XKV8R

because the peshitta does not make this jacob-jacobos distinction. nt james is rendered jacob like the ot (only in syriac). i guess the question is what prompted the nt authors (or redactors) to render the contemp name jacobos and the ot jacob?

Jeffrey Gibson

OK. Now how about answering my other question -- the one about what the source of the "story" of the motives of the KJV translators is?

Jeffrey

XKV8R

i mean, one could argue that the nt environment simply rendered the traditional hebrew names (like ya'aqov/jacob and yehoshua/joshua) into the contemporary names iakobos/jacob and iesous/jesus). it could be a simple matter of leaving the ot hebrew names with their fixed forms, but 'modernizing' the contemporary names with the proper greek endings -os. it's a good explanation. however, methinks josephus uses iakobos for the ot patriarch as well, perhaps making all references to the same name contemporary.

my point is that it's the same name in hebrew in aramaic. if the authors of the nt chose to make the nt names contemporary by adding the greek nominal -os ending (along with appropriate declensions), and to leave the ot names without contemporary greek endings (perhaps to set them apart), should not a good translator notice that in the hebrew they are the same name, and that the greek renderings of the same name are simply that: results of the hellenization of a semitic name? and if so, should not english translators (who need no declensions of proper names in english) translate the names similarly? the question is, why choose the english name 'james' and not jacob(os)??

XKV8R

obviously, the story is in need of some help...
(also the reason i began the post with 'the story goes'...).

certainly much of tyndale's version ended up in the kjv (with iames becoming james). and the other versions already had designations of 'iames' for the nt greek rendering of 'iakobos.' so couldn't have been for the good king iames.

my question remains, however: why would english translators use a separate designation for an obviously hellenized version of a semitic name, especially when josephus saw no need to distinguish between the two, and the peshitta made no distinction either?

so good question jeffrey: who were they honoring? (and why? did they know better?)

Solitary Man

Why would they have to be honoring anyone? James is the normal English rendering for the Hebrew Yaakov.

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes. But what is the source of the story? Where did you hear it? Or is it something you made up?

Jeffrey

XKV8R

but apparently only the 'normal english' for the nt use of the hebrew ya'aqov...

the whole honoring bit is moot... i don't care who or why or if they are honoring. (although, i'm still ok with the 'official/kjv' version of the bible 'endorsing' or 'codifying' the already-existing perpetuation of the otherwise unnecessary name 'james' when it is simply a hellenized version of of jacob.)

my question is: why did the nt authors/redactors find it necessary to distinguish old from contemporary? josephus didn't distinguish. the peshitta didn't distinguish.

and why did the english translators, who have no need for case endings, not simply eliminate the case ending and use jacob?

XKV8R

sorry. read it somewhere. was just looking through metzger, but apparently wasn't there. could have been first use of 'j'ames (vs. iames??) hmmm. now you're gonna have me doing source crit on urban bible legends. lol. why don't i just call the myth busted (since iames is still not 'jacob') and move on. i am still curious however... good catch btw jeffrey.

(and thank you btw... always good to know someone's watching out for ya.)

now, any ideas on the other questions?

Solitary Man

Hey XKV8R,

The James/Jacob distinction is no different than the Jesus/Yeshua distinction (Yeshua is often used for the refounder of the 2nd Temple while Jesus for the New Testament figure is almost universally used). If you have a KJV, you can see differences between the Hebrew names in Chronicles and the names in Matthew's genealogy. It's a language issue, methinks.

Doina

**Thank you all for replying. I have probably screwed up the attributions in this answer, sorry.

**to the person who mentioned the Vetus Latina.org website, yes, I did check it, it's content free. Does anybody know, is the Book of Kells an example of the Vetus Latina? (I know the text is corrupt, does that count--sorry, just joking). I will try to scrounge up the Oxford Press publication or whatever that was.

XKV8R wrote:
nt vs. ot
>but apparently only the 'normal english' for the nt use of the hebrew ya'aqov...

>>the whole honoring bit is moot... i don't care who or why or if they are honoring. (although, i'm still ok with the 'official/kjv' version of the bible 'endorsing' or 'codifying' the already-existing perpetuation of the otherwise unnecessary name 'james' when it is simply a hellenized version of of jacob.)

**right, we can ignore it, since the name James appears in Wycliffe 2 or 300 years before any King James was born. I am happy to impute any motive to bible translators, but that one's a little anachronistic. What was Wycliffe using? Does anybody have a copy of it? That's why I was asking about the Vetus Latina, I wondered if it was in that. The OED ref. was helpful, what's "james" doing in the Ancrene Riwle? That's an Anglo-Saxon translation of a Latin (I believe Italian) original of the Rule of St. Augustine (for nuns). I find the OED is pretty xian, that is, they seem to be taking a line which will not offend xians, or perhaps, they just didn't really think it through (not here, but in some other things that I have looked up there).

>>my question is: why did the nt authors/redactors find it necessary to distinguish old from contemporary? josephus didn't distinguish. the peshitta didn't distinguish.

**Is the Peshitta the same as the "Syriac" version that I am using in a polyglot bible? I am sure there are lots of polyglot bibles, sorry, didn't bring proper reference with me. But the one I was using looked like it was backtranslated into Syriac from perhaps a Greek original. Does the Peshitta match line for line with the (best?) Greek originals? I don't know from Adam's off ox about Syriac, I have just been trying to see if that was the source of the "james" form, but apparently not (based on what the person said in the response). The Armenian which was supposed to have been translated from the Syriac has a form like Jacobos.

>>and why did the english translators, who have no need for case endings, not simply eliminate the case ending and use jacob?

**(Actually, I have heard that Jerome translated the OT from the orign. Hebrew and the NT from Greek or Latin? Probably not true, but that could explain why the endings are different). More to the point, why did they turn some sort of -c- or -ch- whatever they thought it was, into an -m- in the middle of the word, that's my question. I doubt that Jacme is ever attested. The closest I can find is Giacomo, an Italian form but that would be pronounceable in English (Jacomo, Yacomo), and why was such a form used in an English translation if they had either a Greek or Latin original in front of them? Same problem with the Irish Seamus. That's my question. I'm not trying to run this into the ground, I appreciate the suggestions/info.

Doina