Scotland's Jews

[Nathan]

Wikipedia is citing the Online Etymological Dictionary - but I found it in the OED. There's not a better tool for English word origins. As far as the theological scholars' attention to detail, we're talking about a timeframe when Latin was completing its mutation/fragmentation into French/Spanish/Portuguese and so on (all of which were also fractured regionally) , and when spelling was whatever the scholar in question thought looked good at the moment. Small changes like Iakobos=>Iakobus=>Iakombus=>Iakomus were probably hardly noticeable.

i'll check out the OED, sounds like a great resource. Thanks!

Still, any idea why the Old and New Testament persons with the same Hebrew names are rendered differently?

[JonathanB]

Still, any idea why the Old and New Testament persons with the same Hebrew names are rendered differently?

Because the Old Testament is written in Hebrew and the New Testament is written in koine Greek.

The demotic speach of Jesus and his disciples was not Hebrew but Aramaic.

(PS When I did a course on Religious Studies some twenty years ago, we were told that Old Testament was the specifically Christian term, like Before Christ. The neutral terms would be the Hebrew Scriptures and Before Christian Era.)

[Nathan]

Because the Old Testament is written in Hebrew and the New Testament is written in koine Greek.

Of course! But I thought the original translations of the Hebrew scriptures into English came from the Septuagint which was already also Greek. In any case, if one translated the New Testament which had a Greek rendering of the names into English, and translated the Hebrew Scriptures from the original Hebrew, this would indeed account for the difference.

The demotic speach of Jesus and his disciples was not Hebrew but Aramaic.

True, but the Judeans had a very good facility in "Lashon Kodesh" or the "Holy Language" at the time as the Temple was still standing and all religious services were (and are still) conducted in Hebrew. Torah learning was also conducted in Hebrew. Not only that, but Aramaic is a very close cousin to Hebrew. They share an alphabet and a lot of vocabulary. I did mention Aramaic in an earlier post, but was referring to Hebrew names because, the Jews of the day didn't change their naming conventions with the Aramaic vernacular.

(PS When I did a course on Religious Studies some twenty years ago, we were told that Old Testament was the specifically Christian term, like Before Christ. The neutral terms would be the Hebrew Scriptures and Before Christian Era.)

Indeed that's the neutral term and kudos to your religious studies prof for using that inclusive language. However, when referring specifically to the scriptures as used by Christian translators into English, I think 'Old Testament' is appropriate as this is the language they use. When referring to the Hebrew Scriptures as used by Jews, it is typical to use the term Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim). When one refers to the Tanakh, it is also clear that they are referring to the Masoretic Hebrew text rather than the Septuagint. I do agree that the term "Old Testament" is a very loaded term and probably never should have been coined.

I wonder if Joseph's coat of many colours was Tartan...

[McClef]

That would be the ultimate tartan design challenge!

It was red and yellow and green and brown
And scarlet and black and ochre and peach
And ruby and olive and violet and fawn
And lilac and gold and chocolate and mauve
And cream and crimson and silver and rose
And azure and lemon and russet and grey
And purple and white and pink and orange
And red and yellow and green and brown and
Scarlet and black and ochre and peach
And ruby and olive and violet and fawn
And lilac and gold and chocolate and mauve
And cream and crimson and silver and rose
And azure and lemon and russet and grey
And purple and white and pink and orange
And blue

[JonathanB]

Alas, Nathan, the current translation of Genesis in the Revised Standard Version says Joseph's coat was with long sleeves! They'd be translating the Hebrew. Shame.

The King James version translated the OT (sic) from the Hebrew, except for those books only found in the Septuagint. Those additional books aren't very important in themselves but at times a big shibboleth between Catholics and Protestants.

[Nathan]

Alas, Nathan, the current translation of Genesis in the Revised Standard Version says Joseph's coat was with long sleeves! They'd be translating the Hebrew. Shame.

The King James version translated the OT (sic) from the Hebrew, except for those books only found in the Septuagint. Those additional books aren't very important in themselves but at times a big shibboleth between Catholics and Protestants.

Long sleeves, so it wasn't a belted plaid, but it still could have been tartan.

I am aware that the King James Version used the masoretic Hebrew text as well, but by then the name "James" had clearly already achieved popularity after centuries of Catholicism.

[Mike_Oettle]

What intrigues me about the name James is that, going by what I have read, it is a form that occurred in Scotland before it was encountered in England.
I believe it comes from Italian: in most Italian dialects, the name occurs as Giacopo, but in some it is transformed as Giacomo (as in Puccini). Somehow this form apparently found its way to Scotland. What its precise connection is with the Gaelic form of the name, I am unsure. Perhaps the Gaelic form came with the Irish missionaries, but it is not impossible that Hamish is derived from James.
Certainly before the form James appeared in England, the preferred form there was Jacob.
As for the colours of Joseph’s coat, the incredibly long list quoted comes from the imagination of lyricist Tim Rice, who collaborated with Andrew Lloyd Webber to create Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.
If the shades were eliminated and reduced to a much smaller number of colours, this might be worth producing as a tartan – but I would like to see an image of it before someone goes ahead and has it woven!
Regards,
Mike

[Rob, ClanMacMillan, NM]

That would be the ultimate tartan design challenge!

It was red and yellow and green and brown
And scarlet and black and ochre and peach
And ruby and olive and violet and fawn
And lilac and gold and chocolate and mauve
And cream and crimson and silver and rose
And azure and lemon and russet and grey
And purple and white and pink and orange
And red and yellow and green and brown and
Scarlet and black and ochre and peach
And ruby and olive and violet and fawn
And lilac and gold and chocolate and mauve
And cream and crimson and silver and rose
And azure and lemon and russet and grey
And purple and white and pink and orange
And blue

A challenge yes, but do-able if we don't worry about colour variations too much...
We could take red, scarlet, ruby, rose, & crimson and make them all the same shade... After combining the other shades, I think we could get it down to 6-8 actual colours -- anyone up for the challenge?

Rob.