Earticle

이 논문은 출 9장 13-21절의 본문을 분석함으로 우박재앙에 나타난 ‘개념성’(槪念性)을 추적하고자 한다. 열 가지 재앙 중에서 일곱째에 해당하는 재앙을 다루는 본문(출 9: 13-35)은 길이가 긴 편에 속하기 때문에 저자는 이것을 두 개의 논문으로 나누어 연구하였는데, 이 논문은 그 첫 번째 것이다. 저자는 이 연구를 통해서 우박재앙의 본문에 나타난 ‘개념성’이 이전의 6개의 재앙의 경우처럼 죽음의 공간인 ‘땅’이라는 것을 확인한다.

This study is to analyze the so-called “Hail Plague,” the 7th plague among 10 plagues described in Exodus. Because the text of the plague narrative is fairly long, I divide the whole text into two sections (9: 13-21 and 9: 22-35). In this paper the first part of the text is analyzed and critically annotated. The 7th plague is to destroy the people, animals and vegetables out in the field. Those who are inside would not be harmed by this plague. Pharaoh's courtiers had two options: bringing their servants and animals into the houses or leaving them out in the field. If all the servants were brought into the houses, there would not be a human victims by the plague. Therefore, the main target of this plague had to be those vegetables and trees which could not be moved inside. Unlike the previous plagues, it was possible for the Egyptians to avoid the hail plague if they believed in the words of YHWH spoken by Moses. The inevitable question focuses on the reason why YHWH gave those courtiers options to be exempted from the plague. Certainly the number of death would be reduced if some of the courtiers listened to Moses' warning. In conclusion, the main target of the 7th plague seems to be anything alive in the field. It means all the living beings in the land would be dead by the severe hailstorm as long as they are in the field. In the first half of the hail plague text, the overarching conceptuality is the land which is the space of death. The warning of the 7th plague(9: 13-21) is definitely highlighting this undeniable emphasis throughout the text.

본 논문은 민 15장 32-36절에 관한 편집비평과 구조주의 비평 연구의 결과이다. 저자는 민 15장 32-36절을 민 13-14장과 연결된 넓은 문맥에서 파악하기보다, 민 15장 자체 문맥 안에서 먼저 그 독특한 의미와 역할을 해석하는 일이 필요하다고 보고 민 15장 30-31절과의 관계에 초점을 맞춘다. 이를 통해 저자는 민 15장 30-31절의 ‘의도적 범죄’에 관한 율법과 이를 설명하기 위한 구체적인 ‘사례’(판례)로서 민 15장 32-36절의 의미와 역할을 해석한다.

What is the meaning and role of the episode of the wood-gatherer on Sabbath in Numbers 15: 32-36? Some scholars proposed to see Num 15: 32-36 in the connected context of the catastrophic events in Num 13-14(Tzvi Novick, A. Leveen, D. T. Olson). It signals the continuity of God's relationship with Israel of the wilderness; By insisting that the Sabbath-breaker be punished, God asserts the continuity of this relationship. But Num 15: 32-36 has its own meaning and role in the context of chapter 15. This study tried to show that 15: 32-36 is connected with 15: 30-31. Num 15: 30-31 introduced the law for the punishment of intented sin. The connected verses 32-36 role as a concrete precedent for the law of death penalty. These contents are proved by Reduction Criticism. Structural Criticism showed the surface structure (life and death, obedience and disobedience) and the deep structure (God as the law-giver and the judge of the intended sin / the intended sin of a wood gatherer is a guilt against God) in Num 15: 30-36. Comparing MT and LXX of Num 15: 32-36 shows that the plural form of the sabbath in LXX is different from the singular form of the sabbath in MT. These elements in LXX also show that the nuance of the intended breaking of the sabbatical law is repeated in the sabbaths. The combination of the diachronic method and the synchronic method for Num 15:32-36 can be perceived as a co-assistant method to interpret the text.

이 연구의 목적은 신앙 공동체의 역사 속에서 오랫동안 중요한 본문으로 여겨져왔고, 현재도 핵심적인 기능을 하는 신 6장 4-9절(쉐마)의 수용사(Reception History)를 탐구하는 것이다. 이 논문에서 저자는 신앙 공동체가 비교적 공통된 성경 해석을 했던 시기를 중심으로 본문의 수용사를 연구한다. 이 과정에서 저자는 구약 시대 신 앗수르 제국의 봉신 조약과의 관계 속에서 쉐마를 해석하며, 칠십인역(LXX)의 쉐마 이해, 신약성경 복음서와 바울 서신에서의 쉐마 이해, 랍비적 유대교의 쉐마 이해, 고대 교부들의 쉐마 이해, 종교개혁자들의 쉐마 이해를 탐구한다.

The reception theory advanced by Jauss proposes the sublation of the established dominant author-text centered formal-aesthetic literary research method and suggests a new way of research focused on reader-oriented reading and receiving literary works. Traditional literary approaches - whether they be foramlist, new critical, or Marxist-have tended to focus on ‘writer’ and ‘text.’ The audience for whom the literature was destined plays a limited role. Thus, reception theory tries to change the direction of literary research climate from existing author-text based study into reader oriented literary understanding. Literature and its reading are products of society at particular historical moments. Over the course of history, a discourse concerning the meaning and significance of a text grows, develops, and evolves. To properly understand the meaning and significance of a text at any particular historical moment, we have to understand its place in a continually evolving discourse of reception. A text must be studied in the perspective of reception history which have interpreted it. The purpose of this study is to explore the reception history of shema which has played an important role in the tradition of Judaism and Cristianity for ages until now. There has been long controversy on the time setting and the range of the text. This article pursues the reception history of Shema in the history of Israel and Christian community. For this purpose, the writer interprets shema in connection with vassal treaty of neo-Assyrian empire in ancient Old Testament Period, and studies the understanding of shema in the Septuagint, in the synoptic Gospel, in the Pauline letters, in the Rabinic Judaism, of ancient church fathers, and of Protestant reformers.

본 연구는 여호사밧의 사법개혁의 역사성에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 저자는 이 논문에서 구약성서에 나타난 고대 이스라엘의 사법개혁은 모세 시대와 요시야 시대에 단행된 개혁 밖에 없음을 주장한다. 대하 19장 5-11절에 나오는 여호사밧의 사법개혁은 역사성을 논하기에는 시대착오적 표현들이 등장하고, 본문 안에 역대기적 색채의 흔적들이 나타남을 근거로 제시한다. 저자는 대하 19장 5-11절을 포로 이후의 산물로 보는 것이 타당하다고 주장한다.

Seit der kritischen Untersuchung von Wellhausen über die Justizreform des Josaphat in 2 Ch 19,5-11 haben verschiedene Alttestamentler über dieses Thema gearbeitet. Knierim hat versucht, den Text von Ex 18,13-26 als Ätiologie der Justizreform zu versthen. Dieses These Knierims, dass Ex 18,13-26 die Justizreform des Josaphat im Blick habe, wird neuerdings von Graupner abgelehnt, weil V 21b und V 25b in Ex 18,13-26 jünger als die Gliederung in Tausendschaften usw. in Dt 1 seien und es für 2 Ch 19,5-11 nicht um die Rechtsprechung der Heerbannführer gehe, sondern um die Einsetzung der Richter in allen festen Städten Judas und Jerusalem. Albright und Weinfeld haben versucht, die historische Möglichkeit der Justizreform des Josaphat durch die altorientalischen Hintergründe zu beweisen. Jedoch finden sich keine Belege des Alten Testaments über die Einsetzung und Tätigkeit der offiziellen Richter von Seiten der Zentralregierung in 10.-8. Jh. v. Chr. außer 2 Ch 19,5-11. Trotzdem is es einleuchtend, dass das Gericht im Tor auch im 8. Jh. vielleicht durch die nichtstaatliche Institution gehalten wurde (Jes 29,21; Am 5,10. 12.15), aber niemand weiß, wer im 8. Jh. im Tor gerichtet hat. Ferner hat Crüsemann durch seine Arbeit (Die Tora[1992]) versucht, 2 Ch 19,5-11 nicht als die chronistische Arbeit in der nachexilischen Zeit, sondern als die chronistische Sonderheit, d.h. die ältere Überlieferung zu erkennen. Aber die mangelnde Historizität der Justizrefom des Josaphat hat sich durch die einigen Belege bestätigt. Die selbstständige Rechtsprechung der םינהכ wie 2 Ch 19,8.11 erwähnt, ist im 9. Jh. im Alten Testament nicht vorgegeben, stattdessen war die hauptsächliche Tätigkeit der Priester auf die kultische Rechtsprechung, die Lehrfunktion des Gerichts und die Lehre der הרות beschränkt (Mi 3,11; Jes 2,3; Hos 4,4ff.; Dt 31,9; Ez 44,23; 2 Ch 17,8-9). Zudem waren die Leviten in der Alten Testament als die Richter vor der exilischen Zeit nicht tätig. Außerdem ist die Rechtsprechung der םיטפש, die von der Zentralregierung eingesetzt wurden, erst im 7. Jh. im Alten Testament belegt, und der דיגנ in 2 Ch 19,11 ist anachronistisch. Der דיגנ war ein König in der Zeit von Josaphat.

본 논문의 목적은, 유일한 ‘하나님의 궤’ 전승에 대한 비평적인 분석을 통해 숨어있는 다양한 궤에 관한 전승을 밝혀내는 것이다. 저자는 이 논문에서 다윗이 예루살렘으로 옮긴 하나님의 궤뿐만 아니라 사울이 전쟁터에서 찾은 또 다른 하나님의 궤가 있음을 주목한다. 그리고 또한 단 지파에 하나님의 궤가 있었을 가능성을 제기한다. 저자는 다양한 하나님의 궤를 찾을 때 풀어야 할 중요한 단서로서 ‘하나님의 궤’와 ‘에봇’이 상호 교환할 수 있는 용어라는 점을 제시한다.

This project has shown the existence of not only one, but several ‘arks of God’. These include the ark of the wilderness tradition, which traveled from Shilo to Philistine and finally Kirjathjearim; the ark transported from Baale-judah to Jerusalem by King David; the ark Saul ordered the priest Ahijah to bring; and the ark of God owned by the tribe of Dan. In particular, we find the existence of several different arks of God highly probable given the religious context of the period. Key to the existence of multiple arks is the interchangeability of the terms ‘ark of God’ and ‘eboth’. We find evidence in the Old Testament where ‘eboth’ has been substituted for other arks of God(1 Sam 14: 18). The ark which Saul ordered to bring on the battlefield, the ark which the priest Ahijah bore back was not from Kirjathjearim but appears to be the ark of the sanctuary of Nob. This is due to the fact that the priest of the sanctuary of Nob was, like the priest Ahijah, of the Elide Priests. It appears that Abiathar took this ark of God when he went to David in escaping. Also, the ark of God in the sanctuary of the tribe of Dan appears to be connected to the Mahaneh-Dan of Kirjathjearim, where the tribe of Dan encamped. Mahaneh-Dan appears to be a sanctuary rather than an area, one of several sanctuaries in Kirjathjearim. Also, the ark of the tribe of Dan also appears related to the ark of God in the sanctuary of Micah in the mountains of Ephraim.

본 논문은 쿤틸렛 아즈루드 명문의 해석에 얽힌 문제들과 여러 학자들의 다양한 견해들을 종합적으로 검토하고 비판한다. 저자는 특히 이 논문에서 ‘실체화 이론’에 대해서 설명하고, 성경의 실체화의 예들을 추가적으로 제시한다. 저자는 이 논문에서, 쿤틸렛 아즈루드 명문의 문법적 문제를 비껴가려는 여러 주장들에도 불구하고, 가장 올바른 해석은 명문에 언급된 ‘아세라’가 야훼 하나님의 배우자로 등장한 가나안의 여신임을 주장한다.

One of the most remarkable discoveries in the field of biblical archaeology and iconography in recent years is arguably the much-debated inscription found at Kuntillet Ajrud. Having had an enormous impact on our understanding of the folk religion of ancient Israel, this inscription has been the center of attention of western biblical scholarship. Surprisingly enough, however, it has rarely been discussed in the society of Korean biblicists. This essay critically reviews various scholarly opinions about the "Yahweh and his Asherah" inscription. In so doing, it also introduces Professor McCarter's hypostasis theory and provides more examples of hypostases in the Bible and Jewish literature, e.g. the Deuteronomistic name theology, the god Bethel and other deities attested in the Elephatine papyri, the wisdom in Proverbs, the Glory of Yahweh in the book of Ezekiel, Yahweh's voice and righteousness, Shekinah and Memra in the Targums, and finally the Logos in the Gospel of John. A major abstacle to see “his A(a)sherah” in the inscription as a goddess is the fact that proper nouns do not take pronominal suffixes in Northwest Semitic languages. The present author, however, presents, along with Amarna examples, Hos 2: 16 as an exception to this grammatical rule. Even if the expression “Yahweh and his Asherah” is irregular from a grammatical viewpoint, one may point out that the inscription is more like graffiti than a sophisticated literary product. So a little grammatical problem won't be a serious issue. Therefore, it would not be presumptuous to say that the most likely interpretation of the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription is to see the two cow-like figures as Yahweh and his consort Asherah the goddess.

이 논문은 고대근동의 신전재건 이데올로기 중의 하나인 계시의 관점에서 학개서 저술의 목적을 분석한다. 저자는 고대근동에서 신전재건이 신의 계시가 왕에게 전달되어 왕이 동의한 이후 착수되었으며, 따라서 신전은 왕이 재건하는 것임을 전제한다. 이 관점에서 저자는 예루살렘 성전을 재건하라는 학개의 선포가 다윗왕가의 잠재적 계승자인 스룹바벨에게 전달되었다고 주장한다. 결론적으로 학개에 의하면 야훼의 계시가 스룹바벨에게 전달되었기 때문에 이제 예루살렘의 성전은 페르시아의 신전이 아닌 야훼의 신전이 되는 것이다.

The research problem concerns the ideological background of the temple rebuilding records between Ancient Near East and Ancient Israel in light of god’s revelation. Both regions have left numerous temple rebuilding records; among others, three major building inscriptions as for Neo Babylonia contemporaneously during the 6th century BCE (Nabopolassar’s, Nebucahadnezzar II’s, and Nabonidus’) and Gudea cylinders (A&B) as for the ancient Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium; in ancient Israel there were so-called 2nd temple reconstruction records in OT, especially the Book of Haggai will be dealt with for this research. The significant ideological relationship is expected to shed a new light to some interpretational aspects of Haggai, widely presumed to be one of the major historiographical sources in Ancient Israel. Especially the following questions are put in order in regards to Haggai: first, who was the primary incipient of Haggai’s message; second, who would be the legitimate temple rebuilder of the Jerusalem temple in the Persian period, third and last, what was the purpose of book of Haggai in connection with the aforementioned questions. The research showed that a king was the ultimate recipient of a revelation in regard to projected temple rebuilding in Ancient Near East as well as in Israel. It is by no means a surprise considering the long standing tradition in terms of divine-king ideology in this civilization. This in turn points to the strong indication that a would-be recipient of YHWH’s message to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem should be none other than the person of Zerubbabel, then Persia-appointed governor over Judah and Jerusalem. This conclusion has much to do with the purpose of book of Haggai itself. Haggai will be the only book in OT which illustrates that the rebuilt temple in the Persian-period Judah was the temple of YHWH, not the temple of a Persian god. YHWH had revealed his intention to build his temple in Jerusalem to his sole deputy on earth, the prospective carrier of kingship in Judah. Haggai successfully ushers in a new phase of history in Ancient Israel by officially declaring cessation from the past; his people and the nation at large are once again set to enter into a new relationship with YHWH. Haggai is diplomatically skillful in that his aspiration for a restored Davidic dynasty is described in somewhat sophisticated prophetic oracles towards the nations as well as towards Zerubbabel.