Did the people in the Bible have last names?

That register, kept on high, of all those called with an heavenly calling, rendered it to such a matter of no importance to trouble further about preserving earthly family registers. In the Gospels we frequently find the father's name given, as in the case of Peter; but after Pentecost, even this was dropped. The surname Barnabas, given to Joses (Acts 4:36), was an evident departure from the rule almost invariably adopted in the case of Old Testament saints. As for Paul, he himself mentions quite incidentally that he was of the tribe of Benjamin; but we are no where told the name of his father. More than this, Paul by the Spirit, warned his beloved sons in the faith (1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 3:9) against giving heed to "endless genealogies." For though a believer in Christ were in a position to prove his descent from David, or Aaron, this gave him no right to claim higher position in the church than that occupied by another member of the body, who happened to be descended from Ammon or Moab, or even the cursed Canaan. In the assembly therefore no distinctions of this character were to be observed, since all were one in Christ.

In scripture this means an additional or added name, not a family name, as the word now implies. Isa. 44:5; Isa. 45:4; Matt. 10:3: Mark 3:16-17; etc.

Never naming himself, it is only from the Acts and from the Epistles that we know anything of his history. His original name was John and he was surnamed, for what reason is unknown, by the Latin name of Marcus, i.e., Mark. Such a practice was not uncommon; Simon, James, John, and Jude among the apostles had each of them an appellation given to them. Joseph, called Barsabas, was surnamed Justus (Acts 1:23). Joses was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles (4:36), and Saul of Tarsus bore the name of Paul. He is introduced as "Mark" by Luke; and his Jewish name, "John," gradually dropped out of use; it is not met with after Acts 15:37; henceforth he is only mentioned by his surname Mark (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philemon 24; 1 Peter 5:13).

It is not only Divine names that have meanings; there is also meaning in human names at least in Scripture history. Sometimes they were expressive of the faith of those who conferred them; Eve. Noah, and Joseph are examples of this. Sometimes new names were given as marks of lordship or proprietorship. Thus Pharaoh renamed Joseph (Gen. 41:45); Nebuchadnezzar did the same to Daniel and his friends (Dan. 1:7); and the Lord Jesus granted the surname Cephas to Simon the fisherman (John 1:42). And what shall we say of the Saviour's own name and the meaning of it? "Thou shalt call His name Jesus (Jehovah the Saviour); for He shall save His people from their sins " (Matt. 1:21).

In the O.T. persons often gave their children names of significance: thus the wife of Phinehas, when she heard that the ark of God was taken, and that her husband and her father-in-law were dead, called her child Ichabod, 'where is the glory?' for the glory was departed from Israel, the ark being taken. Where the reason for a name is mentioned, all is plain; but where no reason is given, the meaning cannot always be ascertained. A name may bear several meanings, by being traced to different roots. For many years lists of the O.T. proper names, with their significations, have been given in Concordances, etc. (mostly as drawn from Gesenius), and sometimes certain deductions have been drawn from those meanings as giving the character of the persons bearing the names; but it should be remembered that in many instances, several persons have borne the same name, persons who were quite different in their status and character; so that the names could have had nothing to do with their characters. It is evident also from the case of John the Baptist that it was customary to name a child after some of his ancestors. On this ground objection was made to his being called John. Luke 1:59-63.

Yet we should quickly note that if one wants to enter into the details of the subject before us, one must be very guarded in his conclusions, for Jewish genealogies present innumerable difficulties. First, very frequently those who are called the son of so-and-so are not necessarily his children at all, but his grandsons, or even his grandnephews. Then there are cases where the head of a clan is regarded as the father of a generation, all the generations between being omitted. There are cases where through the "right of redemption" a distant relative (see the Book of Ruth) becomes the head of an extinct family. There are those cases, very frequent during the captivity, where one family took a place in the inheritance of another family which had disappeared, without being related by direct descent to the head of that race. There are cases too where, the name of ancestors being missing, the name of the birthplace replaced, so to say, the name of the family head. There are cases, common among the Jews, where a person had more than one name (see, for example, these well-known names: Benjamin and Benoni, Reuel and Jethro, Solomon and Jedidiah, etc.). And lastly there are cases where an abridged genealogy was given, the names indicated being nothing more than a few pointers to establish the line of descent.

Yet we should quickly note that if one wants to enter into the details of the subject before us, one must be very guarded in his conclusions, for Jewish genealogies present innumerable difficulties. First, very frequently those who are called the son of so-and-so are not necessarily his children at all, but his grandsons, or even his grandnephews. Then there are cases where the head of a clan is regarded as the father of a generation, all the generations between being omitted. There are cases where through the “right of redemption” a distant relative (see the Book of Ruth) becomes the head of an extinct family. There are those cases, very frequent during the captivity, where one family took a place in the inheritance of another family which had disappeared, without being related by direct descent to the head of that race. There are cases too where, the name of ancestors being missing, the name of the birthplace replaced, so to say, the name of the family head. There are cases, common among the Jews, where a person had more than one name (see, for example, these well-known names: Benjamin and Benoni, Reuel and Jethro, Solomon and Jedidiah, etc.). And lastly there are cases where an abridged genealogy was given, the names indicated being nothing more than a few pointers to establish the line of descent.

Now it will be observed from the Historical Books that (1) the same person frequently possessed more than one name, and (2) that the same name frequently recurs in the pedigree of families. It is not therefore an improbable explanation that the priest who succoured David bore the joint names of Ahimelech and Abiathar, and that his son, who escaped the massacre at Nob, also bore the same double names. Indeed, the responsible priest at Nob is "called by no less than three names: Ahiah (1 Sam. 14:3, 18), Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:1-6; 1 Sam. 22:9-23); and, as in St. Mark, Abiathar (1 Chron. 18:16; 1 Chron. 24:6, 31). The Septuagint gives also the form Abimelech. Moreover, the son of this Ahimelech or Abiathar, who was afterwards David's joint High Priest with Zadok, was himself also called by both names, viz., Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20-23; 2 Sam. 15:24-29; 1 Kings 2:26-27), and Ahimelech (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 24:6, 31), or Abimelech (1 Chron. 18:16). Now it has often been remarked that there occur in the Old Testament many instances of double names, as Reuel, Jethro, and Hobab; Esau and Edom; Benjamin and Benoni; Gideon and Jerubbaal; Solomon and Jedidiah; Uzziah and Azariah; Zedekiah and Matthaniah (see Patrit. de Evang. 50. 3. ; Diss. 9: c. 3); but it has scarcely been noticed that the priests especially appear to have borne double names, and that father and son were frequently called by the same names. Yet both these facts are of the utmost value for the passage before us. The following are illustrations: — As to the first: In 1 Mac. 2:1-5 is a list of five priests, sons of Mattathias, all with double names. The priestly pedigree of Josephus, from the public records, furnishes several other examples (Jos. Vit. §§ 1, 2). As to the second: It was proposed to call John the Baptist Zechariah after the name of his father; and his father was a priest (Luke 1:5, 59). In Josephus's pedigree, Matthias, one of his priestly ancestors, had a son also called Matthias; whose grandson again was likewise named Matthias, and his son also Matthias (l.c.). Also, upon the deposition of Joseph Cabi, the High Priesthood was conferred on the son of the famous High Priest Ananus, "who was himself also called Ananus (Jos. Ant. 20. 9.1). Thus, then, we not only have Old Testament evidence to the fact that the High Priest who gave David the hallowed bread bore the name of Abiathar as well as that of Ahimelech, and his son likewise; but also independent evidence that this possession of double and the same names by father and son in the families of the priests was not an unusual occurrence. With such evidence the alleged historical error of St. Mark completely vanishes.*

A knowledge of the priestly genealogies extended to the N.T. Zacharias was of the 'course of Abia,' and Elizabeth was 'of the daughters of Aaron.' So also of the tribes and families generally. At the census Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, for they were of the lineage of David; Anna was of the tribe of Asher, and Paul of the tribe of Benjamin.

Added to these many difficulties are the following problems. Sometimes the genealogies of Chronicles contain names of very ancient origin, which we do not find elsewhere in the Old Testament. Many names are not those of individuals, but of clans or families. Others are genealogies which we might term geographic, including, for want of other source material, the names of tribes, of districts, of cities. We have mentioned this fact in our study of Ezra 2. We find it again in 1 Chron. 2:18-24, 25-33, 42-55; 1 Chron. 4:1-23, 28-33; 1 Chron. 5:11-17; 1 Chron. 7:37-40, etc.