NIckname!!! “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah. For no mere man has given you this information but my heavenly Father”…“And for that, I’m going to give you a nickname”???
Although, technically you are right, but in this case, I’ve got to question you. In John’s Gospel, we find that Simon is the son of John (different John, of course). I thought, upon reading this, that “John” was simply a Greek rendering of “Jonah”, but I have since found this to be false. John and Jonah are completely different and unrelated names.
I knew this and was trying to find a reference to substantiate and couldn’t. Do you have one?
I’m not sure what you are asking, but the reference in John’s Gospel is 1:42 - 42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).There are a few threads on this topic, but I find it ironic that Jesus calls Himself the “Sign of Jonah” early in Chapter 16, and then follows up calling Peter “Son of Jonah” (BarJonah) just a few verses later.
It depends a lot on what translation you use and what Greek text was used by the translators. I checked a source for the Textus Receptus (not always considered reliable) used very commonly and in John 1:40, when referring to John the Baptist, the word is Johannes, Strong’s G2491. But in John 1:42, referring to Simon’s father’s name, we find Ionas, Strong’s G2495.Notworthy,
Sorry - that is what I get for posting at 2:30 AM
What I was trying to ask is: if Jesus calls Peter by his given name - Simon bar-Jonah - as he does in Matthew, why is St. John’s gospel asserting that Simon’s father’s name is really John, if you say the two names are entirely different (and I have no doubt what you say is true about their difference)?
Based on what you are claiming, it seems Simon’s father’s name had to be one or the other: Jonah or John.
Or am I missing the obvious . . . ?
I’m not sure if this is correct. The Hebrew of Jonah doesn’t have an “H” in it, whereas the Hebrew of John does.
As I mentioned, Jesus calls Himself the “Sign of Jonah” earlier in Matthew 16. Then He calls Simon “Son of Jonah” simply a few verses later. You’ll also find, when the two are going to the Temple, Jesus asks Simon “What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?” I understand that “their subjects” is better translated as “their sons”. Again, Jesus is implying a "familial relationship with Peter, one that He does not imply with the rest of the Twelve. Notice that Jesus has Peter “fish out” enough to pay for His and Peter’s tax to the Temple, and not the rest of the Disciples.Notworthy,
Sorry - that is what I get for posting at 2:30 AM
What I was trying to ask is: if Jesus calls Peter by his given name - Simon bar-Jonah - as he does in Matthew, why is St. John’s gospel asserting that Simon’s father’s name is really John, if you say the two names are entirely different (and I have no doubt what you say is true about their difference)?
Based on what you are claiming, it seems Simon’s father’s name had to be one or the other: Jonah or John.
Or am I missing the obvious . . . ?
It was Greek
):But they both evolved from the Hebrew. Two different Hebrew names.
I’ll check on the Catholic commentaries that I have. I know I’ve read something on this either from Ignatius (Hahn/Mitch) or Navarre.According to A Commentary on the New Testament by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (the “old” group that produced the Confraternity Bible - NOT the new one
“Simon bar-Jona:: Jesus calls him by his full name to emphasize the importance of whe He is about to say. Bar-Jona means ‘son of Jona’. In John 1.42, he is called ‘Simon, the son of John.’ Either Simon’s father had more than one name - a not uncommmon custom of that time - or more probably Jona and Johannes are but variant forms of the original Hebrew hame of Johannan.”
I have no idea what is correct - but I think the alternative explanation offered by the commentary is reasonable, and I don’t think the real name of Simon’s father has much theological importance one way or the other.
What you will find Hahn/Mitch doing is echoing the words of the early Church. They aren’t coming up with these theories on their own… they’re simply putting forth what earlier Church writers had postulated on.See Hahn’s/Mitch’s Ignatius Press commentary:
"Simon Bar-Jona: Literally means ‘Simon son of Johah’. Since Peter’s father is actually named ‘John’ (Jn 1:42), the title may be symbolic.
(1) Jesus’ role as a new Jonah (12:39-41) may suggest he views Peter as his spiritual son
(2) Since the Hebrew name ‘Johah’ means ‘dove’, Jesus may point to the relationship between Peter and the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, the same Spirit who confirmed Jesus’ Sonship in the form of a dove (3:16) now inspires Peter’s confession."
I don’t mean to impugn the work of this Study Bible, but I find the scholarship a bit lacking on this particular point:
Again, I am not sure Simon’s father’s name is all that important. I have acknowledged many times that Christ’s was very economical with the number of words he spoke (or should I say, with the number of words that are recorded in the gospels?), but that their small number is more than made up by being laden with meaning. Yet even here, the jumps the commentators make seem (at least to me) pretty tenuous.
- The commentators jump from “Jona” in the text to “Jonah” in the commentary without even mentioning the change in the name itself. “Jona” and “Jonah” may mean the same thing, but the commentators should at least explain the change.
- The commentators’ explanations total two in number. The commentators state, without question, that Simon’s father’s name was “John” (referencing John’s gospel) - and that’s it. The name appearing in the gospel of John is accepted as accurate, whereas the name appearing in Matthew is interpreted as not referring to Simon’s father at all!
Jesus, as the new “Jonah in the whale”, considers Simon his “spiritual son”?
“Jonah” means dove. As Simon did not come to his conclusion about who Jesus really was on his own, Simon must have been inspired by the Holy Spirit - who is often depicted as a dove. But explanation goes contrary to Christ’s own words in that Christ said that his Father told Simon who Christ was - not the Holy Spirit.
P.S. And if one consults the notes in the recently released NABRE, we see this bizarre rendering: “. . . in Mat 16:17, Simon is called Bariona [sp???] ‘son of Jonah’, a different tradition for the name of Simon’s father.” That is either a typo or a rendering of Jona(h) I have never seen or heard before!
P.S.S. And the venerable A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture - 1953 edition does not even mention the change. Simon’s father’s name appears to be accepted as “Jonah”.
This may be “much ado about nothing” . . .
I was speaking of Greek spelling conventions when you said something about Hebrew. Look, different versions of Scripture and different Greek texts, have these names both spelled and translated, differently. The books were written in different Greek dialects and removed from one another in time by both geographic distance and a few decades of time. We don’t know what they said, we don’t know which text is more accurate. We don’t know, because (as I already said) the names are spelled so similarly, if it’s just a copying error. I like pet theories as much as the next exegete, believe me, but this issue is quite likely not an issue at all.
I know, I’m answering myself but I was too late to edit when I realized this sounds a way I don’t intend. Let me rephrase: it is just as likely at this point that there is no issue as it is there is a real meaning and Truth to be had from the change. We just don’t have enough information to know.
