Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Baidarka · 10-03-2002, 10:29 AM

Luke 1

59On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him after his father Zechariah, 60but his mother spoke up and said, "No! He is to be called John."
61They said to her, "There is no one among your relatives who has that name."

According to Jewish custom a son is never named after his father. It is doubtful that anyone has ever met a Jew named Aaron Jr. If Zechariah had named John after himself John would have been known as Zechariah ben Zechariah ( a dubious name).
Does any one have any evidence that this custom was different any where among the Jews of the first century?
Can we safely dismiss this story as a fabrication?
Is this proof that the writer was unfamiliar with the people he was writing about?

Vinnie · 10-03-2002, 11:16 AM

What is the evidence that acording to first century Jewisah custom a son was never named after his father?

Vinnie

Baidarka · 10-03-2002, 12:14 PM

My post was a question not a statement, but I'll answer your question with another. Can you name any Israelite in the Bible (New Testament Included) who is named after his father?

leonarde · 10-03-2002, 12:54 PM

Baidarka raises an interesting question; alas I'm
not familiar enough with this to give a definitive
answer. But some thoughts:

1)there's a lot of "Simon son of Jonas" type of formulations in the Bible.

2)this leads me to think that in the original use (Aramaic and/or Hebrew) what is being
used is a patronymic: the word "ben" or "bar" followed by the name of the father of an individual. (So something like 'Simon bar Jonas'
or 'Simon ben Jonas'.)Naturally what we have in
the NT is the Greek translation in most instances.

3)since surnames in our modern sense did not exist, the above formulation----with or without
a reference to the town of origin----would constitute the name of the individual.

4)therefore everyone whose father was known would
have a ready 'built in' reference to that father
in the name itself.

5)therefore the idea of honoring a father by giving his name to a son would be more superfluous
than in a society which didn't have this system.

6)therefore 'Jonas son of Jonas' would be less common.

Cheers!

Baidarka · 10-03-2002, 06:44 PM

There are long lists of begats in the Bible. I challenge anyone to find an example where the begotten and the begetter have the same name. The addition of Junior at the end of a name is unheard of in Jewish families. The writer known as Luke was a novelist who was unfamiliar with the customs of the people he was writing about. This is one of the most glaring examples of this.

Vinnie · 10-03-2002, 07:11 PM

Quote:

There are long lists of begats in the Bible.

I suggest you compare the list of "begats" from not just the Bible but from all Jews of antiquity with the total projected population of that duration. Then find out the the percentage of that population your argument is working from. Once you demonstrate you are not committing a biased sample fallacy (which I doubt you can do) your statistical analysis will carry more weight though it will not positively rule out the idea unless you can provide positive evidence that no Jew would do such a thing. Not being able to find a reference in antiquity given our sources does not do this. A statement from a Jew speaking against the practiice would carry considerably more weight. Until then you are merely grasping at straws.

Quote:

The writer known as Luke was a novelist who was unfamiliar with the customs of the people he was writing about. This is one of the most glaring examples of this.

That has yet to be demonstrated but what are the other examples that you allude to?

Until you qualify your challenge and make the exercise worthwhile I see no reason for anyone to take it up.

To answer the first two questions of your original post, no and no. Or simply no and no based upon this line of reasoning, anyways.

Vinnie

leonarde · 10-03-2002, 07:32 PM

Posted by Baidarka:

Quote:

I challenge anyone to find an example where the begotten and the begetter have the same name. The addition of Junior at the end of a name is unheard of in Jewish families. The writer known as Luke was a novelist who was unfamiliar with the customs of the people he was writing about. This is one of the most glaring examples of this.

So much for the "I'm only asking a question" pose
of Baidarka's first two posts. By the way, if you
see "Junior" in the Bible, then you would know that the Bible was written by English-speaking
forgers of the 2nd millenium AD. It's a peculiar
English-language formulation.

Cheers!

leonarde · 10-03-2002, 07:55 PM

Though this doesn't answer the question (ie the
original one) it does give some framing info:

Quote:

The majority of the names in the Bible originate from the Hebrew language. Over half of the 2800 names in the Bible are original personal names. For example, there is only one Abraham in the Bible. Only about 5% of the names found in the Bible are used today.

Alfred Kolatch, in his book "These are the Names," organizes Biblical names into seven categories:

1.Names describing the characteristics of a person.
2.Names influenced by the experiences of the parents.
3.Names of animals.
4.Names of plants or flowers.
5.Theophoric names with G-d's name either as a prefix or suffix.
6.Conditions or experiences of mankind or the nation.
7.Names which express hope for the future or a desired condition.

Above from:
<a href="http://judaism.about.com/library/weekly/aa013000b.htm" target="_blank">http://judaism.about.com/library/weekly/aa013000b.htm</a>

Peter Kirby · 10-03-2002, 08:46 PM

Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, pp. 380-381):

Quote:

According to this passage (and 2:21) the child was named at his circumcision. Such a custom of naming children at circumcision is not otherwise attested among Palestinian Jews until several centuries later. Some commentators have consequently thought that the references to such a practice might be imported here from Greek practice, since in ancient Greece it was common to name the child on the seventh or tenth day after birth. Among Palestinian Jews it had been the practice to name the child at birth (see Gen 4:1; 21:3; 25:25-26). Moreover, it was usually the concern of the parents, either the father or the mother. Luke's words here must be understood, not so much as a proposal made by the neighbors and relatives, as a supposition; people were referring to the child already as "little Zechariah." Yet even such a supposition is strange, for though the name of a child after his Jewish father is attested (Tob 1:1,9[?]; Josephus Ant. 14.1,3 � 10; 20.9,1 � 197; J.W. 5.13,2 � 534; Mur 29:10 [Yehudah bar Yehudah]; 42:12 [Yehosep bar Yehosep]), it was apparently not common. The more usual practice seems to have been paponymy, or the naming of a child after his grandfather (1 Macc 2:1-2; Jub. 11:15; Josephus Life, 1.1 � 5--cf. E.L. Sukenik, JPOS 8 [1928] 119]. That would at least explain in part the subsequent comment of the neighbors and relatives (1:61).

The extent to which these customs have a bearing on Luke's story is another matter. In the long run the association of the name with the circumcision of John serves only as a background for the account of the loosing of Zechariah's tongue and for the sign that is thereby given about the character and role of the child so circumcised and named.

best,
Peter Kirby

Geoff Hudson · 10-04-2002, 12:28 AM

Would the naming process be affected if the child's father was dead when the the child was born?

Zechariah's tongue had been 'loosened' had it not? Was that before 'he could not speak' or after? Get the idea!

G.H.

10-03-2002, 10:29 AM	#1
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Zechariah ben Zechariah? Luke 1 59On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him after his father Zechariah, 60but his mother spoke up and said, "No! He is to be called John." 61They said to her, "There is no one among your relatives who has that name." According to Jewish custom a son is never named after his father. It is doubtful that anyone has ever met a Jew named Aaron Jr. If Zechariah had named John after himself John would have been known as Zechariah ben Zechariah ( a dubious name). Does any one have any evidence that this custom was different any where among the Jews of the first century? Can we safely dismiss this story as a fabrication? Is this proof that the writer was unfamiliar with the people he was writing about?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-03-2002, 11:16 AM	#2
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	What is the evidence that acording to first century Jewisah custom a son was never named after his father? Vinnie

10-03-2002, 12:14 PM	#3
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	My post was a question not a statement, but I'll answer your question with another. Can you name any Israelite in the Bible (New Testament Included) who is named after his father?

10-03-2002, 12:54 PM	#4
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Baidarka raises an interesting question; alas I'm not familiar enough with this to give a definitive answer. But some thoughts: 1)there's a lot of "Simon son of Jonas" type of formulations in the Bible. 2)this leads me to think that in the original use (Aramaic and/or Hebrew) what is being used is a patronymic: the word "ben" or "bar" followed by the name of the father of an individual. (So something like 'Simon bar Jonas' or 'Simon ben Jonas'.)Naturally what we have in the NT is the Greek translation in most instances. 3)since surnames in our modern sense did not exist, the above formulation----with or without a reference to the town of origin----would constitute the name of the individual. 4)therefore everyone whose father was known would have a ready 'built in' reference to that father in the name itself. 5)therefore the idea of honoring a father by giving his name to a son would be more superfluous than in a society which didn't have this system. 6)therefore 'Jonas son of Jonas' would be less common. Cheers!

10-03-2002, 06:44 PM	#5
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	There are long lists of begats in the Bible. I challenge anyone to find an example where the begotten and the begetter have the same name. The addition of Junior at the end of a name is unheard of in Jewish families. The writer known as Luke was a novelist who was unfamiliar with the customs of the people he was writing about. This is one of the most glaring examples of this.

10-04-2002, 12:28 AM	#10
Geoff Hudson Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 318	Would the naming process be affected if the child's father was dead when the the child was born? Zechariah's tongue had been 'loosened' had it not? Was that before 'he could not speak' or after? Get the idea! G.H.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.