Why did the Jews not call their children Abraham?
Apr 4, 2013 22:16:36 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2013 22:16:36 GMT -5
If I understand the quote correctly, it is suggesting that Genesis was written After the Babylonian Conquest in the 7th Century BCE because there are no records of Jews naming their children after the Patriarchs.
By this reasoning, the Early Jews had no knowledge of Abraham or the early Patriachs. However Abraham is not only mentioned in Genesis but also in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Psalms and Isaiah all of which were written well prior to the Bablylonian conquest. Clearly then the Jews were very familiar with the name of ABRAHAM prior to this time so unless the suggestion is that all these other books were ALSO written after the 6th Century BCE there is a fundamental flaw in the premise.
Are we to suggest for example that the disappearance of Habbukuk from popular use today is solely because people are ignorant of it's existence? What about the fact that there is only one biblical DAVID? Are we to conclude that since David is not a name that is repeated in bible Geneological records, the Psalms were written in the 20th Century when the name became popular? or that the Jewish people were ignorant of the name of their first and arguably greatest king?
Finally it is simply not true that none of the pre-exile Jews named their children after any of the Early patriarchs since on the the daughters of Zelophohad is called Noah. Moreover, Joshua 19: 48 explicitly states that the Jews names, not their children but their towns after their forefathers, in this case speaking about Dan, Isaac's grandson?
To conclude then, there are numerous cultural, religious and social factors that influence the choice and popularity of names. Many Jewish names are in fact theophoric, meaning they incorporate the divine name of God rather than reference their forefathers. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and we simply don't know if any pre-exile Jews named any of their children after the Patriaches, it would be a decidely weak argument to use the absence of names of very early Patriaches as evidence for a post-Babylonian "Genesis" especially given the weight of evidence that this simply was not the case.
By this reasoning, the Early Jews had no knowledge of Abraham or the early Patriachs. However Abraham is not only mentioned in Genesis but also in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Psalms and Isaiah all of which were written well prior to the Bablylonian conquest. Clearly then the Jews were very familiar with the name of ABRAHAM prior to this time so unless the suggestion is that all these other books were ALSO written after the 6th Century BCE there is a fundamental flaw in the premise.
Are we to suggest for example that the disappearance of Habbukuk from popular use today is solely because people are ignorant of it's existence? What about the fact that there is only one biblical DAVID? Are we to conclude that since David is not a name that is repeated in bible Geneological records, the Psalms were written in the 20th Century when the name became popular? or that the Jewish people were ignorant of the name of their first and arguably greatest king?
Finally it is simply not true that none of the pre-exile Jews named their children after any of the Early patriarchs since on the the daughters of Zelophohad is called Noah. Moreover, Joshua 19: 48 explicitly states that the Jews names, not their children but their towns after their forefathers, in this case speaking about Dan, Isaac's grandson?
To conclude then, there are numerous cultural, religious and social factors that influence the choice and popularity of names. Many Jewish names are in fact theophoric, meaning they incorporate the divine name of God rather than reference their forefathers. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and we simply don't know if any pre-exile Jews named any of their children after the Patriaches, it would be a decidely weak argument to use the absence of names of very early Patriaches as evidence for a post-Babylonian "Genesis" especially given the weight of evidence that this simply was not the case.