[~~~]

So we're going through some names and were trying to figure out the background of some of them.

So the discussion arises of whether John or Jean (French version) came about first? All I can find is biblical references and this link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=john

So, oh wise name nerds of EB, what are your thoughts?

Thanks

[Lyra]

Old French trumps English ie early English were actually speaking Norman French before they were speaking English as we know it

Therefore, I say Jean before John

[Gudrun]

Old French trumps English ie early English were actually speaking Norman French before they were speaking English as we know it

Therefore, I say Jean before John

What Lyra says. Only thing is that the old French form Jehan morphed a couple of times in England to become John.

But it also morphed into Jean in France. Could that morphing have been contemporaneous?

Did the actual form Jean beat the actual form John? Quite possibly, since France had the head start but not necessarily I would think.

Love the question!

[Magnus]

Hmmm, I cheated and looked it up in the OED, which has

c1160 Johannes

c1175 Iohan

c1275 Ion

I don't think that actually answers the question, though.

[Pooks*potters]

Ok a bit of research on the interwebz has John with this spelling from the 11th century, pronounced same but spelled Iohn from the 7th century(so says wiki). Jean is modern, Jehan is medieval so is contemporary with John.


So John wins

[Susiebelle]

In the 1292 census of Paris Jehan is the most common male name (total 2320). This is a total of several spellings. Included in that total were 7 of Jean.

In an index of names on the 1292 (coincedence the 2 earliest records I can find are the same year?)
subsidy roll of London Johannes is listed as the most common male name (total 143 with few variations of spelling, but overwhelmingly Johannes) None of the variations are John, but there is one Jon. However on all the early English name records the names are written in Latin form (hence Alice is Alicia, Robert is Robertus, Peter is Petrus etc. John, if it did exist, would be recorded as Johannes). The spelling variations of Johannes on this record look like abbreviations though, not actual spellings, eg Joh' or Jh' . This probably accounts for the one Jon as well.

So, does Jean win? or, were the English using the vernacular John at this stage while recording Johan/nes?

[MissingInAction]

Giovanni & Giovanna in Italian... not sure who came first though...

[kerilyntaryn]

I say John as John was used in the Bible before Jesus was born

[Lyra]

I say John as John was used in the Bible before Jesus was born

But the Bible wasn't written in English. It would have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic before being translated into Latin and then later into English at the behest of King James hence the King James Bible

[countrymel]

I have a family tree somewhere that goes back to 1100ish... there are a hell of a lot of Johns in that thing!