Simeon

The history of this tribe, which theoretically traced its descent to the second son of Jacob and Leah, is involved in considerable obscurity. From the fact that Shanl, the eponym- ous head of one of its families, is called ' the son of the Canaanitish woman ' (Gn 46'", Ex 6"), we may infer that it contained a considerable admix- ture of non-Israelitish elements. From Jg !'• " we learn that, at the beginning of the conquest of Canaan, Simeon joined his forces with those of Judah.

It was probably not long thereafter that Simeon and Le^^ together sought to gain a settle- ment in Mount Ephraim, which was then occupied by the Canaanites. Such at least is a plausible interpretation of the tradition which underlies the narrative of Gn 34.

Upon any theory it is dithcnlt to disentangle the details of that storj', for the chapter in question is, in its present form, not homogeneous, and the different narratives date from did'erent periods, and are inspired by different motives (cf. artt. Hamor, and Jacob in vol. ii. p. 530 f.) None of these narratives is at all suitable to pre-Mosaic times, and there is much plausibility in the theory of Wellhausen, that we have here a reminiscence of an attempt on the part of Dinah b.

at-Leah (a branch of Simeon) and the other Simeonites, in conjunction with Levi, to possess themselves of the town of Shechem by treacher- ously taking advantage of the friendly relations that had hitherto subsisted between them aad th« Canaanites. Whatever degree of success may have attended the enterprise at first, its ultimate consequences were most tlisastrous, for the Canaanites of the surrounding districts appear to have attacked and practically annihilated the invaders '(cf.

Moore, Judges, 240). Tliis explains the insignificance or the entire ab.sence of Simeon in the subsequent history of Israel. The shattered remnants of this tribe, which liad begun its warlike activity in alliance ^vith Judah, now fell back upon tlie latter for protection and a share of the land (Jos 19"). In the Song of Deborah (Jg 5), in which the tribes of Israel are praised or blamed according to the part they had played in the struggle, both Judah and .

Simeon are passed over — judah probably because at this period it pursued its own aims in complete separation from the northern tribes (cf. Gn 38), Simeon because it was practically part of Judaii. The absence of Simeon in the Blessing of Moses (Dt 33) has been felt to be more surprising, and various explanations have been offered, or attempts made to supply the omission. A and some other MSS of the TA'X, indeed, insert Simeon in v.

6b ' Let Reuben live and not die, and let Simeon be many in number' {^vfiiatv irrTot jreXw? iv ccpSfj.!^). This, however, may be simply a deliberate correction of the text, devoid of any support from Heb. MSS. Other solutions of the difficulty have been proposed by Kobler {Der Segeji Jacob's, 5) and Graetz ('ics-r/j. d. Jtulen, il. i. 4S6f.) which have been accepted with modifications by Heil- prin (Hist Poetry/ of the Hebrews, i. 113 IT.) and Bacon (Triple Tradition of the Exodus, 270 f.)

Founding upon the unnatural shortness of the blessing of Judah, and tlie character of Levi's blessing, which seems too warlike for a non.secular tribe, Kohler conjectures that v.' has fallen out of its place and should follow v. 10, 80 that wX II would form the blessing of Judah. Graetz boldlj' substitutes ' Simeon ' for ' Judah ' in v.7, a method of procedure which is approved by Heilprin and Bacon as far aa v.

7i» is concerned, while at the same time they change the order of the verses as Kohler proposed. We thus obtain (v. -■») as the blessing of Simeon, ' Hear, O Jehovah, the voice of Simeon, and bring him to his people ' (the latter prayer perhaps referring to the Simeonites who, according t^ 1 Ch 4^21., found a settlement in Mt. Seir). The blessing of Judah would then be contained in v.Tb' Judah with his bauds contends," etc., and v. n 'Bless, Lord, his substance,' eto.

— But, however plausible these explana- tions may be, there will probably be little hesitation in assenting to the judgment of Dillmann (approved by Driver), that the corrections of the text which they involve are ' too violent * to he probable. The death-blow whicli Simeon received so earlj- in his career is quite surticient to account for the non-mention of him in Dt 33, even if we ascribe a considerable antiquity to that chapter.

The early decadence of this tribe is implied also in the priestly narrative of the Hexateuch, for while at the nrst census (Nu 1^) Simeon counted 59,300, at tlie second (26") it had fallen to 22,200. Knowing the methods and the motives of the Chronicler, we can of course attach no import- ance to his introducing the tribe of Simeon as numerous in the time of David (1 Ch 12"), especi- ally when we observe tliat el-sewhere even he is compelled to acknowledge its feebleness (1 Ch 4").

The question has been needlessly raised. To which of the two divisions did the tribe of Simeon attach itself at the disruption of the kingdom ? The truth is that long before that event this tribe had ceased to have any independent existence, having been practically absorbed by Judah. The Chron- icler, indeed, perhaps in order to make up the number ten, appears to reckon Simeon as belong- ing to the N. kingdom (2 Ch 15" 34" ; cf. Ezk 4gM. ».

a^ j^gy 77J There is probably more founda- tion for the tradition which he has preserved of conquests made by Simeonites in the time of Hezekiah (1 Ch 4»-S). The list of the sons of Simeon is given in Gn 46" and Ex 6". A different list appears in 1 Ch 4"'-, which is practically identical with another in Nil 26"'". Simeon's towns are named in .Jos 19^" and (with the exception of some deviations due prob- ably to copyists' errors) in 1 Ch 4^'-.

All these towns are in Jos 15^""- " reckoned to Judah, and to the same tribe are elsewhere reckoned such of them as Ziklag (1 S 27"), Hormah (1 S 30"), and lieersheba (1 K W).

This is in perfect harmony with the conclusion already reached, that Simeon was absorbed by Judah ; and this same conclusion SIMILITUDE SIMON 519 U strengtiiened by the circumstance that after the return from the Exile there is no mention of Sinieonites, but only of Juilahites as dwelling in any of the above cities (Neh 11-*'-). In addition to what id contained in the OT, the Pal.-Jewisb literature supplies a multitude of details re^^^rding the tribe of Simeon and it3 eponyn»ou» head (cf.

especially Tfnt. of Twttve Patr. and Bk. of JuhilefM). These stories are too manifestly apocryphal to merit serious consideration ; and the basis is not more substantial u|x>n which Dozy {lif l&rtwtu-ten te Mekka) builds his theory that the sanctuary at Mecca was founded by tiinieonites in the time of David. In his important monograph. <Ur Slatitm Sijruon (Meissen, ISCtJ).

Graf not only rejects this opinion as wholly devoid of historical support, but subjects to a searching examination the attempt of Movers and Hitzig to discover other OT allusions besides those of the Clironicler to Simeonite conquests and settlements outside Palestine. The words of Mic l^^ The glorj' of Israel shall come even unto Adullam' have been, stran^'ely enough, connected with the histor> in 1 Ch 4*-^.

The exegesis by which this result is reached is exceedingly strained, and the iuter]>retation also Involves, what was not the case, that Simeon belonged to the N. kingdom. PIqually unsuccessful is the attempt to prove that it is the Sinieonites of .Mt. Seir who put the question in la 21" ('Watchman, what of the night?')

The title of the oracle, ' Burden of Dumah,' has been sought to be connected with the Dl'mao of Gn 2ji*, mentioned as a family of the Ishmaclites side by side with Mibsam and Mishma, which last are in 1 Ch 425 the names of Sirnt-omte families. The latter circumstance may leijitimately be ur^ed in favour of the proba- bility of large admixtures of Ishniaclite as well as Can. elements in the tribe of Simeon.

But none of the localities known to us by the name Dumah will suit the topographical necessities of Ij 21"^, and it is far more probable that non is a textual error for onx (Cheyne in SBOT ; Marti, Jei. ad loe.), or that Dumah (' silence ') is in this instance a symbolical designation of Edoin (Del., Dillm., and many others). Side by side with Dumah we I5nd in Gn 25t4 Massa, to which Httzig finds a reference in Pr 30' yp.

By an emendation of the text he makes the former read, ' Words of Agur, the son of the queen of Massa,' while the latter is rendered ' Words of (to) Lenniel, king of Massa, which his mother taught him.' Hitzig endeavours lo connect Massa with the Simeonite settlement in Ml Seir; but the very most that the e^'idence entitles us to infer is that there may have been an Ishwafdle kingdom of Massa, and that its queen, like the nueen of Sheba, may have had a traditional reputation for wisriom.

That this kingdom, however, had any connexion with the Simeonitcs of 1 Cb 442 is not proved, and is on many grounds unlikely. LrrERATL'RB. — Especially Grafs monograph, d<rr5famTn.9im«m; cf. also his (Juch. BB. d. AT, 221 ; Kuenen, Gemm. Abfiamll. 255 ff. ; Wellh. Compot. d. i/fi.» 312 ff., S.Mf., IJGiSit. ; Stadc, GVI i. 164 ; Ewald, BM. ii. 287 f. ; Oraetz, Gesclt. d. Juden, ir. i. 486 f. ; Kittel, HiH. of Hi-brrwt, ii. 69; the Commentaries of Del., Dillm.

, Gunkel, and IPilzinger on Genegis, and of Dillm., Driver, Steuernagcl, and Dercholet on Deut. ; see also .Moore, Jmiget, 12, 36, 240 L J. A. SeLBIE. SIMILITUDE, as used in AV, usually means 'image' or Mikenes.s.' Cf. Gn \^ 'find. 'Let us nmke man in our symUitude and after ouie lyck- nesse,' and Ezk 8' Cov. (wliere the Heb. is n-jiB), ' The symilitude stretched out an honde, and toke me bv the hayrie lockes off my heade.'

The words so tr^ arc (1) n-;:B (Ps 106^ 144'=), for which see under I'attkrn ; (2) .ijiCB (Nu 12', Dt 4"- "''«), for which see under Image ; and (3) niDi (2 Ch 4', Dn 10"), widch is u.sually tr^ 'likeness.'' The last is the only word tr'' 'similitude' in RV. The words tr'' ' similitude ' in NT are : ofiolu/m (Ro 5"), inoluxris (Ja .S»),* and ifioidrris (Ho 7") ; in each case RV substitutes ' likeness.' See under Pattern.

But 'similitude' occurs once in the sense of illustration, parable, proverb: Hos 12"" 'I have nmltijdied visions, and used similitudes' (•"i^Tf', from n:^ (tlie root of niD-i] 'to be like,' Piel 'to' liken'). Cf. iMt 13' Tind. 'And he spake many tliynf,'e8 to them in similitudes'; He 9* Tind. 'Which was a •imilitude for the tyme then present' ; and Lk 4^ Rhciii. ' Certes, you wil say to me this similitude, Physicion, cure iheyself.' J. Hastings.

SIMON {Zlfiuv), one of the commonest names aiiiuii^;>t tlie Jews, is a later (Greek) form of Simeon (cf. Ac 15", wliere St. James, in referring to St. Peter, u.ses tlie archaic fonn of his name). This form is naturally confined to the Apocr. and NT. * For the distinction between iu4.t>ftt and ■.'»» see Mayor on J» 35. i. In the Apocrypha.— The name belongs to — 1. Simon I., the higli |irie.st who succeeded Onias I. during the Ptolemaic domination (c. 300 B.C.) According to Joseplms (Ant. xil.

ii. 5) he obtained the surname of ' the Just' (4 oiicaios), a designation intended, probably, to emphasize his strict legalism in opposition to the Hellenizing tendency of the majority of the high priests of the Greek period. In Fir/ce Aboth. (i. 2) he is said to have been one of the la.st of the Great Synagogue, and tlie saying is attributed to him : ' On three things the world is stayed, on the Torah, on the Worship [cf.

^ Xarpela in Ro 9'], and on the bestowal of Kind- nesses' (Taylor, Sayings of the Jeipish Fatliers^, p. 12). It is verjr doubtful, however, whether Josephus is right in identifying Simon I. with Simon the Just. Herzfeld (ii. 18911"., 377 f.) and others claim the title for — 2. Simon II. (Jos. Ant. XII. iv. 10), the successor of Onias II. (c. 2-20 B.C.) The same doubt exists as to the subject of the panegyric contained in Sir 50"''.

He is designated simply 'Simon the son of Onias the high priest,' a title applicable either to Simon I. or to Simon II. The graphic description, however, contained in this passage leaves the impression on one's mind that Ben Sira (c. 180 B.C.) is speaking of an elder contemporary (Simon II.) of his own rather than of a high priest who had died a century before (Cheyne, Job and Solomon, 180 ; see, further, Kuenen, Gesam. Abhandl. 153 f.; Schurer, GJV* ii. 355 f. [IIJP II. i. 355 f.]

; Graetz, 'Simon der Gerechte und seine Zeit,' in Munatsschrift, 1857, pp. 45-56). 3. A temple official who, out of ill-will lo the high priest Onias III., suggested to Seleu- CUS IV. tlie plundering of the temple treasury, 2 Mac 3'. See Heliodorus. 4. Simon the Mac- cabee. — See Maccabees, vol. iiL p. 185. S. 1 Es 9'=. See Cuosameus. ii. In the NT.— 1, The Apostle Peter.— See Peter (Simon). 2. See Simon Magus. 3. Another of the apostles, Simon theCANAN.*;AN (which see). 4.

A brother of Jesus (Mt 13", Mk 6^). It is very doubtful whether he should be identified with the Symeon who is said to have succeeded James ' the Lord's brother' as bishop of Jerusalem (Euseb HE iii. 11, iv. 22), and to have suU'ered martyrdom under Trajan (ib. iii. 32). Hegesippus, whom Euseb. protes.ses to quote, describes this Symeon as .5071 of Clopas, and calls him dxei/'iis of the Lord, while James and Jude are spoken of as the Lord's iSeXtpol. See art. Brethren of the Lord, vol. L pp.

320. 321'>. 6. Simon ' the leper,' in whose house a woman anointed Jesus, ^It 26°, Mk 14'. The question of the identity of our Lord's host and tlie cognate questions connected with the incident of the anointing are exhaustively discussed in art. Makv, vol. iii. p. 27911'. 6. A Pharisee who invited Jesus to eat with him, Lk 7"''. On this occasion we read that a woman that was 'a sinner' (a/iaproiXiit) anointed Jesus' feet.

For the relation of this incident to the narratives of Mt 26, Mk 14, and Jn 12, see, again, art. Mary as just cited, and cf. Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Christ, 250 fl'. 7. The father (?) of JuDAS IsCARIOT. In all the passages (Jn 6" 13' •) wliere this Simon is named, the Greek text ('loilSas 'Zliiuvoi, ' Judas of Simon') leaves it uncertain what wits his relation- ship to the traitor, but the EV 'Judas the son of Simon ' is probably correct.

It is very precarious to identify Simon Iscariot (Jn 6" 13-") with Simon the Cannna-an. 8. A Cyrenian, who was compelled by the Roman soldiers to bear the cross of Jesua (Mt27'", Mk 15^', Lk 23-»). He is described by St. Mark as the father of Alexander and RuFOS, names evidently well known in the early Christian Church.

The story in the Gospels waa perverted by some of the Docetic sects, the Basil idians going the length of maintaining that Simon not only 620 SIMOX MAGUS SlilON MAGUS bore the cross, but was actually crucified in mis- take for Jesus. 9. The tanner, with whom St. Peter lodged at Joppa (Ac 9^ 10»- "• '^j. J. A. Selbie.