Ben C Smith

Very good points. I have trouble imagining either 4 or 9 as unlucky numbers. I have found a website that makes the same claim I made, that Quartus and Non[i]us were rarer than the others. But maybe the claim is simply incorrect.

However, even Lewis and Short give the proper name Tertius as a definition of tertius, but do not analogously give the proper name Quartus as a definition of quartus.

Ben.

Apikorus

The good point was made by Anat!

Ben C Smith

Oops! I mixed you two up. Sorry.

Yours was a good point, too, however. I remembered the Tertius from Romans 16, but had forgotten about the Quartus.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

The significance was lost well before the fall of the Republic, and thus well before the time in the story. I don't have estimates on me, but it was lost well before the Ciceronian era. The names survived, but they became just that - names. Off-hand, I'd probably place the loss of significance before the earliest literature written by Plautus or Ennius.

Chris Weimer

No. If you go back early enough, it meant First-Born, Second-Born, Third-Born, etc... Actually, Primus-Quartus were rather rare overall, and the popular names were Quintus, Sextus, Septim(i)us, Octavius, and Decimus, though I'm not sure why Nonius doesn't make it. This signifies that often the first four had common praenomina, of which there was a limited number, and then resorted to using numbers. So say Marcus was first, then Gaius, then Gnaeus, then Lucius, then Quintus, then Sextus, etc... But we're going pretty far back for this system.

This and everything afterwards ought to be common knowledge, and is irrelevant to the discussion. That they were Hellenized names of the Hebrew is not in doubt, but which name in particular. Ben pointed out that Yoseh was used around that time, thus Joses is probably the Hellenized form of that name, and not Yoseph.

rob117

This is true. The Jewish tradition most familiar to the West is the Ashkenazi tradition, so many people in the West simply assume that Ashkenazi traditions are ubiquitous among Jews, when they are not. There is no reason to suppose that the Askenazic naming tradition, or the Sephardic tradition of skipping generations, was extant among first-century Palestinian Jews

JoeWallack

JW:
Hmmm, usually this deep into a Thread someone would be mad at someone else by now (and often I Am at least partially responsible). Must be losing my edge. Or maybe it really was all Vork's fault. Let's see what I can do about that.

Ben, the Issue is the Likelihood that an early 1st century Israeli Jew would have Named a son after himself. Whether or not it was historically Possible ("rules out the historicity of either or both of the names") is not the Primary issue. Of course it's Possible, there's nothing Supernatural about it. Even if there was a known Prohibition, it would still be Possible. Reminds me
of a famous scene in the Classic Scarface where Frank is explaining the Rules and says to Scarface, "1st Rule - Never get high on your own supply." Than he glances at Michelle Pfeiffer (really just her nose) and adds, "Of course not everyone always follows the rules." Here's the OP:


JW
pharoah has made a Righteous observation that this is the only known instance in the Bible. This Projects to a Conclusion that the Evidence from the Bible indicates it Unlikely that a Father would have named a Son after himself in 1st century Israel. This isn't an Argument from Silence (you've been reading too much Carlson), it's Statistics.

This Thread has appropriately expanded the Sample beyond the Bible and pharoah has confirmed that's what he wanted. Considering the number of father and son combinations available to us in the surrounding literature and especially Josephus, who gives some pretty long genealogies, your few examples above just Confirm that it would have been Unlikely for a Father of this time to give a Son the same name. You do get extra weight though for examples fairly contemporary to 1st century.

I may be going beyond the bounds of the Intent of the OP but what has also been alluded to here but not Explicitly stated is that the supposed Joseph son of Joseph here is not a Direct claim by an Original writing. As noted here "Mark" never mentions Jesus' father. Moving on to "Matthew", "Matthew" identifies the Father as Joseph with what may be his original composition but his story of Jesus having a brother Joseph appears to be Copied from "Mark".

I also want to point out that regarding your claim above of "Josephus refers to Ananus son of Ananus" this isn't exactly right. Josephus uses the names "Anonou" and "Anonos". Just kidding Chris. [Mods - is there a filter I could use so that only Chris wouldn't see the "Just kidding Chris"?]



Joses

PROOF, n.
Evidence having a shade more of plausibility than of unlikelihood. The testimony of two credible witnesses as opposed to that of only one.

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

S.C.Carlson

While I don't think that anyone could read too much Carlson , I didn't realize that the Argument from Silence was my schtick.

As for the unlikihood of being named after one's father, I tend to agree. But it could mean, for example, that Jesus's mother remarried at some point to someone not named Joseph (e.g. Clopas/Alphaeus). The extended family relationships for Jesus in our sources are a mess, and I'm not sure they can ever be sorted out to most people's satisfaction. (Can anyone tell me if Tabor's book gets into this topic?)

Stephen

Ben C Smith

If it would help, I could claim that I was absolutely livid but was practicing my poker face.

A known prohibition. That is the issue for me. If we knew from some source that naming the child after his father was considered inappropriate or even immoral, we would have positive evidence against the historicity of (the name of) either Joseph the father or Joseph the son, and we would have to balance that evidence against that kind of naming with the evidence for that kind of naming (from the papyrus, Josephus, and so forth).

In this case, however, I am not aware of any such prohibition. So the positive evidence for that kind of naming, even if not altogether ubiquitous, stands alone, and that one reason for doubting these particular names disappears (though there may be others waiting in the wings).

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
pharoah, at this point do you mind if I Expand the Issue to:

The Historicity of Jesus having a Brother Joseph

Seems that so far no one here is aware of any 1st century Israeli Jewish prohibition against naming a son after yourself and no one is aware of any other son in the Bible possibly being named after a father.

For Ben, I'll point out that in General the Practice of Naming after yourself has been an Upper Class thang. The idea is to carry/bestow the Reputation of your ancestor/s. All of your examples show this, Ananus, Judas and Herod. All the more unlikely for an ordinary Joseph to name a son Joseph. My only reluctance in pointing this out is it's Likely that some Dope will take this as Proof that the Talmud was correct in saying that Jesus "was close to the Government".



Joseph

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