Words Ending In -On

[Olavarria]

. Edited December 22, 2011 by Olavarria

[zerinus]

.

That is a kind of “musical recitation” of the Koran, known in Arabic as the tajweed, which forms an optional part of the Islamic worship. It is equivalent to what is known as the reading in Christian liturgy, where a short passage of the Bible is read by a reader (or what in Roman Catholicism is called a lector) during a church service—except that in Islam it has been turned into a fine art, with strict rules governing its application. And the Koran of course lends itself well to that kind of treatment. There are several recitation schools, and it is a matter of personal choice which one you like best.

By the way, there are several very good Koran apps for the iPhone and Android which include the text of the Koran in many different calligraphic styles, many well-known translations (into English and other languages), and also many different vocalizations or recitations. And they are generally free.

Edited December 22, 2011 by zerinus

[Olavarria]

That is a kind of “musical recitation” of the Koran, known in Arabic as the tajweed, which forms an optional part of the Islamic worship. It is equivalent to what is known as the reading in Christian liturgy, where a short passage of the Bible is read by a reader (or what in Roman Catholicism is called a lector) during a church service—except that in Islam it has been turned into a fine art, with strict rules governing its application. And the Koran of course lends itself well to that kind of treatment. There are several recitation schools, and it is a matter of personal choice which one you like best.

By the way, there are several very good Koran apps for the iPhone and Android which include the text of the Koran in many different calligraphic styles, many well-known translations (into English and other languages), and also many different vocalizations or recitations. And they are generally free.

How do you know so much about Islam?

[zerinus]

How do you know so much about Islam?

That would be telling then, wouldn't it. I am a secret Muslim infiltrater into Mormonism, kind of like an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, ready to be awakened at any moment to cause mayhem on message boards on the Internet!

[volgadon]

I think you are giving way to your Evangelical anti-Muslim prejudices, rather than assessing the subject in a proper, sober-minded, historical way.

Why don't we assess the subject in a "proper, sober-minded, historical way."

We can start with one example. During the 12th c. the Jewish communities of Morocco were devastated by waves of forced conversions to Islam. The majority of these communities took the path of conversion rather than matyrdom, which perhaps is why these conversions haven't captured the popular imagination. After their conversion they were further humiliated by having to wear distinctive clothing.

Edited December 23, 2011 by volgadon

[Robert F. Smith]

Native Arabic speakers and their scholars, who ought to know better, don't agree with that assessment (including Mohamed's own contemporaries). The Koran does not fit into any of the traditional poetic verse forms of ancient Arabic. It is entirely unique, and is best described as a poetic prose. It doesn't fit into any of the Arabic poetic stanzas, with fixed lines, meters, and rhymes. It is nothing like that at all. It is something completely unique, and something that has never been imitated, equalled, or surpassed. And you can't produce great literature, especially poetic literature, if you are illiterate. That claim is false.

The greatest epic poetry (the Iliad and Odyssey, the Kalevala, etc.) has always been composed by illiterate, oral poets. Illiteracy was a great advantage for them, and doesn't mean that they were ignorant. Homer was blind, and, like Muhammad, he recited his poetry. In fact, Qur'an means "Recitation." Only later were such oral compositions written down -- Socrates & Plato remarking that the invention of writing would destroy memory.

Scholars are certainly aware of the style in which the Qur'an is composed (see James Kritzeck, Anthology of Islamic Literature, 24), and to get an idea of what that style is I highly recommend a look at Michael Sells, Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations (White Cloud Press, 1999), which includes a CD with actual recitations from the Qur'an in both tartil and tajwid styles. Even to those not trained in Arabic, the beautiful sound-vision qualities are apparent. Muslims are justifiably proud of it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Olavarria,

It's probably worth considering that anyone well read in the Old Testament would be familiar with at least one biblical name very similar to Jershon, namely, Gershon (mentioned 14 times in Numbers and 4 times in Joshua and 1 Chronicles). If one pronounces the G soft the name Gershon would be pronounced in English exactly the same as Jershon. It is extremely plausible to think that Jershon is simply an alternate spelling of Gershon.

Sounds plausible enough.

On the other hand, in Orson Pratt's Deseret Alphabet edition of the Book of Mormon (which is a fully phonetic production), all instances of initial "G" on proper names are rendered with velar plosive /g/ rather than palatal fricative /j/. That is about as close as we can get to the likely pronounciation of Joseph and his scribes.

Another thing: I have compared the rendering of three separate Hebrew translations of the Book of Mormon, and all render initial "G" with gimmel, except for Gomorrah (which, as you know, starts with an 'ayin).

However, in the case of words like Jared, Jacob, and Jershon, the two translators who clearly don't know biblical Hebrew, use a palatal fricative /j/ (a special modern Hebrew sign is used), instead of the yod used by the expert translator in those cases (Yared, Ya'qum, and Yershon), and he even understands the word-play with yarash "to inherit."

We might have suspected as much based on the biblical name Yerushsha (Jerusha in 2 Kings 15:33), "Inheritance, Possession," which also appears as a Hebrew common noun elsewhere with the same meaning.

So, although your point is well taken, it is not the end of the matter, and an equally plausible scenario can be used to argue that the name Jershon is authentic Hebrew - including punning within the text.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[zerinus]

The greatest epic poetry (the Iliad and Odyssey, the Kalevala, etc.) has always been composed by illiterate, oral poets. Illiteracy was a great advantage for them, and doesn't mean that they were ignorant. Homer was blind, and, like Muhammad, he recited his poetry. In fact, Qur'an means "Recitation." Only later were such oral compositions written down -- Socrates & Plato remarking that the invention of writing would destroy memory.

While it is true that gifted people in primitive societies have been known to be able to compose moderate verse, great poetry has never been known to have been produced by an illiterate person. As regards the Iliad and Odyssey, enough is not known about how, when, and by whom they were composed for anyone to be able to say with certainty that they were composed by an illiterate person. Those who have made such claims have been speculating, as shown in the following extract:

The Homeric question is essentially the question of the identity of the poet(s) of the Homeric epics, and the nature of the relationship between "Homer" and the epics. In the 19th century it came to be the fulcrum between two opposed schools of thought, the Analysts and the Unitarians. The issue came about in the context of 18th-century Romantic interest in popular lays and folktale, and the growing recognition that the Homeric epics must have been transmitted orally before being written down, possibly much later than "Homer" himself. The Italian philosopher Vico argued that the epics were the products not of an individual genius poet but rather the cultural products of an entire people; and Wood’s 1769 Essay on the Original Genius and Writings of Homer argued emphatically that Homer had been illiterate and the epics had been transmitted orally. (Less fortunately, Wood drew parallels between Homer and the poetry of the supposed Scottish oral poet Ossian, published by James Macpherson in 1765; Ossian turned out later to have been wholly invented by Macpherson.) Source.

This is speculation, not conclusive evidence. Where real evidence exists, it has never been known for truly world-class great poetry to have been written or composed by an illiterate person. The great Persian mystic poet Rumi, who composed the greatest mystic poem of all time, didn't write them down himself. He dictated them, and other people wrote them down. But he wasn't illiterate. He needed to have been extremely well-read to have been able to compose what he composed.

Scholars are certainly aware of the style in which the Qur'an is composed (see James Kritzeck, Anthology of Islamic Literature, 24), and to get an idea of what that style is I highly recommend a look at Michael Sells, Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations (White Cloud Press, 1999), which includes a CD with actual recitations from the Qur'an in both tartil and tajwid styles. Even to those not trained in Arabic, the beautiful sound-vision qualities are apparent. Muslims are justifiably proud of it.

I don't really know what you are talking about to be honest, and I doubt if you do either. I don't think you have read those books you are recommending me to read. Here is a good article which you might like to read about the literary style of the Koran.

[volgadon]

Border ballads, Cossack songs, and the poetry of the Caucasus should be enough to show that Zerinus is making hollow assertions.

[Robert F. Smith]

While it is true that gifted people in primitive societies have been known to be able to compose moderate verse, great poetry has never been known to have been produced by an illiterate person. As regards the Iliad and Odyssey, enough is not known about how, when, and by whom they were composed for anyone to be able to say with certainty that they were composed by an illiterate person. Those who have made such claims have been speculating, as shown in the following extract:

This is speculation, not conclusive evidence. Where real evidence exists, it has never been known for truly world-class great poetry to have been written or composed by an illiterate person. The great Persian mystic poet Rumi, who composed the greatest mystic poem of all time, didn't write them down himself. He dictated them, and other people wrote them down. But he wasn't illiterate. He needed to have been extremely well-read to have been able to compose what he composed.

Perhaps you are confusing "illiteracy" with ignorance and lack of high culture. Being literate involves being able to read and write. It has nothing to do with knowing the great stories and poetry of one's culture. What do you imagine Muhammad did while on those long trading journeys before he became a prophet? He sat around the campfire and heard oral stories, perhaps even including the poetry of Labid and Zuhair from a local minstrel. The kahin of his clan and others no doubt recited oracles in that same style which later became central to the Qur'an.

I don't really know what you are talking about to be honest, and I doubt if you do either. I don't think you have read those books you are recommending me to read. Here is a good article which you might like to read about the literary style of the Koran.

You might want to discuss these matters with one of my former teachers at UCLA, Imam Jihad Turk, Director of Religious Affairs, Islamic Center of Los Angeles, in order to ascertain just what sort of requirements he has for the classes he teaches in Islamic history and in Arabic language (he recommended Sells' book). You can read about him at http://articles.lati...had29-2009nov29 .

I am well aware that many Muslims make the inimitability of the Qur'an an article of faith, and they have much going for them. However, the notion that Muhammad functioned in a vacuum is absurd.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[zerinus]

Perhaps you are confusing "illiteracy" with ignorance and lack of high culture. Being literate involves being able to read and write. It has nothing to do with knowing the great stories and poetry of one's culture. What do you imagine Muhammad did while on those long trading journeys before he became a prophet? He sat around the campfire and heard oral stories, perhaps even including the poetry of Labid and Zuhair from a local minstrel. The kahin of his clan and others no doubt recited oracles in that same style which later became central to the Qur'an.

You might want to discuss these matters with one of my former teachers at UCLA, Imam Jihad Turk, Director of Religious Affairs, Islamic Center of Los Angeles, in order to ascertain just what sort of requirements he has for the classes he teaches in Islamic history and in Arabic language (he recommended Sells' book). You can read about him at http://articles.lati...had29-2009nov29 .

I am well aware that many Muslims make the inimitability of the Qur'an an article of faith, and they have much going for them. However, the notion that Muhammad functioned in a vacuum is absurd.

I think you are missing the point of the debate. The point is that it was as impossible for Mohamed to have produced a work of literature such as the Koran, as it was for Joseph Smith to have produced a work of literature such as the Book of Mormon--and this is attested by the claimed divine source of both revelators.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think you are missing the point of the debate. The point is that it was as impossible for Mohamed to have produced a work of literature such as the Koran, as it was for Joseph Smith to have produced a work of literature such as the Book of Mormon--and this is attested by the claimed divine source of both revelators.

The point is that whether we speak of revelation to Joseph or to Muhammad, we are still going to have to deal with the language actually used by both of them. God does not speak to people in a way foreign to their language or culture, and there is no reason why He should.

[Prufrocks]

...I have compared the rendering of three separate Hebrew translations of the Book of Mormon...

Nine or ten years ago I was in the basement of the Joseph Smith Building looking for an official Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon and was told there wasn't one because of some sort of formal agreement with Israel. I was puzzled and doubtful and after talking to several people finally found one who said that really wasn't the case. I was surprised and delighted when they initiated a call for me to Apostle Hale (or maybe it was Haight... the names sounded sort of familiar), who was the Authority apparently in charge of translations at the time. He told me that there was no such agreement with Israel. He told me the Church had attempted a translation but had run into difficulties and never completed it. Since a Hebrew Book of Mormon would presumably be of most interest to Jews, I asked him if the difficulty might be related to rendering the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon back into Hebrew, particularly Isaiah 7. He seemed a little confused or at least hesitant and after a short pause said simply that he didn't know. I thanked him and that was the end of the conversation.

Are you able to shed any light? I've seen one unofficial translation by a private person, but not an official translation authorized by the Church.

[zerinus]

The point is that whether we speak of revelation to Joseph or to Muhammad, we are still going to have to deal with the language actually used by both of them. God does not speak to people in a way foreign to their language or culture, and there is no reason why He should.

What has that got to do with anything, or how does it contradict what I said or didn't say?

[volgadon]

Nine or ten years ago I was in the basement of the Joseph Smith Building looking for an official Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon and was told there wasn't one because of some sort of formal agreement with Israel. I was puzzled and doubtful and after talking to several people finally found one who said that really wasn't the case. I was surprised and delighted when they initiated a call for me to Apostle Hale (or maybe it was Haight... the names sounded sort of familiar), who was the Authority apparently in charge of translations at the time. He told me that there was no such agreement with Israel. He told me the Church had attempted a translation but had run into difficulties and never completed it. Since a Hebrew Book of Mormon would presumably be of most interest to Jews, I asked him if the difficulty might be related to rendering the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon back into Hebrew, particularly Isaiah 7. He seemed a little confused or at least hesitant and after a short pause said simply that he didn't know. I thanked him and that was the end of the conversation.

Are you able to shed any light? I've seen one unofficial translation by a private person, but not an official translation authorized by the Church.

There isn't an official translation, just a crappy one by a fellow-Israeli who used it as leverage to get a teaching position at BYU for a while. There isn't an agreement against translating the BoM but against distributing it, and it might be an informal agreement as the church is strict in upholding its side.

I fail to see how the Isaiah chapters would pose any translation difficulties seeing that there are only a few passages with significant changes.

[zerinus]

I am also a bit disappointed that no serious attempt has been made yet to translate the Book of Mormon into Hebrew. I wonder if anyone has attempted to make a computerised translation, and see how that works out? I think that would be a fun project to try.

[Prufrocks]

I fail to see how the Isaiah chapters would pose any translation difficulties seeing that there are only a few passages with significant changes.

I'm wondering if the difficulty Apostle Hales or Haight(?) seemed hesitant to acknowledge was not so much the translation itself but, perhaps, how it would be used. A Hebrew translation I'm guessing would be intended for Hebrew-speaking Jews, very possibly knowledgeable in both the Hebrew Tanakh and Christian missionary efforts arguing Isa 7:14 being both messianic and referring to a virginal conception. A Hebrew Book of Mormon, with mutliple references to a virgin-born messiah ultimately rooted in Isaiah 7:14, would be DOA for many and perhaps most Hebrew-speaking Jews. And instantly exploited by knowledgeable Jews for having Christian theology in the mouths of Hebrews, arguably 600 years before it was even invented by Matthew and Luke (and ignored by Paul, Mark, John and the remaining New Testament.) Although Mormons consider the rock of the virgin-born messiah within the Book of Mormon to confirm Matt & Lukes birth narratives as literal, the Brethren were perhaps aware that it would, understandably, be a huge red flag for Hebrew-speaking Jews. Not even in the Septuagint, as far as I can tell, was 7:14 and 'almah ever understood by Judaism to be either messianic or refer to a virginal conception nor valid to be used non-contextually for that purpose. I also get the impression that within Septuagint, Isaiah is a much more problematic and difficult text and translation than was Torah. Judaism even now has very active strands of anti-Christian missionary efforts, all of which include Isa 7:14 along with many others. I would personally sympathize with that view by Jews. In any case, I suspect Jews coming into Mormonism will always be a minimal, fringe enterprise regardless. Even more so than evangelical, so-called Messianic Jews. Anyway, I've puzzled a bit over the absence of an official, Church Hebrew Book of Mormon. No big deal.

[volgadon]

I'm wondering if the difficulty Apostle Hales or Haight(?) seemed hesitant to acknowledge was not so much the translation itself but, perhaps, how it would be used. A Hebrew translation I'm guessing would be intended for Hebrew-speaking Jews, very possibly knowledgeable in both the Hebrew Tanakh and Christian missionary efforts arguing Isa 7:14 being both messianic and referring to a virginal conception. A Hebrew Book of Mormon, with mutliple references to a virgin-born messiah ultimately rooted in Isaiah 7:14, would be DOA for many and perhaps most Hebrew-speaking Jews. And instantly exploited by knowledgeable Jews for having Christian theology in the mouths of Hebrews, arguably 600 years before it was even invented by Matthew and Luke (and ignored by Paul, Mark, John and the remaining New Testament.) Although Mormons consider the rock of the virgin-born messiah within the Book of Mormon to confirm Matt & Lukes birth narratives as literal, the Brethren were perhaps aware that it would, understandably, be a huge red flag for Hebrew-speaking Jews. Not even in the Septuagint, as far as I can tell, was 7:14 and 'almah ever understood by Judaism to be either messianic or refer to a virginal conception nor valid to be used non-contextually for that purpose. I also get the impression that within Septuagint, Isaiah is a much more problematic and difficult text and translation than was Torah. Judaism even now has very active strands of anti-Christian missionary efforts, all of which include Isa 7:14 along with many others. I would personally sympathize with that view by Jews. In any case, I suspect Jews coming into Mormonism will always be a minimal, fringe enterprise regardless. Even more so than evangelical, so-called Messianic Jews. Anyway, I've puzzled a bit over the absence of an official, Church Hebrew Book of Mormon. No big deal.

Looking at it that way, don't you think that the BoM has bigger problems than Isa. 7:14? After all, the entire premise is that a group of Jews accepted Jesus as messiah 600 years before his birth. Interpretations of Isa. 7:14 would be a minor matter in comparison.

As for almah, if you look at the typical Jewish medieval exegesis of this verse- such as ibn Janah's- they are forced to concede that the word can mean either a sexually active woman or a virgin as it refers to age. They of course base their defense of the term as a sexually active woman on the verse about the ways of a man with a maid.

Since there are no plans in the forseeable future for the church in Israel to drop its no proseletysing position what is the point in expending a lot of time, money and effort into the venture, particularly as it would raise suspicions in certain quarters.

Edited January 3, 2012 by volgadon

[Prufrocks]

Looking at it that way, don't you think that the BoM has bigger problems than Isa. 7:14? After all, the entire premise is that a group of Jews accepted Jesus as messiah 600 years before his birth. Interpretations of Isa. 7:14 would be a minor matter in comparison.

As for almah, if you look at the typical Jewish medieval exegesis of this verse- such as ibn Janah's- they are forced to concede that the word can mean either a sexually active woman or a virgin as it refers to age. They of course base their defense of the term as a sexually active woman on the verse about the ways of a man with a maid.

Since there are no plans in the forseeable future for the church in Israel to drop its no proseletysing position what is the point in expending a lot of time, money and effort into the venture, particularly as it would raise suspicions in certain quarters.

[volgadon]

Were you posting a response or just quoting me for the fun of it?

[Robert F. Smith]

I am also a bit disappointed that no serious attempt has been made yet to translate the Book of Mormon into Hebrew. I wonder if anyone has attempted to make a computerised translation, and see how that works out? I think that would be a fun project to try.

Actually, there have been several efforts to translate the Book of Mormon into Hebrew, at least two (perhaps three) of which were completed. However, since you use the word "serious," I probably ought to say that none has been successful in the sense of being a professional job. All were done by non-scholars and have had flawed rendering of various biblical phrases -- an artifact of reckless use of modern Hebrew. The best of these flawed translations was done in the early 20th century by a Jewish convert to Mormonism. He not only knew something of the Bible, but he also had professional scribal skills (presenting the text in beautiful Hebrew square letters [like a Tora scroll], and notes in Rashi script).

[zerinus]

Actually, there have been several efforts to translate the Book of Mormon into Hebrew, at least two (perhaps three) of which were completed. However, since you use the word "serious," I probably ought to say that none has been successful in the sense of being a professional job. All were done by non-scholars and have had flawed rendering of various biblical phrases -- an artifact of reckless use of modern Hebrew. The best of these flawed translations was done in the early 20th century by a Jewish convert to Mormonism. He not only knew something of the Bible, but he also had professional scribal skills (presenting the text in beautiful Hebrew square letters [like a Tora scroll], and notes in Rashi script).

Thank you for the interesting info. I guess we will have to wait "till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim" (Ezra 2:63) to get our hands on a decent translation of the Book of Mormon into proper biblical Hebrew!

[Prufrocks]

Looking at it that way, don't you think that may well bthe BoM has bigger problems than Isa. 7:14? After all, the entire premise is that a group of Jews accepted Jesus as messiah 600 years before his birth. Interpretations of Isa. 7:14 would be a minor matter in comparison.

As for almah, if you look at the typical Jewish medieval exegesis of this verse- such as ibn Janah's- they are forced to concede that the word can mean either a sexually active woman or a virgin as it refers to age. They of course base their defense of the term as a sexually active woman on the verse about the ways of a man with a maid.

Since there are no plans in the forseeable future for the church in Israel to drop its no proseletysing position what is the point in expending a lot of time, money and effort into the venture, particularly as it would raise suspicions in certain quarters.

Admittedly there are issues in the text and the story of the BOM that may well be as large or larger for Jews than Isa 7:14.  But my question related specifically to what was said to me to be an official Mormon "difficulty" in producing an official Church translation of the BOM into Hebrew. The question was whether that "difficulty" might be related to Isaiah 7:14 and in producing a Hebrew BOM that would not contain a huge red flag rooted in Hebrew scripture itself: what is, arguably, a rather idiosyncratic Christian use of an early, suboptimal or quirky Greek translation from the original Hebrew. In my few conversations with Jews, most readily admit that the 'almah known to both Isaiah and Ahaz WAS, INDEED, almost certainly a virgin at the time Isaiah referred to her in his prophecy. They also seem to make a reasonable argument that the sign of the prophecy is not verse 14 at all, but verses 15 and 16. And that the conception Isaiah referred to was just ordinary regardless of how the Septuagint introduced wording subject to interpretation. My interest is not to debate whether there was a reference to or an actual virginal conception. The question was whether that might be the source of the "difficulty" in producing an acceptable, official Mormon translation into Hebrew.

    Rather ignorant on the subject myself, my first guess was that it would be a rather straightforward translation. I was surprised to find that there was none, and at the explanation from an Apostle that there had been "difficulty" in producing one. The remaining non-Isaiah portion of the BOM is what it is, and it's translation into Hebrew I wouldn't imagine to be any more of a "difficulty" than the text and story itself. That's all.

[volgadon]

The difficulty refered to was probably the fact that not only was the translator inept, there were political difficulties in the 80s. Your Isaiah theory isn't a difficulty in translation, and I've already explained that there are bigger issues theologically-wise for Jews.

[Shelama]

The difficulty refered to was probably the fact that not only was the translator inept, there were political difficulties in the 80s. Your Isaiah theory isn't a difficulty in translation, and I've already explained that there are bigger issues theologically-wise for Jews.

I was unaware that the "difficulty" for the Church to produce a translation of the Book of Mormon into Hebrew occurred in the 80s. It's possible, of course, that there exists only one translator and that he/she is inept. The bigger theological problems were acknowledged, and I agree completely, but they'd seem to not have anything to do with "difficulty in translation." Or maybe they actually do?

What I was wondering about was translating a KJV Isaiah in the Book of Mormon back into a Hebrew text that knowledgeable Jews wouldn't laugh at. Or, are their ancient Hebrew Isaiah mss. in which the young maiden is specifically referred to as a virgin as the primary attribute and referring to her state at the time of conception?</p>

You and your sock puppet are leaving the board.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Minos