Why dosent anyone in the Bible have a last name ?

[megaflies]

Does anyone know the answer to this.

 

[Der Alte]

Does anyone know the answer to this.

What does this have to do with anything? Does this affect anyone's salvation or spiritual walk? For your information they do have last names. The first one mentioned in the OT is לוט בן־הרן /Lot Ben Haran i.e. Lot son of Haran, Gen 11:13. In the NT you see it when Jesus said to Peter, Simon Bar Jona, Simon son of John,

 

[megaflies]

What does this have to do with anything? Does this affect anyone's salvation or spiritual walk? For your information they do have last names. The first one mentioned in the OT is לוט בן־הרן /Lot Ben Haran i.e. Lot son of Haran, Gen 11:13. In the NT you see it when Jesus said to Peter, Simon Bar Jona, Simon son of John,

It dosent seem like a big deal but I have a desire of all things, the last name looks like it is only to mention to whom they are the son of. I was just wondering if it were possible that they were all servants and there was no need for a last name. That maybe the adding of a middle and last name was a way of elevating ourselves to a non servant level.

 

[IchoozJC]

It dosent seem like a big deal but I have a desire of all things, the last name looks like it is only to mention to whom they are the son of. I was just wondering if it were possible that they were all servants and there was no need for a last name. That maybe the adding of a middle and last name was a way of elevating ourselves to a non servant level.

What is the purpose of our last names? Its to show who's son we are. Same difference. If you were legally adopted by someone, you would take his last name.

 

[Der Alte]

It dosent seem like a big deal but I have a desire of all things, the last name looks like it is only to mention to whom they are the son of. I was just wondering if it were possible that they were all servants and there was no need for a last name. That maybe the adding of a middle and last name was a way of elevating ourselves to a non servant level.

Scripture? Speculation does not interest me. Alternately it very well might have been a way for people to distinguish between people with the same name. e.g. Simon the Carpenter, became Simon Carpenter, Simon the baker became Simon Baker. But the "son of" continued to be used, e.g. Simon Johnson, Simon Jackson.

 

[Ironhold]

Does anyone know the answer to this.

Traditionally, last names were basically "who the person was the child of", "what job they held", "what group they were a part of", and/or "where they hail from".

For example -

Jesus of Nazareth (place of origin)

Simon Zealotes (membership in the Zealots)

Et cetra.

 

[ananda]

A surname is not part of a man's name, it simply indicates a man's clan/family.

 

[he-man]

A surname is not part of a man's name, it simply indicates a man's clan/family.

Gen_4:18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
Gen_5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen_5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen_5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Gen_5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen_5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

 

[apache1]

What does this have to do with anything? Does this affect anyone's salvation or spiritual walk? For your information they do have last names. The first one mentioned in the OT is לוט בן־הרן /Lot Ben Haran i.e. Lot son of Haran, Gen 11:13. In the NT you see it when Jesus said to Peter, Simon Bar Jona, Simon son of John,

I remember Simon bar Sinister on "Underdog".

 

[Martinius]

Does anyone know the answer to this.

People were known by their given name, followed by their connection to their father, and their home town or area. So Jesus may have been known locally as Jesus Bar-Joseph of Nazareth. In the Bible we read about Jesus of Nazareth, the son of the carpenter. In scripture and other writings of biblical times we see many references like that. Names were used to identify individuals, but had no real legal import.

Last names, in other words, were not yet invented. Even into the late 19th century some countries and cultures had no last name or family name that carried over from generation to generation. With each generation the "last name" was the first name of the person's father, so it was continuously changing. That is why we see names with a Mc- or Mac- at the beginning, or -son or -sen at the end. These prefixes would indicate who they were the child of. So Abner McDonald would be Abner, the son of Donald.

Many peoples used the place of birth as part of the name, and family names were drawn from the location or even the farm or estate on which the family lived. In Scandinavian countries a century or two back, the family last name would change if they moved from one farm or place to another. So some children in a family could have one "last name" while other children could have another, even though they had the same parents. In countries where the latin languages were spoken, a name with a de- or di- or d' in front indicated where they were from.

Surnames, especially those that remained the same from one generation to another or from one place to another is a relatively recent adaptation in most parts of the world.

 

[Mark51]

Interesting question. I never gave this much thought until now. I do not think that there is much information about this subject. However, I was able to discover a little. Consider the following:

The use of such names as Peter and John and Paul in the Bible may seem to some to be an argument for using first names. But such were not first names, implying that second or last names followed. They were, for the most part, the only names. Some did have alternative names. For instance, the name first given to Peter was “Simon”, and later he was called “Cephas”, after the Aramaic, or “Peter”, after the Greek. In some texts he is called “Simon Peter”; so “Peter” was more of a last name than a first name. At Mark 3:16 it even states: “Simon he surnamed Peter.” However, this was not a surname or last name as we have today, but it was more of an alternative or additional name, given because it was especially fitting, which was a frequent custom with the Hebrews. Surnames as we know them today did not exist among the Jews of Bible times. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (1944), page 418, states: “Surnames were lacking among the Hebrews; persons were designated by adding to the personal name the name of their city, as Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph of Arimathaea, Mary Magdalene, Nahum the Elkoshite; or by a statement of their descent, as Simon son of Jonah; by their disposition, trade, or other characteristic, as Simon Peter, Nathan the prophet, Joseph the carpenter, Matthew the publican, Simon the Zealot, and Dionysius the Areopagite.”

On this point the Encyclopedia Americana, 1942 edition, has this to say under “Names”: “Neither the Hebrews, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians nor Greeks had surnames; and in the earliest period of their history the same may be said of the Romans.” (Vol. 19, p. 685) This source continues to show that our present system of surnames came only centuries later. All of which shows that the Bible characters did not have first names as we view them today, with a surname following for more formal use; and hence the use of the names Peter and John and Paul and other similar ones that seem like first names to us does not indicate a familiarity among early Christians and apostles. It was the custom of that day.

 

[timewerx]

It dosent seem like a big deal but I have a desire of all things, the last name looks like it is only to mention to whom they are the son of. I was just wondering if it were possible that they were all servants and there was no need for a last name. That maybe the adding of a middle and last name was a way of elevating ourselves to a non servant level.

Here in the Middle East, last names has a status attached to it. It also served as the name of clans or tribes.

As a result, some last names (especially the affluent and powerful or rich tribes/clans) are more privileged than others - being offered wives, bigger opportunities in business, favored over other last names.

In the context of usage here, it is ungodly. Jesus said do not go the way of Gentiles (i.e. tribes, nations - tribalism or nationalism). Do not follow their ways.

Perhaps it doesn't mean drop the last name but it surely means - do not use the ways of this world in everything, especially in gaining favors. The concept of gaining favor by itself is already ungodly. Trying to gain favor to anyone by any means is a form of manipulation. If possible if you do good things, do not try to make it obvious.

 

[Messy]

Does anyone know the answer to this.

Because Napoleon hadn't introduced it I suppose.

 

[AlephBet]

Does anyone know the answer to this.

In Genesis 2 - 3, The Son of God (Elohim) is called Yahweh Elohim. After the fall, he loses his title and becomes Yahweh. In the New Testament, he is made new, possessing a new name (Yeshua / Joshua). His title is the Christ, or risen Adam.

Jesus Christ, or Yeshua the Christ. In the Bible, names represent the character. Yahweh was the adversary / ego of Adam. Satan was made by Yahweh (Genesis 3:1) as the accuser / conscience. Adam overcame both by humbling himself and becoming the last Adam. Yeshua is the risen Lord, overcoming his own sin nature. Mercy not sacrifice.

Taking the name of Christ gives us the title of giver over taker. The Will of God is for all of us to give. Your new name is Christ when you take the name (Character) unto yourself. How? Humbling the Ego and silencing Satan. A new Robe and Crown follows.

Zechariah 3

3 Then he showed me Joshua, the chief priest, standing in front of the Messenger of Yahweh. Satan the Accuser was standing at Joshua’s right side to accuse him. 2 Yahweh said to Satan, “I, Yahweh, silence you, Satan! I, Yahweh, who has chosen Jerusalem, silence you! Isn’t this man like a burning log snatched from a fire?”


3 Joshua was wearing filthy clothes and was standing in front of the Messenger. 4 The Messenger said to those who were standing in front of him, “Remove Joshua’s filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken your sin away from you, and I will dress you in fine clothing.”


5 So I said, “Put a clean turban on his head.” They put a clean turban on his head and dressed him while the Messenger of Yahweh was standing there.


6 The Messenger of Yahweh advised Joshua, 7 “This is what Yahweh Tsebaoth says: If you live according to my ways and follow my requirements, you will govern my temple and watch over my courtyards. Then I will give you free access to walk among those standing here.