intertwined, the pleasant and the painful, and the one always of necessity follows the other, just as, I suppose, are the links of a chain. Great pleasures are followed by great pains, the small pleasures by smaller pains, and the very greatest pleasure at the end is death. This is the reason that the pain which comes before death is the greatest; for it is clear that man has no greater pain and suffering than this which ends in death. 10) In rhetorical speeches, causing the audience pain or grief has often been considered undesirable. For example, at the very beginning of his forensic speech against Timarchus, Aeschines stresses that he has never vexed any men when he was rendering account of his [Timarchus s] office [ οὔ τ ἐν εὐθύναις λυπήσας]. 11) Similarly in a forensic speech, Demosthenes demonstrates a speaker s desire not to grieve others particularly when it is not beneficial to him: Such am I, Pantaenetus, the fast walker, and such are you, who walk slowly. However, regarding my gait and my manner of speech, I will tell you the whole truth, men of the jury, with all frankness. I am perfectly aware I am not blind to the fact that I am not one of those favored by nature in these respects, nor of those who are an advantage to themselves. For if in matters in which I reap no profit, I annoy others, surely I am to this extent unfortunate [ μηδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι ποιῶ ν, λυπῶ τινάς, πῶς οὐκ ἀτυχῶ κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος; ἀλλὰ τί χρὴ παθεῖν;]. 12) Demosthenes also acknowledges that a speaker would want to avoid causing his/her audience pain while he or she feels obliged to present a letter that is not pleasant to hear: [A Letter of Philip s is read.] Most of what has been read, Athenians, is unfortunately true possibly, however, not pleasant to listen to [ οὐχ ἡ δέ ἀκούειν]. But if all that a speaker passes over, to avoid giving offence [ἵνα μὴ λυπήσ ῃ], is passed over by the course of events also, then blandiloquence is justified; but if smooth words out of season prove a curse in practice, then it is our disgrace if we hoodwink ourselves, if we 10) Dio Chrysostom, Or. 30.21, J. W. Cohoon, trans. 11) Aeschines, Or. 1.1, C. D. Adams, trans. 12) Demosthenes, Or. 37.55, A. T. Murray, trans.; see also Or. 45.77.

332 성경원문연구제35호 shelve whatever is irksome and so miss the time for action. 13) Finally, Pseudo-Libanius indicates that even a letter-writer would share the desire not to cause his/her recipient pain with the letter: The conciliatory letter. In addition to making the statements that I did, I went on (to point them) into action, for I most certainly did not think that they would ever cause you sorrow [λυπηθήσεσθαι]. But if you were upset by what was said or done, be assured, most excellent sir, that I shall most certainly no longer mention what was said. For it is my aim always to heal my friends rather than to cause them sorrow [ σκοπὸς γάρ μοι θεραπεύειν ἀεὶ τοὺς φίλους ἐστὶν ἤπερ λυπεῖν]. 14) Despite this general tendency among rhetoricians and letter-writers, a speech or letter could sometimes cause pain to the audience or recipient(s). For example, in a first-century AD papyrus letter, Sarapion said to Herakleides that he was caused pain (ἐ λυπήθην ) by the letter he had received through Arabus. 15) And Plutarch points out that a speech of admonition or rebuke (ἡ νουθεσία καὶ ὁ ψόγος) could be even intended to cause the audience a particular kind of pain ( λύπη), that is, repentance (μετάνοια). 16) 3. Λύπη and Its Cognates in 2 Corinthians Paul uses λύπη in three of his letters (Rom 9:2; 2Co 2:1, 3, 7; 7:10; 9:7; Phi 2:27). In Romans and Philippians, Paul uses λύπη to refer to pain or grief he is experiencing or could have experienced. But in 2 Corinthians, he applies λύπη not just to himself but also to others in a rather complicated manner (see Table 1 below). 13) Demosthenes, Or. 4.38, J. H. Vince, trans. 14) A. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 76-77; L. L. Welborn, Paul s Appeal to the Emotions in 2 Corithians 1.1-2.13; 7.5-16, JSNT 82 (2001), 36. 15) BGU IV, 1079; cf. also BGU III, 884. See also L. L. Welborn, An End to Enmity: Paul and the Wrongdoer of Second Corinthians, BZNW 185 (Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gryter, 2011), 43-59; P. Arzt-Grabner and R. E. Kritzer, 2. Korinther, Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 4 (Göttingen; Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 150-154. 16) Plutarch, De virtute morali 12 (452C).

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 333 <Table 1> λύπη in 2 Corinthians The one who causes pain The one who is made to pain Mode of Paul s presence Notes 2:1 τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν Paul Corinthians Bodily presence Factual (second visit) & Hypothetical (third visit) 2:3 ἵνα μὴ ἐλθὼν λύπην σχῶ ἀφ ὧν Corinthians Paul Bodily presence Hypothetical (third visit) 2:7 μή πως τῇ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ καταποθῇ ὁ τοιοῦτος Corinthians The offender Epistolary presence (implied) Factual (via tearful letter) 7:10a ἡ γὰρ κατὰ θεὸν λύπη μετάνοιαν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἀμεταμέλητον ἐργάζεται Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence (implied) Factual (via tearful letter) 7:10b ἡ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου λύπη θάνατον κατεργάζεται Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence (implied) Hypothetical (via tearful letter) 9:7 μὴ ἐκ λύπης ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence (implied) Hypothetical (via 2 Corinthians) In addition to the noun, the verb λυπέω is attested in four of his letters (Rom 14:15; 2Co 2:2, 4, 5; 6:10; 7:8, 9, 11; Eph 4:30; 1Th 4:13). Again, in 2 Corinthians, the objects of the verb are both himself and the Corinthians. As evident from Table 2, moreover, he presents himself as the one who indeed caused the Corinthians pain via his tearful letter or, more precisely, through his epistolary presence in it (2Co 7:8-9, 11), but he does not want to do this with his forthcoming bodily presence (2Co 2:2; cf. 12:21).

334 성경원문연구제35호 <Table 2> 2:2 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς 2:2 εἰ μὴ ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ 2:4 οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα γνῶτε 2:5 Εἰ δέ τις λελύ πηκεν, οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν 2:5 ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ μέρους πάντας ὑμᾶς [ λελύ πηκεν] 6:10 ὡς λυπούμενοι 7:8a Ὅτι εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, οὐ μεταμέλομαι 7:8b εἰ καὶ μετεμελό μην, βλέπω ὅτι ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἐκείνη εἰ καὶ πρὸς ὥραν ἐλύπησεν ὑμᾶς Mood/ Tense Active, Pres. Passive, Pres. Passive, Pres. Active, Perf. (Active, Perf.) Passive, Pres. Active, Aor. Active, Aor. 7:9 οὐχ ὅτι ἐλυπήθητε Passive, Aor. 7:9 ἀλλ ὅτι ἐλυπήθητε εἰς μετάνοιαν 7:9 ἐλυπήθητε γὰρ κατὰ θεόν 7:11 ἰδοὺ γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι πόσην κατειργάσατο ὑμῖν σπουδήν λυπέω in 2 Corinthians Passive, Aor. Passive, Aor. Passive, Aor. The one who causes pain The one made to feel pain Mode of Paul s presence Paul Corinthians Bodily presence Paul Corinthians 17) Bodily presence Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence Someone (the offender) Someone (the offender) Paul Corinthians, to a certain degree Bodily presence Bodily presence Notes Hypothetical (third visit) Hypothetical (third visit) Factual (tearful letter) Factual (second visit) Factual (second visit) Paul Factual Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence Paul Corinthians Epistolary presence Factual (tearful letter) Factual (tearful letter) Factual (tearful letter) Factual (tearful letter) Factual (tearful letter) Factual (tearful letter) 17) M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ICC (London; New York: T & T Clark, 1994), 166: general rather than specific, referring to the Corinthian reader (any Corinthian reader) who might cheer Paul, were he not saddened by him. Cf. R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC (Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1986), 35, who identifies ὁ λυπούμενος as the person responsible for the pain.

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 335 Paul never uses ἡδον ή as the counterpart of λύπη in his letters. Rather, in 2 Corinthians, he uses χαρ ά for the emotion of joy when λύπη is a matter at hand (2Co 1:24; 2:3; 7:4, 13; cf. Joh 16:20; 4Ma 1:22-23). He also uses its verbal forms, χαίρω and εὐφραίνω as the counterparts of λυπέω (2Co 2:2, 3; 6:10; 7:7, 9). 18) It is apparent from 2Co 2:2-3 that Paul is determined to have a joyful reunion with the Corinthians at his forthcoming third (physical) visit to Corinth (cf. Rom 15:32 [ἐν χαρᾷ ἐλθὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς]). 4. Λύπη and Paul s Bodily Visits to Corinth One of Paul s aims in the first chapter of 2 Corinthians is to defend himself about the change of his promised travel plan, which is outlined in vv.15-16: And in this confidence I intended at first to come to you, that you might twice receive a blessing, that is, to pass your way into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and by you to be helped on my journey to Judea. 19) Paul originally planned to come to Corinth via Macedonia, stay longer there, and be sent off to the next mission field or carry the Gentile churches collection to Jerusalem if he has to (1Co 16:1-9). But for some unknown reasons, Paul visited Corinth a second time after the composition of 1 Corinthians. At this second visit, he presented to the Corinthians a revised travel plan, according to which he would make a visit to Macedonia and return to Corinth so that the Corinthians might have another chance for collection. But Paul cancelled this second part of his travel plan and hurriedly went back to Ephesus. This probably led some Corinthians to criticize him for his fickleness or lack of integrity. Both the appeal to God as his witness and the denial of his own vacillation should be understood against the backdrop of such criticism (v.17: μήτι ἄρα τῇ ἐλαφρίᾳ ἐχρησάμην). 20) Then in 1:23-2:2, 21) Paul explains why he chose not to return to Corinth at the 18) Cf. also Joh 16:20; 2Clem 19:4; Pro 14:13; Plato, Republica, 572a; Aristotle, Problemata 917b [19.1]. 19) New Revised Standard Version (1989) has been used for Scriptural quotations unless specified otherwise. 20) Cf. Demosthenes, Ep. 2.16. 21) Such demarcation is supported by V. G. Shillington, 2 Corinthians, Believers Church Bible

336 성경원문연구제35호 moment. First of all, he intended not to return to Corinth because he wanted to spare the Corinthians ( φειδόμενος ὑμῶν) (1:23). According to BDAG, φείδομαι can mean to save [someone] from loss or discomfort. It is not clear from v.23 alone what kind of loss or discomfort Paul means by this verb. 2 Corinthians 13:2, however, may be helpful because Paul uses the very same verb to explain the situation that he hopes not to be placed in at his upcoming third visit: I warned those who sinned previously and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again, I will not be lenient [ὅτι ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς τὸ πάλιν οὐ φείσομαι]. It is interesting here to note that Paul already warned the Corinthians, particularly those who sinned previously, at his second visit to Corinth and that he hopes his third visit should not entail another disciplinary action that he is now warning them about in this letter. 22) Accordingly, then, it seems probable that Paul wanted to spare the Corinthians from the discomfort that would have been caused by the disciplinary action he would have to initiate at his forthcoming visit. 23) Second, Paul decided not to return to Corinth because he did not want to cause the Corinthians pain with his third visit (2:1). The phrase not to make you another painful visit [ τ ὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν] seems to indicate that his second visit was indeed a painful one (to himself as well as to the Corinthians). 24) The adverb πάλιν is to be read in connection with ἐν λύπῃ rather than with ἐλθεῖν. And the phrase ἐλθεῖν ἐν λύπῃ may indicate Paul s active role in causing pain. 25) It is clear from 2:1 that Paul was firmly determined not to again cause pain at his forthcoming visit. Paul s rhetorical question in 2:2 also points to his strong determination not to do so: For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained [ εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶ ς, καὶ τίς ὁ εὐφραίνων με εἰ μὴ ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμο ῦ]? Colin Kruse suggests that the one Commentary (Scottdale: Hearld Press, 1998), 49. 22) This does not necessarily point to the identification of the offender whom the Corinthians disciplined (2:5-8) with those who sinned previously against whom Paul warns (13:2). 23) See also C. Kruse, 2 Corinthians, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987), 78. 24) Cf. also M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 165; The two occasions (the actual past visit and the present hypothetical one) would not have been exactly identical, since on the actual earlier occasion it seems likely that it was primarily Paul himself who experienced the sorrow, whilst on the visit he refrained from making he would have been the cause of sorrow to the Corinthians (2.2). 25) R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 35, suggests that ἐλθεῖν ἐν corresponds to the Aramaic verbal phrase aṯā b e ( to come with, to cause, to bring ).

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 337 (singular) in the apodosis is not to be identified with you (plural; the Corinthians) in the protasis but with the offender (singular) in vv.5-8. 26) But, as Margaret E. Thrall suggests, it seems more likely that ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμο ῦ refers to the Corinthians whom Paul may have to cause pain again with his third visit unless they discipline the offender properly. Paul does not want to have another painful experience with the Corinthians at this upcoming visit; he rather wants to have a joyful reunion with them. This seemingly egoistic desire of Paul can be justified by his concern for their joy expressed earlier in 1:24: Rather, we are workers with you for your joy [ἀλλ ὰ συνεργοί ἐσμεν τῆς χαρᾶς ὑμῶν]. What did then happen to Paul during his second visit to Corinth? Second Corinthians 2:5 indicates that there was one person who stood in between Paul and the Corinthians. Paul admits that this person indeed caused him pain (ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν). The perfect tense may indicate the residual effect of the pain. 27) But Paul believes that it would not be wrong to say that the offender also caused pain to the Corinthians as a whole ( πάντας ὑμᾶς). This offender can be identified with the wrongdoer ( τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος) Paul mentions later in 7:12. 28) Having observed in Greek literature (especially conciliatory letters) that a wrongdoing (ἀδικεῖν or ἀδικεῖσθαι) often points to an action which generally involves the parties in a legal context 29) and can be related to a financial matter, 30) Laurence Welborn suggests that Paul might have been wronged by an influential member of the Corinthian church with high social status, particularly with a contemptuous insult, in a legal dispute, which a fraudulent use of funds was somehow a factor. 31) Whatever his identity was, both Paul and the Corinthians had to suffer the consequences of the pain he caused. Their mutual trust and friendship have been significantly undermined. As a consequence, Paul had to cancel his promised visit. In 2Co 12:20, Paul makes it clear that at his upcoming visit he neither wants to see in the Corinthian community what he does not wish to see nor does he want them to see in him what they don t wish to see. Then he says in v.21, I 26) C. Kruse, 2 Corinthians, 41-45, 79. 27) L. L. Welborn, An End to Enmity, 51. 28) This identification seems to be supported by R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 237-238; M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 496; C. Kruse, 2 Corinthians, 146. 29) E.g., Aristotle, Rhet 1.10.6 [1868b]; cf. 1Co 6:7-8. 30) E.g., Philostratus, Vita sophistarum 2.1.550-561; cf. Phm 1:18-19; 1Co 6:7-8; 2Co 7:2. 31) L. L. Welborn, An End to Enmity, 56-59.

338 성경원문연구제35호 fear that when I come again, my God may humble me before you [ μ ὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντος μου ταπεινώσῃ με ὁ θεός μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς] and that I may have to mourn over many who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced. If mourning over someone or something can be a kind of λύπη one may experience, the church s siding with the offender while discrediting Paul s apostolic authority and integrity 32) may have been at the root of the pain that Paul experienced at his second visit. And it is this very pain that he does not want to have again at his third visit. 5. Λύπη and Paul s Epistolary Presence Paul s tearful letter to the Corinthians should be understood in light of his strong determination not to cause the Corinthians pain during his upcoming physical visit. It is interesting to note that in 2 Corinthians Paul frequently uses λύπη and λυπέω in close connection with the letter writing (note ἔγραψα and ἐπιστολ ή) (chaps. 2 and 7). In 2:3-4, Paul uses ἔγραψα twice to explain his tearful letter: 33) v.3: καὶ ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτό, ἵνα μὴ ἐλθὼν λύπην σχῶ ἀφ ὧν ἔδει με χαί ρειν, πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἡ ἐμὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐστιν v.4: ἐκ γὰρ πολλῆς θλίψεως καὶ συνοχῆς καρδίας ἔγραψα ὑμῖν διὰ πολλῶν δακρύ ων, οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα γνῶτε ἣν ἔχω περισσοτέρως εἰς ὑμᾶς In 2:3 Paul makes it clear that τοῦτο αὐτ ό (which is the tearful letter) was intended not to cause the Corinthians pain at his upcoming bodily visit. For him, they are the ones who should make him rejoice, which will in turn bring joy to them too. This is more than just reiterating but intensifying what has already 32) Cf. J. M. Scott, 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 57. Who compares Paul s pain to that which the Teacher of Righteousness had to experience when the silent majority who stood idly by when the Teacher of authority was openly challenged in the midst of their whole community by an individual called the Man of Lies (1QpHab 5.8-12). 33) Although commentators also consider ἔγραψα in 2:9 a reference to the tearful letter, T. D. Stegman makes a convincing case for the epistolary aorist in his article, Reading ἔγραψα in 2 Corinthians 2:9 as an Epistolary Aorist, NovT 54 (2012), 50-67.

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 339 been said in 2:2. And in 2:4 Paul explains his state of mind at the time of letter writing and the purpose of his tearful letter. He wrote this letter out of much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears. As a matter of fact, the true intention of the tearful letter was not so much to cause the Corinthians pain as to show his abundant love for them. Despite this intended purpose for writing the letter, however, Paul s tearful letter indeed caused the Corinthians pain. Later in chapter 7, Paul admits this when he says, For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it, for I see that I grieved you with that letter, though only briefly) [Ὅτι εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, οὐ μεταμέ λομαι εἰ καὶ μετεμελό μην, βλέ πω [ γὰ ρ] ὅτι ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἐκείνη εἰ καὶ πρὸς ὥραν ἐλύπησεν ὑμᾶς] (v.8). Both indicative verbs ἐλύπησα and μετεμελόμην in the protasis may point to the realities Paul assumed to be true. 34) Paul apparently caused the Corinthians pain with his tearful letter and with his epistolary presence in it. This in turn caused him pain with the feeling of regret. Aristotle considers the regret of those who intended the opposite of what they have done [ τοῖς τἀναντία ὧν ἐποίησαν βουλομένοις] and admit and are sorry for [it] [ κα ὶ τοῖς ὁμολογοῦσι καὶ μετα μελομένοις] a kind of pain ( τ ὸ λυπεῖσθαι). 35) Not only that, Paul also had to struggle with emotional uneasiness or anxiety while he was waiting for Titus, who had been sent to deliver the tearful letter to the Corinthians (2:13: οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου ; cf. 7:5: οὐδεμίαν ἔσχηκεν ἄνεσιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν ἀλλ ἐν παντὶ θλιβό μενοι ἔξωθεν μά χαι, ἔσωθεν φόβοι). Paul could only find rest and consolation when he finally met Titus in Macedonia and heard his report on the positive changes that the tearful letter had brought about for the Corinthians: their longing ( τὴν ὑμῶν ἐπιπόθησιν), their mourning ( τὸν ὑμῶν ὀδυρμόν), and their zeal for him ( τὸν ὑμῶν ζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμο ῦ) (7:7; cf. 7:13 [ἀναπέπαυται τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ πάντων ὑμῶν]; 1Co 16:18; Phm 34) The hypothesis presented in the first class condition does not always point to an assumed fact, as Daniel Wallace notes (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 690-692). But Paul s use of λύπη and its cognates elsewhere in 2 Corinthians makes it clear that his tearful letter (epistolary presence) indeed caused the Corinthians pain and he regretted sending it until he heard from Titus. 35) Rhet. 2.3.4-5 [1380a]. J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida rightly classify both λύπη and μεταμέλομαι under Attitude and emotions: sorrow, regret (J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. [New York: United Bible Societies, 1989]).

340 성경원문연구제35호 1:7, 20; Rom 15:32; 2Ti 1:16). These changes made Paul rejoice all the more (ὥστε με μᾶλλον χαρῆναι) (cf. 1Co 16:17). It is interesting to note that rest (ἀνάπαυσις) and zeal (or better, feeling of emulation) ( ζῆλος) are what Aristotle classifies under the pleasant things. 36) In 7:9 Paul expresses his joy once again ( Now I rejoice ) because his tearful letter indeed caused the Corinthians pain but led them to repentance ( μετάνοια), that is, to their change in mind and behavior. As observed earlier, μετάνοια is the very desired outcome of hortatory rebuke. 37) It seems, then, that Paul s tearful letter was an effective vehicle as a hortatory rebuke. 38) In 10:1-11 Paul presents an interesting comparison between his bodily and epistolary presences. Paul recognizes that he is bold toward the Corinthians in his absence (ἀπὼν δὲ θαρρῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς), probably with the epistolary presence, while he is (made) humble when face to face with the Corinthians ( κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν ταπεινὸς ἐν ὑμῖν) (v.1). And he hopes that at his upcoming third visit he will not need to show boldness [ θαρρῆσαι] by confronting those who falsely accuse him for acting according to human standards (v.2). In order to prevent such an unwanted bodily presence, Paul intentionally chose to use his epistolary presence because it is perceived by the Corinthians as weightier and more powerful than his bodily one (v.10: ὅτι αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ μέ ν, φησί ν, βαρεῖαι καὶ ἰσχυρα ί). Paul s epistolary presence via the tearful letter was so powerful that it indeed led the Corinthians to take disciplinary action toward the offender, although it had caused them pain for a while. 6. Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη In the preceding two sections, we have considered how Paul relates the λύπη language to his bodily and epistolary presence in 2 Corinthians. It is now clear 36) Aristotle, Rhet. 1.11.4 (1370a); 2.10.11 (1388a). 37) Plutarch, Virt. mor. 12 [452C]. 38) See also S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 134; I. Vegge, 2 Corinthians A Letter about Reconciliation, WUNT 2:239 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 180-181. Who finds what Paul does with the tearful letter parallel to a painful, but appropriate, correction done by a moral teacher with authority in the Greco-Roman psychagogical tradition.

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 341 that in chapters 2 and 7, Paul presented himself both as the one who caused pain and the one who suffered pain. And this is exactly what the Corinthians have also experienced in their relationship with Paul or even with the offender. The Corinthians caused Paul pain during his second visit (2:3). They, in turn, suffered pain by what Paul had written in his tearful letter (2:4; 7:8-11). And it seems clear from 2:5-11 that the Corinthians not only suffered pain from the offender (who grieved Paul too) (v.5) but also grieved him excessively with their disciplinary action toward him (v.7). Based on the shared reciprocal experiences of pain, Paul presents himself as an example of balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη for the Corinthians to follow. In 2:6, Paul, above all, gives his consent to the disciplinary action taken by the Corinthians toward the offender when he says, This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person [ἱκανὸν τῷ τοιούτῳ ἡ ἐπιτιμία αὕτη ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων]. It is still not certain what Paul means by this punishment. But 7:11 clearly indicates that the punishment (ἐκδίκησις) inflicted on the wrongdoer (ὁ ἀδίκησας) 39) whatever it is is one of the positive outcomes produced by Paul s tearful letter. Paul, on the other hand, encourages the Corinthians to forgive and console [ χαρίσασθαι καὶ παρακαλέσαι] the offender so that he might not be swallowed by excessive pain [ μή πως τῇ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ καταποθ ῇ] (2:7). Then, in 2:10, Paul gives himself as an example of forgiving and consoling the offender (the one who grieved him and the Corinthians during his second visit). It should be noted here that Paul is not saying that he has already forgiven this man and, therefore, they should also do the same whether they like it or not. He rather says, Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive [ κἀγ ώ] (emphasis added). 40) Then he makes it clear that whatever he has forgiven, he has done it for the Corinthians sake and in the presence of Christ. Just as the communal 39) Aristotle does not use ἐπιτιμία or ἐκδίκησις in Rhetorica. But he makes a distinction between revenge ( τιμωρία) and punishment ( κόλασις): The latter is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer, the former in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction [ἡ μὲν γὰρ κόλασις τοῦ πάσχοντος ἕνεκά ἐ στιν, ἡ δὲ τιμωρία τοῦ ποιοῦντος, ἵνα πληρωθ ῇ] (1.10.17 [1369b]). 40) F. J. Matera, 2 Corinthians: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 62. Citing Chrysostom, Homily 4:5, points out that Paul avoids lording it over their faith and encourages them to do what is in accord with the gospel so that they may be obedient in all things.

342 성경원문연구제35호 disciplinary action toward the incestuous man in 1Co 5 has to be carried out in the presence of Jesus Christ our Lord (vv.4, 7), forgiveness and restoration of the offender in 2Co 2 should also take place in Christ s presence (v.10; cf. 2Co 1:14; 4:5; 7:10, 12; 8:21; 1Co 5:5; 2Th 1:9). In 2:8, Paul also encourages the Corinthians to reaffirm their love for him [ κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπην]. Punishment can be a legitimate way of causing pain to the offender (or the wrongdoer). It should not be considered the ultimate goal of a communal disciplinary action toward the offender in the church. Instead, punishment should be an expression of true love for that person. Paul has already made it clear in 2:4 that although it is true that he grieved the Corinthians with his tearful letter ( οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε), the real motivation of the letter was his abundant love for them (ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα γνῶτε ἣν ἔχω περισσοτέρως εἰς ὑμᾶς). 41) Paul claims that he intentionally caused them pain with his tearful letter so as to show his abundant love (ἀγάπη) for the Corinthians. 42) The Corinthians no doubt did the right thing when they took disciplinary action toward the offender in responding to Paul s tearful letter (2:6). In doing so, they proved themselves guiltless in the matter [ἁγνοὺς εἶναι τῷ πράγματι], as Paul acknowledges later in 7:11. And yet, they are to keep the balance between λύπη and ἀγάπη, following Paul s example, 43) by forgiving and consoling the offender and by reaffirming their love for him (2:7-8). This will give them another chance to prove their obedience in everything (2:9: εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἔ γραψα, ἵνα γνῶ τὴν δοκιμὴν ὑμῶ ν, εἰ εἰς πάντα ὑπήκοοί ἐστε; cf. 10:6). Thomas D. Stegman has recently suggested that ἔγραψα in 2Co 2:9 is a case of the epistolary aorist (cf. also 1Co 5:11) and, accordingly, 2:9 should be seen as a call to forgive and console the offender. 44) He attempts to read this call in 41) The phrase οὐχ ἀλλ ά does seem to negate Paul s intention to cause the Corinthians pain absolutely. But this may reflect a Jewish way of highlighting the important of the second (e.g., Hos 6:6). See further R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 237, who finds a similar use of the phrase in 2Co 7:12 (ἄρα εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖ ν, οὐχ ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος οὐδ ὲ ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος ἀλλ ἕνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεο ῦ). 42) Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1.11.17, 1370a. 43) L. L. Welborn, Paul s Appeal to the Emotions, 37-38, similarly finds the theme of imitation in Paul s emotional appeals: The emotions that belong to the pathetic proofs are (1) those Paul seeks to arouse in his readers and (2) those to which sustained appeal is made. Sometimes Paul seeks to exploit an emotion he believes to be present in his reader. At other times, Paul himself exemplifies the emotion he wishes to inspire in the Corinthians (emphasis added).

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 343 light of what Paul says of the ministry of reconciliation in 2Co 5:11-21: Returning to 2:5-11, I submit that Paul here puts into practice the message and ministry of reconciliation. He is willing to move beyond what transpired during the painful visit. In response to the community s initiative to punish the offender, Paul now extends the olive leaf as part of his strategy to clear up past hurts and misunderstandings. He wants the Corinthians to be fully reconciled to him because he regards himself as God s special envoy to the community and as their father in faith (see 1Co 4:14-15; 2Co 6:11; 10:13-14; 11:2). Moreover, he wants the community to be fully reconciled with one another. Because of his understanding that the ἐκκλησία constitutes the body of Christ (Rom 12:1-8; 1Co 12:12-31), Paul is passionate about the need for mutual love, edification, forbearance, and forgiveness in local communities. Therefore the obedience to which he calls the Corinthians in 2:9 is, ultimately, the obedience to God s work of reconciling the world to God through Christ, the reconciliation that also entails the horizontal dimension of offering forgiveness to fellow community members. 45) For Paul, love is at the heart of Christian life and ministry. The ministry of reconciliation is strongly motivated by the self-giving love of Christ (2Co 5:14; cf. 13:11, 13). If the Corinthians have truly experienced this self-giving love of Christ, they should no longer live for themselves but for Christ (2Co 5:15); they are to reconcile people to God through Christ (2Co 5:18-20). The Corinthians should also abound in the love Paul inspired in them ( περισσεύετε καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀγάπ ῃ) and prove the genuineness of their love for others ( διὰ τῆς ἑτέρων σπουδῆς καὶ τὸ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀγάπης γνήσιον δοκιμάζων) (2Co 8:7-8). This love goes beyond the boundary of the Corinthian church as Paul expects them to show their true love with their earnestness in the collection ministry for the poor saints in Judea (see especially 8:24: Therefore openly before the churches, show them the proof of your love [ τὴν οὖν ἔνδειξιν τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν] and of our reason for boasting about you ). Paul makes it clear that the collection is not meant to give relief (ἄνεσις) to others (the poor saints in Judea) while affliction, to the Corinthians; it is rather for a fair balance between the Corinthians 44) T. D. Stegman, Reading ἔγραψα in 2 Corinthians 2:9 as an Epistolary Aorist, 58. 45) Ibid., 62 (his emphasis).

344 성경원문연구제35호 abundance and the need of the poor saints in Judea (8:13-14). It is a chance to show their true love. Therefore, the Corinthians should not make the collection a painful task that they carry out only under compulsion ( μὴ ἐκ λύπης ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης); they should rather become a cheerful giver whom God loves (9:7: ἱλαρὸν γὰρ δότην ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός). 7. Conclusion Thus far, we have examined Paul s use of the λύπη language in 2 Corinthians in light of Greco-Roman rhetorical and epistolary traditions and have tried to articulate his attempts to balance between λύπη and ἀγάπη in his ministry for the Corinthians. Paul admits that he indeed caused the Corinthians pain with his tearful letter (via his epistolary presence). The hortatory rebuke presented in the tearful letter effectively led them to repentance ( μετάνοια), which entails a change in their mind and attitude (their restored relationship with and zeal for Paul) and in their behavior (a disciplinary action toward the offender). But Paul, by highlighting his abundant love for them and his sacrifice for them, tries to demonstrate the balance between λύπη and ἀγάπη in his own ministry for them. This balance is what the Corinthians also need to have in their relationship with Paul or with the offender who caused the pain. The Corinthians, following Paul s example, should reaffirm their love for the offender whom they punished quite severely. In doing so, they will prove their obedience to God s work of reconciliation. They should also prove the genuineness of their love beyond the boundary of their local Christian community by showing their earnestness in their collection ministry for the poor saints in Judea. <Keywords> Rhetoric, Pain, Love, Reconciliation, Epistolary presence. ( 투고일자: 2014년 7월 24 일, 심사일자: 2014년 9월 1 일, 게재확정일자: 2014년 9월 1 일)

Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians / Jin Ki Hwang 345 <References> Arzt-Grabner, P. and Kritzer, R. E., 2. Korinther, Papyriologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 4, Göttingen; Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Bultmann, R., λύπη κτλ, TDNT 4, 313-324. Kruse, C., 2 Corinthians, TNTC, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987. Louw, J. P. and Nida, E. A., eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed., New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. Malherbe, A., Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Martin, R. P., 2 Corinthians, WBC, Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1986. Matera, F. J., 2 Corinthians: A Commentary, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Scott, J. M., 2 Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Shillington, V. G., 2 Corinthians, Believers Church Bible Commentary, Scottdale: Herald Press, 1998. Stegman, T. D., Reading ἔγραψα in 2 Corinthians 2:9 as an Epistolary Aorist, NovT 54 (2012), 50-67. Stowers, S. K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Library of Early Christianity 5, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. Thrall, M. E., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ICC, London; New York: T & T Clark, 1994. Vegge, I., 2 Corinthians Mohr Siebeck, 2008. A Letter about Reconciliation, WUNT 2:239, Tübingen: Wallace, D. B., Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Welborn, L. L., An End to Enmity: Paul and the Wrongdoer of Second Corinthians, BZNW 185, Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Welborn, L. L., Paul s Appeal to the Emotions in 2 Corinthians 1.1-2.13; 7.5-16, JSNT 82 (2001), 31-60.

346 성경원문연구제35호 <Abstract> Balancing between λύπη and ἀγάπη in 2 Corinthians Jin Ki Hwang (Fuller Theological Seminary) In 2 Corinthians Paul frequently uses the λυπέω verb (2:2, 4, 5; 7:8, 9) and its noun form, λύπη (2:1, 3, 7; 7:10; 9:7). Most of the references are attested in chapters 2 and 7. In chapter 7 Paul seems to acknowledge that he intended to cause pain or grief to the Corinthians with his tearful letter (vv.8-9). But in chapter 2 he makes it clear that the tearful letter aimed not so much at causing them pain as at showing them how much he loves them (v.4). He also states that he is determined not to cause them pain in his upcoming (third) visit to Corinth (v.1). Further, he fears that he might have to suffer pain from them again in this visit as in his second visit (v.3; cf. 12:21). Thus, we see that Paul presents himself both as the one who causes others pain and the one who suffers pain from them. Similarly in 2:5-11, Paul finds the Corinthians in a comparable relationship with the offender. They not only suffered pain from him (who grieved Paul too) but also caused him pain overly so in turn. As he intended to show his love (ἀγάπη) for the Corinthians when he had to play the role of one causing grief (2:4), Paul also encourages them to do the same for the offender (2:7-8). Thus, the present paper seeks to explicate Paul s use of λύπη in 2 Corinthians in light of Greco-Roman rhetorical and epistolary traditions and his attempts to balance λύπη and ἀγάπη in his own ministry for the Corinthian church.

신약의도시(Cities), 동네(Towns), 마을(Villages) / 폴엘링워드 347 < 번역논문> 신약의도시(Cities), 동네(Towns), 마을(Villages) 1) 폴엘링워드(Paul Ellingworth) 저* 윤철원번역 ** 1979년 10 월자 성경번역자: 실용적논문 ( The Bible Translator: Practical Papers: 434-438) 에는프라이(Euan Fry) 의 구약성서의도시들, 동네들, 그 리고마을들 이라는유용한논문이실렸다. 거의 30년이지난지금은신약 성서에대한보충논문을내기에좋은시기인듯하다. 프라이의요점은 (1) 히브리어도시(ry[ ) 에관해서중요한것은거주의크 기가아니라벽과견고한문들에의해보호받았다는사실에있었다는것 ; 그리고 (2) 번역을할때 우리가번역하고있는시대에살던사람들의상황 에대한이해가반드시필요하다 는것이다. 둘째요점은신약성서에서도 동일하게유효하고, 오히려첫째요점에관한상황은많이다르다. 로(J. P. Louw) 와나이다(E. Nida) 의의미론적영역에근거한신약성서 헬라어- 영어사전 (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains: UBS 1988, vol. 1, sections 1, 88-89) 에따르면인구밀집지 에대한중요한단어두개가있다: 도시, 동네 의의미를가진폴리스( πόλις) 와 마을 의의미를가진코메( κώμη) 가그것들이다. 두가지단어만통상적 으로사용한다는점에서, 신약성서헬라어는다른언어들과유사하다. 영 어는특이하게세단어를사용한다. 그것들가운데두가지, 도시 (city), 마을 (village) 은라틴어에서나왔고, 동네 (town) 는독일어에뿌리를두 고있다. ( 불어또한세단어를가지고있으나그것의불어표기인 도 시 (cite) 가영어의 도시 (city) 와단순하게상응하는것은아니다. 표준적 인로버트사전 (the standard Robert dictionary) 은오히려특이한방식, 예 * 세계성서공회연합회번역컨설턴트역임. ** University of Sheffield 에서신약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재서울신학대학교신약학교수, cwyoon@stu.ac.kr. 1) Paul Ellingworth, Cities, Towns, Villages in the New Testament, The Bible Translator 59:4 (2008), 195-198.

348 성경원문연구제35호 를들면 도덕적공동체(a moral person) 라는측면에서중요한마을 로그 단어를정의한다.) 이짧은논문은이러한표현을영어로해석하는문제에대하여특별히 주목할것이다. 이는영어가모국어인사람들에게임의적인것처럼보이거 나심지어는자기중심적으로보일수도있다. 하지만그렇게하는이유는 그러한표현을영어로해석하는것은더넓은의미가있기때문이다. 왜냐 하면이것이다른언어들에대해서뿐만아니라이글에서논의될일련의 단어들, 예를들어바다( θάλασσα) 와호수( λίμνη) 에대하여도적용되기때 문이다. 신약성서에서, 다음에제시되는각각의장소는도시( 폴리스, πόλις) 로생 각되었다: 아리마대( 눅 23:51), 상징적인바빌론( 계 18:10, 21), 베들레헴( 눅 2:4b), 벳새다( 눅 9:10; 요 1:44), 가버나움( 눅 4:31), 다메섹( 고후 11:32), 에베 소( 행 19:35), 에브라임( 요 11:54), 새예루살렘( 계 3:12; 21:2, 10), 욥바( 행 11:5), 라새아( 행 27:8), 나인( 눅 7:11), 나사렛( 마 2:23; 눅 1:26; 2:4a, 39), 로 마( 암시적으로, 행 21:39), 소돔과고모라( 벧후 2:6), 수가( 요 4:5), 그리고두 아디라( 행 16:14). 마을( 코메, κώμη) 은훨씬덜사용된다: 베다니( 요 11:1), 누가는폴리스 ( πόλις) 라고지칭하는베들레헴( 요 7:42), 그리고누가와요한 은폴리스 ( πόλις) 라고부르는벳새다( 막 8:32). ( 누가복음 9:52에서여러증 거들은코멘 ( κώμην) 을지지하나일부목격자들은폴린( πόλιν) 을사용한 다.) 마가복음 1:38은헬라어성서에서유일하게사용된두단어의결합어 코모폴레이스 ( κωμοπόλεις) 를사용하고, 이단어는문맥상 우리가다른마 을들(towns/villages) 로가자 로번역될수있다. 지금까지내용을요약하면다음과같다. 우선, 신약성서의여러곳에서 폴리스 ( πόλις) 는코메( κώμη) 보다더넓은지역을포괄하는것처럼보이고, 둘째로, 신약성서에서이단어사용이완전히일관되지않는것처럼보인 다. 필자의개인적인경험은사용의불일치성이라는두번째요점이과거에 만있던것이아니라는사실을증명할것이다. 필자가 20대를보낸영국의 폴톤(Paulton) 이라불리는곳은 200-300 명의사람들이살고있다. 아주예외 적으로, 선거운동기간에한후보자가놀랍게도그곳을 이동네(town) 라 고부른적이있다. 그인구는이제증가해약칠천명이살고있으나위키 피디아 (Wikipedia) 는여전히그곳을 큰마을(village) 로지칭한다. 다른문화들에서다른기준들이단어의사용에영향을주거나결정할수 도있다. 웨일즈(Wales) 서쪽에있는세인트데이비즈(St. David s) 는필자의

신약의도시(Cities), 동네(Towns), 마을(Villages) / 폴엘링워드 349 고향마을의약 1/4 의규모이다. 하지만그곳은도시라고불릴두가지자격 기준을갖추고있는데, 첫째는거기에역사가 800년이넘는성공회대성당 을가졌기때문이고, 둘째는엘리자베스 2세여왕이 1995년에그곳을도시 (city) 로공표했기때문이다. 그러므로일반적인조건에서, 동네(town) 에대한미국유산사전 (The American Heritage Dictionary) 의정의, 마을보다는크고보통도시보다는 작은통합된인구중심지 는괜찮은것이지만, 영어를말하는나라들의경 우에서처럼분명히각사회마다많은요인들이그정의를수정했을것이 다. 지역과인구의크기는중요하지만, 단어를사용하는결정적인기준은 아니다. 신약성서로돌아가서, 영어가모국어인사람들이확실히도시(cities) 라 고생각하는로마와예루살렘같은대도시(large centres) 의인구에대한추 정이이루어졌다. 그러나작은도시의인구는우리에게알려지지않았고, 아마어떤경우에는신약성서의저자들도몰랐을것이다. 신약성서외의 다른고대작가에의해서는언급되지않은라새아(Lasea, 행 27:8) 는신약성 서의필사본들과다른문서들에서그명칭의철자를확인할수없을만큼 불분명하다. 그래서그것을다른번역들과참고자료에쓰인것처럼도시라 고부르는것은일반적인영어의사용과일치하지않는다. 그래서폴리스 ( πόλις) 에대하여번역해보는것은번역원칙에대하여평 가할수있는하나의방식이된다. 영어의공식적인번역어는 도시(city) 로, 특히신약성서이외의고대문서에서폴리스( πόλις) 라고불렸던것으로 알려진인구밀집지에대해일관되게사용된다. 1) 단어의기능적일치를목 적으로하는번역자들은잘정의된원리에근거한각각의폴리스 ( πόλις) 와 코메 ( κώμη) 의경우를평가할필요가있는데, 그것의제1목적은무엇보다 수용자나소수언어의사용에대한존중을위해서이다. 상당히엄격하게형식적일치로번역한 (formal correspondence translation) 경우는개역표준역(RSV 신약성서, 1946) 이다. 형식적일치를약간완화시 킨것은그것의개정판 (NRSV, 1989) 에서볼수있다. 폴리스( πόλις) 는 도 시 로코메( κώμη) 는 마을 로번역한형식적일치와같은경우는분명히 RSV 에서일반적으로발견된다. 그러나두가지설명되지않은예외가나 1) 그리스식, 헬레니즘식, 로마식 πό λεις는구조와구성에있어유사한경향이있다: 에반스 (Craig A. Evans) 와포터(Stanley E. Porter) 가편집한신약성서배경사전에서왓슨(D. F. Watson) 의 그레꼬로만도시들(Cities, Greco-Roman) 을보라. D. F. Watson, Cities, Greco-Roman, Craig A. Evans, and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove; Illinois; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 212-215.

350 성경원문연구제35호 온다. 누가복음 23:50(51절부터시작되는비전형적인재구성에의해순서 가뒤바뀐) 에서 RSV 에는 아리마대의유대인의동네 (town), 요한복음 11:54 에서의 에브라임이라불리는동네 (town) 라고되어있다. NRSV는 동네 (town) 를아리마대와에브라임뿐만아니라나인( 눅 7:11) 과나사렛 ( 마 2:23; 눅 1:26; 2:4a, 39) 에서도훨씬더자유롭게사용한다. 같은구절( 눅 2:4) 에서왜나사렛은동네(town) 로불리고, 베들레헴은도시(city) 로불렸는 지에대한이유는분명치않다. 아마도그것은문체의차이때문일것이고, 다윗의도시 가관용어로여겨졌기때문일것이다. Good News Bible(GNB, Good News Translation 으로알려진) 같이기능적 일치에따른번역을읽으면서, 사람들은 도시(city), 동네(town), 마을 (village) 의더유연한사용이발견될것이라고예상한다. 그예상이틀린 것은아니지만, 또다른놀라운사실이있다. 아리마대, 베들레헴, 벳새다 ( 눅 9:10; 요 1:44), 가버나움, 에브라임, 라새아, 나인, 나사렛, 그리고수가 는동네로불렸다( 행 16:14 에서두아디라를지칭한폴레오스( πόλεως) 는번 역되지않았다). 바벨론, 다메섹, 에베소, 예루살렘, 욥바, 로마, 소돔, 그리 고고모라는도시로불렸다. 번역자들은의문이제기될수있는장소의중 요성을분명히고려했다. 아마도더놀라운것은, 베다니는 마을 로번역 되었음에도베들레헴과벳새다의코메 ( κώμη) 를 동네 로결정한것이다. 아마도그들은미국적의미( 그린위치마을 같이고정된문구와는달리) 에 서 마을 이가진약간의부정적인함의를생각했을것이다. 폴톤(Paulton) 의실례로돌아가면, 약 7천명의거주자들을가진미국의인구중심지는 분명동네(town) 라불리지않는다. GNB 번역자들은예상독자들의단어사 용이나최소한독자들가운데다수를세심하게고려한것처럼보인다. 이결과를영어보다신약성서헬라어에더가까운언어인이탈리아어와 비교하는것은흥미로운일이다. 이탈리아어에는인구중심지에대하여두 개의중요한단어가있다. citta( 도시, 동네) 와 villaggio( 마을) 가그것이다. 다 른단어들, cittadina( 작은동네, 소형 citta) 와 paese( 시골, 마을) 도사용이가 능하다. 이탈리아의공동번역인 Parola del Signore(2001 년, 2 판) 에서, 사람 들이예상했던대로폴리스 ( πόλις) 는가장일반적으로 citta로번역되었으 나, 나인처럼나사렛은 villaggio로불렸다( 폴리스: πόλις) 가번역되지않은 눅 2:4a 를제외하고). 벳새다는누가복음 9:10에서 villaggio로번역되었으나 요한복음 1:44에서 citta로번역되었다. 코메( κώμη) 로불린같은장소가있 는마가복음 8:23, 26에서아마도다양한언어의사용으로인하여 23절은 villaggio로, 그러나 26절은 paese로번역되었다. 누가복음 23:51에서아리마

신약의도시(Cities), 동네(Towns), 마을(Villages) / 폴엘링워드 351 대의이름과요한복음 11:1에서베다니의이름은아무것도 citta나 villaggio 로바뀌지않고그대로사용되었다. 만일그들의예상독자들이이러한지명 들을알았을것으로예상했다면그것은번역자들에게합리적인선택이다. 1979 년에프라이(Euan Fry) 가도출했던결론을다시확인하며글을맺으 려한다. 인구밀집지에대한명칭들은그것들이얼마나동일한의미를전 달하는번역에부합했는지를보기위해의미론적구성요소들로분석될필 요가있다. 예를들어, 히브리어도시(ry[ ) 의주요하게구별되는특징은그 것의방어적인요새들에있었다. 그것은또한그레꼬-로마도시에서도발 견된다. 그러나오늘날의동네나도시에는그러한경우가거의없다. 만일, 현대독자들에게도시를구별하는주요한특징이크기나인구라면, 오히려 번역자들은신약성서에언급된장소들을그런것과연관하여연구해야만 할것이다. 때때로, 도시들은학문적인추측에의해축소되었을수있다. 그 작업은신약성서와달리인구밀집지를지칭하는단어를두개이상사용 하는언어들에서더복잡해질수있다. 그러나그것은피할수없고그결과 는목표언어에서부터다른것에이르기까지매우다양해질것같다. 어떤 경우에서든지, 우리가열거한사례들은기능적일치를이루는번역에대한 세심하고정확한접근이얼마나어려운지를보여준다. 그러나그것은노력 할만한가치가있는목표이다.

352 성경원문연구제35호 < 서평> ZeBible (Villiers-le-Bel: Societe Biblique Francaise - Bibli O, 2011) 김선종 * 1. 서두 책을많이쓰고공부만하는일은피곤하다( 전 12:12). 그러나그러한피 곤한일을계속하는이유는무언가더많이, 더정확하게알고싶어하는사 람의본질때문이다. 성경이외에주석과해설성경이끊임없이출판되는 것도이전의주석과해설성경이만족스럽지못하다는생각에서비롯한다. 학교에서성경을공부하고가르치는사람으로서좋은해설성경을추천해 달라는요구를받거나, 자신이이미선택한해설성경을평가해달라는부 탁을받으면당혹스럽다. 해설성경은저자, 본문, 독자가서로영향을끼치 는주석의문제와마찬가지로극단적으로큰문제가없는한어느누구에 게나객관적으로보편타당한가치를가질수없기때문이다. 바꾸어말하 면성경을읽는독자의상황, 신학과신앙의성향에따라해설성경의가치 는다르게평가된다. 이러한점에서해설성경은나름대로장점과단점을 함께가지고있다고말하는것이옳다. 대한성서공회는이미 2001년도에 성경원문연구 9호를할애하여우리 말해설성경의문제와과제를집중적으로다룬적이있다. 주된문제점은 저자나편집자, 또는감수자가분명하지않거나단지이름만빌리는비윤 리적인문제이다. 주요과제는특정한독자들을대상으로하는해설성경 도필요하고, 기독교인뿐아니라타종교인도고려하는여러차원의해설 성경이필요하며, 목회자와평신도가함께참여하는해설성경이있어야 한다는점이다. 또한주석이아닌해설성경은주로일반신도를대상으로 하기때문에, 더쉽게기술해야한다는것등이다. 1) * Universite de Strasbourg 에서구약학으로박사학위를받음. 현재호남신학대학교구약학조교수. sjhesed@hanmail.net.

[ 서평] ZeBible / 김선종 353 프랑스의비블리오출판사(Bibli O) 는 620,000유로를투자하고2) 7년동 안준비하여귀감이될만한해설성경을 2011 년에출판하였다. 그성경이 바로이글에서다루려고하는 ZeBible( 제비블) 인데, 이글에서는이성경 의특징과짜임새, 또한장단점을주로소개하고우리말해설성경의구성 과제작을위하여도움을주는몇가지적용할만한사항을간단하게제시 하도록하겠다. 2. ZeBible 의특징과짜임새 2.1. 특징 ZeBible 은성경의겉모습과내용에서매우파격적인특징을보여주고있 다. 이글은먼저 ZeBible의외형의특징을소개하려고하는데, 이는이성경 이누구에게나눈에띌만큼두드러지는겉모습을보여주고있고, 관찰력 이뛰어난독자들은이미이러한겉모습에서그내용의특성과짜임새조차 도예상할수있기때문이다. 독자들은 ZeBible의편집자들이외형적인모 습에서부터아래와같은파격적인변화를추구했던것으로생각할수있 다. 2.1.1. 겉모습의특징: 이름, 디자인, 편집, 의사소통 ZeBible을처음접하는독자는그성경의이름과디자인, 편집, 독자와의 만남의방식에서매우파격적인모습을발견할수있다. 먼저 ZeBible이라 는성경의이름이매우특징적이다. 사실 ze 라는낱말은프랑스어사전에 서발견할수없는데, 이는프랑스젊은이들이프랑스어의정관사 le/la( 영 어의 the ) 를우스꽝스럽게사용하는일상어이다. ZeBible은성경의어느 곳이나홈페이지에서도성경의이름에대한설명도하지않은채파격적인 제목을선택했는데, 과연이러한성경의이름이적당한가그렇지않은가에 대한많은논란이있었다. ZeBible 이라는표현이자국어에대한특별한자 부심을가지고있는동시에자국어의영향력이줄어드는것을우려하는프 랑스사람들에게영어식프랑스어(franglais) 로풍겨지고, 성경의경전성을 1) 해설성경이주석과달라야한다는주장에대해서는왕대일, 우리가만드는해설성서 - 무엇을, 왜, 어떻게: 우리말해설성서의작성과편집을위한제안, 성경원문연구 9 (2001), 112-114 를참조하라. 2) B. Sauvaget et S. Richert, Une bible jeune, Réforme 3417 (2011), 9.

354 성경원문연구제35호 세속화하는것처럼보일수있다는우려감때문이었다. 그럼에도이성경의편집자들이결국 ZeBible 이라는제목을정한데에는 크게두가지이유가있다. 첫째는성경을읽지않는젊은층, 특별히 15-25 세젊은이들을대상으로해설성경을기획하여이들의관심을끌수있는 이름을선택한점이다. 2010 년프랑스의시장연구조사기관(IPSOS) 은프 랑스청소년가운데 98% 는성경을읽지않고, 29% 만이성경책을한권가 지고있으며, 32% 는성경이단지문학에불과하고문화적인차원에서중요 성을가지고있다고생각한다는여론조사결과를밝힌바있다. 3) ZeBible 은 이러한신앙위기의상황을타개하기위하여, 무엇보다청소년에게쉽게 다가갈수있는성경을만드는것에목표를두었다. 둘째로단지기독교인 뿐만아니라비기독교인들도성경을쉽고가볍게접하게하기위한의도가 있다. 이것은프랑스성서공회(Alliance biblique française) 가성경에대해가 지고있는입장과도관련된것으로, 성경은단지신앙인들만의전유물이 아니라문화적으로바라볼때비신앙인들도쉽게접근할수있다는태도가 바로그러하다. 4) 성경은기독교교파들사이, 더나아가여러종교가행하 는대결의장이아니라만남의장이라는중요한인식을 ZeBible 의편집진은 공유하고있다. 이러한호소력을가지고 ZeBible을주로주관한개신교계 열의프랑스성서공회는프랑스문화부와가톨릭교회의후원을얻어내기 도하였다. 5) ZeBible 의겉모습에서두드러지는둘 째특징은독특한디자인이다. 회색표지 위에있는종이면에는현대문명을나타 내는여러만화캐릭터들이그려져있고, 성경의옆면과본문의소제목은모두분 홍색계열의색조로이루어져있는데, 이 러한점은독자들에게호감을주어성경 판매에도성공하고자하는목적을가지 고있는것을부인할수없다. 물론성서 공회가성경판매에만도가지나친관심 을기울일때성경의상업화에대한논란 을일으킬수있는것도사실이다. 수익 만을얻기위해성경을지나치게호화스 < 그림 1> ZeBible의겉모습 3) http://zebible.com 에서 ZeBible에대하여자세히알기 (en savoir plus sur ZeBible) 항목. 4) 이러한입장을위해서는프랑스성서공회의홈페이지(http://www.la-bible.net) 를참조하라. 5) B. Sauvaget et S. Richert, Une bible jeune, 8-9.

[ 서평] ZeBible / 김선종 355 럽게만들었을때, 성경이하나의상품으로전락하고, 인쇄와제본이공해 를일으킬수도있고, 교재나참고서에해당하는해설성경이하나의상품 으로전락할수있는점에조심해야한다. 6) 그러나 ZeBible의시장거래( 마 케팅) 전략은성경이젊은이들과비기독교인들에게매혹적으로다가가게 하여, 성경을선물하거나성경을적극적으로구입하도록유도하는것이고, 이는어느정도성공한것으로평가되고있다. 7) 사람들이성경을읽기위해 서는일단성경을구입하도록유도해야하는것은당연하다. 겉모습의셋째특징은해설성경의편집에서찾을수있다. 대체적으로 해설성경은단락에대한설명과구절에대한설명으로이루어지고, 주로 단락에대한설명은본문안에, 구절에대한설명은아래의난하주에위치 한다. 그런데 ZeBible은이러 한일반적인편집과달리특 정구절에대해서는설명조 차하지않으며, 본문에대한 설명은그림에서볼수있는 것처럼양옆의여백에위치 한다. 또한독일성서공회판 해설 관주성경이나 굿뉴 스스터디바이블에비교하 여그해설의양조차비교하 기힘들정도로매우적다. 또한그신학적수준역시이 들성경에비하여쉬워보인 다. 그리고모든단락에그리 한것은아니지만, 때때로한 단락의중심이된다고보거 나독자들에게중요한메시 < 그림 2> 누가복음 23장 26-36절의본문 지가될수있으리라생각하는구절을다시한번특별히큰글자로본문가 운데만들어둔풍선안에빨간색으로따로적어둔점( 창 1:31; 3:9 의예) 도 ZeBible이가지고있는외형의특징이다. 이모든것이젊은층의독자와비 6) 민영진, 우리말해설성서의현재와미래적과제, 성경원문연구 9 (2001), 39. 참조, 왕대일, 우리가만드는해설성서, 109. 7) http://zebible.com에연동된성경판매인터넷사이트 http://www.editionsbiblio.fr 는 ZeBible 의가격을 32 유로로매기고있고, 디자인과품질에비해매우합리적인가격으로보이며, 성경이출판된지한달만에 25,000 부가판매된것으로집계하고있다.

356 성경원문연구제35호 기독교인들을위한접근방식에따른것으로보인다. 그런데중요한것은 ZeBible 의해설이이들해설성경과다른점을가지 고있다는사실이다. 이것은아래에서더자세하게살펴보게되듯이본문 에대한신학적설명과더불어삶의윤리적이거나실천적인문제에대한 해설도많이다루고있다는점이다. 예를들어, 에스겔 16:35 이하의해설에 는 위험한놀이 (Jeux dangereux) 라는소제목아래 창녀 에대한설명을곁 들임으로써, 단지에스겔당시하나님과이스라엘백성의관계를설명할 뿐아니라, 흥미로운제목을통해서도청소년들이젊은시절을살아갈때 성윤리에대한관심을기울일것을유도한다. 2.1.2. 내용의특징: 독자층, 집필진, 전자성경 독자들은 ZeBible 의겉모습에서이미내용의특징도어느정도예상할수 있다. 깔끔한디자인이젊은층과비기독교인의호감을갖도록마련된것은 결국 ZeBible은특정대상을목표로하고있는사실을보여준다. 그리하여 이성경은기존의해설성경에비하여주로신학적인서술에만관심을기 울이는것이아니라, 실천적인삶의문제에도적지않은관심을보인다. 이처럼해설성경을통하여신앙인과교회의구체적인삶의문제에관심 을집중하기위하여 ZeBible 의집필진도전문성서학자만이아닌초교파교 회의목회자로대부분이루어져있다. 8) 여기에는중요한두가지측면이있 는데, 하나는지금까지나온일반해설성경과달리해설성경의저술이성 서학자들만의전유물이아니라, 일선목회현장에서흔히만나는일상의 문제, 곧정치, 경제, 윤리문제등과씨름하는목회자들의고민의반영이기 도한점이다. 이는이미민영진과왕대일과김영봉도우리말해설성서의 집필에서공통적으로제안한사항으로 9) ZeBible 은이러한목회자들의해 설성경집필을시도하였고실제로어느정도의성공을거둔것은우리말 해설성경제작을위하여많은도전을준다. 프랑스어권교회목회자들은 청소년들의신앙과앞으로펼쳐질교회현실에대한위기감에반응하여해 설성경을통하여문제를해결하려고시도한점은많은점을시사한다. 다 음으로집필진이초교파( 개신교, 가톨릭, 정교회, 아르메니아사도교회와 8) ZeBible의서문 8-9 쪽을따르면, 성경해설집필자는알라그바다(N. Alagbada) 를비롯한 107 명, 출판위원은오리악(N. Auriac) 을비롯하여모두 21 명에이른다. 9) 민영진, 우리말해설성서의현재와미래적과제, 38; 왕대일, 독일성서공회판해설 관주성경전서와굿뉴스스터디바이블 : 구약을중심으로, 성경원문연구 9 (2001), 54; 김영봉, 우리의상황에서나온해설성서가필요하다: 스터디바이블을사용하고있는독자의입장에서, 성경원문연구 9 (2001), 79.

[ 서평] ZeBible / 김선종 357 프랑스성공회) 로이루어져있는사실은이미이들이해설성경집필작업 을통해서하나님말씀의보편성을확인하고교회의일치를위해노력했다 는점이다. 이는앞에서이미말했듯이성경은다른교파사이의경쟁, 교리 논쟁이나서로다른종교의전쟁터가아니라, 여러방식으로신앙을고백 하는사람들이만나는장소라는중요한인식이자리잡고있다. 참고로프 랑스에서는이미 놀라운역사를보여주기도하 였다. 그런데 ZeBible 은젊은독자 층또는비기독교인과의사소 통을원활하게하기위하여표 지디자인과해설의내용에신 경을쓰는것과함께, 다매체 (multimedia) 시대를맞은전세 계기독교가맞은위기상황에 서현대최첨단의의사소통수 단을적극적으로사용하고있 2013년에개혁교회교단과루터교회교단이하나로합친 다. 여러인터넷사이트의동시적인운영은 ZeBible이인쇄된성경만이아 니라, 웹세계에서온라인성경의기능을동시에활용할것을초대하고있 다. ZeBible 의공식웹사이트인 < 그림 3> http://zebible.com의초기화면 http://zebible.com에는여러하부창들이있 는데, 그안에는이성경에대한소개에서부터시작하여, 성경판매, 음악 자료, 영상자료, 그림자료등현재 16개의또다른인터넷사이트와페이 스북(https://www.facebook.com/ZeBible/photos_stream) 을운영하고있으며, 현재 2 개의창을준비하고있다. 10) 더욱이흥미로운사실은이러한인터넷 사이트의활용은 ZeBible 에참여한교파들의의견의차이를수렴하게하였 다는점이다. 본래이성경의인쇄본을준비할당시, 개신교와가톨릭성경 을따로만들어야하느냐에대한논쟁이있었지만, 인터넷사이트를준비 10) 이러한온라인의적극적인활용에대한예는최근미국의영어권교역자들에게새롭게다가선 New English Translation(www.netbible.com) 과독일의청년층을위해낸 BasisBibel(www.basisbibel.com) 과견주어볼수있다. 이들이성경본문을온라인에소개하고많은수의각주와하이퍼링크를통한해설과동영상자료를담고있는것에비하면, ZeBible의자료는아직미비한것이사실이다. 위의영어와독일어해설성경에대한소개와서평을위해서는김준현, New English Translation Bible (Texas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005), 성경원문연구 34 (2014), 315-338과유은걸, BasisBibel: Neues Testament und Psalmen (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 성경원문연구 34 (2014), 302-314 를참고하라.

2024 © docsplayer.org 개인정보보호 | 약관 | 지원