Simon the Pharisee

The woman of the city(polis) who is said to be a sinner in Luke 7:37 was washing the feet and anointing the head of Jesus in the House of a Simon the Pharisee. Was this event we see also the same we see with Simon the leper in Mark 14:3 and Matthew 26:6? Is Simon the leper also Simon the Pharisee and even the Nicodemus who we see in John all the same person and the father of Martha and Mary? And was the act of this woman which was to be "be told for a memorial of her" the act of Mary who sat at his feet? Because John says this Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was the woman who anointed the feet of Jesus. (Picture by Maarten van Heemskerck, 1498-1574)

Simon the Leper

In Matthew 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9 we see Simon the leper.

Was this Simon the Leper also the same as Simon the Pharisee of Luke 7 containing a similar?

Some, who read the passage of Luke 7 where a Pharisee named Simon invites Jesus to dine, say the invitation was said to be "patronizing", "ungracious", and even "hostile".

"The invitation was clearly due to a patronizing curiosity, if not to a worse and hostile motive. The whole manner of the Pharisee to Jesus was like his invitation, ungracious."

When other Pharisees were "patronising and ungracious" with a "hostile motive" Jesus would tell them nothing. Jesus knew what this man "spake within himself" and took time to explain the importance of forgiveness.

If we read the text we see a woman with an alabaster jar filled with expensive oil Anointing Christ with a Pharisee named Simon present.

"36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat. 37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that [Jesus] sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, 38 And stood at his feet behind [him] weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe [them] with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed [them] with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw [it], he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman [this is] that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. 40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Luke 7: 36-42

We do not know the woman's name in Luke 7: 36-42 or her relation to the man Simon except that she is considered by him to be a "sinner"".

Some suggest that she was a prostitute but a woman would be considered a sinner for many reasons. The fact that she is called a woman in the city or polis does not suggest she was a prostitute or even an adulterer. There is some evidence that this woman is Mary Magdalene but there is also evidence that this Mary is the sister of Marthaand Lazarus and the daughter of Simon the Leper who was also Simon the Pharisee. Unless we want to believe there was more than one event when a woman anointed Jesus we should accept this was one event with some details omitted and some included. and Martha oil that was broken or syntrivo (συντριβω) by this woman and completely used up by her exclusively on Jesus. She was also to save the rest for his burial. If she did we would expect her to be at the cross or at least at the tomb. That would be most significant since we have a detailed account of the women at his tomb.

The value of the spikenard, a Roman pound of 12 ounces or around 340 grams, was so expensive as an ointment that it could have been sold for what would amount to a year's wages, which Mark enumerates as 300 denarii. Why and how would she have such a large sealed container of such an expensive oil?

According to Mark 14 and John 12 verse 3 the oil was spikenard or nardos (ναρδος)

That and the true identity of Simon and his relationship with this woman who is in his house may be significant.

Some question may be answered if this Simon is also Simon the leper?

Simons

"There were two Simons among the Twelve, and there are nine Simons mentioned in the New Testament alone, and twenty in Josephus."

A leper would not be allowed around people nor live inside the cities if his or her skin was infected as the Torah law commanded. They could not be on the Sanhedrin and meet with others.

But also had healed many lepers but there seems to be no evidence that Simon needed healing or was healed including the healing reported in Matthew 8.

“‭2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” Matthew 8:2,

Who was this Simon? "There were two Simons among the Twelve, and there are nine Simons mentioned in the New Testament alone, and twenty in Josephus."

Son of Simon

In John 12: verse 4 we see "Judas being the son of Simon" is omitted in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions.

Simon was the father of Mary, Mariam, and Lazarus. If he was the father of Judas Iscariot that would mean Judas was their brother.

Judas was not the son of that Simon by any other testimony but the man from Iscariot.

Yet, we see the same reference in three verses of John.

• John 6:71 "He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."
• John 12:4 "Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s [son], which should betray him,"
• John 13:2 "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s [son], to betray him;"

The Greek text in John 6:71 we see "Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου" or "Ioudan Simōnos Iskariōtou"·

The King James reads John 6:71 "He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."

It can be understood that Judas Iscariot is the son of Simon Iscariot. This is also since the Gospel of John never identifies the head of that house of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus as a man named Simon and never mentions a Simon the Leper nor a Simon the Pharisee.

In John 12:4 we read "Judas Iscariot Simon's son". Again when you see a word italicized or blocked with brackets [] in the text they are telling you that the word in question is not in the original text but has been added by the translator assumedly to make it more readable. In this verse the Greek does vary in the different original copies used to make an accurate translation of John 12:4.

In several of these text sources there is not included the word son nor Simon while some do include Simon but not son but the order can tell us that Judas is the Son of Símonos Iskariótis or Simon Iscariot because the three names together tell us by their order "Judas Simon Iscariot".

This is probably made most clear by John 13:2 which reads "Judas Iscariot, Simon’s [son]". John 13:2

So. there should be no controversy about who Judas is the son of nor any speculation about him being the son of any other Simon than "Simon Iscariot".

Jar maker

Was Simon the who is mentioned in Matthew 26:6 and Mark 14:3 a leper or a jar-maker?

"According to the Greek translation there is a major problem here as a leper cannot own property, live inside of Jerusalem nor have feasts that Jewish people would be able to attend. The problem is quickly erased when the Aramaic translation is used as it was simply a mistake of translating into Greek ‘garba’ which means leper instead of ‘garaba’ which means ‘jar maker’. Simon the jar maker fits much better considering the story is about a woman having an expensive jar with expensive perfume. Since vowels are only pointed in Hebrew and Aramaic, both roots would be ‘grb.’" Hebraic Roots Bible

The publication of the Hebraic Roots Bible examines the text and present a different view of thousands of places where some confusion may have been created by translators. The authors of that Hebraic Roots Bible are also not infallible but having the conversation may help us overcome errors and conclusion we have made in the past or have been made for us without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The translators generally admit they only did the "best they could" at the time and do not claim to be divinely inspired. Some of these points of interest in the text may be important to a detailed examination of the text but that examination should never detract from the purpose of the author.

"While Jesus was at dinner at Bethany in the house of Simon, the jar-maker, a woman came in with an alabaster jar of pure perfume, which was very costly. Breaking the jar she poured the perfume over his head. Some said to each other in indignation, "Why this waste of perfume? It might have been sold for more than three hundred silver pieces and the money given to the poor." THE CHILDREN'S BIBLE, By Henry A. Sherman & Charles Foster Kent

So, the Peshitta text reads Simon the jar maker or potter and this makes sense as he was anointed with a costly oil from an unique alabaster jar in the same verse.

A purveyor of oils or oil merchant would often also be a jar maker. They would have a littoral system for making containers of both pottery and stone. The same skills in making the containers was also required in the production of the oils themselves

The Hebrew word tsara (ערַצָ) is translated leper. The Greek word lepros (λεπρός) is translated leper.

The error did not occur in the translation from Greek to English but in earlier translations involving the Hebrew and Aramaic and then into the Greek.

Both Hebrew and Aramaic are written without the use of vowels. The Aramaic words for leper is GimelReishBeitAlef (גרבא) or GaRaBA. A jar maker or jar merchant is also GimelReishBeitAlef (גרבא) or GaRaBA. Could Simon the Jar maker be Simon the Jarmaker. Martha's is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Mary.

It seems as though the translator may have gotten something understandably wrong. But we are only concerned with an honest examination and do not want to detract from the obvious message of the Holy Spirit in these accounts of events. The key to the kingdom is found in repentance, which will include forgiveness, giving, which often include forms of sacrifice or service, and doing what is righteous based on the Holy Spirit writhing upon our heart and mind.

If our approach to the scripture is rooted in humility rather than pride and we are willing to forgive others of their pride or ourselves of our own past pride we may be willing to ask questions in hope of knowing the whole truth as so many did when they met with Christ.

Is this Mary daughter of a rich oil merchant Simon the Jarmaker, rich oil merchant, and a pharisee on the Sanhedrin who is becoming a follower of Christ?

A woman pours expensive oil from what would be considered to be a large alabaster jar after breaking it open.

Why is their so much oil in the that jar?

What would that have to do with a "woman of the city"?

Was she sent back to her fathers house because she was caught in the act of adultery?

Or was she considered a sinner because she was betrothed and found with another man?

Had Jesus forgiven her that sin, keeping her from being stoned, thereby saving her life?

Nicodemus

While Joseph of Arimathea appears in all the Gospels Nicodemus only appears in John.

Some say Simon the Leper and Simon the Pharisee was identical to the Talmudical Nicodemus ben Gorion who was reported to have miraculous powers and two daughters Mary and Martha. This is also said to be the same Nicodemus in John and had access to very expensive oil which would have almost been a kings ransom in value at a hundred Roman pounds.

Simon the Leper does not appear in John or Luke although their is a Simon who is also a pharisee in Luke.

We know there is an event of a woman at the feet of Jesus anointing him at the house of Mary and Martha, and Lazarus.

There is no mention of the head of the house as Simon in John. So the gospel of John seems to make no mention of either Simon the Leper and Simon the Pharisee but is the only Gospel that mentions this Nicodemus.

Are all these people the same?

Early Nicodemus

"Nicodemus" was not a normal Jewish name and its popularity varied over time. There had been a man years before who called himself Nicodemus but was one of the ambassadors sent by Aristobulus to request help from Pompey to oppose Hyrcanus and brought Rome to Judea. With the coming of Rome there was the coming of the ideas of Rome at that time. Rome at that time was already degenerating from a free Republic into an indirect democracy and eventually the Imperial Cult of Rome.

Nakedimon

"The Talmud mentions a Nakedimon, so called from a miracle performed by him, who was the son of Gorion, and whose real name was Bonai. It also gives the name Bonai as one of the disciples of Jesus. He was one of the three richest Jews when Titus besieged Jerusalem, but his family was reduced to the most abject poverty. So far the Talmud. The inference is that this change of fortune is connected with his becoming a Christian and with the persecution which followed, and he is himself identified with the Nicodemus of the Gospel. We can only say this may be so. The reader who cares for more on the subject will find full references in Lampe, and the extracts from the Talmud translated in Lightfoot. Others may be content to accept this latter writer’s conclusion. “It is not worth while to take great pains in a question which is very involved, if we may not also call it useless.”" Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

Traditions and the Talmud suggests that Nicodemus and his family, including a Mary and a Martha were arrested because of their involvement with a false Messiah. They were exiled to Gaul a few years after the crucifixion but Nicodemus had to remain because of his wealth. While the Pharisees wanted to murder him and confiscated his wealth the Romans seemed to show him favor.

Nick name

Why would the Gospel of John not mention Simon the Leper nor Simon the Pharisee but be the only one of the Gospels that mentions Nicodemus?

Is there a clue in the name?

There could be several reasons someone would be given such a name such as Nicodemus or Nicodemos. It is said according to the Holman Bible Dictionary that Nicodemus means "innocent of blood" while others translate it from the Greek components as “victory of the people.”

The author of the Gospel may have called this member of the Sanhedrin "innocent of blood" because he was innocent of the blood of Christ.

With a Greek origin the name Nikodemos, may be translated into “victory of the people.” But the name Nicolaitan can mean "conquered people" or "victory over the people" like the term "Balaam".

If we consider the Doctrine of Jesus which sets the captive free and is in opposition to the doctrines of men and their tables of welfare which are a snare and a trap entangling the people as merchandise in the cities of blood and the bondage of Egypt then the meaning of "innocent of blood" makes more sense. Those engaged in covetous practices are not innocent of blood which is why they become merchandise becoming entangled again in the yoke of bondage.

He is also mentioned by Josephus in The Jewish War. 2.17.10. and others