THE ever-recurring difficulty about the distinctive appellations of
the apostles, forms the most prominent point of inquiry in the life
of this person, otherwise so little known as to afford hardly a
single topic for the apostolic historian. The dispute here indeed
involves no question about personal identity, but merely refers to
the coincidence of signification between the two different words by
which he is designated in the apostolic lists, to distinguish him
from the illustrious chief of the twelve, who bore the same name with
him. Matthew and Mark in giving the names of the apostles,――the only
occasion on which they name him,――call him “Simon the Cananite;” but
Luke, in a similar notice, mentions him as “Simon Zelotes;” and the
question then arises, whether these two distinctive appellations have
not a common origin. In the vernacular language of Palestine, the word
from which _Cananite_ is derived, has a meaning identical with that of
the root of the Greek word _Zelotes_; and hence it is most rationally
concluded, that the latter is a translation of the former,――Luke, who
wrote entirely for Greeks, choosing to translate into their language a
term whose original force could be apprehended only by those acquainted
with the local circumstances with which it was connected. The name
_Zelotes_, which may be faithfully translated by its English derivative,
_Zealot_, has a meaning deeply involved in some of the most bloody
scenes in the history of the Jews, in the apostolic age. This name,
or rather its Hebrew original, was assumed by a set of ferocious
desperadoes, who, under the honorable pretense of a holy _zeal_ for
their country and religion, set all law at defiance, and constituting
themselves at once the judges and the executors of right, they went
through the land waging war against the Romans, and all who peacefully
submitted to that foreign sway. This sect, however, did not arise
by this name until many years after the death of Jesus, and there
is no good reason to suppose that Simon derived his surname from any
connection with the bloody Zealots who did their utmost to increase
the last agonies of their distracted country, but from a more holy
zeal displayed in a more righteous manner. It may have been simply
characteristic of his general conduct, or it may have referred to some
particular occasion in which he decidedly evinced this trait of zeal in
a righteous cause.
_The Cananite._――In respect to this name, a most absurd and
unjustifiable blunder has stood in all the common versions of it,
which deserves notice. This is the representation of the word
in the form, “_Canaanite_,” which is a gross perversion of the
original. The Greek word is Κανανιτης, (_Kananites_,) a totally
different word from that which is used both in the New Testament,
and in the Alexandrian version of the Old, to express the Hebrew
term for an inhabitant of Canaan. The name of the land of Canaan
is always expressed by the aspirated form, Χανααν, which in
the Latin and all modern versions is very properly expressed
by “_Chanaan_.” In Matthew xv. 22, where the Canaanitish woman
is spoken of, the original is Χαναναια, (_Chananaia_,) nor is
there any passage in which the name of an inhabitant of Canaan
is expressed by the form Κανανιτης, (_Cananites_,) with the
smooth K, and the single A. Yet the Latin ecclesiastic writers,
and even the usually accurate Natalis Alexander, express this
apostle’s name as “Simon _Chananaeus_,” which is the word for
“Canaanite.”
The true force and derivation of the word is this. The name
assumed in the language of Palestine by the ferocious sect above
mentioned, was derived from the Hebrew primitive קנא (_Qana_
or _Kana_,) and thence the name קנני (_Kanani_) was very fairly
expressed, according to the forms and terminations of the
Greek, by Κανανιτης, (_Kananites_.) The Hebrew root is a verb
which means “to be _zealous_,” and the name derived from it of
course means, “one who is _zealous_,” of which the just Greek
translation is the word Ζηλωτης, (_Zelotes_,) the very name by
which Luke represents it in this instance. (Luke vi. 15; Acts
i. 13.) One of these names is, in short, a mere translation of
the other,――nor is there any way of evading this construction,
except by supposing that Luke was mistaken in supposing that
Simon was called “the Zealot,” being deceived by the resemblance
of the name “_Cananites_” to the Hebrew name of that sect. But
no believer in the inspiration of the gospel can allow this
supposition. Equally unfounded, and inconsistent with Luke’s
translation, is the notion that the name Cananite is derived
from Cana the village of Galilee, famous as the scene of
Christ’s first miracle.
The account given in the Life of Matthew shows the character of
this sect, as it existed in the last days of the Jewish state.
Josephus describes them very fully in his history of the Jewish
War, (iv. 3.) Simon probably received this name, however, not
from any connection with a sect which arose long after the death
of Christ, but from something in his own character which showed
a great _zeal_ for the cause which he had espoused.