Simon the Cananean - Revision history

Noble at 21:16, 23 May 2023

2023-05-23T21:16:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 23 May 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Manuscripts ==		== Manuscripts ==
	Simon is not, as the King James Version has him, a Canaanite. However the Greek manuscripts of [[Gospel of Matthew\|Matthew]] were indeed divided on the issue at an early time. The almost equally ancient codices Sinaiticus and [[Codex Vaticanus\|Vaticanus]] have Canaanite and Cananaean respectively, and they each have roughly equal support from manuscripts which are nearly as old. However in Mark 3:18 where this same list occurs, all of the ancient codices have Simon as a Cananaean, except the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] which has Canaanite (and which is wanting most of Matthew's gospel). Let it be said that in both Matthew and in [[Gospel of Mark\|Mark]], the [[Codex Ephraemi Syri]], which usually agrees with the Alexandrinus, has Simon as a Cananaean, and so even the Alexandrian tradition is split on this matter. One thing is clear, however, and that is that the manuscripts which the [[King James Version]] has followed are quite close to the Alexandrian tradition, which the passage in Mark demonstrates. Something else which is quite certain is that the corruption of texts upon which the [[New Testament]] is based was attempted at the earliest time, whether purposely or not. Here the preponderance of the evidence, considering both Matthew and Mark, is that Simon was a Cananaean.		Simon is not, as the King James Version has him, a Canaanite. However the Greek manuscripts of [[Gospel of Matthew\|Matthew]] were indeed divided on the issue at an early time. The almost equally ancient codices [[Codex Sinaiticus\|Sinaiticus]] and [[Codex Vaticanus\|Vaticanus]] have Canaanite and Cananaean respectively, and they each have roughly equal support from manuscripts which are nearly as old. However in Mark 3:18 where this same list occurs, all of the ancient codices have Simon as a Cananaean, except the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] which has Canaanite (and which is wanting most of Matthew's gospel). Let it be said that in both Matthew and in [[Gospel of Mark\|Mark]], the [[Codex Ephraemi Syri]], which usually agrees with the Alexandrinus, has Simon as a Cananaean, and so even the Alexandrian tradition is split on this matter. One thing is clear, however, and that is that the manuscripts which the [[King James Version]] has followed are quite close to the Alexandrian tradition, which the passage in Mark demonstrates. Something else which is quite certain is that the corruption of texts upon which the [[New Testament]] is based was attempted at the earliest time, whether purposely or not. Here the preponderance of the evidence, considering both Matthew and Mark, is that Simon was a Cananaean.

	Luke calls Simon “the zealot”, which many errant commentators take that as a meaning of the word “Canaanite”, however this is highly unlikely. The Hebrew word, according to Strong, comes from a verb meaning ''to humiliate''. It is much more plausible that Simon was from the city [[Cana]], where Yahshua attended the [[Wedding Feast in Cana\|wedding]] described in the opening chapters of [[Gospel of John\|John's gospel]], and was therefore a Cananaean, and that “zealot” was just a nickname.		Luke calls Simon “the zealot”, which many errant commentators take that as a meaning of the word “Canaanite”, however this is highly unlikely. The Hebrew word, according to Strong, comes from a verb meaning ''to humiliate''. It is much more plausible that Simon was from the city [[Cana]], where Yahshua attended the [[Wedding Feast in Cana\|wedding]] described in the opening chapters of [[Gospel of John\|John's gospel]], and was therefore a Cananaean, and that “zealot” was just a nickname.

Noble at 21:15, 23 May 2023

2023-05-23T21:15:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:15, 23 May 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== Manuscripts ==
	Simon is not, as the King James Version has him, a Canaanite. However the Greek manuscripts of [[Gospel of Matthew\|Matthew]] were indeed divided on the issue at an early time. The almost equally ancient codices Sinaiticus and [[Codex Vaticanus\|Vaticanus]] have Canaanite and Cananaean respectively, and they each have roughly equal support from manuscripts which are nearly as old. However in Mark 3:18 where this same list occurs, all of the ancient codices have Simon as a Cananaean, except the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] which has Canaanite (and which is wanting most of Matthew's gospel). Let it be said that in both Matthew and in [[Gospel of Mark\|Mark]], the [[Codex Ephraemi Syri]], which usually agrees with the Alexandrinus, has Simon as a Cananaean, and so even the Alexandrian tradition is split on this matter. One thing is clear, however, and that is that the manuscripts which the [[King James Version]] has followed are quite close to the Alexandrian tradition, which the passage in Mark demonstrates. Something else which is quite certain is that the corruption of texts upon which the [[New Testament]] is based was attempted at the earliest time, whether purposely or not. Here the preponderance of the evidence, considering both Matthew and Mark, is that Simon was a Cananaean.		Simon is not, as the King James Version has him, a Canaanite. However the Greek manuscripts of [[Gospel of Matthew\|Matthew]] were indeed divided on the issue at an early time. The almost equally ancient codices Sinaiticus and [[Codex Vaticanus\|Vaticanus]] have Canaanite and Cananaean respectively, and they each have roughly equal support from manuscripts which are nearly as old. However in Mark 3:18 where this same list occurs, all of the ancient codices have Simon as a Cananaean, except the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] which has Canaanite (and which is wanting most of Matthew's gospel). Let it be said that in both Matthew and in [[Gospel of Mark\|Mark]], the [[Codex Ephraemi Syri]], which usually agrees with the Alexandrinus, has Simon as a Cananaean, and so even the Alexandrian tradition is split on this matter. One thing is clear, however, and that is that the manuscripts which the [[King James Version]] has followed are quite close to the Alexandrian tradition, which the passage in Mark demonstrates. Something else which is quite certain is that the corruption of texts upon which the [[New Testament]] is based was attempted at the earliest time, whether purposely or not. Here the preponderance of the evidence, considering both Matthew and Mark, is that Simon was a Cananaean.

Noble: Created page with "Simon is not, as the King James Version has him, a Canaanite. However the Greek manuscripts of Matthew were indeed divided on the issue at an early time. The almost equally ancient codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have Canaanite and Cananaean respectively, and they each have roughly equal support from manuscripts which are nearly as old. However in Mark 3:18 where this same list occurs, all of the ancient codices have Simon as a..."

2023-05-23T21:15:29Z

Created page with "Simon is not, as the King James Version has him, a Canaanite. However the Greek manuscripts of Matthew were indeed divided on the issue at an early time. The almost equally ancient codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have Canaanite and Cananaean respectively, and they each have roughly equal support from manuscripts which are nearly as old. However in Mark 3:18 where this same list occurs, all of the ancient codices have Simon as a..."

New page

Simon is not, as the King James Version has him, a Canaanite. However the Greek manuscripts of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] were indeed divided on the issue at an early time. The almost equally ancient codices Sinaiticus and [[Codex Vaticanus|Vaticanus]] have Canaanite and Cananaean respectively, and they each have roughly equal support from manuscripts which are nearly as old. However in Mark 3:18 where this same list occurs, all of the ancient codices have Simon as a Cananaean, except the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] which has Canaanite (and which is wanting most of Matthew's gospel). Let it be said that in both Matthew and in [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]], the [[Codex Ephraemi Syri]], which usually agrees with the Alexandrinus, has Simon as a Cananaean, and so even the Alexandrian tradition is split on this matter. One thing is clear, however, and that is that the manuscripts which the [[King James Version]] has followed are quite close to the Alexandrian tradition, which the passage in Mark demonstrates. Something else which is quite certain is that the corruption of texts upon which the [[New Testament]] is based was attempted at the earliest time, whether purposely or not. Here the preponderance of the evidence, considering both Matthew and Mark, is that Simon was a Cananaean.

Luke calls Simon “the zealot”, which many errant commentators take that as a meaning of the word “Canaanite”, however this is highly unlikely. The Hebrew word, according to Strong, comes from a verb meaning ''to humiliate''. It is much more plausible that Simon was from the city [[Cana]], where Yahshua attended the [[Wedding Feast in Cana|wedding]] described in the opening chapters of [[Gospel of John|John's gospel]], and was therefore a Cananaean, and that “zealot” was just a nickname.

== Possible Connection to Nathanael ==
In John's gospel at 21:2 there is a [[Nathanael]] of Cana in [[Galilee]], who is also mentioned by John 5 times in chapter 1, at verses 45-49. But Nathanael is not mentioned at all in the other gospels, and this is that man of whom Christ had said “Look! An Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!”. It is therefore certain that these two men were one and the same, Simon Nathanael, the zealot of Cana. (It must be mentioned that some commentators believe Nathanael to be [[Bartholomaios (Batholomew)|Bartholomew]] instead, which has no corroboration.)