RUmike

The problem I see with this is that biblical genealogies don't shed any light on naming practices in the 1st century.

Anat

Ashkenazi Jews do not (traditionally) name children after living relatives, Sepharadi Jews do, though usually skip generations anyway. The reason for the Ashkenazi custom is a fear that the Angel of Death, when coming to take the older relative may become confused and take the child instead, whereas the Sepharadi custom reflects the wish the child will live long and be successful like the person s/he is being named for (so children are usually named after elderly living relatives, which tends to result in skipping generations).

JoeWallack

Goodbye To Love One Another


JW:
Someone call my name? I don't believe the Jewish Bible has any instance of a son having the same name as the Father. I also don't think there is any instance in the Christian Bible. Mark 10:46 has "son Timaeus Bartimaeus" but I think everyone translates "son Timaeus" as an Editorial explanation and not a First name. Your observation than is an exxxcellent one, that having a Joseph , son of Joseph, in the Christian Bible is probably not historical.

In trying to look for Evidence in the Broader area, outside the Bible, I Am not aware of any prohibition at the time regarding naming a son after the father. Ashkenasi Jews have long had such a prohibition. In Brown's classic, Birth of the Messiah, where he tries to identify this Type of criticism, Brown is silent on the subject of Joseph having a son Joseph. The same goes for The New International Greek Testament Commentary. So your observation appears to be unique (except that I thought of it before).

Adding some X-Uh-Jesus here, "Mark's" lack of a Father for his Jesus ("Is this not the Carpenter, the son of Mary?") fits perfectly with his theme that Jesus' Natural lineage was unimportant. It was Receipt of God's Spirit at the Baptism that made Jesus Son of God (Supernatural).

All of the Names of "Mark's" Jesus' supposed brothers seem to be Contrived in line with a Theme of Replacement. James/Disciple James, Joseph/Arimathea Joseph, Simon/Peter Simon, Judas/Betrayer Judas. "Joseph" means "to add" in Hebrew and that appears to be exactly what "Mark" did.

While I'm on the subject I'll add that there is probably only one underlying Hebrew name. The Greek transliteration variation is probably just due to Hebrew pronunciation variation. The Masorah indicates separate pronunciation Tradition for Palestine (Jerusalem), Tiberias (Galilee) and Babylonia so not surprisingly, if there was pronunciation variation based on location there would be spelling variation. "Joses" may just be the Galilean pronunciation for "Joseph".



Joseph

SYMBOL, n.
Something that is supposed to typify or stand for something else. Many symbols are mere "survivals" -- things which having no longer any utility continue to exist because we have inherited the tendency to make them; as funereal urns carved on memorial monuments. They were once real urns holding the ashes of the dead. We cannot stop making them, but we can give them a name that conceals our helplessness.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

It always amazes me how the names in the Christian Bible are spelt differently even within the same book. This must be deliberate to confuse. Chris, the persons who translated the NT from Greek, didn't they know the name was Joses and not Joseph? Or you have some other verifiable document that the translators did not have?

I have noticed that unofficial editing of the Christian Bible is growing to unbelieveable proportions. When will the Gods stop it. When will they defend their own names.

MrsYoungie

Except that the begats go right from Adam up to Jesus. So they at least go up to the 1st century BC.

Apikorus

The practice of papponymy (naming for the grandfather) was fairly common in the ancient world. Example have been adduced from the line of Seleucid kings, Second Temple Judaean high priests (as reconstructed by F. M. Cross), the Samaria papyri (4th century), rabbinic lines ifrom the Talmud, etc.

spin

The thing about papponymy is that it takes care of the eldest son, but what about all the others? Then, how often did the eldest son make it to adulthood? And too bad one (other than Jesus) didn't have multiple paternal grandfathers.

(A side issue that always amuses me is that Marcus Antonius had two daughters each called umm, Antonia. Saves on difficult name choices I must admit.)


spin

Anat

Apikorus, I know of many who were named for *grand*fathers, but what about fathers, other than Abba bar-Abba?

Anat

spin, weren't Roman children often named numerically by birth order anyway, until they acquired nicknames in later ages?

Ben C Smith

I do not think the probable patronymic Joses [or Joseph] son of Joseph rules out the historicity of either or both of the names. It is important to steer clear of arguments from the silence of both canonical Testaments. At least the following evidence will have to be dealt with:

1. In post #9 on this thread I noted that papyrus Yadin 12, dated to early century II, refers to a certain Jesus son of Jesus.

2. In post #10 Mrs. Youngie noted that Luke, at any rate, regards patronymic naming as customary.

3. I now add the information that Josephus refers to Ananus son of Ananus, the high priest, in War 4.3.7 §160, and to a certain Judas son of Judas in War 5.13.2 §534.

Ben.

ETA: The example of the Herodian family might also be relevant.