Why is it that the biblical characters (including Jesus) didn't have a last name?

Answer 1

Most actually did. But it was more along the lines of telling you where they were from such as Joseph of Aramethia and in Acts it refers to "Simon whose surname is Peter". The other names also described what they did like "John the Baptist." He was John who baptized people. But so many times it was not necessary to write down a person's last name. And actually Christ did have a last name when you look at it from the stand point of being descriptive as to where the person was from. He was known as "Jesus of Nazareth". There was also Pontas Pilate or Mary Magdalene. Also, like so many modern surnames, it would tell who the person's father was.

Answer 2

People in Bible times did not really have last names like we do today. People frequently went by something similar to “Simon, son of Jonah” (Matthew 16:17). The phrase “son of Jonah” identified Simon as a different Simon than all the other Simons. This functioned very closely to a last name. Others used their occupation as a functional last name “Simon the tanner” (Acts 10:6). Jesus was sometimes called “Jesus of Nazareth” identifying where He was from (Matthew 26:71; John 18:5). The name “Jesus Christ” refers to “Jesus, who is the Christ / Messiah.”

Recommended Resource: Bible Answers for Almost all Your Questions by Elmer Towns.

Answer 3

One name was adequate at the beginning. (Like in the days of Adam and Eve and Jehovah and Lucifer. Jesus had only one name. "Christ" is not a name.) There are still Cultures in the world that use only one name. Nowadays, because there are so many people around, using only one name will mean that many people will have the same name. Confusion. Because there are so many people around, it is becoming more and more practical to have more than two names. Look in the telephone directory and you will see a lot of people with the same two names. Last names (surnames, family names) came about in order to indicate the family or the profession the person was in. Example, McDonald meant "from the family of Donald" or "the son of Donald". "Smith" meant the person was a "black smith". This custom did not present problems for a long time because there weren't millions and millions of people around. For the purpose of silent written records, nothing beats a combination of letters and numbers. Like car licence plates.

Answer 4

Because surnames had not come into common use in those times.

Though the son-of description was used. So Jesus was referred to as Jesus son of Joseph.

"In Britain, hereditary surnames were adopted in the 13th and 14th centuries, initially by the aristocracy but eventually by everyone. By 1400, most English people and Scottish people had acquired surnames, but many Highland Scots and Welsh people didn't adopt surnames until the 17th century, or later."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name

Answer 5

Biblical people did have last names. Jesus would be Jesus ben Joseph. Jesus son of Joseph, John the baptist would be John ben Zechariah or John son of Zechariah.

Answer 6

Cranberrydude is correct. In the middle east they still attach the bithplace on the last name for official documents.
.

Saddan hussain al Tekriti was from Tekrit.

Answer 7

The modern surname system come from the Romans. Pontius Pilate is an exception in the Bible. But there are not many.

Answer 8

They actually had, the issue is that back then their last name was clearly used by their birthplace or where they grew up, now we take last names from other people's birthplaces and not ours.
JESUS- NAZARETH
MARIA- MAGDALIA
PAUL- TARSIS

Answer 9

i thought jesus last name was christ . jesus christ ?