Why no one in the Bible has a last name?

Answer 1

Well, a few of them do have last names. Judas Iscariot is one example. But you are right, most of them do not. In those days, most people had only one name. If that single name was not enough to uniquely identify someone they could be more precisely identified by:

i) An attached geneology. For example
Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham

ii) Some other identifier. For example
Rahab the harlot

Answer 2

Silly Girl - do you even READ the bible ?

Matthew 10:4
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 27:61
And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

Too tired to give you anymore - why should i do all the work for you ? Dont criticise something until you know all about it - you just made yourself look like a total idiot - how does it feel ? Along with the other answers by other users are also correct last names werent even neccassary -

Answer 3

Pontius Pilatus (usually called Pilate). We don't know his first name, actually. His family name was Pontius, so, he was from the family Pontia. Also with Felix and Festus, all of them Romans. (Barjona wasn't surname, Magdalena wasn't surname.) I'm not sure about Iscariot, which is how they called the Judas (Jude) who betrayed Jesus. / The bible, especially the apostolic writings ("New Testment") bring a very informal manner of speaking. Also, it is probable that the writers avoided the family names (again, in the apostolic writings) because the disciples were beginning to be persecuted, in that time, not only by Jews, but also by Romans, soon later, so, once there was a lot of persecution in the beginning of the history of this way of living, manners of identifying common people should be avoided, while names of important people, governors, and so on, these might be freely spoken and refered, because they weren't being persecuted. / Most names that appear in the writings are common names: Jesous/Jesus, Simon, Jakob/Jacob (James), Judah/Judas (Jude), Levi, Nathanael, Philippos (Philip), Andreas (Andrew), Marcos/Marcus (Mark), Maria/Marian/Mirian (Mary), Loukas/Lucas (Luke), Johan (John), Alexander, Rufus, Silas, Saul/Saulos, Joseph, Triphena, Triphosa ... Common people. / G., Rio de Janeiro ([e-mail])

Answer 4

Because last names are a new invention. In those times, a person was identified either by a title (such as the aforementioned Rahab the harlot), by the town they were from (Jesus of Nazareth), or by their genealogy. That was usually enough to identify a person.

And actually, many of the last names that are now common (at least in the English language) were originally the same thing. Last names given in medieval times were usually either named after the father (Johnson), the career (Miller), or the town the person was from.

Answer 5

Last names as we use them in the west are a very recent invention, just a few centuries old. The bible is neither recent nor western.

There were some other conventions used at that time, for example the use of the fathers name. The guy we call Jesus was called Joshua ben Joseph.

Answer 6

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!
“Gospel of the Kingdom of God”

MARK 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of The Kingdom of God

From the above Verse, it is clear that Christ, Jesus-The Son of Mary preached the Gospel of The Kingdom of God. This Gospel (The Good News) actually contained the Words of God because of course, it was the Gospel of The Kingdom of God which was preached ONLY by Jesus. There is not even anything as the Gospel of Jesus as noted by Mark 1:1. The words of the Gospel which Jesus (pbuh) preached, were not his words as he says:


JOHN 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Matthew and John were actually the disciples of Jesus (pbuh). But did they really write these Gospels by themselves. Do we have Gospels “BY” Matthew and John? From an account in the Gospel of Matthew, we can clearly see that this Gospel is not written by Matthew himself:

MATTHEW 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

If Matthew would have been the author of this Gospel, he surely would have written that “.. and he saith unto “ME”… and “I” arose and followed him.”

Luke and Mark were not even the disciples of Jesus. Luke was a physician and a companion of St Paul and Mark was an interpreter who probably worked with St Peter in Rome.

The Gospels also differ from each other a lot:

Was Joseph the Son of Jacob (MATTHEW 1:16) or was he the Son of Heli (LUKE 3:23)?

Why isn’t the ascension of Jesus (pbuh) to heaven mentioned in Matthew and John?

These Gospels which were written down 100 Years after Jesus (pbuh) ascension, circulated anonymously, no names were attached to them until almost 200 and the Christian theologians who came up with the idea of having a New Testament was condemned as heretic.

Do we have that True Gospel which Jesus Christ (pbuh) Preached in Hebrew or Aramaic?
Did Jesus (pbuh) asked Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to write these Gospels?
How can Christians rely on the accounts in these Gospels which are the basic Pillars of their Faith?
http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=268