I’ll just quote Skeptics Annotated Bible for my wonderful inquiry.
Had Israel no respect for God?
Um…what’s the debate?
wow. I’ve become so accustomed to GD that I didn’t even consider another forum. But this is still a rather weird part of the bible, I’d guess christians here might like to comment on why not even god listens to himself.
But if anyone desides this thread should be moved, fine by me.
I believe God is naming Jacob (and in sense his heirs) Israel. So it is not a problem to continue to call Jacob by the name Jacob. So depending on the situation Jacob can be called Jacob or Israel.
It might be a combination of two different sources? Or some later addition to the text to explain how the Israelites got their name?
Ok that makes no sense.
I believe God is naming Jacob (and in sense his heirs) Israel to describe a particular aspect of Jacob’s (and his heirs) relationship with God.
Jacob is named Israel in E (Genesis 32:29) and continues to be called Jacob in the E source.
Perhaps he was just being accorded a second name – like Simon Peter.
I don’t think any of this explains away the “shall no more be called Jacob” part.
Because, of course, Christians and only Christians would be interested in how Yacov was renamed Yisrael.
And, of course, it’s not like the Bible was the holy book of another people who existed before the Christians.
I’d contribute something, but apparently I don’t exist.
This requires an understaning of what the name Jacob means in Hebrew. Jacob means supplanter (or holder of the heal). Jacob supplanted his brother Esau’s birthright as the eldest son. After fighting with God Jacob demands that God bless him. God does by saying he is no longer to be known as someone who supplanted his brothers right right because he struggled with God (and man) and prevailed.
This shows the changing relationship with God and humans generally and also more specifically with the people that would come to be known as the Jews.
I’d like to hear what to have to contribute.
Or anyone else regardless of religion.
But really, what I thought was that christians would like to comment on it. You could have surprised me with a jewish point of view, that would’ve been a real treat. Surprises are always better than what you expect!
Jebus: but god continues to mock him as a supplanter. And so does the text. No matter what Jacob and Israel might mean, god says he shall no longer be called Jacob, but noone cares at all until he repeats it, and even then only every other time he’s mentioned or so.
Not understanding Hebrew myself I can’t speak directly, but as I understand it the verbal play is hard to translate over. God is not literally changing Jacob’s name. He is talking about Jacob’s (and his heir’s) relationship with the covenant that God gave to Abraham. Look how God never calls Jacob’s heirs Jacobites as they would be without the change.
yelimS, to be frank I failed to respond at first on a “DNFTT” policy. (I think I can say this without running afoul of the rule, since it’s in the context of offering an apology for misreading your question here.)
Quite simply, if the Bible were the inerrant seamless Word of God that many of the Fundies hold it to be, then you would have a definite point.
However, the general consensus here, even among relatively conservative Christians, is that the Bible is an assemblage of a wide variety of documents and traditions held by the Israelite/Jewish people (and the early Christians, a separate overlapping group).
In particular, the Torah is evidently the product of a minimum of four main traditions redacted together. This little gimmick of God renaming someone to highlight their role in His Master Plan, generally with a theophoric name, is a repeated plot device used in one tradition. But the redactors took as minimal liberties with the text of the four traditions as possible, so you end up with doublets, renamings that are indifferently referred to, etc.
In so many words, don’t take single elements of it literally and expect consistency; much of it wasn’t intended that way. The character named at birth Yakov ben Yitzhak is customarily known by the name Jacob in English; God pronounced a renaming on him to make him the eponymous ancestor of the Israelites, but he personally continued to be known by his “everyday” name. (Good modern example: Compare the Earl of Avon, whose role in history is almost always referenced by his pre-ennoblement name of Anthony Eden, by which he was probably usually called by his intimates even after taking his title.)
As for “God continues to mock him” – the underlying meaning of names is very rarely the point behind them except in the precise context. I’d doubt that very few people here think of the Bishop-Martyr of Smyrna of whom my membername here is the namesake when they see one of my posts. And those who know me personally by my real name probably rarely if ever recall that it in origin means “Beloved.”
Jebus: I’ve guessed there was something lost in translation. Perhaps this is where DocCathode comes in, if he doesn’t hold me in eternal contempt for forgetting him.
Polycarp: Great answer. I see now that my infinitely profound question can have many equally interesting answers. I was really looking for the apologist point of view, or an explanation of it as I quite frankly don’t expect there to be many fundamentalists here. But some of you must have heard their explanation?
Of course mocking is an exaggeration, but I don’t buy your argument about names having little meaning. In general, they don’t, but the bible seems to be quite particular about what names it assigns to people.