Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Thanks Johnv.Originally posted by Johnv:
Like the name "Jesus", the names were written in Greek, but were Greek versions of Hebrew names:
James (Iakobos) was actually Jacobus.
John (Ioannes) was actually Jochanan.
Simon (Simon) was actually Shimon.
We know them by the English versions of the Greek names. If we had gone by their actual Hebrew names, James would be Jacob, John would be Joacim, and Jesus would be Joshua.
I can hear it now, "Turn with me in your Bibles if you will to Jimmy 2:10." I know it only sounds funny because I am not used to it but, it still sounds funny.Originally posted by Jim1999:
Jim (Jacobus (old Latin), Jacob, The Supplanter, Hebrew..The English can be, Jakobos, Jacob, Jake, Jack, Jocko, Jeames, Jamie, Jemmy. Jimmie, Jimmy, Jim, or the Greek Iakobos.)
That's the 20,000 question. My understanding is that the Apostles were already being known by the English versions of their names prior to the first English translation bibles. It's often hard to fight tradition. For example, had the KJV authors decided to refer to Jesus as "Joshua", the version no doubt would have been critically berated more than it did.Originally posted by Jamal5000:
... why did translators decide to Anglicize them? Why not keep the original names?
Interestingly, there's one instance in the KJV (Hebrews 4) where Joshua was translated as "Jesus". Since we realte the name "Jesus" to the son of Mary and Joseph, and "Joshua" to the OT hero, Hebrews 4 should have been translated as "Joshua", not "Jesus".To avoid confusion or something with names in the OT?