성서 본문의 언어학적 연대 결정에 관한 논쟁과 언어 변이성 개념에 근거한 그 이론적 평가

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 소고는 구약 성서 본문의 언어학적 연대 결정에 대한 최근의 논쟁을 정리하고 그 논쟁을 사회 언어학의 언어 변이성(linguistic variability) 개념을 토대로 이론적으로 평가한다. 후르비츠(Avi Hurvitz)와 그를 따르는 학자들의 전통적인 의견은 초기 성서 히브리어와 후기 성서 히브리어가 그 형태와 시기에 있어서 단절되므로 성서 본문의 연대를 언어학적 증거만을 사용해서 결정하는 것이 가능하다는 것이다. 반면 영(Ian Youong), 레젯코(Robert Rezetko), 에렌스베르드(Martin Ehrensvard) 등은 초기 성서 히브리어와 후기 성서 히브리어는 그 형태와 시기에 있어서 완전히 단절되지 않기 때문에 성서 본문의 연대를 언어학적 증거만을 사용해서 결정하는 것은 불가능하다고 주장한다. 이들은 더 나아가 초기 성서 히브리어와 후기 성서 히브리어는 포로기 이후 성서 기자들이 자유롭게 선택할 수 있었던 동시대의 스타일일 뿐이라고 주장한다. 논쟁의 핵심은 초기 성서 히브리어와 후기 성서 히브리어가 언어 변이를 통해서 구분된다는 점이다. 사회 언어학에서는 모든 언어 변화는 언어 변이를 통해서만 일어난다는 점을 설득력 있게 규명하였는데 이를 토대로 본 소고는 다음 두 가지를 주장한다. 첫째, 언어 변이를 통해서 규정되는 초기 성서 히브리어와 후기 성서 히브리어는 동시대의 스타일이라기보다는 연대에 따른 언어 변화의 결과라고 보는 것이 더 타당하다. 둘째, 언어 변화가 언어 변이를 통해서만 일어난다는 사실은 변화의 양상이 일시적이지도 않고 통일적이지도 않다는 의미이다. 따라서 초기 성서 히브리어와 후기 성서 히브리어의 프로파일만을 가지고 어떤 한 본문의 연대를 결정하는 것은 방법론적으로 옳지 못하다. 즉, 성서 본문의 연대를 언어학적 증거만을 가지고 결정하는 것은 이론적으로 불가능하다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The present paper surveys the debate over the linguistic dating of biblical texts and attempts to evaluate it theoretically on the basis of the sociolinguistic concept of linguistic variability. The traditional understanding, proposed by Avi Hurvitz and supported by his followers, is that Early Biblical Hebrew(EBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew(LBH) are distinct in form and in chronology and that it is possible to date a biblical text by using only linguistic data. On the other hand, scholars such as Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvard argue that EBH and LBH are not distinct in form and in chronology and so it is impossible to date a biblical text by using only linguistic data. They further maintain that EBH and LBH are two contemporary styles from which the postexilic biblical writers were free to choose. At the center of the debate is the fact that EBH and LBH are in many cases defined by linguistic variation. Sociolinguists have demonstrated that linguistic change occurs only through linguistic variation. On the basis of this understanding, the present study argues the following: First, EBH and LBH, which are defined by linguistic variation, are rather two phases of linguistic change of the biblical period than contemporary styles. Second, that linguistic change occurs only through the state of linguistic variation entails that the change is never instantaneous or uniform. Thus it is methodologically not valid to date a biblical text on the basis of the profile of LBH or of EBH. In other words, the linguistic dating of biblical texts is theoretically impossible.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 언어학적 연대 결정에 관한 논쟁
• 2. 후르비츠의 언어학적 연대 결정 방법론
• 3. 도전자들의 주장
• 4. 사회 언어학, 언어 변화, 언어 변이
• 5. 언어 변이성 개념에 근거한 연대 결정 논쟁의 이론적 평가
• 6. 나가며
• 참고문헌
• 〈초록〉
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 유윤종, "호세아서에 나타난 북이스라엘 히브리어" 11 : 71-90, 2001
• 2 김유기, "성서 히브리어의 시대 구분에 관한 최근 연구 동향" 13 : 62-71, 2007
• 3 유윤종, "구약성서 히브리어 변이의 구성요인들과 지역 방언과의 관계에 관하여" 9 : 289-309, 2000
• 4 Gianto, Agustinus, "Variations in Biblical Hebrew" 77 : 493-508, 1996
• 5 Guy, Gregory R, "Variationist Approaches to Phonological Change, In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics" Blackwell 369-400, 2004
• 6 Kim, Dong-Hyuk, "The Use of Linguistic Evidence in the Dating of Biblical Hebrew Texts" Yale University 2011
• 7 Hurvitz, Avi, "The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and Its Implications for the Dating of Psalms" Bialik 1972
• 8 Hurvitz, Avi, "The Relevance of Biblical Hebrew Linguistics for the Historical Study of Ancient Israel, In Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29-August 5, 1997: Division A: The Bible and Its World" World Union of Jewish Studies 21-33, 1999
• 9 Hurvitz, Avi, "The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments" 47 : 191-210, 2006
• 10 Hurvitz, Avi, "The Language of Qoheleth and Its Historical Setting within Biblical Hebrew, In The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 164" Peeters 23-34, 2007
• 11 Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, "The Diffusion of Subject You: A Case Study in Historical Sociolinguistics" 17 : 55-73, 2005
• 12 Hurvitz, Avi, "The Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered" 67 : 17-34, 1974
• 13 Milgrom, Jacob, "The Antiquity of the Priestly Source: A Reply to Joseph Blenkinsopp" 111 : 10-22, 1999
• 14 Polak, Frank H., "Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew" 47 : 115-162, 2006
• 15 Young, Ian, "Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts 2" Equinox 2008
• 16 Zevit, Ziony, "Review of Young, ed., Biblical Hebrew" 6 : 1-15, 2004
• 17 Schniedewind, William M, "Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew" 5 : 2004
• 18 Milgrom, Jacob, "Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic Israel" 69 : 65-81, 1978
• 19 Polak, Frank H., "Parameters for Stylistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew Prose Texts, In Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference: Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique" University of Stellenbosch 259-281, 2002
• 20 Rendsburg, Gary A, "Once More the Dual: With Replies to J. Blau and J. Blenkinsopp" 38 : 28-41, 2001
• 21 Hurvitz, Avi, "Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and Its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp" 112 : 180-191, 2000
• 22 Robertson, David A, "Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry" Society of Biblical Literature for the Seminar on Form Criticism 1972
• 23 Wright, Richard M, "Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source" T&T Clark 2005
• 24 Rendsburg, Gary A, "Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms" Scholars 1990
• 25 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W, "Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Lamentations" 26 : 1-36, 1998
• 26 Ehrensvärd, Martin, "Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, In Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 369" T&T Clark 164-188, 2003
• 27 Hurvitz, Avi, "Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts" 14 : 74-79, 1973
• 28 Milgrom, Jacob, "Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary" Doubleday 1991
• 29 Levine, Baruch A., "Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations" World Union of Jewish Studies 69-82, 1983
• 30 Davies, Philip R., "In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’, 2nd ed" Sheffield Academic Press 1995
• 31 Trask, R. L, "Historical Linguistics" Arnold 1996
• 32 Kim, Dong-Hyuk, "Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum" Brill, forthcoming
• 33 Vern, Robyn C, "Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry: A Critique of the Linguistic Arguments" Gorgias 2011
• 34 Bergey, Ronald L, "Book of Esther: Its Place in the Linguistic Milieu of Post-Exilic Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Study in Late Biblical Hebrew" Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning 1983
• 35 Young, Ian, "Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology" T&T Clark 2003
• 36 Rooker, Mark F., "Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel" JSOT Press 1990
• 37 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, "An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch" 108 : 495-518, 1996
• 38 Hurvitz, Avi, "A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem" J. Gabalda 1982
• 39 Kutscher, E. Y., "A History of the Hebrew Language, Raphael Kutscher, ed" Magnes 1982