Do biblical figures have last names? 1. Overview of Biblical Naming Practices In the Scriptures, individuals are not typically identified with “last names” in the modern sense. Instead, they are recognized by various markers such as parentage, place of origin, occupation, or distinguishing descriptors. This practice reflects broader ancient cultural norms rather than the contemporary Western custom of systematic family surnames. In certain passages, names are linked to genealogical lines with brief references like “son of” or “daughter of.” Or, they may be referenced by home region, such as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Matthew 21:11). These practices were consistent across much of the ancient Near East and classical Mediterranean world. 2. Ancient Cultural Context In Jewish society and surrounding cultures, personal identity was typically reinforced through patronyms (identifying a person by their father’s name) or geographical references. A typical format might be “X bar (or ben) Y,” meaning “X, son of Y.” For example, in Matthew 16:17, Simon is referred to as “Simon son of Jonah.” Similarly, certain individuals were designated by their city or district of origin, such as “Mary Magdalene,” whose name likely indicates she was from Magdala. This type of descriptor served to distinguish one person named Mary from other Marys, rather than functioning like a modern surname. 3. Patronyms and Locational Identifiers Patronyms were common among God’s people mentioned in Scripture. For instance, Old Testament genealogies frequently say “X the son of Y,” a pattern seen throughout 1 Chronicles. This served an essential purpose in family heritage and often highlighted lineage connected with covenants or priestly lines. In the New Testament, individuals are also sometimes identified by parentage. James the son of Zebedee (Mark 10:35) and John the son of Zebedee, or “the sons of Zebedee,” are distinguished in this manner. Another example is Bartimaeus, who literally means “son of Timaeus” (Mark 10:46). These references clarify family heritage and further confirm that instead of employing surnames, the culture leveraged patronyms or locational tags. 4. Examples in the Old Testament • Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: Names were distinctly personal, with genealogical connections shown through phrases like “Abraham fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob” (Genesis 25:19). There is no indication in this or other genealogical entries of formal last names. • Ruth the Moabitess: Ruth, originally from Moab, is identified by nationality rather than a family surname. Her name is recorded in Scripture to highlight her origins and faith journey (Ruth 1:22). • David, Son of Jesse: David’s identity is often linked to his father, Jesse (e.g., 1 Samuel 16:19). Despite being a royal figure and prominent king, David is still not described with what would qualify as a modern last name. These patterns reflect the Hebrew emphasis on familial and covenant associations, underscoring the importance of bloodlines and God’s promises to specific families. 5. Examples in the New Testament • Simon Peter (Simon son of Jonah): As previously noted, Jesus Himself calls Peter “Simon son of Jonah” (Matthew 16:17). This clarifies Peter’s family affiliation rather than furnishing a last name. • Mary Magdalene: She is often referenced by the town of Magdala. The Gospel accounts (e.g., Luke 8:2) distinguish her from other women named Mary in the narratives. • The Sons of Zebedee (James and John): As with Peter, there is no separate surname; they are just known as “James son of Zebedee” and “John son of Zebedee” (Matthew 4:21). • Joseph of Arimathea: A member of the Council who provided his tomb for Jesus’s burial was labeled by his place of origin. He is not assigned a separate last name (Luke 23:50–51). 6. Manuscript and Archaeological Insights Examination of ancient manuscripts, including Hebrew scrolls and early New Testament papyri, consistently demonstrates naming conventions without modern-style surnames. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous Greco-Roman writings align with the biblical practice of referring to individuals by patronyms or their place of residence. Archaeological finds in Israel, such as ancient ossuaries (bone boxes) and inscriptional evidence, also show usage of phrasing like “son of…” or “from [a location].” Inscriptions rarely, if ever, reflect a second “family” name in the modern sense. These material discoveries help confirm that biblical references to names are accurately reflective of the period’s customs. 7. Implications for Interpretation When reading Scripture, it is crucial to remember that individuals were typically set apart by descriptors linked to parentage, tribal identity, role, or location. Their identities were primarily embedded within family and tribal structures. This context sheds light on why no biblical figure is introduced with the formal last name that we in modern cultures are accustomed to. Moreover, this naming system affirms the unity of Scripture’s cultural backdrop. From the genealogical records in the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Chronicles) to the Gospels’ accounts, a consistent pattern of naming emerges, reflecting authentic historical practices. 8. Conclusion No biblical figure bears a last name in the modern sense. Instead, Scripture employs patronymic tagging, geographical indicators, or additional clarifiers suited to the culture of the time. These ancient naming conventions strengthen the historical reliability of the biblical record, as they match the standard methods of personal identification found in ancient Judea and beyond. Ultimately, biblical narratives repeatedly demonstrate how each individual’s identity and heritage intertwine with God’s overarching plan, highlighting their place within His redeeming work rather than requiring modern surnames. |
    |