The City Of Judea?

[zerinus]

Judea is an English word, and since the Book of Mormon is translated into English, no surprise that English words are found in it.

I think that's an oversimplification.

Judea is an Anglicization of the Hellenization of the Hebrew "Yehuda" (or the Aramaic "Yehuwd")

Judah is the more direct Anglicization of the Hebrew "Yehuda."

Most of the words in English vocabulary are Anglicizations of one thing or another.

[inquiringmind]

I just had a thought.

Unless I'm mistaken, Judea (unlike Judah, which is also a personal and tribal name) is always a place name.

IIRC, the Hellenization (or, to be technical, the Anglicization of the Hellenization) of the personal name of "Judah" would be Judaes (or Judas.)

So if the Nephite city was named after a geographical area (or place, as opposed to a tribal ancestor), maybe "Judea" (which is always a place name) would be a more accurate translation than "Judah."

I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone else, but it just occurred to me (and I thought I should post it here.)

It also just occurred to me that since the Nephites weren't Jews, it's almost certain that the city of Judea would have been named after the place (where their Josephite fathers came from), and not the Patriarch of the Jews.

The more I think about this, the more sense it makes to me (but I'm still interested in thoughts on the translation process.)

Thank you.

Edited February 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Buckeye]

That's not how I've imagined the translation process.

I thought that "whatever character, word, or phrase" Joseph saw engraved on the plates was translated by God into whatever English word or phrase Joseph dictated to Oliver.

I suspect you're right when you say "the name is most likely explained through the translation process," and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that process?.

Specifically, how Joseph could have had any input.

That's what I think I'm missing.

How much of it was God, how much of it was Joseph, and how could he (Joseph) really have any input at all (when English was the only language that he could read or write at the time)?

Glad to opine, but don't say I didn't warn you. It's been a little while since I've posted much on this board. If you search back a few years you'll find some posts I started regarding the translation process. I was struggling with it then. I still hold the conclusion I came to, but its unorthodox. Basically, I don't believe Joseph translated the BOM. I don't believe God did either. I believe some one else did (or a counsel of others). Moroni was probably part of the process.

Here's my thinking

1) Neither Joseph nor the scribes describe Joseph's work as true translation. He never claimed to be able to read reformed egyptian. He had no dictionary. And he did not perform the typical work involved in translation where you write out a sentence, see how it sounds, then make changes to word order, etc. until you are happy. He simply looked into the hat (or early on the urim and thumim) and saw english text. That is a dictation, not a translation. In my view, it doesn't take anything away from Joseph's work. He still needed faith and obedience and performed a critical step. But it's a mistake to describe the work as translation if that term is to have any connection to what we typically think of translation. He dictated. Pure and simple.

2) So the real question is, who put together the english text that Joseph saw. You can say "God", because we believe that the process took place "by the power of God", but that strikes me as odd. My reading of the scriptures (and my personal experience) points to a God who relies on man to do the actual work whereever possible. The whole point of this existence is our growth. Translation is something that clearly man can be trusted to do. The church employs a large number of translators for, among other things, translating the BOM into non-English languages. If God can rely on them, he could rely on other men to make the reformed egyptian - to - english translation.

3) So who did the translation? Some one (or a group) that could read both english and reformed egyptian. I believe it took place on the other side of the veil and the effort was led by Moroni (the only person we know who understands both), but of course that is pure speculation.

Why do I believe this theory? Because it best fits with the all of the textual and historical evidence. The BOM shows evidence of both tight and loose translation. It shows evidence of direct copying from the KJV. And it shows evidence of numerous hebraisms that Joseph could not have invented. I have yet to hear another theory that can account for all of that (and in particular the KJV copying) other than this.

[inquiringmind]

So your theory is that the righteous dead did the work of translating, and channeled their results (through the interpreters) to Joseph?

That's interesting (but doesn't God describe Joseph as a translator?)

BTW: What do you think of my idea?

I just had a thought.

Unless I'm mistaken, Judea (unlike Judah, which is also a personal and tribal name) is always a place name.

IIRC, the Hellenization (or, to be technical, the Anglicization of the Hellenization) of the personal name of "Judah" would be Judaes (or Judas.)

So if the Nephite city was named after a geographical area (or place, as opposed to a tribal ancestor), maybe "Judea" (which is always a place name) would be a more accurate translation than "Judah."

...since the Nephites weren't Jews, it's almost certain that the city of Judea would have been named after the place (where their Josephite fathers came from), and not the Patriarch of the Jews..

Edited February 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Buckeye]

So your theory is that the righteous dead did the work of translating, and channeled their results (through the interpreters) to Joseph?

That's interesting (but doesn't God describe Joseph as a translator?)

BTW: What do you think of my idea?

Basically yes, though I have no idea how the translation was channeled to Joseph. If it was me, God would use my iPad since I understand that best. For Joseph, a seer stone.

And yes, various revelations include God referring to Joseph as the translator. But in Joseph's mind that's what he was doing and the revelations were filtered through his experience. It makes sense to me that God wouldn't get bogged down on this point. I seem to remember other revelations saying that Joseph would take part in a "great work" that would bless mankind, but didn't specifically say translation. My point is, regardless of what Joseph or God called the work, what Joseph describes doing is not what we associate with translation.

As for your theory, I think it is as good as any, but I don't really have the educational background to make a good judgment.

[volgadon]

I just had a thought.

Unless I'm mistaken, Judea (unlike Judah, which is also a personal and tribal name) is always a place name.

IIRC, the Hellenization (or, to be technical, the Anglicization of the Hellenization) of the personal name of "Judah" would be Judaes (or Judas.)

So if the Nephite city was named after a geographical area (or place, as opposed to a tribal ancestor), maybe "Judea" (which is always a place name) would be a more accurate translation than "Judah."

I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone else, but it just occurred to me (and I thought I should post it here.)

It also just occurred to me that since the Nephites weren't Jews, it's almost certain that the city of Judea would have been named after the place (where their Josephite fathers came from), and not the Patriarch of the Jews.

The more I think about this, the more sense it makes to me (but I'm still interested in thoughts on the translation process.)

Thank you.

I think you are on to something. While I'm not sure that in theory the Nephites wouldn't have named a son Judah (Manasseh was the personal name of a Judahide king), you would appear to be right that the City of Judea was named after the geographical location.

[inquiringmind]

Basically yes, though I have no idea how the translation was channeled to Joseph. If it was me, God would use my iPad since I understand that best. For Joseph, a seer stone.

And yes, various revelations include God referring to Joseph as the translator. But in Joseph's mind that's what he was doing and the revelations were filtered through his experience. It makes sense to me that God wouldn't get bogged down on this point. I seem to remember other revelations saying that Joseph would take part in a "great work" that would bless mankind, but didn't specifically say translation. My point is, regardless of what Joseph or God called the work, what Joseph describes doing is not what we associate with translation...

That's interesting.

Thank you.

[inquiringmind]

I think you are on to something. While I'm not sure that in theory the Nephites wouldn't have named a son Judah (Manasseh was the personal name of a Judahide king), you would appear to be right that the City of Judea was named after the geographical location.

Thank you.

The question doesn't bother me anymore.

Edited February 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

1) Neither Joseph nor the scribes describe Joseph's work as true translation. He never claimed to be able to read reformed egyptian. He had no dictionary. And he did not perform the typical work involved in translation where you write out a sentence, see how it sounds, then make changes to word order, etc. until you are happy. He simply looked into the hat (or early on the urim and thumim) and saw english text. That is a dictation, not a translation. In my view, it doesn't take anything away from Joseph's work. He still needed faith and obedience and performed a critical step. But it's a mistake to describe the work as translation if that term is to have any connection to what we typically think of translation. He dictated. Pure and simple.

This is the plenary theory of translation, in which Joseph is simply there dictating the words of the Lord.

2) So the real question is, who put together the english text that Joseph saw. You can say "God", because we believe that the process took place "by the power of God", but that strikes me as odd. My reading of the scriptures (and my personal experience) points to a God who relies on man to do the actual work whereever possible. The whole point of this existence is our growth. Translation is something that clearly man can be trusted to do. The church employs a large number of translators for, among other things, translating the BOM into non-English languages. If God can rely on them, he could rely on other men to make the reformed egyptian - to - english translation.

3) So who did the translation? Some one (or a group) that could read both english and reformed egyptian. I believe it took place on the other side of the veil and the effort was led by Moroni (the only person we know who understands both), but of course that is pure speculation.

Why do I believe this theory? Because it best fits with the all of the textual and historical evidence. The BOM shows evidence of both tight and loose translation. It shows evidence of direct copying from the KJV. And it shows evidence of numerous hebraisms that Joseph could not have invented. I have yet to hear another theory that can account for all of that (and in particular the KJV copying) other than this.

And yes, various revelations include God referring to Joseph as the translator. But in Joseph's mind that's what he was doing and the revelations were filtered through his experience. It makes sense to me that God wouldn't get bogged down on this point. I seem to remember other revelations saying that Joseph would take part in a "great work" that would bless mankind, but didn't specifically say translation. My point is, regardless of what Joseph or God called the work, what Joseph describes doing is not what we associate with translation.

The notion that the translation was "filtered through his experience" and knowledge of English best explains the type of English we find in the Book of Mormon manuscripts. Otherwise we have to contend with God (or Moroni) appearing to be ignorant of good English grammar.

Moreover, in the Bible, the prophets and other writers express themselves with an individuality (and vastly different vocabularies and styles) which demonstrates that inspiration and revelation is always "filtered" through the minds of the fallible humans with whom God must deal.

[inquiringmind]

The notion that the translation was "filtered through his experience" and knowledge of English best explains the type of English we find in the Book of Mormon manuscripts. Otherwise we have to contend with God (or Moroni) appearing to be ignorant of good English grammar.

Couldn't much of it also be explained by scribal and printer's errors (i.e. Joseph dictated proper English, but Oliver made mistakes writing his words down, or the printer made mistakes type setting Oliver's handwritten manuscript)?

Edited February 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

Unless I'm mistaken, Judea (unlike Judah, which is also a personal and tribal name) is always a place name.

IIRC, the Hellenization (or, to be technical, the Anglicization of the Hellenization) of the personal name of "Judah" would be Judaes (or Judas.)

So if the Nephite city was named after a geographical area (or place, as opposed to a tribal ancestor), maybe "Judea" (which is always a place name) would be a more accurate translation than "Judah."

You are mistaken. The OT kingdom of Judah (ruled by the sons of David) is the same as the NT Judea. These are English toponyms both referring to Yehuda, which is also the tribal and personal name.

A Nephite using Hebrew would have named the city Yehuda. How a scribe would spell that in Egyptian characters on the official plates (and how it was spelled on the Bronze Plates of Laban, which was also in Egyptian) is a reasonable question, as is the question about how Joseph chose to render the place-name as English Judea. However, the meaning and origin is not changed in either case. Certainly it is not a "more accurate" rendering. It is merely a choice among more than one way of representing the name, which is the same in each case, regardless of choice.

It also just occurred to me that since the Nephites weren't Jews, it's almost certain that the city of Judea would have been named after the place (where their Josephite fathers came from), and not the Patriarch of the Jews.

The Nephites do appear to favor Manassite names and culture throughout the Book of Mormon, but we still find many Judahite names employed (after all the Mulekites were Judahites to the extent that Mulek himself was a Judahite of the royal family). However, it is impossible to distinguish intention in this case since Yehuda is the Hebrew word for the tribal Patriarch, the tribe, and the kingdom (including NT Judea).

[Robert F. Smith]

Couldn't much of it also be explained by scribal and printer's errors (i.e. Joseph dictated proper English, but Oliver made mistakes writing his words down, or the printer made mistakes type setting Oliver's handwritten manuscript)?

Actually, the opposite is the case. Oliver, who was a schoolteacher, certainly had English skills superior to Joseph, and he prepared a Printer's Manuscript which greatly improved on the Original Manuscript. As for printer E. B. Grandin, he was a highly skilled editor and improved the text still more, adding all of the punctuation for the 1830 ed.

[inquiringmind]

The notion that the translation was "filtered through his experience" and knowledge of English best explains the type of English we find in the Book of Mormon manuscripts. Otherwise we have to contend with God (or Moroni) appearing to be ignorant of good English grammar.

Actually, the opposite is the case. Oliver, who was a schoolteacher, certainly had English skills superior to Joseph, and he prepared a Printer's Manuscript which greatly improved on the Original Manuscript. As for printer E. B. Grandin, he was a highly skilled editor and improved the text still more, adding all of the punctuation for the 1830 ed.

I'm not sure what the academic standards were for a 19th century, backwoods schoolteacher, are you?

In any case, why would God operate the way you suggest, and what would the angel have meant when he said that the translation was "correct" (if He did)?

BTW: I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the process of inspiration here, and if you share more of them I might be able to better understand what you're saying.

You are mistaken. The OT kingdom of Judah (ruled by the sons of David) is the same as the NT Judea. These are English toponyms both referring to Yehuda, which is also the tribal and personal name.

English toponyms with Greek origins, no?

Are you saying that the spelling and pronunciation of the original Greek word from which we derive "Judea" (the place name) is identical to the spelling and pronunciation of the Greek name from which we derive "Judas" (or "Jude," the personal name)?

I thought Greek words had masculine, feminine, and neuter forms, and that this was probably responsible for the different sounds that the personal and place names ended on.

Was I mistaken about that?

I'm certainly not mistaken in saying that the English "Judea" is never used as a personal name anywhere in the King James Bible (that Joseph and his readers were familiar with), am I?

Certainly it is not a "more accurate" rendering. It is merely a choice .

And I was suggesting that perhaps there's a rhyme and reason to that choice that I hadn't considered (and perhaps it could even be considered a more appropriate rendering than the alternate available choice.)

Edited February 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

First, the Egyptian characters on the plates did not record the Egyptian language. I understand that you know this, but it is important to differentiate between the reformed Egyptian characters and the language Nephi and Mormon used to record their nation's history.

This remains a matter of dispute among BofM scholars, some arguing (and agreeing with Hugh Nibley) that the plates were in Egyptian characters and language, others opting for Egyptian characters rendering Hebrew. Only decipherment of the so-called Anthon Transcript could solve the dispute.

A symbol does not have to be a single phoneme. In fact, most people around the world use a single symbol to mean a whole word, or even a phrase. Chinese scripts are the most familiar ideographs, but they are not alone.

Ideograms or logograms make writing faster and save space, and there are plenty of instances of place-names in Egypt and among the Maya being rendered by one ideogram. So you may be onto something here.

Let's say, however, that the symbol "Ǿ" means "usurper". It's a common name in English, "Jacob", but it is a word in its own right. When used as a name, Joseph would not think "usurper", he'd think "Jacob". However, in Hebrew "jacob" is pronounced "Yacob" (or something near). If you were writing to be understood, as Joseph was while dictating the Book of Mormon, it would not make sense to use "Yacob"; the far better choice is the one he was familiar with (along with his readers). Thus Ǿ became "Jacob".

Lehi

I agree, and it is often very surprising to people when they discover that the brother of Jesus in the NT is not James, but Jacob (Hebrew Ya'akob). That includes the Letter of James, which should rightly be called the Letter of Jacob (like the BofM book Jacob). Does this shock anyone or indicate lack of inspiration in that letter or in the NT generally? Would someone be shocked and angry if Nephi's brother Jacob was called James instead? People have become accustomed to refer to "Peter, James, and John," even though none of those names is like the actual names they were given by their parents. Even Jesus is a name-form unknown in NT times. These are English conventions we have accepted from time immemorial. Jesus was actually known as Yeshu'a, and his prime followers were originally named Shim'on, Ya'akob, and Yohanan. Of course, Shim'on bar Yona was renamed by Yeshu'a as Aramaic Kepha (= Greek Petros) "Rock." See John 1:42, Matt 16:18 (Yeshu'a appears to name him "Peter," but that is merely a Greek translation of Kepha).

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not sure what the academic standards were for a 19th century, backwoods schoolteacher, are you?

I do know that Oliver had a career as a lawyer after leaving the Church, and until he was rebaptized by Brother Brigham. My own ancestors from those years went to log schoolhouses on the frontier and were entirely literate with an 8th grade education (much like Abe Lincoln in backwoods Illinois later). They wrote good letters, and I have some of them..

But I'm more interested in why God would operate the way you suggest, and what the angel would have meant when he said that the translation was "correct" (if He did)?

I'm interested in the process of inspiration, and I thank you for sharing your thoughts on it, but I don't (yet) understand what you're saying.

God may have had a sense of humor in allowing "an unlearned boy" do such a profound task which upstages the learned -- as in Isaiah 29 & 2 Nephi 27 -- just as he had in selecting little David as the hero to defeat Goliath and to become King.

Over and above that, however, God states explicitly that he speaks to men in their weakness, in their language, and to their understanding (2 Nephi 31:3, D&C 1:24). He does not require vast learning, riches, or the trappings of the world.

English toponyms with Greek origins, no?

Are you saying that the spelling and pronunciation of the original Greek word from which we derive "Judea" (the place name) is identical to the spelling and pronunciation of the Greek name from which we derive "Judas" (or "Jude," the personal name)?

I thought Geek words had masculine, feminine, and neuter forms, and that this was probably responsible for the different sounds that the personal and place names ended on.

Was I mistaken about that?

Yes, the Greek termination of these toponyms does depend upon the grammatical context one finds them in, but that does not affect the root word from which it begins. Since the Jews (Yehudim) living in Judea (Yehuda) never called themselves "Jews" or used the English term "Judea," and did not even use Latin or Greek (except for some scholars and merchants), it is important to note that the population of Palestine spoke Aramaic and used Hebrew for religious observances. The NT translates nearly everything into Greek, thus making it appear that the population used Greek. It is true that Paul wrote his letters in Greek, and that the Gospels were composed in Greek, but that is only due to the need to take the Gospel to the non-Jews throughout the Roman Empire, as well as to Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora. None of this took place in the lifetime of Yeshu'a haMashiach.

I'm certainly not mistaken in saying that the English "Judea" is never used as a personal name anywhere in the King James Bible (that Joseph and his readers were familiar with), am I?

Since English Judea and Judah both refer to Yehuda (which is a personal name, a tribal name, and the name of a kingdom), what you are dealing with are mere English spelling conventions from the KJV OT and NT. Joseph (who knew his Bible and undoubtedly knew the phrase "Bethlehem of Judea" from the Christmas story) certainly was free to use the term Judea if he so chose, without it being any sort of problem or anachronism.

And I was suggesting that perhaps there's a rhyme and reason to that choice that I hadn't considered (and perhaps, in that sense, it's a more accurate translation than the choice of "Judah" would have been.)

Yes, in that sense it could, particularly if the purpose was to distinguish the Old World Yehuda from the New World Yehuda by some conventional means.

[inquiringmind]

God may have had a sense of humor in allowing "an unlearned boy" do such a profound task which upstages the learned -- as in Isaiah 29 & 2 Nephi 27 -- just as he had in selecting little David as the hero to defeat Goliath and to become King.

Over and above that, however, God states explicitly that he speaks to men in their weakness, in their language, and to their understanding (2 Nephi 31:3, D&C 1:24). He does not require vast learning, riches, or the trappings of the world.

That is interesting.

Thank you.

Since English Judea and Judah both refer to Yehuda (which is a personal name, a tribal name, and the name of a kingdom), what you are dealing with are mere English spelling conventions from the KJV OT and NT.

I think English is confusing the issue here, so let's stick to Greek (and please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The Greek "Ioudaia" (from which we get the word "Judea," familiar to users of the King James Bible) is never used as a personal name, is it?

(And neither is the English derivation found in the KJV, so familiar to Joseph and his readers.)

The Greek "Ioudas" (the personal name of one of Jacob's 12 sons, Our Lord's brother, and the betrayer--which in Hebrew would be "Yehuda") is never used as a place name, is it?

The Greek "Ioudaios" (Jews, the people) is never used as a personal or place name, is it?

Yes, in that sense it could, particularly if the purpose was to distinguish the Old World Yehuda from the New World Yehuda by some conventional means.

Thank you, but that's not exactly what I'm suggesting.

The Nephites would know that their city was on a different continent from the land of their fathers (as would anyone reading the Book of Mormon), would they not?

What I'm suggesting is that the Anglicized form of a Greek word that is exclusively used as a place name was appropriately chosen because the new world city of Yehuda was named after the old world land of Yehuda (and not a person or people)--i.e. the distinction being made is between a place and a person (not between new world and old world.)

In that sense, I think "city of Judea" could be a more appropriate choice than "city of Judah" (and much less awkward than "city of the land of Judah," or something like that.)

Anyway, that makes more sense to me than some entirely arbitrary and unnecessary distinction between an old world place, and a new world city that's named after that place (and obviously on another continent.)

And volgadon seems to have understood what I meant.

I think you are on to something. While I'm not sure that in theory the Nephites wouldn't have named a son Judah (Manasseh was the personal name of a Judahide king), you would appear to be right that the City of Judea was named after the geographical location.

Edited February 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[cdowis]

Don't have the reference right now, but the city names were based on a personal name of the founder of that city. Thus, they were not, originally, place names but always derived from personal names.

[inquiringmind]

Don't have the reference right now, but the city names were based on a personal name of the founder of that city. Thus, they were not, originally, place names but always derived from personal names.

Unless you can find a BOM reference that says that the names of all Nephite cities were always based on the name of their founder (or that the City of Judea was specifically named after someone named Judah, Judas, Jude, etc.), I believe it's just as logical to assume that the Nephite city of "Judea" was named after their old world ancestral homeland (much like the state of New "Jersey" and "Jersey City" were named after the English channel island of "Jersey.".)

Please post your reference when you find it.

Thank you.

Edited February 5, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

Don't have the reference right now, but the city names were based on a personal name of the founder of that city. Thus, they were not, originally, place names but always derived from personal names.

Actually, naming can go either way in the Book of Mormon, i.e., someone can be named for the place they are from, or they can give their name to a place as founder:

Geographical Name ➔ Personal Name

Mormon (Nephite land) ➔ Mormon (Nephite personal name) – III Nephi 5:12, Mormon 1:5

Moron(Jaredite land)➔ Moron (Jaredite personal name) ➔ Moroni (Nephite land) ➔ Moroni (Nephite personal name)

Nehor (Jaredite wilderness) ➔ Nehor (Nephite apostate) ➔ Nehor(s), Desolation of (Nephite city/land)

Personal Name ➔ Geographical Name

Morianton (Jaredite personal name) ➔ Morianton (Nephite coastland)

Mulek (Jewish personal name) ➔ Mulek (land and city of) ➔ Muloki (personal name meaning “Mulekite”)

Zarahemla (Mulekite leader) ➔ Zarahemla (Mulekite city/land)