• 목록

오리겐의 성경 해석에서 어휘를 선택하는 것은 매우 중요한 역할을 하고 있으며, 이것은 그가 70인경과 히브리어 본문 사이의 관계를 어떻게 설정했느냐는 문제와 직결된다. 우리는 먼저 이 두 본문에 대해 오리겐이 어떤 이론적 관계를 설정했는지 살펴야 하며, 구체적으로 이사야 7:14에 나오는 히브리어 알마(hm'l.[;h')와 그리스어 파르테노스(parqe,noj)의 번역 문제를 어떻게 다루었는지를 고찰하고자 한다. 오리겐은 먼저 히브리어 본문이 가장 정확한 헬라어 번역만큼 중요하다고 보았다. 가끔 오리겐은 70인 경의 번역이 잘못되었거나 히브리어 원문의 의미를 모호하게 만들었다고 주장한다. 두 본문 사이의 매우 작은 차이점까지도 그는 서로 비교하며, 원문에 더 가까운 독법을 선택하려고 한다. 그는 때때로 자신의 어휘연구와 주석의 방법론이 부족함도 인식하고 있다. 그는 자신의 기독론적이고 구원론적인 관점으로 모든 본문 상의 차이점들을 통합하며, 예수 그리스도를 전하는 한 관점으로 수렴하려고 한다. 오리겐은 70인경이 이사야 7:14의 히브리어 알마(hm'l.[;h')를 네아니스(nea/ij)가 아니라 파르테노스(parqe,noj)로 번역되었음을 관찰하며 신명기 22:23-26에서 알마(hm'l.[;h')와 베툴라(hl'wtB.)가 동일한 의미로 사용되었으므로, 이사야 7:14에서 알마는 ‘젊은 여인’과 ‘처녀’의 두 의미를 모두 가질 수 있다고 본다. 그는 문맥적, 윤리적, 역사적, 알레고리적 논증으로 자신의 분석에 대한 결론을 맺는다. 결론적으로 그는 이사야 7:14에서 70인경이 다른 그리스어 번역만큼 정확하지 않다는 점을 인정하지 않는다
A very important aspect of Origen’s philological work on the Bible is his particular understanding of the relationship between the Greek and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The aim of the present paper is to examine this aspect. In the first part we present Origen’s theoretical principles regarding the relationship between these two texts. As an example, in the second part we analyze his exegesis of Is 7:14 and specifically the way he dealt with the problem of the translation of the Hebrew word hm'l.[;h' as parqe,noj in the Septuagint. Origen believed that the Hebrew text is at least as important as its most correct Greek translation. Having a variety of Greek translations and manuscripts at his disposal was extremely important to him. Occasionally Origen ascertained that the Septuagint translated in a wrong way or in a way that obscured the original meaning of the Hebrew. In such cases he used to cite all known translations and comment on them, thus trying to find the most successful one, even if he had to prioritize the Hebrew text or other translations to the Septuagint. Even in cases of very small differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, Origen would compare the Septuagint rendering to the ones of the other Greek translations in order to choose the one closer to the original. On the other hand, Origen was also aware of the fact that all philological and exegetical problems due to dissonances among various manuscripts and translations could not always be definitively resolved. In such cases he accepted the insufficiencies of his philological and exegetical method contending himself with presenting the various exegetical options at hand, and allowing his audience to choose the most correct one. His christological and soteriological perspective unified all textual variants and translations of the Old Testament under one scope, namely the preaching of and about Jesus Christ. Origen observes that the Septuagint translates the word of hm'l.[;h' Is 7:14 as parqe,noj and not as nea/ij. He also notes that on the contrary the word hm'l.[;h' is rendered as nea/ij in all other Greek translations. He then tries to demonstrate that the rendering of the Septuagint is also philologically possible by claiming that in the context of Deut 22:23-26 both hm'l.[;h' and hl'wtb. actually bear the same meaning. Thus, he is able to prove that also in the case of Is 7:14 the word hm'l.[;h' can bear both the meaning of a young woman and of a virgin, which would mean that the Septuagint rendering is also correct. He concludes his analysis by offering a contextual, an ethical, an historical and an allegorical argument. In the case of Is 7:14 Origen follows at first his usual methodological procedure when dealing with translation issues. However, his aim is clearly to verify the Septuagint rendering, due to ecclesiastical and theological reasons. Therefore, he does not admit, as in other cases, that the Septuagint is at this point at least not as accurate as the other Greek renderings.