The City Of Judea?

[inquiringmind]

I just finished reading Alma 56, and I have a question that's bothering me.

(I've learned that when I come up with a question like this, it usually has an answer, but that doesn't keep this from bothering me right now.)

If Lehi and family arrived here in the new world in the 6th century B.C., and their children (the Nephites and the Lamanites) had no contact with Greco/Roman civilization, how could there be a new world city named "Judea"?

Judea was a Roman province, and I always thought the name was a Hellenization of "Judah."

Without knowing of the Roman province (and without any Greek influence on their language), why would the Nephites or the Lamanites name a city "Judea"?

Can anyone help me here?

Edited January 31, 2012 by inquiringmind

[volgadon]

Why then Judah and not Yehudah?

[inquiringmind]

Why then Judah and not Yehudah?

I don't know.

But is Judea (or Yehudea?) the Hellenized form of Judah (or Yehudah)?

And how would this Hellenized form have gotten into the BOM (or the English manuscript that a voice from heaven said was translated correctly)?

I guess Judah is an Anglicized form of Yehuda (and maybe that's your point?), but Joseph was writing in English, and that form would have been known to his readers (from the English Bible.)

Why go with "Judea" (a Hellenized form not used in the Old Testament, and the name of a Roman province that didn't exist when the Lehites left Jerusalem) when translating the name of a city?

Edited January 31, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know.

But is Judea (or Yehudea?) the Hellenized form of Judah (or Yehudah)?

And how would this Hellenized form have gotten into the BOM (or the English manuscript that a voice from heaven said was translated correctly)?

I guess Judah is an Anglicized form of Yehuda (and maybe that's your point?), but Joseph was writing in English, and that form would have been known to his readers (from the English Bible.)

Why go with "Judea" (a Hellenized form not used in the Old Testament, and the name of a Roman province that didn't exist when the Lehites left Jerusalem) when translating the name of a city?

I'm guessing too, but it seems to me that the Hellenized form Judea (the Latin form is Judaea) is used for the Nephite city, while Judah is used exclusively for the 5 types of Old World references in the Book of Mormon. This makes it easier to differentiate them. Both of those forms are English usage forms quite unlike the original Hebrew Yehuda. There does not seem to be any scientific method of transliteration used for Book of Mormon words of foreign origin, and Joseph & Oliver were not experts in linguistics. Just ordinary guys doing the best they could.

[inquiringmind]

I've found the FAIR website helpful in answering questions like this in the past, so I tried Googling "FAIRMORMON 'city of Judea" but didn't really find anything there.

After that, I tried Googling keywords like "book of Mormon, City of Judea, and Anachronism," and found this.

The name "Jonas" is mentioned several times 3 Nephi 19:4. But Jonas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Jonah," and it would not have been known, let alone used by the Book of Mormon people.

Judea

Alma 56:9 and 15 mention the Nephite city of Judea. But Judea is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, "Judah."

Archeantus

The Greek prefix "arch" means great or chief, and is used in Greek names. Jewish and Egyptian names and words do not make use of that prefix, as it is foreign to their language, yet Moroni 9:2 talks about a Nephite commander named Archeantus. The Book of Mormon people had not had any exposure to the Greeks or to their influence, and would not have made use of a name such as this.

Timothy

3 Nephi 19:4 mentions the name "Timothy." But this is a Greek name derived from Timotheus, and it would have been unknown to the Book of Mormon people.

http://bibtruth.com/bomx3.html

This is from an anti-Mormon site, but what is the answer to the points they raise here?

If "The Book of Mormon people" didn't have "any exposure to the Greeks or to their influence" how can these things be explained?

Edited February 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[volgadon]

If "The Book of Mormon people" didn't have "any exposure to the Greeks or to their influence" how can these things be explained?

Who says they didnt? I have a blogpost on this.

[inquiringmind]

Who says they didnt? I have a blogpost on this.

Could you direct me to that blog post?

Also, how would that help explain a Nephite city named "Judea"'?

Could the Nephites have had trans-Atlantic contact with the Greeks, or with their own countrymen, learned of the new name given their homeland, and named a city after it?

And did Joseph (when working from the reformed Egyptian on the gold plates, and using the interpreters buried with them) correctly see "Judea" as the name of the city?

Was this the actual phonetic sound of the name the Nephites gave the city, and does it actually have some historical connection to the Hellenized name the Greeks and Romans gave "Judah"?

(I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but something about this really confuses me.)

Please help me understand what you're saying.

Edited February 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[BCSpace]

If Lehi and family arrived here in the new world in the 6th century B.C., and their children (the Nephites and the Lamanites) had no contact with Greco/Roman civilization, how could there be a new world city named "Judea"?

The Aramaic "Yĕhuwd" is found in Ezra 5:8, which is only 200 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. Also Daniel 2:25, 5:13, 6:14 which is right at about the time of Lehi but translated differently. And also Joshua 19:45 which is 900 years before Lehi. This includes the names of cities/provinces.

So I don't find it unreasonable to suppose that such a term would have found it's way into the BoM context. I also don't find it unreasonable to suppose that in the BoM translation process, it came out similar to how it ultimately came out in the KJV especially because the origin is probably the same.

[inquiringmind]

The Aramaic "Yĕhuwd" is found in Ezra 5:8, which is only 200 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. Also Daniel 2:25, 5:13, 6:14 which is right at about the time of Lehi but translated differently. And also Joshua 19:45 which is 900 years before Lehi. This includes the names of cities/provinces.

But what does the Aramaic "Yĕhuwd"" (which, if anything, is closer to the Hebrew "Yehudah," or Judah) have to do with the Greek "Judea"?

So I don't find it unreasonable to suppose that such a term would have found it's way into the BoM context. I also don't find it unreasonable to suppose that in the BoM translation process, it came out similar to how it ultimately came out in the KJV especially because the origin is probably the same.

But the Old Testament place name is "Judah," not "Judea."

"Judea" is what the Greeks and Romans called "Judah," so how would a Nephite city have gotten that name?

Edited February 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[BCSpace]

What does "Yĕhuwd"" have to do with "Judea" (as opposed to "Judah")?

That's the word translated as Judea in Ezra.

But the Old Testament place name is "Judah," not "Judea.

Doesn't matter. Comes from Yĕhuwd in those same verses. I have proven that something like Yĕhuwd could have been on the plates and, recalling that the BoM is a translation (a fact critics often forget), it is not unreasonable to suppose that the term was translated into something recognizable like Judea which has the same origins in the Bible.

Edited February 1, 2012 by BCSpace

[inquiringmind]

That's the word translated as Judea in Ezra.

Doesn't matter. Comes from Yĕhuwd in those same verses. I have proven that something like Yĕhuwd could have been on the plates and, recalling that the BoM is a translation (a fact critics often forget), it is not unreasonable to suppose that the term was translated into something recognizable like Judea which has the same origins in the Bible.

Why doesn't it matter?

The Aramaic "Yĕhuwd"" is closer to the Hebrew "Yehudah" (or Judah) than the Greek "Judea."

If "Yĕhuwd" was the name of the Nephite city, why not translate it "The City of Judah"?

Why "The City of Judea"?

Because the English translators of the KJV chose the Greek name of a Roman province that existed in the time of Jesus?

A Roman province the Nephites would have never heard of?

Edited February 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[BCSpace]

A Roman province the Nephites would have never heard of?

But a name English readers would be familar with. Checkmate.

The Aramaic "Yĕhuwd"" is closer to the Hebrew "Yehudah" (or Judah) than the Greek "Judea."

If "Yĕhuwd" was the name of the Nephite city, why not translate it "The City of Judah"?

All the same thing. That's why it doesn't matter.

Edited February 1, 2012 by BCSpace

[Bond...James Bond]

I just finished reading Alma 56, and I have a question that's bothering me.

(I've learned that when I come up with a question like this, it usually has an answer, but that doesn't keep this from bothering me right now.)

If Lehi and family arrived here in the new world in the 6th century B.C., and their children (the Nephites and the Lamanites) had no contact with Greco/Roman civilization, how could there be a new world city named "Judea"?

Judea was a Roman province, and I always thought the name was a Hellenization of "Judah."

Without knowing of the Roman province (and without any Greek influence on their language), why would the Nephites or the Lamanites name a city "Judea"?

Can anyone help me here?

Maybe Jews did not sail to America in the 6th century B.C.E and the Book of Mormon isn't historically accurate and was a creation of the mind of Joseph Smith. Maybe? Nah...

[inquiringmind]

But a name English readers would be familar with.

English readers would be no more familiar with "Judea" than "Judah," so the question is still the same.

Why would a people separated from the Holy Land centuries before the Greeks changed the pronunciation of "Judah" to ""Judea" name a city "Judea"?

All the same thing. That's why it doesn't matter.

Same question.

If it doesn't matter, why is the name of the city translated "Judea," and not "Judah"?

When Nephi quoted Ezekiel, he spoke of "the stick of Judah."

The Nephites apparently knew that as the name of one of Jacobs 12 sons, the name of one of the 12 tribes, and the name of the Southern Kingdom.

If it's "All the same thing," why not translate the name of the city as "Judah"?

"Judea" seems to be a Greek corruption of a Hebrew name, so why would an infallible translation (direct from the reformed Egyptian record of a Hebrew people who's language was uncorrupted by the Greeks) give this corrupt name to a new world city?

That's the question, and I don't think you've answered it BC.

Edited February 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

Is James Bond's answer the only answer?

[TAO]

How do you know that Judea wasn't developed independently of it developing in the Old World? We have other instances of that... for instance... 'Kim'. It sounds almost Asian. We can't really assume that they came from Asia though.

Furthermore, Judea is a city name... and as we all know with names in the Book of Mormon... there are several theories regarding their translation. Is it direct? Is it metaphorical? is it something altogether different? I think BC_Space was leaning along these lines... the names don't mean what they necessarily say. But I'm not sure if I'm reading him right.

In addition, you know in the Old World it is sometimes called Judaea.

Also, wait until volgadon replies, he usually has some good stuff =).

Edited February 1, 2012 by TAO

[inquiringmind]

How do you know that Judea wasn't developed independently of it developing in the Old World? We have other instances of that... for instance... 'Kim'. It sounds almost Asian. We can't really assume that they came from Asia though.

That is interesting.

Furthermore, Judea is a city name... and as we all know with names in the Book of Mormon... there are several theories regarding their translation. Is it direct? Is it metaphorical? is it something altogether different?

I don't know anything about those theories, but I'd like to learn more.

Also, wait until volgadon replies, he usually has some good stuff =).

Yes.

If his mail box hadn't been full when I tried sending him a PM I wouldn't have started this topic heading.

(I get the impression that he's our resident expert on Judaica.)

Thank you TAO.

Edited February 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

That is interesting.

Yes, actually it's a name in the list of Jaredites that takes up a few paragraphs in a chapter in Ether. 'Kim' is one of them, and it seem so... non-Israelite, that, well, it provoked my curiosity.

I don't know anything about those theories, but I'd like to learn more.

You should probably create another thread on this... I don't know much about translation details... but there are some REALLY smart people on this board who know alot about the subject.

(I get the impression he's our resident expert on Judaica.)

He is. Well... actually... virtually on anything relating to Israel and alot of things relating to the surrounding areas. I guess he just understands context well =).

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[Bond...James Bond]

Is James Bond's answer the only answer?

(The most sense does it make? Trust your common sense and logic you must.) /Yoda

Edited February 1, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Bond...James Bond]

Yes, actually it's a name in the list of Jaredites that takes up a few paragraphs in a chapter in Ether. 'Kim' is one of them, and it seem so... non-Israelite, that, well, it provoked my curiosity.

It might also have been peeled off of "Joiakim", Nehemiah 12:10. Maybe Joseph Smith borrowed part of a word the same way the good citizens of jeruSALEM, Massachusetts did?

Edited February 1, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[why me]

Maybe Jews did not sail to America in the 6th century B.C.E and the Book of Mormon isn't historically accurate and was a creation of the mind of Joseph Smith. Maybe? Nah...

But then again, maybe they did and maybe the mind of JS was not so creative. What is strange about JS is that his written story telling ended with the book of mormon. Which is rather strange for someone who is creative since literary creative people usually have to create literature. And then we have the problem of no manuscript to show for his creativity except what was copied by scribes. No rough drafts, no outlines etc all needed for a creative work.

A mind is certainly a terrible thing to waste.

[Robert F. Smith]

But what does the Aramaic "Yĕhuwd"" (which, if anything, is closer to the Hebrew "Yehudah," or Judah) have to do with the Greek "Judea"?

But the Old Testament place name is "Judah," not "Judea."

"Judea" is what the Greeks and Romans called "Judah," so how would a Nephite city have gotten that name?

Book of Mormon Judah (ms variant Juda) is KJ English for Hebrew Yehuda.

Book of Mormon Judea (ms variant Judeah) is KJ English for either Aramaic Yehud or Greek Ioudaia, but both are to be identified ultimately as Hebrew Yehuda.

Matthew 1:3 has KJ English Judas for Greek Ioudas, again meaning Hebrew Yehuda.

The source of the confusion is that the KJV translators were divided into committees which took different parts of the Bible, and the OT was based heavily on the Hebrew Bible as well as on the Septuagint Greek, while the New Testament is based on manuscripts overwhelmingly influenced by the Septuagint Greek Bible – the OT in Greek (there is no Hebrew version of the NT), which was the primary Bible of early Christianity. The separate KJV committees did not arrange for a single system of transliteration of names.

Thus all English speakers came to think of such names in both their Hellenized as well as Hebraized form.

No Nephite ever used the English words Judah or Judea, and they are not Hebrew and Greek. Instead the translators (Joseph, Oliver, et al.), who were familiar with the Bible, applied reasonable English transliterations when they came to the Egyptian spelling of these names on the plates of Mormon.

The process was not infallible or inerrant, but simply a practical way to represent various names.

[Robert F. Smith]

After that, I tried Googling keywords like "book of Mormon, City of Judea, and Anachronism," and found this.

Quote

The name "Jonas" is mentioned several times 3 Nephi 19:4. But Jonas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Jonah," and it would not have been known, let alone used by the Book of Mormon people.

Judea

Alma 56:9 and 15 mention the Nephite city of Judea. But Judea is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, "Judah."

Archeantus

The Greek prefix "arch" means great or chief, and is used in Greek names. Jewish and Egyptian names and words do not make use of that prefix, as it is foreign to their language, yet Moroni 9:2 talks about a Nephite commander named Archeantus. The Book of Mormon people had not had any exposure to the Greeks or to their influence, and would not have made use of a name such as this.

Timothy

3 Nephi 19:4 mentions the name "Timothy." But this is a Greek name derived from Timotheus, and it would have been unknown to the Book of Mormon people.

http://bibtruth.com/bomx3.html

This is from an anti-Mormon site, but what is the answer to the points they raise here?

If "The Book of Mormon people" didn't have "any exposure to the Greeks or to their influence" how can these things be explained?

Yes, Jonas is merely the KJ English form of a Hebrew name yona "dove," with a Greek termination (note also Simon bar Jona). However, under Archeantus, the anti-Mormon claims that Classical Israelites had no exposure to Greeks are false: In fact, Greek merchants regularly traded within Israel & Judah from long before the time of Lehi, so that we should not be surprised to find a few Greek names in the Book of Mormon.

Greeks were also known to have served as mercenaries in the Levant already during the Assyrian hegemony, and possibly as early as the reign of King David, if the Cherethites mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:14 and 2 Samuel 8:18 are Cretans (Hebrew kĕrētî), though there is still much debate about this. There is evidence for widespread Greek commerce within the Levant during the Late Bronze Age and during the subsequent Classical Israelite period.[1] Certainly, Carian and Ionian Greek mercenaries served in Egypt under Pharaoh Psammetichus I of Dynasty 26 (Herodotus II.152-154; Diodorus I.66.12 – 67.2), and Carian inscriptions in Egypt have now been deciphered.[2]

In explaining the presence of Greek words in Daniel, Robert Anderson stated that “there were Greek colonies in Palestine as early as the days of Hezekiah, and that there was intercourse between Greece and Canaan at a still earlier period.”[3]

[1] W.-D. Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and Archaeological Evidence,” BASOR, 322 (May 2001):11-32; Norma Franklin, “Trademarks of the Omride Builders?” in A. Fantalkin & A. Yasur-Landau, eds., Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 45-54, citing the Albright excavation report on Tell Beit Mirsim (1943); W. F. Albright, “The Amarna Letters from Palestine, Syria, the Philistines and Phoenicia,” in Cambridge Ancient History, rev. ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1975), II/2 (esp. chapter 33); T. R. Bryce, “The Lukka Problem – And a Possible Solution,” JNES, 33/4 (Oct 1974):395-404, re Albright assumption that Lukka = Lycia.

[2] Peter Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London: Thames & Hudson, 1994), 195.

[3] Anderson, The Coming Prince, 10th ed., xxviii-xxix (and in his preface to the 5^th edition), citing A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, 424, 494.

[altersteve]

Maybe Jews did not sail to America in the 6th century B.C.E and the Book of Mormon isn't historically accurate and was a creation of the mind of Joseph Smith. Maybe? Nah...

But that's boring.

[volgadon]

But a name English readers would be familar with. Checkmate.

Precisely. I also think you are spot on with the Ezra reference. Judaea appears in the OT of the KJV.

Edited February 1, 2012 by volgadon