‘豫言’과 ‘預言’ - 성서한역과정을 중심으로 살펴 본 ‘예언’의 한자어 -

Abstract

This research traces the origin of the understanding or misunderstanding of “prophecy” in its Korean word “예언”, which was in its turn originated from the Chinese word “豫言” or “預言”. “豫” and “預” had been used almost as the same in Classical Chinese, usually meaning “beforehand”. It follows that those two words, “豫言” and “預言”, are not practically distinct from each other, signifying “telling beforehand”, which corresponds precisely to the original meaning of “prophecy(προφητεία)”. There can be found many texts that show such identity between “豫言” and “預言” in Classical Chinese, both in China and Korea. However, in Japan, which can be counted as another member of the Chinese character cultural sphere, “預” has been used as other meaning than “beforehand”. As early as in the Heian(平安) Period, “預” began to be adopted for indicating a government office or a person responsible for that office, to whom was “entrusted” the care for the Manor(荘園). As a result, “預” came to have the meaning of “entrust” in the Japanese language, while “豫”(or “予”) was being used as the same, that is, “beforehand”. Around the 19th century, some Christian missionaries began to translate the Bible into Classical Chinese, whose works will be eventually providing some critical norms for future translations of the Bible both in Korean and Japanese language. Among those translations in Chinese, the Bridgman-Culbertson Edition(1859) is worthy to point out, for it explicitly used the word “預言者” for the translation of “prophet”, which seems to have been accepted by the first Bible in Japanese(Meiji Edition, 1887) and even by various editions of Korean translation in the Protestant Churches. In the original Chinese translation, “預言” conveyed the same meaning as in Classical Chinese, that is, “tell beforehand”. However, since the usage of “預” in the Japanese language had already been changed, some Japanese began to think that “預言” meant “entrusting (divine) word” or “divine word entrusted”. It led to a decisive distinction between “豫言” and “預言” in contemporary Japanese language usage. Such interpretation or misinterpretation of “豫言/預言” was adopted by some authors in Korea, mainly caused by a confusion of the original meaning and usage of “預” in Classical Chinese. It is highly possible that this is an ‘unfortunate’ consequence of the Japanese colonial period, during which the usage of “預” as “entrust” seems to have been adopted in the Korean language. We can conclude without much difficulty that the distinction between “豫言” and “預言” cannot be justified at least in a dimension of diachronic linguistics, because such understanding is based on a misunderstanding of Classical Chinese. Although we can think of some possibility of a new interpretation of “豫言/預言” by focusing on some new and original aspects of Christian “prophecy”, there remain other problems unsolved, which are to be examined more fully in future works.