마소라의 지리적 용어와 관련 지명에 대한 칠십인역의 번역 경향 (A Study of the Septuagint Translation of Geographical Terms and Related Toponyms in the Massora Text)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : (재)대한성서공회 성경번역연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 성경원문연구 / 46호 / 67 ~ 97페이지
· 저자명 : 이미숙

초록

There are many Hebrew toponyms in the Massora Text (MT) that reflect various geographical features. However, when such MT technical terms are rendered into other languages, it is not easy to translate them properly. For instance, the Septuagint (LXX) translators translated 129 technical Hebrew terms into 440 Greek equivalents, which is more than three times the number of Hebrew words in the original MT. This study therefore begins with a question of how 81 Hebrew MT terms (about 63% of the 129 original terms, which the LXX translated into 250 equivalents) reflecting Israel’s topography, water, and arable land were translated into later versions as based on A. Schwarzenbach’s list.
This study further examines the trends and characteristics of the LXX translation. It also reviews the translation issues in modern versions of the Old Testament regarding terms that require geographical understanding, and also seeks the right understanding of the Old Testament for the revision of the Korean Bible.
Geographical MT terms relating to topography, water, and arable land have traces of different names according to landscape, cause of formation, and place of topography. Among the 250 LXX equivalents for the 81 studied Hebrew terms, 80% match the original MT. The LXX translations also revealed stereotype equivalents, such as Har, Nahar, and Ain, and limitations in geographical knowledge, but by expressing the terms in Greek, the LXX enriched the MT’s interpretation and brought dynamics back to living languages.
The LXX translators’ effort to understand the Hebrew terms were better revealed in discordance with the MT terms. Their different readings of the MT and transliteration occurred due to problems with the MT’s interpretation and textual corruption. These problems are not large in 20% of the LXX equivalents, but are also not small in terms of biblical hermeneutics and textual criticism.
There are intentional cases that can be confirmed in examples of LXX transliteration, such as Bama, Nahal, and Araba, which are read or modified as a place name to harmonize with context. Aspects of different reading also vary, and some examples result from freely interpreting the context such as Bama, Ofel, and Gai. In some cases like Madrega, there are limitations of geographical knowledge, and examples that seem to be obvious errors like Ned and Shiha are also found.
Comparing the LXX to modern MT translations, issues with the translations of geographical terms such as Nahal, Ashed (Ashedot), and Mishor still exist. The translations of these terms in the Korean Bible thus need to be reviewed professionally and carefully.

영어초록

There are many Hebrew toponyms in the Massora Text (MT) that reflect various geographical features. However, when such MT technical terms are rendered into other languages, it is not easy to translate them properly. For instance, the Septuagint (LXX) translators translated 129 technical Hebrew terms into 440 Greek equivalents, which is more than three times the number of Hebrew words in the original MT. This study therefore begins with a question of how 81 Hebrew MT terms (about 63% of the 129 original terms, which the LXX translated into 250 equivalents) reflecting Israel’s topography, water, and arable land were translated into later versions as based on A. Schwarzenbach’s list.
This study further examines the trends and characteristics of the LXX translation. It also reviews the translation issues in modern versions of the Old Testament regarding terms that require geographical understanding, and also seeks the right understanding of the Old Testament for the revision of the Korean Bible.
Geographical MT terms relating to topography, water, and arable land have traces of different names according to landscape, cause of formation, and place of topography. Among the 250 LXX equivalents for the 81 studied Hebrew terms, 80% match the original MT. The LXX translations also revealed stereotype equivalents, such as Har, Nahar, and Ain, and limitations in geographical knowledge, but by expressing the terms in Greek, the LXX enriched the MT’s interpretation and brought dynamics back to living languages.
The LXX translators’ effort to understand the Hebrew terms were better revealed in discordance with the MT terms. Their different readings of the MT and transliteration occurred due to problems with the MT’s interpretation and textual corruption. These problems are not large in 20% of the LXX equivalents, but are also not small in terms of biblical hermeneutics and textual criticism.
There are intentional cases that can be confirmed in examples of LXX transliteration, such as Bama, Nahal, and Araba, which are read or modified as a place name to harmonize with context. Aspects of different reading also vary, and some examples result from freely interpreting the context such as Bama, Ofel, and Gai. In some cases like Madrega, there are limitations of geographical knowledge, and examples that seem to be obvious errors like Ned and Shiha are also found.
Comparing the LXX to modern MT translations, issues with the translations of geographical terms such as Nahal, Ashed (Ashedot), and Mishor still exist. The translations of these terms in the Korean Bible thus need to be reviewed professionally and carefully.

참고자료

· 없음