Was Jesus given a last name?

Overview of First-Century Naming Conventions

In the culture of first-century Judea and Galilee, people typically did not use family names in the same way many do today. Instead, individuals were commonly identified by their parentage (e.g., “son of …”), their hometown (“of Nazareth”), or by a distinguishing characteristic or occupation. Archaeological discoveries and extant historical documents confirm this practice. For example, in various inscriptions from the period and in documents such as those collected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, names follow a pattern that frequently includes a given name plus a reference to a parent or place.

Scriptural Indications of Jesus’ Name

Scripture consistently refers to Jesus by His given name alone or by descriptors. In numerous passages, He is called “Jesus of Nazareth.” For instance, after His betrayal, when the soldiers found Him, John 18:5 states, “Jesus of Nazareth,” acknowledging His place of origin. Other examples are found throughout the Gospels, where He is referred to simply as “Jesus” (Matthew 1:21: “She will give birth to a Son, and you shall give Him the name Jesus…”).

He is also sometimes identified in relation to His earthly family. In Matthew 13:55, He is mentioned by those in His hometown as “the carpenter’s son,” referencing His earthly father Joseph. Mark 6:3 similarly identifies Him in relation to Mary, His mother. Nowhere in Scripture is there a recorded surname attached to Him as we would define a last name today.

“Son of Joseph”: A Cultural Equivalent to a Family Name

In John 1:45, Philip says, “We have found the One Moses wrote about in the Law, the One the prophets foretold: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph!” This phrasing highlights how first-century Jewish society connected a person’s identity to paternal lineage. While “son of Joseph” served a relational tag, it did not function as a family name in the modern sense.

The Gospels and epistles were written in a cultural context where the concept of a “last name” was unfamiliar. This method of identification continued among Jewish and Greco-Roman communities, and historians such as Josephus similarly identify individuals by parentage or location.

Evidence from Early Manuscripts

Early copies of Gospel texts, such as fragments from the second century housed at institutions like the John Rylands Library (Papyrus P52) or the Chester Beatty Library, consistently show “Jesus” or “Jesus of Nazareth” without attaching a last name. Critical editions of the Greek New Testament assembled by scholars, with input from manuscripts housed in places such as the Vatican Library (Codex Vaticanus) and the British Library (Codex Sinaiticus), demonstrate a clear consensus. The uniformity across these manuscripts affirms that no surname was historically recorded for Him.

Historical and Archaeological Corroboration

The existence of persons like Pontius Pilate—attested by the “Pilate Stone,” discovered in Caesarea in 1961—reinforces the historical climate depicted in the Gospels. Such evidence supports the overall reliability of the biblical account. No inscriptions, discovered so far in the region, have revealed a last name for Jesus. Instead, the pattern of identification by village remains consistent with first-century usage.

Why “Christ” Is Not a Last Name

The New Testament frequently uses the title “Christ,” signifying “Messiah” or “Anointed One” (e.g., Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29). The term “Christ” (Greek: Χριστός) is a theological title rather than a hereditary surname. For example, Matthew 1:16 states, “…Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.” This clarifies that “Christ” designates His messianic role—a vital part of biblical teaching—rather than serving as a family name.

Practical Illustrations and Modern Questions

Modern questions about last names arise because many cultures today consider a surname essential to personal and legal identity. In ancient times, however, an individual’s reputation and identity were intrinsically tied to their family, local region, and trade. Jesus was well recognized by His miraculous works, His teaching, and His role as the promised Messiah—not by a personal family name in the modern sense.

Theological Significance of Jesus’ Identity

Scripture shows that Jesus’ identity is central to the Christian faith. John 3:16 affirms, “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son…” emphasizing His divine Sonship. Throughout the New Testament, His name stands alone in power and authority. According to Acts 4:12, “Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” The emphasis on His given name and messianic title underscores His unique role in the redemption of humanity.

Conclusion

There is no record of Jesus being given a last name in Scripture, in archaeological data, or in other historical sources. Instead, the Gospels depict Him in keeping with first-century naming customs: “Jesus of Nazareth,” “Jesus, son of Joseph,” or simply “Jesus.” The use of “Christ” or “Messiah” refers to His divinely anointed status rather than a surname. These contextual details align with the historical record and the textual witness of early manuscripts, corroborating that Jesus indeed had no last name in the modern sense.

Ultimately, His significance rests not on a family name but on who He is and what He has done. Passed down in Scripture, faithfully preserved through multiple manuscripts, and supported by resonance with ancient naming conventions, this presentation of Jesus’ identity stands consistent in biblical and extra-biblical testimony.