No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
The designation of one, and only one, of the Twelve Apostles is recorded to have been changed, with the result that he became known by a name different from (or else supplementary to) that which he bore originally: Simon (Simeon) bar Jonah, “called Peter,” the most prominent of the band. The circumstances of his renaming are recorded somewhat differently by the Evangelists. Mark (iii. 16) mentions the change summarily when he tells of the despatch of the Twelve on their mission; John (i. 42) associates it with Simon's original summons, near the scene of John's baptizing in the Jordan; Matthew (xvi. 18) describes the episode at greater length, bringing it into relation with Simon's recognition of Jesus as Messiah at Caesarea Philippi: while Luke overlooks the circumstances. Thus while there is no serious contradiction in the New Testament story about the details, there is on the other hand imperfect consistency, and it is legitimate to reconsider the matter ab initio. Attention will be directed here therefore to a neglected parallel, which may conceivably throw light on the problem.
1 I will use the Greek form Simon and Hebrew Simeon indiscriminately in this article.
2 It has indeed been questioned whether the bearers of the two names were in fact identical: cf. Lake, K., Simon Cephas Peter in H.T.R., XIV (1921), 95–97Google Scholar and G. La Piana, Cephas and Peter in the Epistle to the Galatians, ibid., pp. 187–193. I am obliged to Professor A. D. Nock for calling my attention to these studies, as well as for other helpful criticism.
3 Cf. the preface to M. H. Segal's edition of the Hebrew text. The fact that in the Greek text the form is different (Jesus/Joshua, son of Sirach) has no bearing on the present question, though highly interesting in itself.
4 With the reservation that in some cases the term may denote not affiliation but geographical origin.
5 Bar Kosiba (probably = the Man of Cosiba) was apparently the original form of the name, popularly replaced by Bar Kochba or the Son of the Star, in reference to Numbers xxiv. 17 and the “Star that was to come forth from Jacob,” the essential Messianic prophecy in the opinion of the time. That the form Bar Kosiba was not relinquished, as the newly-found letters show, does not affect the fact that it was subsequently applied by the Rabbis in a derogatory sense in the slightly different form Bar Koziba, the Son of Deceit. The term kzb seems to have been applied consistently at this period to a leader who falsely claimed Divine approval: such are referred to in the Qumran literature by such titles as the Preacher of Deceit (Habakkuk Commentary ii. 1–2 &c), the Man of Deceit (ibid., x. 9).
6 Tacitus to be sure confuses him as it appears with the rival patriot leader John of Gischala (“Ioannes quem et Bargioram vocabant”): apparently he had heard reports of the exploits of the two chieftains and thought that the same man was in question. In any case, it is clear that the name “Bar Giora” was known to the Romans in this form, for which indeed we have only the authority of the Latin historians (Josephus gives the Greek equivalent).
7 The suggestion has been made that Simon Magus of Acts, viii. 20–4 is identical with the Cypriot magician mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xx. 7:2) and hence with the Cypriot Bar Jesus of Acts, xiii. 6–11, in which case we would be provided with yet another instance. But the possibility is very slight. On the other hand, attention may be drawn to the shadowy existence of a first-century Simeon, reputed son of Hillel and ancestor of the later Patriarchal dynasty, whose actual existence is now generally questioned: once again, a mystery is attached to this same name.
8 The appellation “son of …” was apparently used in a more familiar form of address: naturally therefore in the case of Temple servitors &c. It has been suggested that sometimes even a well-known scholar would be referred to in this way before his ordination: e.g. in one case even R. Johanan ben Zakkai (M. Sanhedrin v. 2).
9 The point is emphasized by a glance at the Index to Danby's English translation of the Mishnah, s.v. Ben. This is amplified there in only seven cases, two of them being conjectural: of the remaining five, four refer to a Simeon. As against eight omissions of the name Simeon I have been able to trace in all at this period, I find Eleazar similarly omitted in the sources in a total of three cases, Judah in two or three, Johanan in two: but in none of these instances systematically, as in the case before us.
10 It is curious that the other names occasionally omitted in favor of a patronymic (see above) also had patriotic undertones: Johanan (cf. John of Gischala, one of the outstanding leaders of the First Revolt) and Eleazar (cf. Eleazar ben Dinai, who led an uprising about A.D. 44: Eleazar ben Hannaniah, Captain of the Temple at the outbreak of the First Revolt: Eleazar ben Simon, the Zealot leader: Eleazar ben Jair, who led the Sicarii of Masadah: and Eleazar the Priest, second leader of the Revolt of 132/5 after Simeon bar Kochba). The patriotic implications of the name Judah need not be stressed.
11 Nevertheless, the name of Levi was not apparently favored among the Jews at this time: in Josephus' Jewish War, for example, only two persons bearing the name are mentioned, as against eleven bearing the name Judah. Too much attention cannot be attached, however, to this: other of the Tribal names (e.g. Asher, Reuben) do not figure at all.
12 It may perhaps be noted that the name of Simeon is omitted in the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy, and in connection with this the Rabbis noted that this Tribe alone never produced any King in Israelite history. Conceivably some more precise Midrash on the verse, now lost, was current at the time, which would help to solve our problem.
13 In view of this it seems possible that the ‘brigand’ or rebel Barabbas, who was saved by the popular clamor from crucifixion, was in fact Simeon bar Abbas, though the tradition recorded by Origen preserved the name Joshua (Jesus).
14 Not necessarily in his lifetime: as (apparently) in the case of Ben Sira, the inhibition against the use may have been applied retrospectively — perhaps only after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70.
15 In order to exhaust all possible solutions of the phenomenon, one may set down the remote and unlikely explanation that the use of the name Simeon was avoided among Jews — retrospectively also — after the middle of the first century precisely because of the defection of St. Peter from Judaism. He was in fact the only one of the Apostles whose name remained familiar in Jewish circles, though in a strange connotation: a medieval Hebrew legend told how he organized Christianity as a separate faith only in order to save Judaism from contamination, and even subsequently made his contribution to the synagogal liturgy from his fastness in Rome.