At Jerusalem

[inquiringmind]

In the Book of Mormon, the entire Holy Land (the Southern Kingdom, or at least that part of it that surrounds Jerusalem) seems to be identified with it's principle city (i.e. "at Jerusalem, the land of our fathers.")

i.e. Kinda like calling California, Southern California, Los Angeles County, or even just the city of Los Angeles, "The Land of Hollywood."

That seems like a perfectly natural thing for a displaced people, on a strange continent (thousands of miles away from the whole region) to do.

But I'm still wondering--is there any biblical (or old world) example of this kind of usage?

I mean is the entire Northern Kingdom ever (clearly) identified with Samaria, the land of Assyria ever clearly identified with Nineveh, or some other land (region, or country) clearly identified with some city (or smaller part of the whole)?

Edited January 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[volgadon]

There is Old World usage. Just do a search for "land of" http://www.specialtyinterests.net/eae.html Dozens of examples.

[inquiringmind]

There is Old World usage. Just do a search for "land of" http://www.specialty...ts.net/eae.html Dozens of examples.

Thank you.

P.S. How do you do a search on that site?

Is there some way to plug in keywords (like "land of"), or do you have to click on "L," and scroll down until you find "land of"?

Edited January 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[volgadon]

Thank you.

P.S. How do you do a search on that site?

Is there some way to plug in keywords (like "land of"), or do you have to click on "L," and scroll down until you find "land of"?

Ctrl f.

[ebeddoulos]

In the late 1800s, clay tablets with cuniform wtiting were discovered at Tel-Amarna, Egypt. When translated it was discovered that they were official communications between various individuals in Palestine and Egypt. They date to about 1400 b.c. and are commonly called the Amarna letters or Amarna texts. One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of “a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name”. About 1400 b.c. or a hundred years before Moses, the ruler of Jerusalem, who was subject to the Pharaoh Amenhotep, wrote a series of communications to Egypt requesting military aid.

“To the king, my Lord say: Thus Abdu-Heba [King of Jerusalem], thy servant. At the two feet of the King, my lord, seven times and seven times I fall. Behold the deed which Mikilu [King of Gezer] and Shuwardata [King of Hebron] did to the land of the king, my lord! They rushed troops of Gezer, troops of Gath, and troops of Keilah; they took Rabutu, the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the people of Keilah. Let my king hearken to Abu-Heba, thy servant, and let him send archers to recover the royal land for the king! But if there are no archers, the land of the king will pass over to the Apiru people.” (Amarna Letter EA 290, translated by William Foxwell Albright as cited in Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, “The Holy Land”, New York: Oxford University Press, [2008], pg. 230)

Modern scholarship has identified Bit-Lami as the ancient Canaanite name for Bethlehem. So even before the time of Jeremiah and definitely at the time of Moses, Bethlehem was one of the cities in the land of Jerusalem

“Bethlehem (J18) The town is first mentioned in the C14 BC when the king of Jerusalem wrote to his Egyptian overlord asking for archers to help him recover Bit-Lahmi, which had seceded from his jurisdiction, but it really enters history with the figure of David. He was born there (1 Sam. 16) to an Ephathite family who had lived there for many generations (Ruth 1-4).” (Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, “The Holy Land”, New York: Oxford University Press, [2008], pg. 229)

There are several other examples of “the land of Jerusalem” in both scripture and the archaeological record. The phrase “Land of Jerusalem” is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A fragment from the caves at Qumran, known as “Apocryphal Jeremiah” speaks of the Jews as being “…taken captive from the land of Jerusalem…”

“Jeremiah the prophet from before the LORD. [...] they were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem and went [to Babylon ... and when] Nebuzaradan the captain of the bodyguard struck [Jerusa]lem and took all the utensils of the House of God, along with the priests, [the chiefs, and] the sons of Israel and brought them to Babylon, Jeremiah the prophet went [...] the river. And he commanded them, that which they should do in the land of [their] exile. [... And they obeyed] the voice of Jeremiah, the words which God had commanded him [...] they kept the covenant of the God of their fathers in the lan[d] [of their exile ...] which they did, along with their kings, their priests, [...] God, to [...]” (Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, “The Dead Sea Scrolls A New Translation”, 4Q385, Frag. 16, Col. 1, New York, NY: HarperCollins, [1996], pg. 352)

Gleason L. Archer, professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, makes a similar point in explaining an apparent conflict in the New Testament concerning the site of the account of the “Legion”.

“As for Gadira (which is the reading in most manuscripts of Matt. 8:28 – although Washingtonensis, Family 1, Family 13 of the minuscules, and the Bohairic Coptic attest “of the Gergesenes”), it was located about eight miles southeast of the southern tip of Gennesaret; so it is entirely possible that the political control of this region was centered in Gadara as the capital city. Hence it would be called “the land of the Gadarenes,” even though Gadara itself lay south of the Yarmuk River.” (Gleason L. Archer, “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, [1982], pg. 325)

As illustrated, the phrase "land of Jerusalem" is highly plausible evidence that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be – an authentic ancient historical text with roots in the Near East.

[zerinus]

In the Book of Mormon, the entire Holy Land (the Southern Kingdom, or at least that part of it that surrounds Jerusalem) seems to be identified with it's principle city (i.e. "at Jerusalem, the land of our fathers.")

i.e. Kinda like calling California, Southern California, Los Angeles County, or even just the city of Los Angeles, "The Land of Hollywood."

That is the common explanation that is given by LDS scholars and apologists for that verse in the Book of Mormon, which is manifestly incorrect. In the Book of Mormon the terms "Jerusalem" or "land of Jerusalem" is often used to refer to all of Palestine, not just to Jerusalem and its suburbs. Here are the examples:

Mormon 3:

18 Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem.

19 And I write also unto the remnant of this people, who shall also be judged by the twelve whom Jesus chose in this land; and they shall be judged by the other twelve whom Jesus chose in the land of Jerusalem.

2 Nephi 9:

5 Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.

2 Nephi 10:

5 But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified.

Helaman 16:

18 That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; if so, and he be the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, as it has been spoken, why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem?

3 Nephi 15:

14 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.

3 Nephi 16:

4 And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, . . .

3 Nephi 17:

8 For I perceive that ye desire that I should show unto you what I have done unto your brethren at Jerusalem, for I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you.

4 Nephi 1:

31 Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all these miracles, the people did harden their hearts, and did seek to kill them, even as the Jews at Jerusalem sought to kill Jesus, according to his word.

3 Nephi 21:

26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.

In these verses the whole of the Palestinian territories (north and south) is called Jerusalem. That is like calling the whole of the United States, Washington. How do you explain that?

Edited January 30, 2012 by zerinus

[Calm]

In these verses the whole of the Palestinian territories (north and south) is called Jerusalem. That is like calling the whole of the United States, Washington. How do you explain that?

Is this not what inquiring mind stated?

In the Book of Mormon, the entire Holy Land (the Southern Kingdom, or at least that part of it that surrounds Jerusalem) seems to be identified with it's principle city (i.e. "at Jerusalem, the land of our fathers.")

[zerinus]

Is this not what inquiring mind stated?

If you read it in the context of the rest of his post, it is not very clear what he said or understood. There seems to be some confusion in his mind about the meaning of the verse, or how it is interpreted and understood in the Church.

[volgadon]

That is the common explanation that is given by LDS scholars and apologists for that verse in the Book of Mormon, which is manifestly incorrect. In the Book of Mormon the terms "Jerusalem" or "land of Jerusalem" is often used to refer to all of Palestine, not just to Jerusalem and its suburbs. Here are the examples:

Not manifestly incorrect. WHat appears to have happened is that Nephite usage subsequent to Nephi expanded the term to mean all of the land of Israel.

[zerinus]

Not manifestly incorrect. WHat appears to have happened is that Nephite usage subsequent to Nephi expanded the term to mean all of the land of Israel.

You need to make up your mind how you are going to explain the meaning of that verse. One explanation (favored by LDS scholars, generally speaking) is that "at Jerusalem ... the land of our forefathers" is basically a Hebrew idiom, meaning Jerusalem and its suburbs, wide enough to include Bethlehem. The other explanation is totally unrelated to that, and relates to how the word evolved within Nephite culture, as traced within the Book of Mormon itself, quite unrelated to any such "idiomatic" usage of the phrase in Hebrew, real or imaginary. The way the word is used throughout the Book of Mormon, however, favors the latter explanation, rather than the former. It is an either/or situation, not a combination of the two.

[Calm]

It is an either/or situation, not a combination of the two.

Why?

[volgadon]

You need to make up your mind how you are going to explain the meaning of that verse. One explanation (favored by LDS scholars, generally speaking) is that "at Jerusalem ... the land of our forefathers" is basically a Hebrew idiom, meaning Jerusalem and its suburbs, wide enough to include Bethlehem. The other explanation is totally unrelated to that, and relates to how the word evolved within Nephite culture, as traced within the Book of Mormon itself, quite unrelated to any such "idiomatic" usage of the phrase in Hebrew, real or imaginary. The way the word is used throughout the Book of Mormon, however, favors the latter explanation, rather than the former. It is an either/or situation, not a combination of the two.

I'll be more than happy to go over every appearance of the idiom and we can see if it is as global as you would make it.

Why?

Because Zerinus favours an 'all or bust' approach.

[zerinus]

Why?

Because that is how the context of the Book of Mormon presents it to be.

[JAHS]

Speaking of Bethlehem being within the land of Jeruselam is consistant with how Nephites refered to cities in their own country:

"And it came to pass that Amalickiah marched with his armies to the land of Nephi, to the city of Nephi, which was the chief city."(Alma 47:20)

Here the armies marched to the city of Nephi which was the chief city within the Land of Nephi; suggesting of course that there were other cities within the land of Nephi.

"And it came to pass that Moroni had thus gained a victory over one of the greatest of the armies of the Lamanites, and had obtained possession of the city of Mulek, which was one of the strongest holds of the Lamanites in the land of Nephi; and thus he had also built a stronghold to retain his prisoners.(Alma 53:6)

Here it talks about the city of Mulek being in the Land of Nephi.

This also happens within the Bible where it says, for example, that "king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee." (1 Kings 9:11,26, See also Gen 33:18, 2 Kings 23:33, 1 Chron. 2:22, 6:55)

[rodheadlee]

In the Book of Mormon, the entire Holy Land (the Southern Kingdom, or at least that part of it that surrounds Jerusalem) seems to be identified with it's principle city (i.e. "at Jerusalem, the land of our fathers.")

i.e. Kinda like calling California, Southern California, Los Angeles County, or even just the city of Los Angeles, "The Land of Hollywood."

That seems like a perfectly natural thing for a displaced people, on a strange continent (thousands of miles away from the whole region) to do.

But I'm still wondering--is there any biblical (or old world) example of this kind of usage?

I mean is the entire Northern Kingdom ever (clearly) identified with Samaria, the land of Assyria ever clearly identified with Nineveh, or some other land (region, or country) clearly identified with some city (or smaller part of the whole)?

You have it backwards. everything near Los Angeles is called L.A. If you live in San Pedro, Inglewood, Compton, or a host of other districts or even cities near L.A. to people not from the region you simply say you live in L.A. The locals will differentiate between the districts/cites for various reasons. You can live in the Valley, or the South Bay or West L.A. or Hollywood or the Hills or the Peninsula or The County (Orange County) or South County or even the Inland Empire (Riverside, San Bernadino) and you still live in L.A. to outsiders.

[thesometimesaint]

Just depends on whom I'm talking to as to how specific I get as to where I live. Telling my towns' name to someone outside of California would more than likely would not mean a thing to them. But if I tell them just east of LA. They get the general idea.