| | *[https://www.lwf.org/names-of-god Names of God Found in the Bible], Love Worth Finding Ministries | | *[https://www.lwf.org/names-of-god Names of God Found in the Bible], Love Worth Finding Ministries |
| − | ==Non-uniformity of language and style of original Scriptures==Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a nonuniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if they are one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way throughout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, embedded in the Hebrew within the narrative of the deeds of the prophetess Deborah, have in the Song of Deborah (Judges chapter 5) a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew than that of the main text of the book, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself, plainly evident to any person who has studied the Hebrew language. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. The human authors, inspired by God, were careful to preserve the integrity of the original songs that they had faithfully recorded or otherwise copied and included in their narratives. There are even different Hebrew languages (rather dialects) from the same historical period but from different authors living during the same time, having come from different origins and cultural levels.<ref name=Steinberg/> | + | ==Non-uniformity of language and style of original Scriptures== |
| | + | Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a nonuniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if they are one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way throughout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, embedded in the Hebrew within the narrative of the deeds of the prophetess Deborah, have in the Song of Deborah (Judges chapter 5) a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew than that of the main text of the book, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself, plainly evident to any person who has studied the Hebrew language. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. The human authors, inspired by God, were careful to preserve the integrity of the original songs that they had faithfully recorded or otherwise copied and included in their narratives. There are even different Hebrew languages (rather dialects) from the same historical period but from different authors living during the same time, having come from different origins and cultural levels.<ref name=Steinberg/> |
| | For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences in language in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel (a technique called "back translation"), it becomes excellent Hebrew-Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene", and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations. | | For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences in language in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel (a technique called "back translation"), it becomes excellent Hebrew-Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene", and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations. |