The question of whether the letter “J” existed in antiquity is often raised in discussions about biblical translation and the name of Jesus Christ. From a historical and linguistic standpoint, the answer is clear and well established, as is its relevance to theology.
The letter “J” did not exist as a distinct character in classical Latin. In ancient Latin manuscripts, the letter “I” served both vowel and consonant functions. The formal distinction between “I” and “J” was introduced in the early sixteenth century, most notably by Italian scholar Gian Giorgio Trissino in 1524. Over the following centuries, this distinction became standardized across European languages, including English. This development was part of the natural evolution of written language and orthography.
The absence of the letter “J” in antiquity, however, has no bearing on the biblical texts themselves. The Bible was not written in Latin or English, nor was it composed using the Latin alphabet. The Hebrew Bible was written primarily in Hebrew, with some Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. None of these languages contain the letter “J,” and none rely on Latin orthography. Consequently, the later development of the letter “J” is unrelated to the transmission, preservation, or meaning of the biblical manuscripts.
The name “Jesus” represents an English transliteration of a name that passed through multiple languages. The original Hebrew name, commonly rendered as Yēshūaʿ, meaning “YHWH saves,” was adapted into Greek as Iēsous due to the phonetic constraints of the Greek language. From Greek, the name entered Latin as Iesus and was later rendered in English as Jesus following the standard conventions of English spelling and pronunciation. This process of transliteration is consistent with how names are adapted across languages and does not constitute alteration of identity or meaning.
Throughout history, biblical names have routinely been rendered differently in various languages. For example, the Hebrew Moshe becomes “Moses” in English, and Yeshayahu becomes “Isaiah.” These changes reflect linguistic accommodation rather than theological revision. Meaning and referent are preserved even as form changes.
From a theological perspective, Scripture does not teach that worship, prayer, or salvation depends on precise pronunciation or adherence to a single linguistic form. The New Testament itself records the spread of the Christian message across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts, affirming that its substance transcends language. The biblical emphasis is placed on the person and work of Jesus Christ rather than on orthographic or phonetic exactness.
In summary, while it is historically accurate that the letter “J” is a relatively late development in European writing systems, this fact is linguistically incidental and theologically irrelevant. The Bible’s original languages, its transmission, and its core message are unaffected by later developments in alphabetic conventions. Understanding this distinction helps clarify the relationship between language history and biblical interpretation and prevents linguistic facts from being misapplied to theological conclusions.
Comments
Post a Comment