Conybeare has clearly shown that this magical view of the name was held by several of the early Fathers as well as by non-Christian and _pre- Christian Greek and Latin writers; he has also collected much comparative evidence of the general existence of such a belief relative to names. Further, it may be admitted that in some cases and by some people the name of Jesus may have been regarded as possessing magical eflicacy—see e.g. Mt 7”, Ac 47; and again that the ‘names’ referred to in Eph 1” (and, therefore, probably also in Ph 2°) are names of angels, but that the reference s ‘to the use in exorcisms of names of angels and patriarchs’ is far from obvious. It is impossible here to discuss the very numerous passages concerned in detail; but the general reasons which appear to the present writer cogent against admitting Conybeare’s mode of interpre- tation, except in a few isolated passages, may be briefly stated thus: (1) It is obviously inapplicable in many cases, 6.5. Mt 18°. (2) A number of the phrases, as we have already seen, are identical with, a number more are closely similar to, those found inthe OT. The OT terminology may and probably should be traced back ultimately to the magical view of ‘name,’ but in itself expresses an immeasurably higher type of ideas. But the influence of the OT on both Jesus and the dis- ciples was obviously so great that we have a right in ambiguous cases to adopt the higher interpre- tation suggested by OT usage rather than that suggested ‘by ponies Jewish and Greek super- stition. To take a single instance, the analogy of OT instances would lead us to infer from the fact that Simon was surnamed ‘ Rock,’ and the sons of Zebedee ‘sons of thunder,’ that the names were given because the persons in question possessed qualities described i these new names; and this is surely far more reasonable than to infer ‘that the new names were supposed to impart to them (Simon and the sons of Zebedee) new qualities, or fortify their moral characters.’ It is unques- tionably a right principle to interpret the NT in the light of contemporary ideas ; but it is a wrong application of this principle to neglect the most potent of these ideas—those, namel. , of the OT. (3) The magical significance attached to the names by early Christian Fathers, which at first sight most
favours the theory, is explicable tl a misunder- standing, under the influence of Greek superstition, of a terminology which must have been but half intelligible to Greeks and Latins.
II. CUSTOMS CONNECTED WITH THE GIVING OF Names.—1. Personal. A child received its nama most frequently from the mother (Gn 455 16" (97% 2082. 35 * 305 8. 11, 13. 18. 20. 24. 29 3518 384, Jg 13”, 1 5 1» —all the foregoing are early narratives; 1 Ch 49 7°), but frequently also from the father (see especially Hos 1" δ", Is 6%, and in P Gn 5* 16% 17 21°, but also in early narratives, Gn 4° 59 3518 4151. Ex 28, Jg 831; cf. further 1 Ch 7%, Job 42"), In Gn 38%, 2S 12* the text varies (between ‘he,’ i.e. the father, and ‘she,’ i.e. the mother, ‘ called’). More rarely and under exceptional circumstances the child received its name from others ; compare in this connexion the stories of Moses receiving his name from Pharaoh’s daughter (Ex 2"), Ruth’s child from the mother’s women neighbours (Ru 417), Solomon from a prophet (28 1955). In some cases the verb which refers to the naming of the child has an indefinite subject; so certainly in Gn 25%", perhaps also in some of the cases referred to above as instances of naming by the father.t In most of the cases just cited ‘ naming’ is immediately connected with birth, and we may perhaps infer that the name was, as a rule, in early times given immediately after birth, as is said to be the case with the modern Arabs (cf. Lane, Arabian Notes, ch. iv. n. 4). In later times the name was given at circumcision, i.e. on the 8th day after birth (Lk 1° 2"); but of this particular.custom we find no trace in OT except in so far as the change of Abraham’s name in connexion with the institu- tion of circumcision may point to it (Gn 17 (P)). In the earlier period the name was chosen on account of its significance, and recorded some cir- cumstance connected with the birth, some natural feature of the child, or the parents’ wish con- cerning it, or their gratitude to God for the gift of it. This is clear from the meaning of the names (see following art.) and also from the numerous narratives cited above, which are good evidence as to general custom, though as accounts of par- ticular instances they are mostly legendary rather than historical. The custom which was already frequent in the time of Christ (Lk 159) of naming children after a kinsman, most genet the grandfather, cannot be traced back with any certainty before the 3rd or 4th cent. B.c. The only early evidence for kinsmen even bearing a common name is 2S 217; 2S 1311477 ; 2S 3°, 1 Καὶ 157; ΤῈ 220) Ὁ Κ' 8:6 1888 οἶς ΠῚ ΒΡ. eles oe OL these five instances it will hardly be questioned that some are mere coincidences. Further, in only one instance, the third, is the relation of the two persons concerned direct; in others it is lateral, the cases being those of cousin or nephew and uncle. On the other hand, in the numerous early genealogies which we possess, we find no trace of the custom of naming after ancestors: thus no two kings of Judah (21 in number, and all of the family of David), and no two kings of the same Ephraimite dynasty, bear the same name, nor does the same name recur in any other early genealogy (see Zeph 11}; Zee 11; Jer 41)-?; 1 S91 14°; 2 Καὶ 9? 225; ef. v.27 and Jer 41? 224), On the other hand, from the 4th cent. B.c. and onwards the custom became prevalent, not only among the Jews, but also among the Pheenicians, Nabatzans, and Palmyrenes.