Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The word "Jew" in the Bible

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The word "Jew" in the Bible

    I'm doing some research on the word "Jew" in the Bible.

    I found this:

    The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

    "According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

    “The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

    “The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

    Question: Does the word "Jew" appear in the early manuscripts?

    Thanks.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
    I'm doing some research on the word "Jew" in the Bible.

    I found this:

    The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

    "According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

    “The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

    “The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

    Question: Does the word "Jew" appear in the early manuscripts?

    Thanks.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

    The term Jew passed into the English language from the Greek Ioudaios and Latin Iudaeus, from which the Old French giu was derived after dropping the letter "d", and later after a variety of forms found in early English (from about the year 1000) such as: Iudea, Gyu, Giu, Iuu, Iuw, Iew developed into the English word “Jew.” It thus ultimately originates in the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi meaning "from the Tribe of Judah", "from the Kingdom of Judah", or "Jew". The Jewish ethnonym in Hebrew is יהודים‎, Yehudim (plural of יהודי‎, Yehudi).
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

      The term Jew passed into the English language from the Greek Ioudaios and Latin Iudaeus, from which the Old French giu was derived after dropping the letter "d", and later after a variety of forms found in early English (from about the year 1000) such as: Iudea, Gyu, Giu, Iuu, Iuw, Iew developed into the English word “Jew.” It thus ultimately originates in the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi meaning "from the Tribe of Judah", "from the Kingdom of Judah", or "Jew". The Jewish ethnonym in Hebrew is יהודים‎, Yehudim (plural of יהודי‎, Yehudi).
      Why doesn't it appear in the King James Version?

      Thanks.

      Comment


      • #4
        what did they use instead of "jew"?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
          I'm doing some research on the word "Jew" in the Bible.

          I found this:

          The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

          "According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

          “The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

          “The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

          Question: Does the word "Jew" appear in the early manuscripts?

          Thanks.
          The word "Jew" is the modern English version of the Old English Iudeas which comes from the Latin word Iudaeus. Hebrew and Greek obviously don't use the same alphabet as Latin, so, the word "Jew" as it appears in English would not appear in any non-English manuscripts.

          The Hebrew word for "Jew" is יְהוּדִ֔י. The Greek word for Jew is ιουδαῖος. Are you trying to figure out if either the Hebrew or Greek word show up in early manuscripts?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
            Why doesn't it appear in the King James Version?

            Thanks.
            It does. Here's is a scan of Esther 2:5 from an original 1611 copy of the King James from https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ester_2_1611/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              It does. Here's is a scan of Esther 2:5 from an original 1611 copy of the King James from https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ester_2_1611/

              Great!

              Why is Jew spelled Iew?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                Why doesn't it appear in the King James Version?

                Thanks.
                It does appear there. It appears in multiple English versions from the 1500's

                It appears as "Jewe" in the 1568 Bishop's Bible

                http://www.bibles-online.net/1568/Ne...ment/6-Romans/

                Also as "Jewe" in the 1541 Great Bible

                http://www.bibles-online.net/1541/Ne...ment/6-Romans/

                And as "Jew" in the 1611 King James bible

                http://www.bibles-online.net/1611/Ne...ment/6-Romans/

                And it appears as "Iewe" in the 1390 Wycliffe Manuscript

                http://www.bibles-online.net/1390/NewTestament/1thru50/
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                  Great!

                  Why is Jew spelled Iew?
                  It isn't. The 1611 KJV printed verses in Gothic typeface. In that typeface both I's and J's have the same appearance. A visual distinction between the letter "I" and "J" in English didn't come along until 1633. If you notice, the words Jerusalem, Jeconiah, Jair, and Judah use the same font.

                  You can read more about these differences on the Wikipedia page,

                  The original printing was made before English spelling was standardized, and when printers, as a matter of course, expanded and contracted the spelling of the same words in different places, so as to achieve an even column of text.[69] They set v for initial u and v, and u for u and v everywhere else. They used long ſ for non-final s.[70] The glyph j occurs only after i, as in the final letter in a Roman numeral. Punctuation was relatively heavy, and differed from current practice. When space needed to be saved, the printers sometimes used ye for the, (replacing the Middle English thorn with the continental y), set ã for an or am (in the style of scribe's shorthand), and set & for and. On the contrary, on a few occasions, they appear to have inserted these words when they thought a line needed to be padded. Later printings regularized these spellings; the punctuation has also been standardized, but still varies from current usage norms.

                  The first printing used a black letter typeface instead of a roman typeface, which itself made a political and a religious statement. Like the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in churches". It was a large folio volume meant for public use, not private devotion; the weight of the type mirrored the weight of establishment authority behind it.[citation needed] However, smaller editions and roman-type editions followed rapidly, e.g. quarto roman-type editions of the Bible in 1612.[71] This contrasted with the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible printed in a roman typeface (although black-letter editions, particularly in folio format, were issued later).


                  If you don't mind me asking, what's this all about exactly?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kind of like a capital "I" and lower case "l" in many fonts look the same?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Kind of like a capital "I" and lower case "l" in many fonts look the same?
                      Which, all conspiracy theories aside, is exactly why there is no J Street in DC.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        It isn't. The 1611 KJV printed verses in Gothic typeface. In that typeface both I's and J's have the same appearance. A visual distinction between the letter "I" and "J" in English didn't come along until 1633. If you notice, the words Jerusalem, Jeconiah, Jair, and Judah use the same font.

                        You can read more about these differences on the Wikipedia page,

                        The original printing was made before English spelling was standardized, and when printers, as a matter of course, expanded and contracted the spelling of the same words in different places, so as to achieve an even column of text.[69] They set v for initial u and v, and u for u and v everywhere else. They used long ſ for non-final s.[70] The glyph j occurs only after i, as in the final letter in a Roman numeral. Punctuation was relatively heavy, and differed from current practice. When space needed to be saved, the printers sometimes used ye for the, (replacing the Middle English thorn with the continental y), set ã for an or am (in the style of scribe's shorthand), and set & for and. On the contrary, on a few occasions, they appear to have inserted these words when they thought a line needed to be padded. Later printings regularized these spellings; the punctuation has also been standardized, but still varies from current usage norms.

                        The first printing used a black letter typeface instead of a roman typeface, which itself made a political and a religious statement. Like the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in churches". It was a large folio volume meant for public use, not private devotion; the weight of the type mirrored the weight of establishment authority behind it.[citation needed] However, smaller editions and roman-type editions followed rapidly, e.g. quarto roman-type editions of the Bible in 1612.[71] This contrasted with the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible printed in a roman typeface (although black-letter editions, particularly in folio format, were issued later).


                        If you don't mind me asking, what's this all about exactly?
                        I'm asking because I am having a conversation with a Muslim, who posted this:

                        The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

                        "According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

                        “The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

                        “The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

                        He also said Jesus was not a Jew because He didn't have a human father. I am doing research on this too.

                        Thanks guys.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Kind of like a capital "I" and lower case "l" in many fonts look the same?
                          I think it's more the case that they simply used the same letter even if the word was pronounced differently. As this fantastic article points out, English was still in the process of being standardized between 1475 and c. 1630 as spelling was attempting to catch up with how people talked. The "I" "l" distinction may be a holdover from that, that never really got ironed out.

                          This video gives a pretty good example on how "J" would have been pronounced even when it looked like "I":

                          Last edited by Adrift; 06-30-2017, 09:30 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                            I'm asking because I am having a conversation with a Muslim, who posted this:

                            The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

                            "According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

                            “The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

                            “The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

                            He also said Jesus was not a Jew because He didn't have a human father. I am doing research on this too.

                            Thanks guys.
                            Actually, it's kinda pointless to use "language" as a "proof" in a case like this. Abraham was a "Hebrew", which was עברי (pronounced "Ivri"). As I recall, that meant "the other side", and either "Moses stood on the 'other side' of religion, because he worshiped only One God", and/or he came from "the other side of the river". That they were not necessarily called "Jews" does not mean that they don't go all the way back to Abraham.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                              I'm asking because I am having a conversation with a Muslim, who posted this:

                              The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

                              "According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

                              “The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

                              “The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

                              He also said Jesus was not a Jew because He didn't have a human father. I am doing research on this too.

                              Thanks guys.
                              Oh brother. How silly. If he's seriously attempting to suggest that the word "Jew" didn't exist in English because "I" and "J" weren't standardized until later, he's a nutter and not worth bothering with. Here's a copy of the same passage from a 1637/38 copy of the King James where the "I" and "J" have become standardized (notice the lower-case "s" still isn't standardized),

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X