gengwall

The naming=authority argument fails on many fronts.

Adam (and Eve) already had authority over the animals per Genesis 1, so there was no need for God to invent some act to establish authority. Therefore, the naming must have had some other purpose, which of course, it did as scripture clearly shows – it was designed to illustrate to Adam how none of the other animals could meet his need for human companionship.

Adam’s “naming” of Eve shows how effective God’s chore for him was, as Adam rejoices in having his need met with one of his kind – “woman”. Adam really did not name Eve per se, but instead showed how Eve contrasted the animals in relation to his aloneness, which was the whole point of the naming exercise in the first place.

Besides, Adam didn’t “name” the animals (or Eve) at all, he categorized them. So appeals to parental or other authoritarian naming conventions are meaningless.

Those naming conventions themselves, like primogeniture mentioned above, are cultural in nature and have no basis in scripture.

And those naming conventions are not limited to males, so the whole argument that it demonstrates male authority over female is lost. Even Eve named some of her children. And no husband in the entirety of scripture ever named his wife (that I am aware of). So even the cultural argument fails when considered either on gender or inter-relational grounds.