Talk:Husbandman

The quotation is probably from the King James version of the bible. However, the term was also used in the Great Bible (aka Cromwell's bible) of 1535. Given that the term is of Old English origin, it is not likely that it was found as such in the versions of the bible which were translated into English. Most likely, some simlar world in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew, was translated into English as "husbandman". One would expect that the earliest documented usage of the term would be found in an Old English or Middle English work, not Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. TwelveGreat (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Husbandman is a class status that belongs to a certain society: that of England in late medieval times and early modern period. To have a husbandman, you need to have that very unique society. There's no husbandman proper outside that society. So it's pure historical nonsense to think that because the people who translated the Bible in England in that period using that term (because it was the one they knew, as they lived in a society with that class status), it really existed in the completely different society in which the Bible was written. That's called an anachronism (of the worst kind). --Gede (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The merging of Husbandman into Husband
I am currently researching my ancestry and have come across the "occupation" of Husbandman in relation to 2 of my ancestors in 1860. I don't believe this reference had anything to do with being "Master of the House" and that the use of the term "Husbandman" was intended in its original form as a "free tenant farmer" therefore any move to integrate Husbandman with Husband would not be appropriate since the tern although not used in modern language is necessary for historical research and should remain separate.14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)1.126.49.13 (talk)--1.126.49.13 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)