Symon, not Simon, the Samaritan

[Sami Rabia]

Shlama all.

I am sure I am not the first to notice this, but the Peshitta gives the name of Simon the magician in Acts as Symon and not Shim'on as the Apostle Peter is named.

Now I saw this and thought that it was interesting, but then it occurred to me to ask if anyone could figure out a reason where this name Symon comes from and a possible lead may be that he was a Samaritan.

The two possibilities then are that the Peshitta changes the magicians Simon's name, into another name to save confusion, though as has been noticed most of the book of Acts refers to Peter with Kepa.

The second possibility is that both names were transcribed as Simon when the Aramaic was translated to Greek.

But if anyone knows much about Greek maybe he could chime in with some input. I am sure there must be something interesting got from this.

[Aaron S]

The simplest explanation is your second possibility... as Greek doesn't have any convenient way to emulate the sh sound, it appears that the variation between Shim'on and Simawn disappears here. The Aramaic vowels for Simon are interesting though: rather than an esasa (i.e. the vowel on the ayin in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jw9my4[/font] [Shim'on/Shim'un]) preceding the [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]w[/font], there is a zqafa (e.g. the vowels in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml4[/font] [Shlama]) and in many but not all cases, {zqafa preceding [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]w[/font]} is transliterated as an omicron, which has an ah sound (and possibly took on an aw sound at times). Of course, this is all with respect to Eastern zqafa as opposed to Western zqofo.

What I don't understand is the decision to transliterate [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jw9my4[/font] (Shim'on) as Sim?n rather than Sume?n (the latter one as the historical precedent for transliteration [i.e. LXX]). I'm only speculating now, but it's possible the name passed through Greek twice... once to become Greek Sim?n (Sea-mahn) and then to Aramaic [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jwmys[/font] (Sea-mawn) and then to Greek Sim?n (Sea-moan): but it's just as likely that this variant arose only in Aramaic and was consistent over Greek usage. It could also be the case that the vowel marks written were not consistent with the original pronunciation due to the time gap between the original records and the vowel addendum. In any case, my speculation doesn't tell much about the origin of the name though, since one would expect an omicron-sigma to end the name if it were of Greek origin.

And that's all I have to say about that <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[Burning one]

Shlama,


i recall noticing this while reading awhile back, as well, but didn't think to ask here - and i don't have a clue either regarding the origin, tho i haven't done any research to see if there is info about it anywhere. <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[Sami Rabia]

Thanks for you comments.

I was wondering if an answer would come from archeology or perhaps Samaritan literature. It would be fascinating if we find that symon was also a name back then among the Samaritans and we find that the Peshitta has preserved this while the Greek has not.

Either way it is interesting to me that here in the Peshitta we have two names where the Greek just renders them both the same, as I think upon this the more interesting it becomes to me, if you have both names in Aramaic (without vowel points) and you do not have a shin in your alphabet because your writing in Greek, how would you show the distinction between what remains of the two names?

Does the Greek show any distinction at all between the two names? Because I've never seen the name Seemon in any English translation from Greek.

Also please, let us look at the narrative here, if there is no distinction in the Greek between the two names, and if Luke writes this in Greek, then it is good here that he only mentions the name Peter for the Apostle, to save confusion between Simon the Apostle and Simon the Magician. Though this may be sufficient to keep things clear, we would question whether this is really clear enough for the disciples taste.

What I mean is this, in the narrative between Peter and Simon, the context is clear enough to show who is saying what, however when we see the same thing happening in the Gospels, especially in John, that is, when there are two people with the same name, John will often make the distinction, such as "Judas (not Iscariot) said..." perhaps we may expect to see in the narrative here "and Simon (not the Apostle) said..." or "and Simon (the Magician) said..."

However if this were written in Aramaic, there would simply be no need for any clarifications, as the names are not even made up of the same consonants.

Here again may be another example where the Peshitta preserves more information than does the Greek text.

Also, I have to say though of course I may be way off, it is quite a strong temptation to think that out of reverence to the Apostle Peter, Simon's (and even here though the context is clear enough it is still helpful to add "That is Simon the Magician's ) name to Seymon, that the name associated with the blessed one might not be associated with the cursed one.

But that would be speculating that someone intentionally changed here, which is certainly not fair to do without other evidences and I am not of the nature to accuse without reason, but only I say it because there is a precedent in the Hebrew Tanakh, that one Moses was changed into another name that the Prophet Moses's name may not be confused with a wicked one.I think it was changed to Manases, So I hear, but maybe someone else knows best. Of course the Jews who did the changing and the Aramaic Christians who kept the Peshitta are two different people and there is still no warrant to suppose that because the one did this that the other did it also, I only speculate for the sake of completeness.

I need to say one more thing now, since the Greek has no sheen, and if it was the GNT that was well known and even used among the Arameans before they had their own NT, why did they change Simon into Shim'on? On what basis? and if they found the basis why should they change the name they are so familiar with which is so important, to another name which the people were not used to at all, for example, if you talked about Shimon the Apostle to people in the Western Churches today, most would wonder who you were talking about. It would be confusing.

Why the painstaking attention to detail in the Peshitta? Did they spend the time and research to bring every Semetic name back into the NT since they sighed that it had been lost in the Greek? Was their's a "Sacred Name" Bible with all places and Hebrew names restored? I hardly think this would have been the feeling of the time or the most important task at hand, surely a straight simple translation of the Greek, matching the Greek in all points so as not to cause confusion, keeping familiar names so as not to bewilder people, and especially such important names as Simon etc, as we see that those names and titles which are Greek are quite faithfully reproduced in the Aramaic text.

I realise it is a one sided and there are some flaws in what I am saying, but the general argument is worth considering and discussing. I don't understand why the Peshitta is so flatly ruled out as anything but translation from the Greek.

Any thoughts friends?

[Aaron S]

I'd like to add some clarifications to my previous post....

First off, I think it's pertinent to mention that his name is indeed not Shim'on/Shem'un according to the vowels in the Peshitta but Shem'on/Shem'un.

Shem'on's name appears about 55 times as Sim?n and 2 times as Sume?n (namely in Acts 15:14 and 2Peter 1:1). There is absolutely no distinction other than context between Shem'on and Simawn according to Greek witnesses: they're both Sim?n.

[Sami Rabia]

Thanks Aaron.

Its really interesting.

But what about a few chapters later, in Acts 13 we have the Greek, Bar-Jesus and the Aramaic Bar-Shuma.
Do you know about the example about the name change of Moses I am talking about, It might be in numbers?

If so then we have a pattern of practice. I can easily accept that seymon was not carried over into the Greek. But now that there are two examples of names which are sacred that are different in Greek and Aramaic. If this was done in the Torah could it have been a practice continued in the Semetic Church?

Its tricky, because you often see changes made intentionally where they can be made by changing just one or two letters. You see this often in the Tanakh according to Ginsburg and some of the Massorah.

At the same time there are three possibilities.

1.The transition from one Aramaic script to another caused the change in the Aramaic, the Greek translation however got it correct. (I made a DSS example but cannot upload it)

2.The same, but the Peshitta got it correct and the Greek erred.

3.The name was intentionally changed in the Aramaic like some of the times they were changed in the Tanakh (I have no idea if there can be any connection between the traditions or not)

We can say this is more likely, that the Greek erred because he was not so proficient in Aramaic, etc, but then it gets too complicated for me to visualize it as there are so many factors. I really cannot venture any further with the knowledge I have and I think 3, though it looks the simplest, is not the best choice because it is the most speculative.

We have many examples where the Greek seems to have made a mistake in copying the Aramaic however.

Your thoughts Akhi?