Talk:Simeon (Gospel of Luke)

Recent additions

I'm reverting. This is an article about a Christian saint, presenting the Christian hagiography as it actually exists, and references were given. There is no call whatsoever for the templates and editorial comments that were added, and no discussion was offered. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To expand a bit: "Christian saint" means he's venerated as a saint in the Christian churches, not that he necessarily thought of himself as a Christian in his lifetime. There is no tradition concerning this figure from Judaism that anyone cared to cite. If there is one it should certainly be mentioned, possibly in its own section, but that does not eclipse Simeon as a person of singular importance in Christian thought, whose prayer as recorded in the Gospels is still in regular use, and who is venerated on the calendars of every liturgical Christian church. It is therefore certainly inappropriate to remove Christian-related templates.

As for the translation from Isaiah: As ought to be clear from context, the citation in question is from the Septuagint, which unequivocally says "virgin" in that place, not "young woman". This is true no matter how much any modern person might disagree with the 2nd century BC translator. However, a Hebrew rendering of the passage would certainly be appropriate here. Not even a brief account of the problem of that passage would be unwelcome.

"Shimon" is virtually certain to have been his name; however, it is not recorded in that form. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

I added those tags because they are highly disputed from Jewish POVs. And secondly the translation from Isaiah is well known to be a mistranslation from the Hebrew. ems 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This page presents a Christian tradition concerning a figure who is mentioned only in the Christian gospels. By the standard you propose here, every single article on a Christian subject ought to be tagged. Of course Jews and Christians disagree. That's why they're separate.

About Isaiah: Whether you like it or not, the Septuagint in fact says parthenos, virgin, there. That is the salient fact. Obviously someone, at some point, thought it was a valid translation. (Since it was made in the 2nd century BC, this person was obviously not a Christian.) But let's grant your point, that it's simply wrong. It doesn't change what the Septuagint actually says, nor what the Christian tradition says about how that word got there. (Note the article says, "According to...". It's not making a positive assertion of fact about anything but the content of the tradition.)

Furthermore, this article (Simeon the Righteous) is about the person mentioned in Luke's Gospel. There is no tradition whatsoever in either Jewish or Christian belief that you or anyone else has cited, or of which I am aware, that identifies him with Simeon the Just. None at all. The redirect is absurd, and insupportable. I'm reverting again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The dab link just added is sensible. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Simeon the Righteous and Simeon the Just are the same person. They both are valid ways of translating Shimon haTzadik. Shimon haTzadik was known to work in the Temple and was the last of the Great Assembly that stood in the Temple. As far as I know the Simeon the Righteous in Josephus' book is believed to be the same Simeon in the books of the Gospels. Hence them being the exact same person. ems 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Christian side there's no mention of him ever having been a high priest, and on the Jewish side there's no mention of his tenure lasting for several centuries, as it would have had to if he was still alive to meet Jesus in the Temple circa 4 BC. The reasonable conclusion is that these are two different people who happen to be known by the same title in two different traditions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole Jesus date is highly disputed. Its hard to come to conlusion from them. That is why I said bring it from Josephus. All I am stating both sides agree the Simeon in Josephus, is their Simeon. ems 05:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly content with the idea that the Simeon from Luke 2 is not the Simeon mentioned in Josephus. The Christian tradition concerning him doesn't reference Josephus at all, and as I pointed out, the biographies do not appear to match. Surely "Shimon" was not that uncommon a name at the time. (And when did Simeon the Just pass away? Is there any indication in the Jewish tradition at all that he was over 200 years old when he did?)

The "whole Jesus date" isn't all that disputed. The range is fairly narrow, 6-2 BC (or BCE if you prefer). It certainly was not much earlier or much later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Simeon and Shimon are the same name just deferent ways of saying it. In the hebrew there are 2 imcompable vowels in the word Simeon/Shimon where only one can be said but not the other. So when saying one of the vowels you get Shimon, when saying the other you get Simeon. On the dates, it may not be disputed in between most Christian circles as much, but outside that where the date is not based from the NT, there are many dates. I have seen as far as to 300-200 BCE... Be aware, Judaism only accepts the 5 books as the testament. The other books of Mikra (english: reading) are considered "holy." Outside of that... ems 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am reasonably well-informed about the Hebrew Scriptures, thanks, as well as how Hebrew names in Scripture were Hellenized. That was my point, that there not only could have been, but probably were, many men named Shimon among the kohanim.

But I think the range of reasonable dates is drastically exaggerated here, especially since the person in question appears in Luke's gospel, and Luke is the most careful of all the Gospel writers to try to place Jesus in his historical context. I.e., Herod the Great was king of Judaea, Augustus was the Roman Emperor, Quirinius was governor of Syria, and a census was underway. Granted, Luke seems to have erred in Quirinius' teunre (he was in the region at the time, but as a military commander) and to have mistaken a local census for an empire-wide one, but these are all indeed contemporary. Jesus was furthermore crucified under Pontius Pilate who was procurator of Judaea under Tiberius and is an independently attested historical figure. On the other hand, I know of no credible scholarship, Christian or otherwise, that places as early as the 3rd century BCE. It is certainly not even close to a majority view. The presence of Romans in Judaea forms the background to more than one of the incidents of his life, including those widely accepted as authentic. There are also mentions of him in Josephus and Roman authorities from not much later. (I know the relevant passage from Josephus was corrupted by Christian copyists, but it's widely accepted these days that the core of it is genuine even if the more extravagent phrases, which Josephus certainly did not credit, are not.)

Even if we try do discount the Gospels entirely, we find that the Christian "movement" erupted into history pretty much at the time we'd expect it to if events happened when they say they happened. But that's the wrong approach. This article is not reporting on a historical figure, but a traditional figure, and describes him as such. Outside the context of the tradition, there's really nothing to say. And the tradition says this happened right around the change in the era nomenclature.

Furthermore, most Christian churches that honor the Simeon of the present article as a saint also (in contrast to Judaism) consider ben Sirach to be inspired and canonical Scripture. If it were possible to connect the Simeon in Luke with such an honored person from another Scripture they would do it. But they do not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have been trying to find the source of this Eastern tradition -- do you mind listing where you found it? The Protoevangelium of Jacob speaks of Symeon as being 112 years old when he saw Jesus brought to the Temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.147.135 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove {{in-universe}} tag

The {{in-universe}} tag should be removed--it is intended for subjecs like Superman or Lord of the Rings, which entail a setting which is entirely and purposefully fictional, but is not appropriate for biblical figures. Its presence on this article is itself POV, as it presumes that the Bible is fiction. Its presence is offensive, and smacks of someone with an axe to grind. It is unencyclopedic and should be removed. MishaPan (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Two different people

This article is clearly and unambiguously about the person who occurs principally in Christian tradition and Luke's gospel as an old man around the time of Jesus' birth (roughly 6 to 2 BCE).

There is also a Simeon the Just who, according to his article, was around "310-291 or 300-273 BCE".

Does either tradition make any claim that there was a single Simeon who lived to the age of 300? It would seem they are two completely different people, living 300 years apart.

I am therefore removing the entirely unsourced material (the alleged "ref" was simply another Wikipedia article) about the ~300 BCE person from this article about this ~0 BCE person. (But of course, the "hatnote" at the top of the article can stay, so that someone looking for the 300 BCE person can be directed, in accordance with Wikipedia house style and guidelines, to the correct article.)

Of course, if there really is some sort of non-fringe tradition that there was one person, aged about 300, then presumably it can reliably sourced for re-insertion into this article, again in conformance with Wikipedia guidelines. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Simeon The Just seems to be an amalgamation figure, probably originally based on one of the Simons who was High Priest in the 3rd Century B.C. but none of those was High priest for a full 40 years as one Simeon tradition in the Talmud implies, nor did either live contemporary with Alexander The Great. So the idea that the figure form Luke's Gospel is connected to that tradition somehow is feasible, he is called "Just" and his ability to do what he didn't, performing a special blessing on a newborn being presented in the Temple does imply he may have been a Priest. Perhaps Simon Beothus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:TITLE

Is Simeon the Righteous the right title for the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidently not, after checking that title always refers to the Jewish nasi Simon the Just in English texts. The adjective "righteous" doesn't even occur in Russian and Greek except prior and additional to the normal "Theodochos". So a WP:MOVE is called for, but since the "Simeon the Righteous" was already tagged for some months with no action, indicating that this isn't a particularly actively edited/referenced page I'm being bold and moving to Simeon (Gospel of Luke) - if anyone wants to revert prior to a full WP:RM go ahead, but the current title is the one title that has zero WP:RS support and should be a redirect to Simon the Just.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Duplication

The whole part with details on the festivities duplicates with the main article Presentation of Jesus at the Temple and should be removed. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simeon (Gospel of Luke). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928014828/http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/February3.htm to http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/February3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

08 October

I came here via a link on the Wikipedia page entitled "October_8", subsection "Christian feast days", but there is no mention of an October date in this article. What is the connection? Douglasson (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That is the date when Simeon is venerated by the people of Zadar, Croatia, who believe they have his relics; the Venetians claim they have them. Manannan67 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)