Did Jesus's Disciples have last names??

Question

or didnt they have them?

Answer 1

I asked this in Sunday School when I was a kid and got smacked on the hand for "testing my own faith and the faith of those around me". WTF? Good luck finding out!

Answer 2

People did not have last names, as in family names, in those days. Often they needed more than just "Joseph," for example, because there would be more than one around. So they would be known as "Joseph, Isaac's son" or "Joseph of Boontown." That is, some secondary designation would be attached to distinguish one from another. The way kids do today, when they don't remember the last name: "Red-headed Joey" and "Joey from Fourth Street."

Answer 3

To be quite honest, I dont believe they did.

I remember reading up about the history with last names and they originated sometime near the Renaissance years. how they came up with last names was usually the occupation the certain person had and then was passed down to generations.

Answer 4

No, surnames were not a practise there in those times. People were referred to as John Son of Thaddeus Or John of Bethlehem and the like.

Answer 5

I don't know, but in those times surnames are not yet used. People on those days were named (if I'm not mistaken) based from the place they come from ex. Jesus of Nazareth or what they do ex. John the Baptist. or maybe they're named based on their parent's name, ex. ____ the son of _____.

Answer 6

In those days, the Jews did not have last names. But they are identified by the words 'son of', or 'daughter of', e.g. in Mk.3:18, ". . .James the son of Alpheus .." or by their place of origin, e.g Simon the Canaanite.

Answer 7

I don't know of anybody in bibical times that had last names, do you? John, Peter .Paul nobody was called Smith or Johnson

Answer 8

I have not read of them in the Bible. Remember when Saul of Tarsus' name was changed to Paul in Acts?

Answer 9

They certainly did, but they were not passed on from generation to generation, and they were not as official as today. For one, your name could have been suffixed with "son of".

Peter's actual first name was Simon. He was properly called Simon son of Jonah. In Hebrew that was Barjonah.

Many of our surnames developed along the same route, until they became permanent (ie. passed to the next generation). Examples are Johnson (son of John), or in celtic (MacDonald {son of Donald}). Jesus Barabas, the villain who was accused with Jesus, was so called because he was the son of one Abas.

Christ is not a last name, it is a title. Jesus was called the son of Joseph. Julius Ceasar was another example of a title. Titles were used as last names, but Jesus' title was only applied after his mission was completed, allthough his role was recognised earlier (by the likes of Simon Peter).

If you come from afar, your native land would have been used as a last name, like "Simon of Cirene". That is still evident in our surnames of today. All Dutch surnames that start with "van", German ones starting with "von", and Latin ones starting with "de" denote origin. In English it's normally just the location itself, such as "Bush". The term "Jesus of Nazareth" only came into use later.

Your occupation could also have been used. One example is Simon the tanner. If you think about it, that is evident in our surnames of today as well. (Tanner, Smith, Carpenter, Baker, Butcher)

We are not finished with Simon yet! Another one was called by, believe it or not, his right wing political affiliation. That was the Simon the Zealot. Jewish establishment were not exactly pro Roman, but were somewhat pragmatic about it. The Zealots actually wanted to fight them. Perhaps the forebear of today's surname "Goodman" was some kind of Philantropist. Simon son of John became known later as Simon Peter. "Peter" (meaning "Rock") also denote a personality trait, the same as "Goodman".

Somewhere around the middle ages in Europe, the movement started to force people to pass on their surnames from generation to generation. That is really the only difference.

Iceland still uses the "son of" instead of generation enduring surnames. In Spain and Portugal, children tradinionally get the paternal part of both of their parent's surnames as their own.

If you think about it, the whole purpose of surnames were to prevent ambiguity, if two people have the same name. Today, in conversation, we do not refer to the surname if it is clear who we refer to. When there are two people in context with the same first name, we tended to use it. It was exactly the same in the people. Most of the new Testament simply refers to Jesus. On the other hand, the name Simon was often qualified in usage, because there were so many of them.

In a way, they had family names too, that were distinct from the usual last name. The descendants of Judah, Benjamin and Levi continued to identify them as such. The were all Isrealites, but aligned themselves by different ancestors (tribes). The name "Jew" came from Judah because most survivors of the excile were Judean. Many non Europeans in the world have surnames denoting their ancient tribes. Actually, many Europeans too. Frank is one example.

Answer 10

in those days, i think last names are not yet being used :D
so most probably, no. :D