This post contains two ChatGPT responses related to the use by Terry Traster of the term “byname” and what do scholars mean by it. Terry’s papers on the issues with names where he cited bynames (a new term for me) are in his Dropbox account in the subdirectory Papers on the family of Jesus. The first response is related to what a “byname” means and the second is how does the confusion caused by different bynames for the same person relate to the question of were Jesus’ brothers part of the 12. Tabor’s minority position is cited.
1st Prompt – When scholars of the 1st century CE talk of a person having a “byname” what do they mean?
In scholarship on the 1st-century CE, a byname is an additional name or identifying designation used to distinguish a person from others who had the same personal name. It was especially important in societies where a relatively small number of personal names were used repeatedly.
A byname is not necessarily a surname in the modern sense.
For example, if several men were named Simon, a person might be identified as:
- Simon Peter — “Peter” functions as a byname.
- Simon the Cananaean — “the Cananaean” functions as an identifying designation/byname.
- Simon son of Jonah — “son of Jonah” is a patronymic, which is a particular type of identifying designation.
- James son of Zebedee — similarly, “son of Zebedee” distinguishes this James from other Jameses.
The important point is that “byname” is a broad scholarly category, while terms such as patronymic, nickname, toponymic, and occupational designation describe particular kinds of bynames.
Types of bynames in the 1st century
| Type | Example | What it identifies |
|---|---|---|
| Patronymic | James son of Zebedee | Father |
| Matronymic | James son of Mary | Mother |
| Toponymic | Judas of Galilee | Place of origin/association |
| Occupational | Simon the Tanner | Occupation |
| Descriptive | Simon the Zealot | Character, affiliation, or designation |
| Nickname | Simon Peter | An additional personal designation |
| Relational | Herod Antipas | Distinguishes him from other Herods |
There is some terminological variation among scholars, so one scholar may call something a byname while another calls it a nickname, epithet, agnomen, or simply an additional name.
Why this matters for the New Testament
The Gospel traditions contain numerous examples where a person’s personal name and byname coexist.
The clearest example is Simon Peter. Simon was an extremely common Jewish male name. The addition of Peter (Greek Petros, “rock”) provided another means of identifying him.
Likewise, Thomas is particularly interesting. John 11:16 identifies him as:
“Thomas, who was called the Twin”
Here Thomas itself comes from Aramaic t’oma, “twin,” while the Greek Didymos also means “twin.” Scholars therefore discuss whether Thomas was functioning as a byname alongside another personal name that is not preserved in the canonical tradition.
Another important example is Saul/Paul. This is somewhat different. Paul was a Roman name (Paulus), while Saul (Sha’ul) was his Jewish name. Scholars generally describe this as a dual-name system, rather than simply calling Paul a man with a byname.
Byname vs. surname
This distinction is particularly important.
A modern surname normally belongs to a hereditary family naming system:
John Smith → his children may also be Smith.
A 1st-century byname did not necessarily work that way. It could be:
Simon son of Jonah
or
Jesus of Nazareth
or
Simon the Zealot
and the designation might identify the particular individual without being inherited by his children.
So when a critical scholar says that someone had a “byname,” I would generally read that as:
“An additional name or identifying designation attached to the person’s personal name, used to distinguish that individual from others.”
It does **not by itself tell us whether the designation was hereditary, officially bestowed, self-adopted, a nickname, geographical, occupational, or descriptive. The context has to establish that.
If you’re asking because of the names of Jesus’ disciples, there is a particularly interesting issue here: the Gospels sometimes appear to preserve multiple naming systems for the same individual, and understanding what scholars mean by byname helps explain the apparent duplication of names such as Simon, Judas, and James.
2nd Prompt – Tell me more about the issue of the Gospels sometimes appearing to preserve multiple naming systems for the same individual. In particular, what do critical bible scholars say about the use of different bynames confusing the issue of Jesus’ brothers being members of the 12 desciples. Cite all sources inline.
Yes. The comparison is useful because it shows that James, Judas, and Simon do not all present the same kind of identification problem. James is the strongest case for a possible overlap; Judas has a genuine naming problem; Simon has a much weaker case.
1. James
| Source | Person/designation | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|
| Mark 3:17 | James son of Zebedee | One of the Twelve |
| Mark 3:18 | James son of Alphaeus | A second James among the Twelve |
| Mark 6:3 | James, brother of Jesus | One of Jesus’ brothers |
| Mark 15:40 | James the younger, brother of Joses | A James associated with Mary/Joses |
| Matthew 10:3 | James son of Alphaeus | One of the Twelve |
| Matthew 13:55 | James, brother of Jesus | Jesus’ brother |
| Luke 6:15 | James son of Alphaeus | One of the Twelve |
| Acts 1:13 | James son of Alphaeus | One of the Twelve |
| Galatians 1:19 | James “the Lord’s brother” | Major Jerusalem figure known personally to Paul |
| Galatians 2:9 | James | One of the three “pillars” of Jerusalem |
| 1 Corinthians 15:7 | James | Receives a resurrection appearance |
| Josephus, Antiquities 20.200 | James, brother of Jesus called Christ | A prominent James executed in Jerusalem |
Josephus is particularly important because his James is explicitly identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The authenticity of this passage is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scholars, although a small minority continue to dispute it. (OUP Academic)
The striking feature is that James the brother of Jesus becomes simply “James” in Paul’s account. Paul does not call him “James son of Joseph,” “James son of Alphaeus,” or anything else. He assumes his readers know which James he means.
That creates the opening for the identification proposed by some scholars:
James the brother of Jesus = James son of Alphaeus
But there is no explicit ancient source saying this.
The problem is actually even more complicated because “James the younger” in Mark 15:40 has sometimes been identified with James son of Alphaeus, and sometimes with James the brother of Jesus. The New Testament itself does not make either identification. The traditional tendency to merge these Jameses is precisely the sort of phenomenon that demonstrates how easily identical personal names could produce conflation. (Bible Gateway)
2. Judas
Judas presents an even clearer example of different names potentially designating one person.
| Source | Designation |
|---|---|
| Mark 3:18 | Thaddaeus, one of the Twelve |
| Matthew 10:3 | Thaddaeus |
| Luke 6:16 | Judas of James |
| Acts 1:13 | Judas of James |
| John 14:22 | Judas, not Iscariot |
| Mark 6:3 | Judas, brother of Jesus |
| Matthew 13:55 | Judas, brother of Jesus |
| Jude 1 | Jude/Judas, brother of James |
This is a genuine textual naming problem.
Mark and Matthew have Thaddaeus where Luke and Acts have Judas of James. A common scholarly explanation is that these are two designations for the same member of the Twelve. Some reference works explicitly describe Thaddaeus as a descriptive byname of Judas, perhaps used to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. (Bible Gateway)
And notice something important: John calls him “Judas, not Iscariot.” That is exactly what we would expect in a community containing two men named Judas. (Bible Gateway)
But this creates a separate question:
Is this Judas/Thaddaeus, one of the Twelve, the same person as Judas, Jesus’ brother?
The ordinary critical answer is no.
Luke’s expression Judas of James is normally understood as “Judas son of James.” The same construction is used for James “son of Alphaeus.” A recent scholarly treatment therefore concludes that Luke’s Judas should not be identified with Judas, Jesus’ brother. (UWTSD Repository)
That distinction is important because Jude 1 calls its author “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,” while Mark and Matthew explicitly put Judas, Jesus’ brother, among Jesus’ family. There is no statement that this Judas was one of the Twelve.
3. Simon
Simon is different again.
| Source | Designation |
|---|---|
| Mark 3:16 | Simon Peter |
| Mark 3:18 | Simon the Cananaean |
| Luke 6:14 | Simon, called Peter |
| Luke 6:15 | Simon the Zealot |
| Acts 1:13 | Simon the Zealot |
| Mark 6:3 | Simon, brother of Jesus |
| Matthew 13:55 | Simon, brother of Jesus |
Here we have at least three Simons associated with the Jesus movement:
- Simon Peter
- Simon the Zealot/Cananaean
- Simon the brother of Jesus
The designation “the Cananaean” in Mark and Matthew and “the Zealot” in Luke and Acts are generally understood as different renderings of the same distinguishing designation, rather than two different Simons. (Bible Gateway)
There has been speculation that Simon the Zealot = Simon the brother of Jesus, but the evidence is very thin. Some reference material acknowledges that identification while also noting other proposed identifications. (Bible Hub)
So Simon is a possible case of conflation, but considerably less compelling than James.
4. Joses/Joseph
Joses is useful as a control case.
Mark 6:3 calls Jesus’ brother Joses (Iōsēs), whereas Matthew 13:55 has Joseph (Iōsēph).
This is probably not a different individual at all. It is much more naturally understood as a variation in the form of the same name.
And Mark 15:40 has “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses.”
Consequently, there are two different James/Joses relationships floating around in the Gospel material:
- James brother of Jesus + Joses brother of Jesus
- James the younger + Joses
Whether those represent the same James and Joses is not established by the text.
5. What happens when we put the evidence together?
The pattern looks like this:
| Name | Jesus’ brother | Member of Twelve | Different designation | Strength of possible identification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| James | Yes | James son of Alphaeus | James the younger; James the Lord’s brother | Most significant |
| Judas | Yes | Judas of James/Thaddaeus | Thaddaeus; Judas not Iscariot | Significant naming problem, but weak evidence they are the same person |
| Simon | Yes | Simon the Zealot | Cananaean/Zealot | Possible, but weak |
| Joses/Joseph | Yes | No known member of Twelve | Joses/Joseph | Probably same name in variant forms |
This produces an important distinction.
We have strong evidence that the early Jesus movement used multiple designations for individuals.
For example:
Simon Peter = Simon
Simon the Cananaean = Simon the Zealot
Judas/Thaddaeus = Judas of James = Judas “not Iscariot”
Those are not particularly controversial.
The much bigger claim is:
James the brother of Jesus = James son of Alphaeus
Judas the brother of Jesus = Judas/Thaddaeus
Simon the brother of Jesus = Simon the Zealot
That is where the evidence becomes speculative.
6. The particularly important evidence from Acts
There is one passage that makes the problem especially difficult for the hypothesis that Jesus’ brothers were among the Twelve.
Acts 1:13–14 gives the apostles and then says:
“All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.”
The literary structure appears to distinguish:
the apostles → Jesus’ mother and brothers
That is one of the strongest arguments against simply identifying the brothers with members of the Twelve.
Similarly, John 2:12 distinguishes:
Jesus’ mother + brothers + disciples
and John 7 discusses the brothers separately from the disciples.
Thus, if James the brother of Jesus were actually James son of Alphaeus, the Gospel/Acts authors would apparently be using two different identification systems for the same man without ever telling the reader that they were the same person.
That is possible, but it requires an additional historical hypothesis.
7. Where Tabor’s proposal becomes interesting
This is why James Tabor’s reconstruction is worth examining even if one ultimately rejects it.
Tabor essentially asks whether we are making a modern mistake by assuming:
different designation = different individual.
In an ancient Palestinian setting with a very restricted pool of male names, that assumption can be dangerous.
The possibility becomes:
James
- James son of Alphaeus
- James the brother of Jesus
- James the younger
could potentially represent one historical James appearing under different identifying conventions.
Likewise:
Judas
- Judas
- Judas of James
- Thaddaeus
- Judas not Iscariot
- Judas the brother of Jesus
could potentially represent overlapping traditions about one person.
And:
Simon
- Simon
- Simon Peter
- Simon the Zealot
- Simon the brother of Jesus
could potentially represent more than one naming tradition.
But notice the methodological problem: once you permit the names to be collapsed, almost any duplicate name can potentially be collapsed. You therefore need positive evidence beyond the name itself.
That is why most critical scholars stop short of Tabor’s reconstruction.
8. Josephus gives us an important reality check
Josephus is valuable because he shows us what this naming environment actually looked like outside the Gospels.
His Antiquities contains numerous people named Jesus, Simon, Judas, James, Joseph, etc., and he frequently has to distinguish them by fathers, occupations, offices, places, or other descriptors.
The famous James passage is an excellent example. Josephus does not merely say “James.” He identifies him relationally:
James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.
That is exactly the kind of disambiguating byname/relationship designation that becomes necessary when personal names are common. The authenticity of Josephus’ reference to James is overwhelmingly accepted, though there are dissenters such as Nicholas Allen. (OUP Academic)
And that actually strengthens the general historical point: a man named James could require several different identifying labels depending on who was talking and what context they were writing in.
9. My conclusion from the comparison
I think the evidence supports a three-level conclusion:
Level 1 — virtually certain:
The Gospel traditions preserve multiple naming systems. Personal names were frequently supplemented by patronymics, geographical descriptions, occupations, political/religious designations, and nicknames.
Level 2 — quite plausible:
Those naming practices contributed to confusion and conflation in later Christian tradition, particularly concerning the several Jameses and Judases.
Level 3 — possible but unproven:
Some of the Gospel traditions may themselves preserve different designations for the same historical person, potentially including Jesus’ brothers among the Twelve.
The strongest candidate for investigating that possibility is James, not Simon.
And there is an especially interesting historical question that follows from this: Why does Paul, who personally met James the brother of Jesus, never call him “one of the Twelve,” while 1 Corinthians 15:7 lists an appearance to James separately from the appearance to “all the apostles”? That is probably the single most important piece of evidence to examine if we want to assess whether James the Lord’s brother could have been James son of Alphaeus.
