Talk:Simon the Zealot

Judas the Zealot

I got redirected to this page (Simon the Canaanite) from "Judas the Zealot." Under Judas, it says "Judas the Zealot, alternate name of Simon the Canaanite." And this page explains: "The Epistula Apostolorum written in the 2nd century calls him Judas Zelotes, which suggests he may be the Judas mentioned in John 14:22." But under Jude, it says "Judas the Zealot (Matthew 13:55; John 14:22; Acts 1:13), an apostle also called Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18) [...] The Judas called "the son of James" (Luke 6:16), may be the same with the Judas surnamed Thaddaean that "Judas the Zealot" can signify both Simon the Canaanite and Thaddaeus? These are two distinct apostles, aren't they? Which apostle does "Judas the Zealot" usually mean? Thanks. ----Oichiro 17:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the title of this page is incorrect. Simon was from the town of Cana (where Jesus turned water to wine). He thus should be called Simon the Cananite (one A) not Simon the Canaanite (indicating Canaan).

You may be right, technically, but I'm sure I've seen it with 2 A's more often than not. At any rate, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the "Kananites" in his name does not mean "from Cana", but "the zealous". The article should probably be retitled "St. Simon" or "Simon the Apostle".--Cuchullain July 6, 2005 03:34 (UTC)

Oichiro, Jude the Zealot refers usally to St. Jude. This article attempted to show there is some evidence that Jude and Simon were the same, but it is very muddled. I'm thinking we should remove that paragraph entirely, I don't think a wikipedia article needs such an obscure theory about probably the least known apostle.--Cuchullain July 6, 2005 03:51 (UTC)

Cana is on Canaanite soil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan So Simon is in fact a canaanite. Tom 07/06/08

• Introduced the opinions of Brandon and Hengel re the Zealots, Simon Zelotes, and Jesus. There is a desire to distance Christianity from the Jewish Messiah Movement - but it cannot honestly be done ! Donach (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Added a cross-reference in a different para to the same authors. (not logged-in at the time). Donach (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Biblical

I notice that in the sentence about Mark 6:3, clarifying that Simon Zelotes is not the Simon mentioned there, that Simon is described as the "brother" of Jesus (in quotes). Is this meant to suggest that the Bible is wrong on that matter? Steve Graham (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Komani, Georgia"?

"Apostle Simon is burried in Komani (Georgia)." This still-unsourced assertion has now been moved here. Googling "Simon Komani Georgia" brings up nothing about a shrine in Komani. Any sound information would be welcome in the article. --Wetman 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

title

As far as I can tell this is the only article with "saint" abbreviated in the title. It is certainly the only one of the 12 apostles. Is Saint Simon the most common name? Even the table of the 12 apostles has Simon the Zealot. -Acjelen 05:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(Simon the Zealot is now the title. --Wetman 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

• I think Saint Simon is the more commons form. It should be Saint Simon or Simon the Apostle. --evrik 20:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)jfbhlbkhdfsk;vdfsjlcJd'lvb;khdf'zfiuvhfdivhfdghfdhjkdhgkjdfhgvkjdfhbvkjdfobvjhgjkvbhz;kflbjgfxkblgkl--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)hhhhjskhskdkjs--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)dsnkdxls--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)rgrf--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Hearing no objection, I will make the change. --evrik 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 14,900 for "simon the apostle. (0.11 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 44,300 for "simon the zealot. (0.12 seconds)

Changing back to Zealot Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose the change. --evrik ^(talk) 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• The name change was done without notice or consensus. --evrik ^(talk) 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Simon the Zealot (or, if it makes anyone happier, Simon Zelotes) Simon the Apostle is obviously ambiguous with Simon Peter; that's why it's less used. Septentrionalis 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose changing back, per Septentrion. Perhaps notice would have been better, but it's important not to get to the two mixed up. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The zealot connection of the group around Jesus is routinely disguised. Simon Zelotes might be acceptable, if one were determined to disguise any too-overt suggestion of "zealot". --Wetman 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)hcdklfjhds;oasjdlk--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)dftgb--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)dbgfbfg--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)grfgtrgtdgf--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)dag--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)dd--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)fa--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)df--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)dfaa--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)da--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)a--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)a--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)aaaaa--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)a--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)a--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)aaaaaaa--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)aaaaaaaaaaaaa--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)ffffffffffffffffffffffff--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)fffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--207.160.104.2 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose moving back. Simon the Apostle should probably be a disambiguation IMO, I know it's not a correct title for Simon Peter but, just like a common misspelling, it's a predictable search term and we should gently direct those who use it to the information they want (and need!). Andrewa 09:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we should see how he is named in other English reference sources. If he has an established appellation, that is the one we need to use (regardless of how zealotic he really was). -Acjelen 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minor changes

The Christianity box actually overlaps some of the text of the first paragraph. Should be a quick fix but I don't know how to do it. Jefs 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Shimon Ghayyour

Shimon Ghayyour is the Arabic/Farsi/Urdu translation of 'Simon the Zealot'. In Arabic, Urdu and Persian versions of Bible the name 'Simon Zealot' is translated as 'Shimon Ghayyour'.

And what is so special about that language that it should be emphasised in the first line of the article? Surely a translation of Simon the Zealot exists in many languages - should they all appear in the first sentence of the article? 220.253.67.90 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because in Arabic, Urdu or Persian Bible footnotes refers to English word so it is necessarily to brief here too. Have you seen in Chines Bible footnote in English? never, don't crave to amend it in chines too. (GRRE)

He was also known as Simon the son of Zealot!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.28.241 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Zelotes (Genus)

Zelotes redirects here. I think it needs to be made a disambig, as Zelotes is the name of a genus within family Gnaphosidae. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a complete sentence

OK, I find:

'Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas ["the son" is interpolated] of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. (Luke 6:14-16, RSV)'

The single quotation marks at beginning and end are mine. The point is that this is not a complete sentence. Is it supposed to say something like "Jesus' 12 apostles were:"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Son of Clopus

or Cleopas and "Mary wife of Cleopas". I don't know how sure people are about the legitimacy of this link, but it's been commonly enough thought (e.g., his entry in Annales Cambriae) that it deserves inclusion on the page. — LlywelynII 00:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)