The name 'Simon' was prohibited after the First Revolt

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, the fact that you agree with Greg Doudna does not make the statement—“The Name ‘Simon” was prohibited after the First Revolt”—any less false.

Surely his argument is based on greater Vermeiren's case for historical Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat (surely by you not confuted, but probably only denied).

In whiletime, I observe that you have not given a valid reason for the strange (= unexpted) omission of the name Simon, reported by Cecil Roth :

It is a most curious coincidence that a number of other personalities named Simeon or Simon, in the period of the birth of Christianity, are similarly known generally by their patronymics, their personal names being consistently eliminated. Moreover, this is the case only (or virtually only) with persons called Simeon.

Come on, Stephen, it is evident that the news of Simon bar Giora had given a negative fame to the name 'Simeon'/'Simon'.

[StephenGoranson]

The evidence given by Tal Ilan--cited above--disproves what you named this thread, and Roth's claim, as well.

[Giuseppe]

Accordingly, if I have to believe you, then I should consider only a mere coincidence the curious fact that, inter alia,

In Jewish tradition from Talmudic times onwards, as is well known, the author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus was universally called "Ben Sira". In the original Hebrew text of the work found in the Cairo Genizah, however, he is styled "Simeon [ben Joshua ben Eleazar] ben Sira"; the personal name was thus omitted in general parlance, only the patronymic being preserved.

With a bit of malice, a part of myself wonders how much of your efforts are addressed to confute/mitigate similar claims...

[Giuseppe]

By induction,
if Eleazar was omitted in virtue of dangerous association with the various 70 CE rebels named Eleazar, then why not also Simon ?

[Giuseppe]

To be clear, Stephen, what you have to confute here is the precise Roth's point:

in almost every case in the literature of this period where a well-known person is consistently referred to by his patronymic, and we known his eigenname, that eigenname was Simon.

It doesn't seem at all that your academic source - Tal Ilan - has confuted precisely that point, which makes basically the case for the title of the thread.

[Giuseppe]

And you Stephen can't deny that Cecil Roth bears real evidence for the claim:

So far as well-known persons are concerned, it is only in the case of those named Simeon that the eigenname is consistently omitted: and in any case the number of persons named Simeon with whom this is the case, whether or not well-known, equals that of bearers of all other names combined. [9]

Note 9 reads:

The point is emphasized by a glance at the Index to Danby's English translation of the Mishnah, s.v. Ben. This is amplified there in only seven cases, two of them being conjectural: of the remaining five, four refer to a Simeon. As against eight omissions of the name Simeon I have been able to trace in all at this period, I find Eleazar similarly omitted in the sources in a total of three cases, Judah in two or three, Johanan in two: but in none of these instances systematically, as in the case before us.

She is not denying that these people were called Simon. She was claiming that these people (or who talked/wrote about these people) were embarrassed for their name Simon since they omitted that name in the writings/public parlance, using only the patronymics in his place.

[Giuseppe]

The evidence given by Tal Ilan--cited above--disproves what you named this thread, and Roth's claim, as well.

I may change the title from:

The name 'Simon' was prohibited after the First Revolt

...to:

The name 'Simon' was cause of embarrassment after the First Revolt

...and still I can explain validly WHY Simon became Cephas, with eclipse of his name Simon.

Surely better than the traditional "explanation" (that a historical Jesus gave the name 'Cephas' to Simon).

[Stuart]

Simon is Hebrew/Aramaic שִׁמְעוֹן (Shimeon) for "one hearing [the diety]"

I have come to the opinion that Simon is a name whose origin is an aptronym. The primary disciple Jesus converses with is Simon, or rather "he who hears the Lord". That it is a common Jewish name is a bonus, but also obscures the name as literary device.

Cephas is Aramaic for Rock, as in the corner stone
Peter is Latin for Rock

I am struck by the similarity in Greek of Κηφᾶς (Cephas) and κεφαλὴ (head), and how it intersects with κεφαλήν γωνίας from Psalms 118:22, which is a key exegetical verse (Matthew 21:12 // Mark 22:10 and Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7).

So then the first Apostle then is "he who hears the Lord," called "the rock" (Peter = Κηφᾶς), who is the foundation stone (κεφαλήν γωνίας), upon whom the church is built (Matthew 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν).

I think this is the explanation, word play. Cephas may merely be a term for founder. It seems to be associated especially with the sect that used Matthew.

[davidmartin]

what about the other Barabbas from Acts - Joseph Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and mentioned also by Papias
Isn't it strange how at the cross there is a choice between two men, the Barabbas being the one not chosen
and in Acts there's another choice between two men and again the Barabbas is not chosen?

[Giuseppe]

what about the other Barabbas from Acts - Joseph Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and mentioned also by Papias
Isn't it strange how at the cross there is a choice between two men, the Barabbas being the one not chosen
and in Acts there's another choice between two men and again the Barabbas is not chosen?

Adamczewski and Tarazi think that Barsabbas was allegorized in Barabbas. But there is a best explanation for both them.