Simon the Zealot
Why does Luke decide to render Simon as a Zealot? The truth may lie within a unique Aramaic perspective on Luke’s source documents.
“And [he] chose twelve of them whom he called Apostles:
Simon, whom he named ‘Rock,’
and Andrew, his brother,
and James,
and John
and Philip
and Bartholomew
and Matthew,
and Thomas,
and James, Alpheus’ son,
and Simon, who was called ‘The Zealot,’
and Judas, James’ son,
and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”-Luke 6:13c-16
Introduction
If it were not for the Gospel of Luke, the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament would practically be cut in half. When Luke’s work is taken into account, however, we depart from a number that is far under what most linguists say is necessary to be fluent in a language, and rise to a mind boggling number of words which are unique to his pen alone.
But Syria, the traditional place of St. Luke’s residence, is a country that birthed the language of Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic spoken in Jesus’ lifetime, incorporated several centuries B.C. after its invasion by the Persian Empire. Why would Luke, who is traditionally a Syrian physician, write in litterary Greek about an Aramaic figure? By looking at the text of this Gospel in comparison to the other Synoptics, we can possibly draw the conclusion that the author was working, at least in part, from Aramaic source documents when compiling his work.
The Quirk
Out of the three Synoptic Gospels which tell the story of Jesus appointing twelve Apostles, Luke is the only book to label the last Simon as ζηλωτην (zêlôtên, “The Zealot”). Matthew and Mark refer to the last Simon mentioned as κανανιτης (kananitês, “The Canaanite”). So, there appears to be an oddity, since modern textual criticism theories believe that Luke and Matthew used Mark as one of their sources. Why would the author of Luke edit Mark’s words where the author of Matthew keeps them the same?
The Evidence
The first rule of editing is not to edit something without good cause. Changing Simon from a Cananite to a Zealot would have very bold implications as the letter was addressed to a Graeco-Roman audience (”most excellent Theophilus,” 1:3).
The Zealots were a violent Jewish political movement in the 1st century CE which sought to incite the people of Rome-controlled Judea to rebel against the Roman Empire and drive it from the country by force. The movement, itself, has roots as far back as 6 AD when Judas of Galilee (also known as Judas of Gamala, who incidentally is mentioned in Acts 5:37) led an unsuccessful revolt. The historian Flavius Josephus records the following in The Jewish War, Book 18, Chapter 1:
Yet was there one Judas, a Galilean, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Zadok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.
They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.
All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies’ fire.
Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Zadok, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.
The Zealots continued to oppose the Romans due to Rome’s intolerance of their culture and on the grounds that Israel belonged only to a Jewish king descended from King David. Things came to a head in CE 66-70 with Great Jewish Revolt and when Emperor Titus besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and burned Herod’s Temple to the ground.
So why possibly would the author of Luke make such a decision, knowing that the Zealots were sworn enemies of the very audience that he was writing to? The word for “Canannite” in Aramaic is is כנעני (kanâ`nây), where the name of the Zealot movement was either קנאי (qanây) or קנעני (qanâ`nây) which literally mean “The Jealous Ones.”
כנעני
kanâ`nây
קנעני
qanâ`nây
These two words were practically indistinguishable when spoken as the only difference at the time between כ (kof) and ק (qof) was emphasis. Both are also completely indistinguishable if written sloppily as the only difference between כ (kof) and ק (qof) in square script is a tail, or in Syriac scripts, whether the body of the character is open or closed.
Conclusion
Given the similarities, it may be an appropriate conclusion that the author of Luke was utilizing an Aramaic source document when compiling his Gospel. To conclude that the author would “correct” a Greek text to an alternate reading that endorses a public enemy to a Graeco-Roman audience seems a bit far-fetched; however, even because of that possiblity it may be a stronger conclusion that in order for this quirk to exist that the author must have had a some knowledge of the Aramaic language to begin with (either to translate, or to correct his sources). Under the criterion of embarassment, it seems that the former of the two possibilites (that the author was using an ambiguous source document) is far, far more likely.