신약성서 안에서 ύπόστασιϛ의 의미

Abstract

ύπόστασιϛ has been employed as a term for a person in the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, it is a word that plays a critical role in the history of Christian doctrine. However, in the Bible, this word may be one of the most challenging terms to translate. In the New Testament, this word hasn’t been translated identically, despite its a few examples. Religious reformers have translated this word as trust and confidence, reflecting their theological perspectives.<BR> For an accurate and consistent translation ofύπόστασιϛ, we need to take a look at the conceptual history of ύπόστασιϛ in ancient Greek documents. The fundamental problem in ancient Greek ontology was that the Transcendental Being could not enter the limited individual due to its substantial nature.ύπόστασιϛ resolved the problem in the ontology of this ancient philosophy by enabling a connection between the Transcendental Being and the limited one while keeping the essential nature of the Transcendental Being. In ancient Greek philosophy, the reason why ύπόστασιϛ was able to play a role as a link between the Transcendental Being and the limited one was that the word had the meaning of continuance(Bestand) and existence(Wirklichkeit) at the same time. These two meanings are likely to have been driven initially by different schools. But the two became a unified concept when Poseidonios, one of the main figures of the Middle Stoics, combined the ideas. Thus, the ontological possibility, which means the Transcendental Being keeping its nature could exist in the limited individuals, was made possible through ύπόστασιϛ.<BR> The meaning of ύπόστασιϛ found in conceptual history can be used for the translation of ύπόστασιϛ in the New Testament. In the New Testament, ύπόστασιϛ is employed five times by two authors (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3; 3:14; 11:1). However, ύπόστασιϛ was not translated identically in other foreign language Bibles as well as the KRV. Although sense-for-sense translation benefits the audience’s understanding, the translation’s purpose to carry its original denotation should not be lost. Consequentially, contextually liberal translation poses the threat of misunderstanding of the author’s intention.<BR> Most of all, in the texts of the New Testament, it is important that ύπόστασιϛ was used to bridge opposing points that are difficult to reconcile contextually in the texts of the New Testament. Contrary to the author of Hebrews, Paul used ύπόστασιϛ to personally imply conflicts within the church whilst the author of Hebrews used ύπόστασιϛ within the theological scope. Paul applied ύπόστασιϛ to describe his situation instead of theological perspectives, while the author of Hebrews applied u`po,stasij in the meaning of the theological subjects. The actual aspects of Paul himself in his situation is delicately expressed through ύπόστασιϛ, and Paul prepares lessons and encouragements for the status of the church through this. In Hebrews, the revelation of the existence of God in the present day has been portrayed through ύπόστασιϛ. Hebrews 1:3 has an almost perfect theological agreement with the example used by Trinitarianism, which is the final purpose of studying this word.<BR> Therefore, the fundamental ontological meaning of existence should not be weakened or alienated within all these examples. The translation should be attempted within the range containing the fundamental meaning of existence in line with the context and authors’ intent. The uniform translation of ύπόστασιϛ in the New Testament based on the conceptual history provides the very ground for the interpretation of the text itself and a decisive contribution to the whole history of Christian doctrine.