Meditions on Vogel, Appendix D: Zeptah
As people engage in speculation and debate over the translation methods of Joseph Smith, one very important point seems to have been missed, which has the potential to change our whole outlook. We have an example of Joseph Smith translating an Egyptian name into English as a more technically accurate English version, but then later changing that more technically accurate word into a more modern equivalent that would have more meaning to the typical reader of ~1840. In other words, a clash arose between the importance of technical accuracy versus readability, and Joseph initially sided with technical accuracy, but then changed it later to apparently side with readability.
As others have already pointed out, the word “Zeptah” fits nicely with the word “Egyptus” in an ancient Egyptian setting. But, importantly, I would like to add that the word "Zeptah" gives us a very rare glimpse into Joseph Smith's translation methodology. It is a name found in early manuscripts of the Book of Abraham but it did not make its way into the printed version. He changed it to "Egyptus" (there was a younger and an older Egyptus, and the older was originally translated as "Zeptah").
Ironically, anti-LDS website Mormonthink attempts to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud by describing Egyptus as an anachronism, saying:
"Where does the word 'Egyptus' come from? It's the Greek name for Memphis which was called, at that time, Het Ka Ptah--'home of the Ka of Ptah.' Just like the Hebrew 'Yeshua' became 'Jesus' to the Greeks, 'Het Ka Ptah' became 'Aigyptus' which became 'Egyptus.'"
So, they miss the fact that Zeptah contains the name "Ptah," marking it as older and more authentic than "Egyptus."
As others have already pointed out, the word “Zeptah” fits nicely with the word “Egyptus” in an ancient Egyptian setting. But, importantly, I would like to add that the word "Zeptah" gives us a very rare glimpse into Joseph Smith's translation methodology. It is a name found in early manuscripts of the Book of Abraham but it did not make its way into the printed version. He changed it to "Egyptus" (there was a younger and an older Egyptus, and the older was originally translated as "Zeptah").
Ironically, anti-LDS website Mormonthink attempts to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud by describing Egyptus as an anachronism, saying:
"Where does the word 'Egyptus' come from? It's the Greek name for Memphis which was called, at that time, Het Ka Ptah--'home of the Ka of Ptah.' Just like the Hebrew 'Yeshua' became 'Jesus' to the Greeks, 'Het Ka Ptah' became 'Aigyptus' which became 'Egyptus.'"
So, they miss the fact that Zeptah contains the name "Ptah," marking it as older and more authentic than "Egyptus."
Joseph Smith had no personal way of knowing that Ptah was the creator God, which takes us back to the very first days of Egypt, a time when the Egyptians believed Egypt was under water, which is exactly where the Book of Abraham places Zeptah, which is also similar in both sound and meaning to another important Egyptian word:
Zep-tepi = the first period of Egypt, when earth rose from under the waters
Zep-tah = in the first period of Egypt, the mother of the woman who discovered it under water
Unfortunately, Egyptology has no way of knowing how these ideas about Zep-Tepi and Ptah first arose and how they are intertwined. But they are connected in the mythology. The mythology extends far back in time, even before the first complete sentence was written in Egyptian. The convergences are quite interesting however, in light of the fact that Joseph Smith penetrated so deeply into the name.
Zep-tepi = the first period of Egypt, when earth rose from under the waters
Zep-tah = in the first period of Egypt, the mother of the woman who discovered it under water
Unfortunately, Egyptology has no way of knowing how these ideas about Zep-Tepi and Ptah first arose and how they are intertwined. But they are connected in the mythology. The mythology extends far back in time, even before the first complete sentence was written in Egyptian. The convergences are quite interesting however, in light of the fact that Joseph Smith penetrated so deeply into the name.
This also gives us some insight into Joseph's alleged anachronisms, since Joseph took this ancient name and translated it into something that would have more meaning for us in our day - "Egyptus." Witnessing this methodology, as we have here, helps us see a number of criticisms in a new light.
This also provides us a window into why he would use 19th century idioms, phraseology and even long quotes familiar to modern readers, in his translations. It's not that he doesn't have more ancient terms at his disposal - as we see here with "Zeptah" - but, again, he apparently wants the message to be meaningful to us and to not scare us away with arcane language. He's communicating "plain and precious truths." Unless, of course, someone wants to start with the assumption that Joseph was a fraud. Meanwhile, if we look objectively at the facts, we can learn some things about Joseph's translation process which carry over to the methodology of his other translations.
With the Book of Mormon, for instance, he may have replaced some of the arcane references to Mesoamerican culture with equivalent ideas that translate to our culture, presented essentially as parables which convey the underlying meaning in a way that makes sense to us. That is ultimately the purpose of translation. A translation is worthless unless it communicates something to the target audience.
What about the accuracy of translation? Human language is very imperfect, especially when translating ideas from very different cultures separated by thousands of years. The key to scripture is not technical but spiritual. Jesus quoted scripture in the form it was familiar to the people. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book in terms of doctrine, but looking at different approaches to translating the Popol Vuh can help us understand the difficulty in trying to convey a message when dealing with different cultures that are separated by time.
Substitution as a common tool for translators becomes understandable when we realize there is no better way to do it. Egyptology does the same thing when text is unreadable or missing. So, what Joseph Smith did is essentially the same thing Egyptologists do when translating. For example, he was taking from the KJV of Isaiah just as Egyptologists take from other versions of a document and plug in chunks of text from them into what they call a translation.
In the case of Joseph Smith, it's not likely the Gold Plates were actually damaged the way a papyrus roll may be damaged and unreadable, but Joseph may have had other reasons for making substitutions.
For instance, when there are no equivalent concepts in the language and culture. To understand this, consider the difficulty in translating a user manual for a modern electronic device, into an ancient Mayan language. How would you do it? You would have to do the best you could to convey similar concepts known to them.
Now, I think Joseph Smith tried to include as much ancient data as he could, but at some point language just breaks down.
Where Nephi directly quotes from Isaiah, we can see Joseph translates it more directly. But Nephi wasn't just reading Isaiah to the people but was expounding it and likening it to his people and making it understandable in their culture. This is the same thing we do in Sunday School, when we read a verse of scripture then talk about it then skip several verses and read another verse then talk about it. In other words, I am proposing that Joseph Smith substituted the KJV of Isaiah in place of the verses which Nephi had modified for his Mesoamerican audience (modifications which would have only confused modern audiences).
This translation method may also at times allow God to hide truths; in Matthew 11:25, Jesus prayed to the Father, saying,"I thank you O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Also see Matthew 13:10-13. Scripture is meant to be understood through the Spirit.
Of course, the more technical often wins out, but Joseph had different interests to consider. It is interesting to see the clash between the different considerations of a translator.
What about the "Zep" part of Zeptah? Again, it goes too far back to understand the interplay of the language, however the mythology allowed the ideas to filter down through time even if there is no record of their origins.
Which brings us back to the comparison earlier:
Zep-tepi = the first period of Egypt, when earth rose from under the waters
Zep-tah = in the first period of Egypt, the mother of the woman who discovered it under water
This also provides us a window into why he would use 19th century idioms, phraseology and even long quotes familiar to modern readers, in his translations. It's not that he doesn't have more ancient terms at his disposal - as we see here with "Zeptah" - but, again, he apparently wants the message to be meaningful to us and to not scare us away with arcane language. He's communicating "plain and precious truths." Unless, of course, someone wants to start with the assumption that Joseph was a fraud. Meanwhile, if we look objectively at the facts, we can learn some things about Joseph's translation process which carry over to the methodology of his other translations.
With the Book of Mormon, for instance, he may have replaced some of the arcane references to Mesoamerican culture with equivalent ideas that translate to our culture, presented essentially as parables which convey the underlying meaning in a way that makes sense to us. That is ultimately the purpose of translation. A translation is worthless unless it communicates something to the target audience.
What about the accuracy of translation? Human language is very imperfect, especially when translating ideas from very different cultures separated by thousands of years. The key to scripture is not technical but spiritual. Jesus quoted scripture in the form it was familiar to the people. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book in terms of doctrine, but looking at different approaches to translating the Popol Vuh can help us understand the difficulty in trying to convey a message when dealing with different cultures that are separated by time.
Substitution as a common tool for translators becomes understandable when we realize there is no better way to do it. Egyptology does the same thing when text is unreadable or missing. So, what Joseph Smith did is essentially the same thing Egyptologists do when translating. For example, he was taking from the KJV of Isaiah just as Egyptologists take from other versions of a document and plug in chunks of text from them into what they call a translation.
In the case of Joseph Smith, it's not likely the Gold Plates were actually damaged the way a papyrus roll may be damaged and unreadable, but Joseph may have had other reasons for making substitutions.
For instance, when there are no equivalent concepts in the language and culture. To understand this, consider the difficulty in translating a user manual for a modern electronic device, into an ancient Mayan language. How would you do it? You would have to do the best you could to convey similar concepts known to them.
Now, I think Joseph Smith tried to include as much ancient data as he could, but at some point language just breaks down.
Where Nephi directly quotes from Isaiah, we can see Joseph translates it more directly. But Nephi wasn't just reading Isaiah to the people but was expounding it and likening it to his people and making it understandable in their culture. This is the same thing we do in Sunday School, when we read a verse of scripture then talk about it then skip several verses and read another verse then talk about it. In other words, I am proposing that Joseph Smith substituted the KJV of Isaiah in place of the verses which Nephi had modified for his Mesoamerican audience (modifications which would have only confused modern audiences).
This translation method may also at times allow God to hide truths; in Matthew 11:25, Jesus prayed to the Father, saying,"I thank you O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Also see Matthew 13:10-13. Scripture is meant to be understood through the Spirit.
Of course, the more technical often wins out, but Joseph had different interests to consider. It is interesting to see the clash between the different considerations of a translator.
What about the "Zep" part of Zeptah? Again, it goes too far back to understand the interplay of the language, however the mythology allowed the ideas to filter down through time even if there is no record of their origins.
Which brings us back to the comparison earlier:
Zep-tepi = the first period of Egypt, when earth rose from under the waters
Zep-tah = in the first period of Egypt, the mother of the woman who discovered it under water
In my opinion, my commentary in this post is simply the natural inference stemming from the rare glimpse which Joseph's change from "Zeptah" to "Egyptus" provides us.
Comments
Post a Comment