James or Jacob in the Bible?
Giving Jacob his due
Baroque artist Guido Reni depicts the apostle James, son of Zebedee, in his painting Saint James the Greater (c. 1636–1638).
The problem of names surfaced at a Bible study at the St. Paul Union Church in Antalya, Turkey. Pastor Dennis Massaro was discussing the three men named “James” in the New Testament: Two were apostles, and the third was the leader of the Jerusalem church and author of the eponymous letter—the Book of James. Participants in the study came from a range of countries, including the Netherlands, Iran, Mexico, Moldova and Cameroon. When I asked what the name of these men was in their languages, they all said “Jacob.”
When I was teaching a course on the New Testament General Letters (Hebrews through Jude), I began by introducing the Book of Jacob, also known as the Book of James. Students were perplexed until they learned that Jacob is the proper translation of the Greek name Iakōbos. One student wrote later that knowing this “turned my understanding of the writing upside down.” Another observed that “with the name change, the loss of the Jewish lineage occurs.”
So how did the Jewish name Ya’akov become so Gentilized as James? Since the 13th century, the form of the Latin name Iacomus began its use in English. In the 14th century, John Wycliffe made the first Bible translation into English and translated Iakobus as James. (However, in both the Old and New Testaments he arbitrarily used the name Jacob for the patriarch). In all future English translations the name stuck, especially after 1611, when King James I sponsored the translation then called the Authorized Version. Since 1797 it has been called the King James Bible.
So what is lost by using James instead of Jacob? First, it has created an awkwardness in academic writing. Scholars providing a transliteration of James indicate Iakōbos, which even lay readers know is not the same. Hershel Shanks has noted that the reason Israeli scholars failed to understand the significance of the eponymous ossuary is that they didn’t connect James with Ya’akov.1
Second, James’s ancestral lineage is lost, as the student noted above. In Matthew’s genealogy, we learn that Joseph’s father was named Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and that his family tree included the patriarch Jacob (Matthew 1:2). James was thus named after his grandfather. As Ben Witherington writes, “It is clear that the family of ‘James’ was proud of its patriarchal heritage.”2 So Jacob was the third Jacob in the family.
Third, James’s Jewish cultural background is minimized. Tal Ilan identifies Jacob as the 15th most popular name in Palestine in antiquity, with 18 known persons carrying it.3 Including both the Eastern and Western Diasporas, Jacob was the third most popular Jewish name, with 74 occurrences.
Fourth, the Jewish literary heritage is muddled. The Book of Jacob (i.e., the Book of James) is addressed to “the twelve tribes in the diaspora” (James 1:1) and full of references and allusions to the Torah and Wisdom Literature of the Jewish Bible (Christians’ Old Testament). Scholars consider James the most “Jewish” book in the New Testament. Its genre is considered to be a diaspora letter like Jeremiah 29:1–23 and the apocryphal works The Epistle of Jeremiah, 2 Maccabees 1:1–2:18, and 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 78–86.
Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission
This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.
If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:
For these reasons, changing English translations of James to Jacob makes a lot of sense. In my lifetime we have adapted to a number of name changes: Bombay to Mumbai, Peking to Beijing, Burma to Myanmar, and Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. These changes were soon incorporated by the media as well as in subsequent editions of geographical and historical books. Making such an onomastic adjustment need not be too difficult in religious circles, either.
But can such a switch be made practically? Biblical scholars and publishers would need to agree that continued use of “James” is linguistically indefensible and culturally misleading. Most difficult to change would be Bible translations, which are very conservative. To start, a footnote could denote that James is really Jacob. And while we’re at it, let’s rehabilitate Jacob as the name of two of Jesus’ disciples/apostles. These connections, now lost only for English readers, were caught by Greek-speaking audiences as well as modern readers of translations in most other languages. Let’s give Jacob his due.
Mark Wilson is the director of the Asia Minor Research Center in Antalya, Turkey, and is a popular teacher on BAS Travel/Study tours. Mark received his doctorate in Biblical studies from the University of South Africa (Pretoria), where he serves as a research fellow in Biblical archaeology. He is currently Associate Professor Extraordinary of New Testament at Stellenbosch University. He leads field studies in Turkey and the eastern Mediterranean for university, seminary and church groups. He is the author of Biblical Turkey: A Guide to the Jewish and Christian Sites of Asia Minor and Victory through the Lamb: A Guide to Revelation in Plain Language. He is a frequent lecturer at BAS’s Bible Fests.
Notes
1. Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2003), p. 28.
2. Shanks and Witherington III, Brother of Jesus, p. 97.
3. Ṭal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part IV: The Eastern Diaspora 330 BCE–650 CE (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011).
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on April 27, 2017.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
Is the “Brother of Jesus” Inscription on the James Ossuary a Forgery?
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Thank you, Mark Wilson! Revelation teaches that Satan the devil is misleading the entire inhabited earth, and isn’t that the truth! I’m sure it’s no accident that Yeshua’s name became Jesus (bit like Zeus, eh?) and that Jacobus became James! Taking YHVH’s name from the bible and replacing it with LORD is also part of the deception.
I’ve noticed that the Son of God said not to go after those saying ‘the time is at hand!’ and they are the [one]. But the JW’s translators have conveniently changed it to read differently, so people won’t stop going after them! The devil is in the detail. Anyway, wishing you well. Regards, Jonathan.
“Second, James’s ancestral lineage is lost, as the student noted above. In Matthew’s genealogy, we learn that Joseph’s father was named Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and that his family tree included the patriarch Jacob (Matthew 1:2). James was thus named after his grandfather. As Ben Witherington writes, “It is clear that the family of ‘James’ was proud of its patriarchal heritage.”2 So Jacob was the third Jacob in the family.” Nonsense: James’ grandfather wasn’t Jacob, but most likely Heli, as reflected in Luke 3:23. The genealogy presented in Matthew is theological, not historical (Shinan, A., Zakovitch, Y., 2004).
There is so much wrong with this article, but, why bother.
Laying aside the case of Jacob/James, I don’t see what the problem is with translating names in general. Names take on different forms as they migrate to different languages. The biblical names were not “mistranslated,” they evolved. In Italian, George Washington is known as “Giorgio Washington” and Abraham Lincoln is known as “Abramo Lincoln.” This is how languages work. Foreign names are adapted. “James” was already used as a given name by generations of Christian families because it was how the Hebrew name Jacob evolved through Greek and Latin. It might be interesting to use the original names Yeshua, etc. in a modern translation of the Bible, but I don’t see how using “Jesus” is wrong and I doubt very much that its use resulted from a desire to “erase” Jewish heritage.
Mark Wilson observes that the Greek Ἰάκωβος (Iakōbos) is the same name as Hebrew יַעֲקֹב (Yaʿaqōb). Therefore, translating the name as James is linguistically indefensible and culturally misleading (since English readers lose the Jewish resonance of the name).
While he is correct at the level of etymology, he fails to mention that, even though the names are etymologically related, the same NT authors themselves routinely and consistently distinguish between the two names on the written level. Examples:
Ἰακώβ (Iakōb) — the OT patriarch Jacob (Matt. 1:2, Luke 3:34)
Ἰάκωβος (Iakōbos) — the NT figures traditionally called James (Matt 4:21, Luke 6:16)
The NT authors could have written Iakōb for James if they wanted to collapse the distinction. Yet, they did not do so. So, it seems (to me) that is also an important nuance missing from Wilson’s presentation. Wilson’s argument subtly slides from: “same underlying Semitic name” to “same name at the level of NT authorial usage.” While the NT authors (writing in Greek) were able to preserve the semantic continuity, while also maintaining a formal distinction (through Greek naming conventions), English translators lack the same alternatives. They are seemingly faced with an either/or choice. For better or worse, although English translations haven’t invented a distinction between the two names – yet they have unwittingly amplified it in the English world.