The Patronymic Puzzle: Revisiting Talmudic Names
Ben Bag Bag, Ben He He, and Beyond: Talmudic patronymics ("ben/bar X") which are not father’s names
Part of a series on Talmudic names. This article is based on my research in “Ben Bag Bag, Ben He He, and Beyond: Patronymics in Hebrew and Aramaic in Late Antiquity Which Are Not Father’s Names” (Academia.edu, requires registration). See there for full notes, and an extensive, annotated compilation of over 140 such surnames. For a comprehensive overview and bibliography on the topic of Talmudic names, refer to my study: “From Abba to Zebedee: A Comprehensive Survey of Naming Conventions in Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic in Late Antiquity” (Academia.edu, requires registration)
Introduction
Wikipedia, entry “Patronymic”:
A patronymic, or patronym, is a component of a personal name based on the given name of one's father, grandfather (avonymic), or an earlier male ancestor.
Patronymics are still in use, including mandatory use, in many countries worldwide, although their use has largely been replaced by or transformed into patronymic surnames. Examples of such transformations include common English surnames such as Johnson (son of John) […]
In Arabic, the word ibn […] is the equivalent of the "-son" suffix discussed above. In addition, bint means "daughter of". Thus, for example, Ali ibn ʿAmr means "Ali son of ʿAmr" […]
In Aramaic, the prefix bar- means "son" and is used as a prefix meaning "son of". In the Bible, Peter is called Bar-Jonah […] and Nathanael is possibly called Bartholomew because he is the son of Tolmai (or son of Ptolemy, with "P" being reduced). The titles can also be figurative, for example […] a man named Joseph is called Barnabas meaning "son of consolation". The feminine equivalent, b'rat-, is found in the Talmud and Targumim […]
In the Hebrew patronymic system, commonly used by Jews, the first name is followed by either ben- or bat- ("son of" and "daughter of", respectively), and then the father's name, mother's name, or both.
Many surnames in the Talmud following the patronymic format ("ben/bar X") likely do not represent paternal lineage as traditionally believed, but rather serve as nicknames, family monikers, or identifiers of distant ancestors. Earlier scholars already pointed this out. It was the Hungarian-Israeli scholar Shmuel Klein who first systematically catalogued these exceptions in his groundbreaking 1928 article. Similarly, Tal Ilan in the introduction to vol. 4 in her magisterial series on ancient Jewish names delves into this issue, enumerating a list of so-called fictitious names.
So, what exactly are these names? Many seem to denote family titles or distant ancestors. Some other potential interpretations of the patronymic structure include family name, lineage, personal status, physical attribute, profession, or even father's profession.
Most intriguingly, the majority of such patronyms are Tannaitic in origin (typically starting with ben and occasionally with bar), rather than Amoraic (usually starting with bar).
These patronymics are often paired with exceedingly common personal names like Shimon, Yosef, Yohanan, Yonatan, Yehoshua, Elazar, Eliezer, Yehuda, Hanina, and Hanania. This disparity between a commonplace given name and an unusual patronymic bolsters the hypothesis that the latter might not denote the father's name.
As an interesting aside, many streets in the modern neighborhood of Katamon in Jerusalem are named after Tannaim and called “Ben X”, with no given name, because only the patronyms are unique. Some street names there:
בן זכאי ; בן בבא ; בן גמלא ; בן טבאי
Interestingly, certain Tannaitic figures are primarily known by their patronymic, their personal names remaining conspicuously absent. Examples include: ben Azzai, ben Zoma, and bar Kappara.
In contrast to these findings, later interpretations often incorrectly presume a patronym to be the father’s name. For instance, some sources mistakenly assume certain patronyms to be personal names, such as the Bavli's assumption that Prata ( פרטא) is a personal name. Similarly, there are examples of patronymics, which aren't actual names, that have evolved into personal names in modern times. This is illustrated by names such as Yokhai, and Nitai, which intriguingly originated from a manuscript misinterpretation of the name Mattai (=Matthew).
Furthermore, it's fruitful to compare Jewish naming conventions to those in medieval Muslim lands, as described by the Jewish Encyclopedia, regarding patronymics. When using ibn or aben before the “father's” proper name, these are not in fact the fact, rather, these are commonly linked to the supposed founder of the family. For example, numerous historical figures are primarily known by the ibn X format, with personal names typically omitted. This trend can be observed in figures such as: Ibn Rushd, Ibn Battuta, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn al-Haytham, and Ibn Sina.
As we unravel the complexity of these patronymics, we begin to see the rich tapestry of history, culture, and lineage they represent.
It's interesting - I think the trend you're noticing reflects on the way that Judaism has changed over time.
The Torah often refers to many generations as the sons of a person, and you might say that a patroym referring to someone who isn't a direct father in these cases refers to the identify of a clan or a tribe using the name of its founder.
In modernity, the only tribe whose identity has been preserved is that of Levi, along with its sub-tribe Cohen - everyone else's tribal identity has been genericized back to Jacob, the father of all twelve tribes, except of course under the name of Israel. And we see in everyday usage the patronym referring to one's father specifically.
What's interesting about this is that the trend you mention in Muslim lands - of referring to a family's "founder" - which reinforces the notion that many cousins are all a single tribe or clan. My understanding is that these sorts of families also often live with multiple family units under one roof. Contrast this with the trend in places like the United States, where people generally live in nuclear families, with cousins and members of different generations all living in separate houses from one another.
You mentioned that the usage of patronyms referring to someone other than a direct father is associated with the Tannaim and the usage of בן alongside בר, while the Amoraic patronyms generally do refer to one's literal father and lean primarily on בר. What I'm wondering is if these two words used to denote inheritance actually have slightly different meanings - with בן connoting a tribal identification and בר connoting a parental identification.
If so, then the significance of the modern usage of בן preceded by one's literal father is consistent with the cultural context in which it is primarily used - that is to say that in places like the US the culture of the nuclear family structure as opposed to clan or tribale structure means that every man really is the starting point of a tribal patronym.
The other conclusion which this leads me to is to wonder if the cultural shift that occurred between the people recorded in the Mishnah and those who commented on it included a shift in the way that we conceptualize the relationship between one's tribal membership and one's paternal lineage, and if that shift in perspective could be connected with the decision to flatten and forget about every tribal lineage other than Levi. What would happen if today someone claimed their tribal identity as "Naftali" instead of "Yisrael"? I don't think such a distinction is comprehensible within the context of Judaism as it exists today.