When we talk about the strong popularity of biblical names these days, what we’re really talking about are Old Testament names.  Looking at the popularity list, we see Jacob at #1, followed by Ethan, Joshua, Daniel, David, Joseph, Noah, Nathan, Samuel and Benjamin, while for girls, Hannah and Sarah are still in the Top 20.

Sure, thousands of babies each year are still named John and Thomas and Elizabeth, but these are seen as very conservative choices, often given to honor a family member.  And then there’s poor Mary.  We’ve been known to say to parents if you want a really unusual name, how about Mary?–the most widely used female name in the English-speaking world for centuries  has long been in steep decline.  The statistics are pretty dramatic: in 1925, more than 70,000 baby girls were christened Mary, in 1950 there were still over 65,000, while by last year the number had shrunk to less than 4,000.  Similar story with John: 57,000+ in 1950 to just over 4,000 in 2007.  Why?  For one thing, their massive long-term popularity robbed them of any individuality, and for another, so many of today’s parents carry around elderly images of a Great-Uncle Jim or a Grandma Betty that they don’t seem fitting for a baby.

But there are other New Testament names besides the old standards.  Rather than being strictly Hebrew names, as those in the New Testament, these have Greek, Roman and Aramaic elements, giving them quite a different flavor.  So, moving beyond Mary, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, here are a few possibilities:

GIRLS

DAMARIS

DRUSILLA

JUNIA

MAGDALA (place name)

MAGDALEN

PERSIS

PHOEBE

PRISCILLA

SAPPHIRA

TABITHA

And for boys:

BARNABUS

BARTHOLOMEW

CLEMENT

CRISPUS

ELIAS

GAIUS

JUSTUS

MATTHIAS

THADDEUS

ZACHARIUS

ZEBEDEE

Daniel tops the boys’ chart for the very first time in the just-released 2007 New York City name popularity statistics, with Jayden rising to number two and long-time top name Michael falling to third place.    Isabella and Sophia tied for number one for girls, unseating Ashley and Emily.

The rise of Isabella and Sophia is interesting, but Daniel is the real story here — and not just because it’s number one in New York.  It’s also in first place in other big states like California and Illinois (though way down at number 25 in Alabama).  Daniel’s been in the nationwide Top 10 for many years now, but why suddenly the rise to Number 1?

Daniel, more than national number 1 name Jacob, is a natural for the top spot.  With a modern feel and traditional roots, Daniel appeals to a wide range of parents: Christian and Jewish, conservatives and forward thinkers, it relates to Danny Boy and Daniel in the Lion’s Den.  Plus it’s a name that crosses many ethnic lines: Its Spanish version, for instance, is just like its English one.

And there are fewer male names with this kind of widespread appeal than you might think.  Matthew is another one that qualifies.  Alexander, sort of.  William, okay.  Andrew, maybe.

But long-time favorites such as Joseph and James and Robert feel a tad traditional.  Anthony, a little ethnic.  Joshua and Justin and Ethan, too nouveau.

Daniel sits comfortably in the middle, with very few equals among boys’ names.

Famous Daniels include Webster, Boone, and Day-Lewis.  The name has been in the national Top 20 since 1952 and in the Top 50 since 1921.

A few other tidbits from the New York City popularity statistics: Ryan is the number one name for Asian boys.  Because of the large Jewish population, Chaya is actually in the Top Ten for white girls.  Giuliana, spelled this way as a possible tribute to Mayor Rudy, is on the popularity list.  And Brooklyn, the number 57 name for girls nationwide, is nowhere to be found.

Here’s the whole story on New York City names.

A lot of parents spend hours, days, weeks, months gazing at the Social Security list of most popular names in search of the ideal choice for their baby.  What they want is a name that’s well established but not too popular, neither too recently trendy nor shooting toward the top of the list.

And there’s one dad who thinks he’s found the perfect formula for teasing out the perfect name from the mountain of statistics on the Social Security site.  It’s simple, he says.  All you have to do is write down all the names that made the Top 100 in every year from 1880 through 1930.  Then you cross off all the names on that list that made the Top 300 in the past ten years.  Et voila, you have a list of wonderful names from which to choose.

Um, yeah.  If you have an advanced degree in mathematics from MIT.  And if you think Bertha is a wonderful name.

Actually, I only had the math acumen (not to mention the time and the patience) to check the lists for three years: 1880, 1900, and 1930.  And on the Top 100 lists from those years I indeed found a lot of great names not on the Top 300 in any recent years.

For girls, you might choose a serious name such as Helen or Clara, Cora or Flora (or Dora), Pearl or Maude.  Or you might pick a madcap, fun-loving name such as Minnie or Mamie, Mabel or Lula.  Yes, Lula!

But then there’s Beulah.  Along with a lot of other not-so-beautiful names that were the bee’s knees on those lists.  Bertha, for instance, and Gertrude.  Ethel and Edna.  Gladys, Shirley, and Phyllis.

On the boys’ side, there are great names to be found on the old lists.  There’s Walter, for example, and Louis.  Arthur, and Albert.  Rufus, Roy, and Ralph.

And then there’s Herbert.  And Herman.  And Elmer, Dewey, and Lester.  Don‘t do this to your son.

An intriguing way to look for a great name?  Maybe.  But simple and foolproof, no way.

It’s one of the unwritten rules of baby names–well, actually it’s been written more than once, including by us–that it takes a century for a name to feel fresh enough again to be used for an infant, to no longer sound like a mommy name (Jennifer) or grandpa (Irwin) or great-grandma (Ethel) name.  This might account for the recently rejuvenated returns of Alice and Grace and Frances, Josephine and Emma, Ruby, Beatrice, Leo and Charlie–all of which were in the Top 50 in 1908.

But rules were made to be broken, and a hundred years is a long time for a name to wait in the wings.  It’s actually not that hard to find examples from every decade of the 20th century, popular from the 1910s through the 1980s, that are worth a new look–even if some of the early ones sound a little fusty and funky, and others sound a little only-yesterday.  So, from way back when to nearly now:

1910s: Geneva, Hazel, Mabel; Oscar, Clyde, Otis

1920s: Nellie, Pearl, Viola; Calvin, Chester, Russell

1930s: Pauline, Patsy, Lula; Floyd, Lowell, Felix

1940s: Penny, Kay, Lydia; Archie, Mack, Rex

1950s: Roxanne, Laurel, Ginger; Terry, Perry, Patrick

1960s: Jill, Gwendolyn, Ramona; Marcus, Vincent, Kyle

1970s: Veronica, Tamara, Meredith; Adrian, Ian, Jared

1980s: Miranda, Jillian, Felicia; Logan, Luke, Omar

Blame Ava.  Stylish but obscure when Reese Witherspoon picked it for her daughter less than a decade ago, it’s rocketed up the popularity list, with sound-alike Eva following close behind.  It’s become so popular, in fact, that our brand-new version of our original baby name style guide Beyond Jennifer & Jason, slated to come out next spring, will be titled Beyond Ava & Aiden.

Parents enchanted with Ava but looking for a fresh twist have discovered Ada.  If you check out the popularity chart on Ada’s name page, you’ll see that a very sleepy name is now heading straight upward.

But Ada is still only number 646 on the Social Security list, with just 452 baby girls in all of the United States getting the name in 2007 — an average of nine girls per state.  Hardly the kind of name where you risk running into another little Ada in every nursery school class.

And yet Ada is heading nowhere but up, and there’s every chance that over the next decade it will join Ava on the Top Ten.  Ava itself was, after all, in the 600s ten years ago, and has risen all the way to number 4. Eva is number 117, with Ava and Eva together given to more babies in 2007 than the number 1 Emily.

Names often follow each other up the popularity list, with a more unusual version of a name chasing the more popular one….and sometimes catching up.  Such is the case with Emma, now number 3 to Emily’s number one.  Or Addison, at number 11 closing in on number 5 Madison.  There are boys’ examples too: Christian and Christopher; Jack and Jackson.

Ada’s rise will also be, well, aided by its similarity to the popular Jada, and by worthy Ada namesake Ada Lovelace, only daughter of Lord Byron widely acknowledged to be the first “computer programmer,” albeit on a nineteenth century model.  And all names that start with A seem to be trending upward.

The lesson: If you choose Ada now, all your friends may admire your originality and daring.  But in five years, you’ll be working hard to convince everyone that you thought of it first.