Sadrice
Tiro
Offline
Slinging Rocks!
Posts: 35
|
Certainly we don't have the same version of the text as was originally written, even if it's in (nominally) the same language, and my goodness the metaphors and idioms can be obtuse (eg in Job). This is particularly apparent in the Torah, with the merging of separate sources and various redactions, but the Nevi'im certainly weren't passed down pristine either. But as for Aramaic composition, my Hebrew bible teacher told me that the only evidence for Aramaic composition of any part of the bible is part of Daniel (would that be the "some books" you referred to?), and a direct quote attributed to Jesus or two. Apparently, although Aramaic and Hebrew traded dominance as the common language of Israel several times, Hebrew was always the language of literature, especially scripture. Doesn't mean he's right, but I took his word for it.
By archaic form, are you referring to their tendency to put some odd vowel diacritics on YHWH? Because I was told that that was them putting the vowels for Adonai on the consonants for Yahweh, as a signal to the reader that they should say Adonai instead (which confused modernish scholars and made them think that Jehovah was a sensible transliteration). This certainly wasn't "every time", as they used an incredible variety of names to refer to god, like Yahweh, Elohim, Elohe, Adonai, Yahweh Sebaot, El Shaddai, and a pile of others that have slipped my mind.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I agree totally with your main point, that is, that the bible has changed too dramatically over the millennia for taking it exactly literally to make any sense (not that it would even if we had the original). I just take issue with you applying that particular string of translations to this particular bit of text.
|