BC 3000년 기에서 1000년 기까지 내려온 고대 중동의 저주 목록은 공통 구조와 개념을 반영한다. 저주 목록의 이러한 특성은 고대 중동의 각 나라가 다른 나라와 문화적 교류가 자유로웠다는 점을 시사한다. 또한 삶의 정황, 기후와 생태계도 거의 동일하고 저주의 내용도 고대 중동 사람들의 국가적-개인적 관심사를 반영하기 때문에 저주 개념이 상응한다. VTE 저주와 신명기 28장 언약 저주 사이에 나타난 유사성에 의해 전자가 후자에게 직접적인 영향을 미쳤다는 견해는 구약학계에 널리 지지되고 있다. 그러나 이 두 문헌이 보여주는 구조와 주제가 유사하다고 해서 상호간에 문헌적 의존성을 주장할 수 없는 것은 두 문헌 모두 BC 2000년 기 저주 문헌의 구조와 주제를 반영하고, 고대 중동의 필사가들의 저작 기법을 반영하기 때문이다. VTE 저주와 신명기 언약 저주에 나타난 저주의 개념은 소수를 제외한 나머지는 완전히 다르다. 후자의 저자가 전자를 번역했을 것이라는 주장은 타당하지 않은 것은 고대 중동의 필사가들의 원문의 의미를 왜곡해서 번역하지 않았기 때문이다. VTE 저작 연대가 분명하다고 해서 신명기 28장을 동일한 연대로 보는 견해는 고대 중동의 필사가들의 저작기법에 비추어 볼 때 지지될 수 없다. BC 2000년 기와 1000년 기의 조약에 대한 연구는 신명기 28장 저작 연대 이해에 중요한 단서(端緖)를 제공할 것이다.

The lists of ancient Middle East curses from the third coming down to the first millennium B. C. share the common structure and concepts. This characteristic of the lists of curses show the cultural distinction was not sharp distinguished from one to another countries. The circumstances of life, climate and ecology was almost same, and also the contents of curses reflect the peoples’ interests on the individual and national concerns, thus the concepts of curses are corresponding. The view on the similar curses between the curse of VTE and covenant curses of Dt 28 indicate that the former influenced on the latter is widely accepted in the Old Testament scholarly world. But the similar structure and concepts existed in the two literature do not support an literary interdependence from one to another. These literature both reveal the structure and the concepts of curses from the second millennium B. C. and the same method of working on curses used the ancient middle East scribes. Except for a few concepts of curses between VTE and Dt 28, others are completely different. A view that the writer of the latter translated the former is not convincing at all, since the ancient scribes did not translate, violating the meaning of the original. An attempt to date Dt 28 according to that of VTE is not sustained in the light of the way of writing used ancient scribes. A study of the treaties from the second down to the first millennium B. C. will provide a key understanding in relation to the date of the writing of Dt 28.

The lists of ancient Middle East curses from the third coming down to the first millennium B. C. share the common structure and concepts. This characteristic of the lists of curses show the cultural distinction was not sharp distinguished from one to another countries. The circumstances of life, climate and ecology was almost same, and also the contents of curses reflect the peoples’ interests on the individual and national concerns, thus the concepts of curses are corresponding. The view on the similar curses between the curse of VTE and covenant curses of Dt 28 indicate that the former influenced on the latter is widely accepted in the Old Testament scholarly world. But the similar structure and concepts existed in the two literature do not support an literary interdependence from one to another. These literature both reveal the structure and the concepts of curses from the second millennium B. C. and the same method of working on curses used the ancient middle East scribes. Except for a few concepts of curses between VTE and Dt 28, others are completely different. A view that the writer of the latter translated the former is not convincing at all, since the ancient scribes did not translate, violating the meaning of the original. An attempt to date Dt 28 according to that of VTE is not sustained in the light of the way of writing used ancient scribes. A study of the treaties from the second down to the first millennium B. C. will provide a key understanding in relation to the date of the writing of Dt 28.

, , , , , ,

VTE, KuMna, Deuteronomy, Covenant-Curses, Literature of curses, Lists of curses, Contextual approach