The Epistle Of Jude And Endowment Connections

[mfbukowski]

If we are talking of differences, then why isn't the veil in the LDS endowment considered as being woven of purified souls? This was the kabbalistic understanding that can be found in the works of near-contemporaries such as William Blake. It was certainly more accessible than the Hekhalot traditions.

I don't know if I should even post the reference- but there is one in Hebrews which relates to this- is this what you mean? Maybe a PM is in order.

[mfbukowski]

Which makes sense. Why dispense with a perfectly good teaching method when all that is needed to keep it serving its purpose is to update the content to match the current sacred environment of the students?

Exactly. And that is perhaps why masonic references are specifically so important in this version of the endowment- because they communicated so well to the early Saints especially. Its odd that we see this as some kind of "liability" when in fact it was Father choosing the best method of symbolic communication available to the early Saints. Clearly, the early Saints were not disturbed by the masonic references.

I had always kind of seen it this way, but a conversation with George Miller helped the idea "jell" in my mind in these specific terms. I have to give him credit where credit is due.

[mfbukowski]

I suspect that the current understandings of symbolism in the endowment mean something somewhat different from what most members of the Church in Joseph Smith's day were taught. Joseph's understanding of the Hebrew text cannot be overlooked. In my mind, early accounts of the endowment from journals kept by faithful Latter-day Saints suggest a willingness to be as true to the original as possible. For instance, each time we "make" a covenant, either in the temple or read about them in the scriptures, the Hebrew verb root is karat, meaning literally "to cut" or "to cut off." The Israelites metaphorically (and sometimes literally) "cut" their covenants with God. Obviously, older members of the church (pre-1990) will readily see the significance, but the vast majority are simply unaware.

Maybe this is reminiscent of the idea of husband and wife "cleaving" to each other, "cutting off" all others? I always thought it was odd to have two becoming one being described as "cutting (cleaving) unto each other" until I understood this.

Perhaps this also relates to the idiom of "cutting a deal" with someone?

[volgadon]

I don't know if I should even post the reference- but there is one in Hebrews which relates to this- is this what you mean? Maybe a PM is in order.

I think one might be.

[LeSellers]

What does Hebrew have to do with anything? Jude was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Perhaps, although it may well have been written in Hebrew first, then translated by the author (or someone close to him) into Greek.

In any case Jude (and, for that matter, Paul, Peter, Matthew, and all the other New Testament writers—save, perhaps, Luke—were native speakers, not of Greek, but of Aramaic) would have thought in his maternal tongue, then "translated" his thoughts into Greek (or had someone else do it for him, as I believe Peter did with 2 Peter).

I speak, read and write three languages: English, French, and Italian. (At least I did once; my writing is not what it once was, in any of them.) But English is my native language, and, unless I am working in one of the others for a very long time (there are few Italian speakers in central Colorado, so opportunities are rare), I think in English, then have to rework the message into the other.

So, whether Jude wrote in Greek or not, he thought in Aramaic or Hebrew, and we need to understand his thought, not necessarily his words. It is the same when we read the Book of Mormon. In 1 Nephi, even if the prophet had written in the Hebrew-using-reformed-Egyptian-characters-modified-by-his-father's-Egyptian-exposure, the underlying thoughts are Hebrew, and we must read it from the Hebraic point of view, not an Egyptian one, nor from a XIX USmerican frontier one, either.

Lehi

[diglot]

Perhaps, although it may well have been written in Hebrew first, then translated by the author (or someone close to him) into Greek.

The default position is that Jude was written in Greek, not Hebrew/Aramaic. There needs to be reasoning to postulate that it was originally written in Hebrew, but there is no reason at all to argue that it was. Certain features of the epistle would also go against this hypothesis to, e.g., the author's use of paronomasia would be nigh impossible to come up with if the Greek text was the result of a faithful translation from a Hebrew/Aramaic original.

So, whether Jude wrote in Greek or not, he thought in Aramaic or Hebrew, and we need to understand his thought, not necessarily his words. It is the same when we read the Book of Mormon. In 1 Nephi, even if the prophet had written in the Hebrew-using-reformed-Egyptian-characters-modified-by-his-father's-Egyptian-exposure, the underlying thoughts are Hebrew, and we must read it from the Hebraic point of view, not an Egyptian one, nor from a XIX USmerican frontier one, either.

I don't see, though, what any of this has to do with the fact that the author of Jude wrote the Greek word for "beloved" not "sanctified". Are you saying that the underlying Judaic idea of the Greek words ηγιασμενοις and ηγαπημενοις would be the same?

I'm still not even sure if my original point on the textual deficiency of the KJV has any bearing on the OP at all.

Edited November 2, 2011 by diglot

[wenglund]

I suspect that the current understandings of symbolism in the endowment mean something somewhat different from what most members of the Church in Joseph Smith's day were taught. Joseph's understanding of the Hebrew text cannot be overlooked. In my mind, early accounts of the endowment from journals kept by faithful Latter-day Saints suggest a willingness to be as true to the original as possible. For instance, each time we "make" a covenant, either in the temple or read about them in the scriptures, the Hebrew verb root is karat, meaning literally "to cut" or "to cut off." The Israelites metaphorically (and sometimes literally) "cut" their covenants with God. Obviously, older members of the church (pre-1990) will readily see the significance, but the vast majority are simply unaware.

That is interesting. I did not know that about the "cut" symbolism, even though I am old enough to be familiar what the likely aspect of prior versions of the temple ritual you may have in mind. I understand it even better now that brother mfbukowski has given us some viable examples.

Though it is easy to see ancient parallels everywhere, reducing everything to Joseph Smith's 1842 environment will yield far too many gaps. In my mind (and in Joseph's view), there is clearly a restoration of sorts going on here. That Joseph Smith incorporated practices from his own surroundings - I have little doubt. That he exclusively borrowed the endowment from Freemasonry and Jewish Mysticism - that I also question. I suspect I'm on safe ground by inferring that Joseph clearly incorporated ancient and modern concepts into the endowment.

One of the values to me in looking for ancient parallels even given the possible gaps, is because it provides a way for ancient Eastern minds to educate and broaden the horizons of my modern Western mind. I, as a latter-day saint, am learning a lot about the symbolism of today's temple and non-temple rituals even from ancient peoples of other faiths. My western mind isn't geared all that well to seeing, let alone interpreting, symbolism, and so it is good to learn from those whose cultures were steeped therein.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

This is totally off the wall, I know, I just wanted to throw it into the pot for fun. I have always been interested in folk music, folk magic, etc and how legends and myths get "translated" into nursery rhymes etc. Many of the usual theories for the origin of nursery rhymes are highly speculative

The officiator in the endowment represents several different "speakers" as the endowment proceeds, one of whom is Peter (Simon). I have often thought of the child's game "Simon Says" in this context, in which Simon tells the audience to do something, and as long as they do it exactly correctly, they get to stay in the game.

I know, I'm weird.

[wenglund]

Isn't this just an allusion to the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place in the Jerusalem temple, and stood before the throne of YHWH (ie, the Ark of the Covenant)? The curtain metaphor is well known in Jewish symbology...

Bill Hamblin, in an article on The Hidden Temple in John 17:

In a sense, then, the rest of the last discourse, chapters 14-17 is an answer to Thomas’ question, “where are you going?” and “what is the way there?” The answer to the question is that Christ is returning to the presence of his Father in the celestial temple, and the way there is the Christian Way, or hodos. Remember that Christianity was originally known as “the Way” in the first decades before non-Christians started calling Jesus’ followers Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26).7 The Way of Christ is the Way to the presence of the Father in the celestial temple, as is expressly stated in Hebrews 10.19-20 (cf. 9. . 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the

blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the

curtain, that is, through his flesh.

The phrase “where I am” occurs four times in the New Testament, only in John, and

always as a technical term describing Jesus’ return to the Father. (Jn. 7:34-36, 12:26, 14:3, 17:24;)

As an aside, Bill remarked:

it is worth noting that recent studies of early Jewish mysticism, known as the hêkalot tradition, also demonstrate the importance of visionary experiences of the throne of God and the celestial temple among Jews in the first few centuries after Jesus.20 From these and related texts we are now able to better understand first century Jewish ideas about the celestial temple and throne of God as a context for related early Christian concepts. If we read John 17 in this context, its temple motifs become quite significant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 2, 2011 by wenglund

[LeSellers]

The default position is that Jude was written in Greek, not Hebrew/Aramaic. There needs to be reasoning to postulate that it was originally written in Hebrew, but there is no reason at all to argue that it was. Certain features of the epistle would also go against this hypothesis to, e.g., the author's use of paronomasia would be nigh impossible to come up with if the Greek text was the result of a faithful translation from a Hebrew/Aramaic original.

A "default position" implies, at the very least, that there are alternatives.

I did supply a reason for looking at an Aramaic original, at least in thought: Jude spoke Aramaic as his maternal tongue, being raised in the some house where Jesus was. My personal examples for Italian and French versus my English were precisely to underscore that rationale: one thinks best in his native language, and Jude doesn't seem to present a counterexample.

As to whether a specific Greek word was used (in error, perhaps) as a translation for a Judaic word or concept is open for discussion by someone who at least speaks Aramaic or Hebrew (preferably both). Unfortunately I do not meet that threshold; and my Greek is hardly up to the level required, even though it's adequate to understand the New Testament.

Lehi

[diglot]

A "default position" implies, at the very least, that there are alternatives.

I did supply a reason for looking at an Aramaic original, at least in thought: Jude spoke Aramaic as his maternal tongue, being raised in the some house where Jesus was.

Jude would have also been conversant in Greek considering first-century Palestinian Jews had a double linguistic heritage.

Perhaps "default" wasn't the right word choice of my part. I did not want to imply that there are alternatives, because I don't really think there is any alternative. There is just no evidence to support such a hypothesis (e.g. extant Aramaic copies, linguistic features in the epistle that demonstrate the Greek was translated from an Aramaic original, etc). The fact that Jude would have known Aramaic is not evidence and can not be used to support the notion of an underlying Aramaic original unless there was some sort of actual evidence to go along with it.

[LeSellers]

Jude would have also been conversant in Greek considering first-century Palestinian Jews had a double linguistic heritage.

Peter wasn't fluent in Greek, according to those who compare and contrast 1 Peter with 2 Peter. Being 'conversant" and being "fluent" in a second language are not even remotely the same thing. It takes fluency to write well in a second tongue, and Peter demonstrates that in the contrast between the two epistles he produced. If he let another (possibly Mark) write the second of the two because he didn't feel (as I surmise) fluent in Greek, why not Jude?

Even if we assume (and it is merely an assumption) that Jude (and Jesus, too, they grew up in the same house) spoke Greek, one is left to ponder if his Greek was religious or secular. I have a very difficult time imagining a Rabbi teaching Torah to a bunch of Jewish children in Greek. Joseph was the one in charge of their education, so you are now forced to have him, too, speaking Greek to his children (and Stepson). It's all so improbable.

Lehi

Edited November 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

The fact that Jude would have known Aramaic is not evidence and can not be used to support the notion of an underlying Aramaic original unless there was some sort of actual evidence to go along with it.

Jude did not just "know Aramaic", it was his maternal language.

I speak French, for instance, well enough to think in it, but it gets very rusty very quickly unless I'm working in it a lot. I cannot see Jude "working" in Greek as a child, nor even as an adult. That means he was ordinarily thinking in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), not Greek. Ergo, whether he wrote or dictated the Epistle of Jude in Aramiac or Greek, he thought it in Aramaic before it appeared in Greek.

Let me ask you openly, since you have not taken the hint: do you speak any language other than English? Bilingualism is a rather difficult concept, but bilingual thought is a great deal harder, even for us who manage it. Even at my best in either Italian or French (which was very good, indeed, even compared to an average Frenchman), I always dreamed in English.

The idea of Jude's thinking in Greek is difficult although not impossible. But it is so difficult that I feel no shame at all in rejecting it.

Lehi

[KevinG]

This is totally off the wall, I know, I just wanted to throw it into the pot for fun. I have always been interested in folk music, folk magic, etc and how legends and myths get "translated" into nursery rhymes etc. Many of the usual theories for the origin of nursery rhymes are highly speculative

The officiator in the endowment represents several different "speakers" as the endowment proceeds, one of whom is Peter (Simon). I have often thought of the child's game "Simon Says" in this context, in which Simon tells the audience to do something, and as long as they do it exactly correctly, they get to stay in the game.

I know, I'm weird.

Not weird at all... Repetition and mimicking is a fantastic teaching tool for children and adults.

[diglot]

Peter wasn't fluent in Greek, according to those who compare and contrast 1 Peter with 2 Peter. Being 'conversant" and being "fluent" in a second language are not even remotely the same thing. It takes fluency to write well in a second tongue, and Peter demonstrates that in the contrast between the two epistles he produced. If he let another (possibly Mark) write the second of the two because he didn't feel (as I surmise) fluent in Greek, why not Jude?

I don't believe Peter was responsible for either of the Epistles attributed to him (well definitely not the second, and probably not the first)

Jude did not just "know Aramaic", it was his maternal language.

I speak French, for instance, well enough to think in it, but it gets very rusty very quickly unless I'm working in it a lot. I cannot see Jude "working" in Greek as a child, nor even as an adult. That means he was ordinarily thinking in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), not Greek. Ergo, whether he wrote or dictated the Epistle of Jude in Aramiac or Greek, he thought it in Aramaic before it appeared in Greek.

I am not denying that Jude (assuming he wrote the epistle) thought it in his head in Aramaic before writing it down in Greek. But that is definitely not the same thing as saying that he wrote it down in Aramaic and that we possess a Greek translation of an Aramaic original.

The idea of Jude's thinking in Greek is difficult although not impossible. But it is so difficult that I feel no shame at all in rejecting it.

I have not said that Jude thought in Greek in his head. That is completely irrelevant anyway. I responded to post #22 because I took that poster to be saying Jude was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). It simply wasn't. It was written in Greek. I did not say that the author was thinking in Greek and the writing down in Greek. I am fine with the idea that the author was thinking in Aramaic, but they were writing it down in Greek. But that is not the same as saying that the author wrote it down in Aramaic, and that we now have a Greek translation of an Aramaic original.

Edited November 3, 2011 by diglot

[volgadon]

Jude did not just "know Aramaic", it was his maternal language.

I speak French, for instance, well enough to think in it, but it gets very rusty very quickly unless I'm working in it a lot. I cannot see Jude "working" in Greek as a child, nor even as an adult. That means he was ordinarily thinking in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), not Greek. Ergo, whether he wrote or dictated the Epistle of Jude in Aramiac or Greek, he thought it in Aramaic before it appeared in Greek.

Let me ask you openly, since you have not taken the hint: do you speak any language other than English? Bilingualism is a rather difficult concept, but bilingual thought is a great deal harder, even for us who manage it. Even at my best in either Italian or French (which was very good, indeed, even compared to an average Frenchman), I always dreamed in English.

The idea of Jude's thinking in Greek is difficult although not impossible. But it is so difficult that I feel no shame at all in rejecting it.

Lehi

I grew up bilingual (Hebrew and English) and studied a third and fourth language (Russian and Ukrainian). My level of fluency in all is very high. I find myself thinking and dreaming as much in Russian as I do in Hebrew and English. In fact, it is practically effortless.

[LeSellers]

I grew up bilingual (Hebrew and English) and studied a third and fourth language (Russian and Ukrainian). My level of fluency in all is very high. I find myself thinking and dreaming as much in Russian as I do in Hebrew and English. In fact, it is practically effortless.

If your household was bilingual, I agree (I know several children who had that blessing). But there is nothing I have seen to indicate that a Jude or Jesus, living in the local carpenter's house, would have been bilingual from the cradle. Jude and his older Brother were native speakers of Aramaic, they learned Judaism in Hebrew or Aramaic. They did not grow up bi-lingually as Aramaic/Greek speakers. If you have any evidence to support such a position, I'd love to consider it.

Lehi

Edited November 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[diglot]

I grew up bilingual (Hebrew and English) and studied a third and fourth language (Russian and Ukrainian). My level of fluency in all is very high. I find myself thinking and dreaming as much in Russian as I do in Hebrew and English. In fact, it is practically effortless.

Thanks for sharing, that is quite interesting.

I am currently learning a few languages - Greek, Hebrew, German, and Coptic (though, I am primarily only learning to to read the last three). My main language focus is Greek, and my proficiency in it is far greater than my ability in the the other three, but it's nowhere near the level where I think and dream in Greek. Who knows, hopefully one day it will be.

[volgadon]

If your household was bilingual, I agree (I know several children who had that blessing). But there is nothing I have seen to indicate that a Jude or Jesus, living in the local carpenter's house, would have been bilingual from the cradle. Jude and his older Brother were native speakers of Aramaic, they learned Judaism in Hebrew or Aramaic. They did not grow up bi-lingually as Aramaic/Greek speakers. If you have any evidence to support such a position, I'd love to consider it.

Lehi

I said That I grew up as a bilingual Hebrew/English speaker and studied a third language, Russian. I find myself thinking and dreaming in that third language. I learned it when I was 21, so I certainly didn't grow up speaking it.

[Bill Hamblin]

I learn languages the old fashion way ... I fake it!

[LeSellers]

i said That I grew up as a bilingual Hebrew/English speaker and studied a third language, Russian. I find myself thinking and dreaming in that third language. I learned it when I was 21, so I certainly didn't grow up speaking it.

You are gifted. Be grateful. (I still use Italian first if I start talking to myself in a foreign language, even though my French is better. The most recent language, my mother-in-law–a PhD in linguistics–tells me, is the one people use reflexively when confronted with a non-maternal tongue.)

I'd ask if you work in Russian much, and how long, if not, it's been since you did (on your mission, I believe you said). It fades, even when working at keeping the skill/talent current and viable. Jude would have been at least 60 when he wrote the epistle we're talking about. (Given I'm 63, please recognize that this is not an "ol' geezer" accusation.)

I still maintain, absent any evidence to the contrary, that Jude was unlikely to have written his epistle as a native Greek-speaker, but that, if this were the case, he'd be highly unusual. There are too many data points showing that Jude was written by a native Greek speaker, and that Jude would not have been one, at least not with the skill seen in this letter.

But, at the very least, Jude would have been thinking in his maternal language as he wrote or dictated. That language was not Greek. At least, that's how I weigh the evidence.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

I learn languages the old fashion way ... I fake it!

I can relate.

[Bill Hamblin]

I dream in a foreign language some times--Pure Adamic!

I dreamed I was called to a Russian mission. I showed up and was the only guy without a white shirt. Then they sent me out to go tracking and I went to the Hermitage Museum instead. (I alway loved Museum tracting in Italy.)

Edited November 4, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[mfbukowski]

I dream in a foreign language some times--Pure Adamic!

I dreamed I was called to a Russian mission. I showed up and was the only guy without a white shirt. Then they sent me out to go tracking and I went to the Hermitage Museum instead. (I alway loved Museum tracting in Italy.)

That is about as close to heaven as I can imagine. Hanging around museums and sharing the gospel at the same time! Man, you can't do better than that!!

[WalkerW]

If we are talking of differences, then why isn't the veil in the LDS endowment considered as being woven of purified souls?

Wait...Our veils aren't made out of purified souls?