| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Naming and the Bible
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Naming and the Bible

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Pabbicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pabbicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Naming and the Bible
    Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 20:31
I've heard plenty of stories about King James' incredibly massive changes to the bible to provide his people with political motivations, though one question has eluded me. Where did the translators of the bible get the names from? I find it hard to believe that the eastern romans, comprised mainly of the arabic people from my understanding, would be named "John," "Matthew," "Abraham," "Billy-Bob," or "Stumpy Joe," so... the question would be, was there any real motive in the choice of names for these characters in english?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 21:22
Who's King James?
I do not really understand. There's no "Billy Bob" and "Stumpy Joe" in the bible.

John, Matthew and Abraham are transiletarions of hebrew names (John would be sth like Yohanan (Ioannis in greek) Matthew is Matthaeus or Matthias in greek (I think these are two different names not one) and Abraham would propably be the same in hebrew (it is in greek).
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
Pabbicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pabbicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 21:27

King James as in the man who funded and commissioned the first english translation of the "Holy Bible," known for having changed many passages to support his political beliefs and give himself much more credibility in the eyes of his people.

At any rate, if it is true that hebrew has no written vowels, then it could also be possible that his name was "Obrehum" just as easily as it was "Abraham?"

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 21:34
Wikipedia has a list of biblical names and what they mean and what language they came from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Biblical_names

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 23:15
Originally posted by Pabbicus Pabbicus wrote:

I find it hard to believe that the eastern romans, comprised mainly of the arabic people from my understanding,
 
The Eastern Roman never were mainly compirsed of the Arabic people.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Pabbicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pabbicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 01:08
So their conquests in the middle east weren't inhabited by the arabs who lived there?
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 02:12

There was only one Roman province called Arabia (situated in parts of modern Jordan, Israel and Sinai peninsula) that had the majority of Arabic population. Only after the Arabic conquests in the Arabs became the majority in the Middle East. Before it was inhabited by Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Jews etc.

Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 02:22
Originally posted by Pabbicus Pabbicus wrote:

So their conquests in the middle east weren't inhabited by the arabs who lived there?

Middle East is a generic term. Arabs lived in the Arabian peninsula. The people of Palestine and Syria were related to them, but not identical. Non Arab languages survived until the 20th century (perhaps they still live, I'm not sure, the Turks klled most Assyrians anyway).
Those people are usually reffered as "Semites". (Hebrew/Jewish was a long dead Semitic language artificially revived among Jews in the 20th century, and so still spoken in modern Israel).

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 04:59
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

There was only one Roman province called Arabia (situated in parts of modern Jordan, Israel and Sinai peninsula) that had the majority of Arabic population. Only after the Arabic conquests in the Arabs became the majority in the Middle East. Before it was inhabited by Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Jews etc.

 
Whoa, Sarmat, things could get rather sticky when bantering claims such as "majority of Arabic population" without explaining the differentiation between Arab in terms of Islamo-cultural heritage and the historical association of the Arab tribes themselves within the context of the peninsula itself. Within a Roman context, Arabia Petrae (more or less the area associated with the Nabateans) was the region immediate to Syria Paelestina, while Arabia Felix constituted the fertile coast along the Red Sea down to an including the Yemen. The rest, as far as the Romans were concerned, was Arabia Deserta--the domain of the various tribes jumbled together as Bedouin. It was Arabia Petrae that was annexed by Trajan as a frontier province in AD 105/106. I raise this point because the Romans themselves never differentiated between "Arab" and Nabatean, although undoubtedly the inhabitants of the area did hold themselves distinct from their other neighbors in the Arabian peninsula proper. Now, that in later centuries the process of Islamic conversion would lead to the "disappearance" of populations much larger in size than the entire population of Arabia in the 7th century so as to change broad swaths of peoples into "Arabs" actually forms an entirely different story.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 08:31
Hello to you all
 
Arabs lived in the region since the 2nd century BC but weren't the majority nor were they settled. The settled peoples were other semites like jews, assyrians, phoenicians etc. All semitic languages have written vowls (three in Arabic, don't know about other languages but most likely three in them too) and these vowls were (and still used in the Quran) used to write the language before the Arabs invented the short vowls system that all semitic languages use today.
 
As for none arabic languages, they still survive to this day. Aramaic is still spoken by people living in several muslim and mixed towns near Damascus:
 
Syriac which is spoken by the Assyrians (which is nothing but Aramaic) is still used in church services as well as Assyrians living in Turkey among other places.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 09:48
Quote I find it hard to believe that the eastern romans, comprised mainly of the arabic people from my understanding, would be named "John," "Matthew," "Abraham," "Billy-Bob," or "Stumpy Joe," so... the question would be, was there any real motive in the choice of names for these characters in english?

They are angloscised versions of the Greek or Latin versions of a Hebrew or Aramaic name.

For example, a Greek hears an Aramic name and pronouces (& spells) it with a Greek accent. A German then hears it from a Greek and pronouces (& spells) it with a German accent. An Englishman then hears it from a German and pronouces (& spells) it with an English accent. Which is then written in the King James.
So I becomes Y becomes J.

That's also why many English names will have a direct Arabic equivilient. The same Hebrew/Aramic name has evolved differently with European or Middle Eastern accents. eg, 'Jesus' is the same as 'Isa' (pronouced Ees-sah)


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 23 Oct 2009 at 09:49
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 11:07
Originally posted by Pabbicus Pabbicus wrote:

King James as in the man who funded and commissioned the first english translation of the "Holy Bible," known for having changed many passages to support his political beliefs and give himself much more credibility in the eyes of his people.

Nuts.
 
Quote
At any rate, if it is true that hebrew has no written vowels, then it could also be possible that his name was "Obrehum" just as easily as it was "Abraham?"
While Hebrew had no written vowels at the time, it has had since a few hundred years CE, so we know what they were then. Moreover the Jewish oral traditions are pretty strong.
 
However, the name isn't 'Abraham' in Hebrew anyway.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Karrde View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Karrde Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2009 at 04:32
The King James Bible was not the first English translation of the Bible by a long shot (two 'official' English bibles existed previously, as well as other unofficial ones), nor did he have the translators change many passages to support his political beliefs/gain credibility in the eyes of his people. The translators were ordered to use standard traditional words (such as church instead of congregation), marginal notes were not to be included, and certain words were transliterated (names for example). 

Abraham would be Avraham. We take a more Aramaic pronunciation in English, but the B should be a V instead (Abram, his would name, would be Avram for example). 
You can't look dignified when you're having fun

-Wes Janson
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2009 at 14:49
Just a minor footnote--by the way gcle, it's Nuts! for me too as far as as the idiocy over James Stuart is concerned, not that several English monarchs have considered themselves theologically competent to the chagrin of many. The actual behind the "Authorized Translation" was rather innocent, and the "divines" entrusted the task were not commanded to do much other than seek the best possible texts for their task. It was not their fault that in many instances, the Greek texts employed were not up to that level of quality and in some instances the earlier errors of Erasmus were accepted wholeheartedly. As for this nonsense over "traditional" words, the thrust is entirely specious. Long before the Reformation the Germanic "church" (kirk) was synonymous with ekklesia not as a result of error but from familiarity: some argue church or kirk stems from the Gk. kuriakon, the noun for temple but that is quite a stretch since the term occurs in the New Testament but twice. Regardless of modern "fundamentalist" cant, Jerome did not commit any translation error in the Vulgate when he handled the Greek terms (after all, where does the Latin ecclesia get its root? and as for kuriakon, he was faithful to its sense of possession, "of the god", and simply translated it into sound Latin, Dei). Whatever one might think of the compilers of the Septuagint, their usage of the Greek term as synonymous with the Hebrew for "the calling out of the Tribes" is unmistakable. No if any error is to be found it lies solely with the Germanic languages and its lack of nuance. By tradition the populance had already confused a building as its own purpose. Such the result of "each man his own theologian". Of which we have an example above with the digression on b's and v's. Shall we call in Ibrahim to testify as to his proper name?
 
PS: Shall we inquire on the origins of a liturgical practice [For Thine is the Kingdom...] as verba ipsissima in Matthew 6:13--it is one of the most glaring errors foisted by Protestant "divines" and derived from, in all probability, a rather sleepy 11th century Greek monk.


Edited by drgonzaga - 26 Oct 2009 at 15:01
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Karrde View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Karrde Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct 2009 at 03:28
If it were possible to call him forward, that'd be great. However we have the ancient records that give us it fairly well. 
You can't look dignified when you're having fun

-Wes Janson
Back to Top
Hebrewtext View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hebrewtext Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 15:45
the B in Hebrew is  spelled as B or V
 
Abraham is spelled  Avraham
Abigail is spelled  Avigail
 
the P can be spelled P or F
the S can be spelled S or SH 
the K can be spelled K or CH
 
the Hebrew vowel system  developed during the 8th century in Tiberious, and it is still in use  today .though other systems were used that time among other Jewish communities   but were not widely adapted  .


Edited by Hebrewtext - 21 Dec 2009 at 15:56
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 16:56
Originally posted by Hebrewtext Hebrewtext wrote:

the B in Hebrew is  spelled as B or V
 
Abraham is spelled  Avraham
Abigail is spelled  Avigail
 

Really? that's really interesting, beacuse that's also true in Greek, but I always thought it was because of the change of Greek pronunciation (namely that it was wrong to pronounce "Avraham", and instead it would be more correct to pronounce "Abraham"). Is the "h" pronounced, or is it silent? In Greek it is completely dropped ("Avraam" instead of "Avaham").
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
gruvawn View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2009
Location: usually indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 83
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gruvawn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2010 at 02:32
i think the h may also be pronounced kh or as a glottal stop. theyre all 3 close together.

'Jesus' is the same as 'Isa'. thanx for the info. i have a muslim friend that i can call jesus now. Big smile
don't believe everything you think. : )
Back to Top
Hebrewtext View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hebrewtext Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2010 at 13:12
 the name apeared first as Abram,    Later  God changed his name to Abraham.
 
the H in Abraham ( av-ra-ham) is pronounced , just like the English H , this is not the glotal kh/ch.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3550
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 07:15
What about "Ahaz"? Is that the glottal kh/ch as it is transliterated in the Greek of the Septuagint? Or is it another "h" in the same fashion as the modern English "h"?
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Hebrewtext View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hebrewtext Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 13:57
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

What about "Ahaz"? Is that the glottal kh/ch as it is transliterated in the Greek of the Septuagint? Or is it another "h" in the same fashion as the modern English "h"?
 
-Akolouthos
 
the H in Ahaz is the glottal kh/ch.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 14:03
Akha!
 
<hides shamefacedly>
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3550
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 17:35
Originally posted by Hebrewtext Hebrewtext wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

What about "Ahaz"? Is that the glottal kh/ch as it is transliterated in the Greek of the Septuagint? Or is it another "h" in the same fashion as the modern English "h"?
 
-Akolouthos
 
the H in Ahaz is the glottal kh/ch.
 
Thank you, Hebrewtext. I had figured as much, based on the Septuagint transliteration, but I wanted to be sure. Now I need to go back and see how they did Abraham. Smile
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Akha!
 
<hides shamefacedly>
 
I don't see why; that was hilarious. LOLClap
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.