Hello! I am [name_f]Lottie[/name_f] - a fairly average teenager who is not having a baby! (:
I am not usually posting in the boys’ baby names section because I really like to play baby name games, but I do have a particular conflict ensuing in my mind as I type. I really like the name [name_m]Simon[/name_m], but I equally adore the name [name_m]Simeon[/name_m]. I love the name [name_m]Simon[/name_m] because of its Bible reference to Simon Peter and long I, and I love [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] for its long E and quick first two syllables. I’d like to ask for the opinions of Berries on to which is their favorite - other opinions might broaden my perspective on which is a more suitable name.
I think [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] is a bit of an unnecessary syllable if [name_m]Simon[/name_m] is also considered as a possibility. And for the record I don’t consider [name_m]Simon[/name_m] to be a “Bible” name at all, no more than I consider it a Macedonian name.
I like [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] better. It has more quirk. I feel like it has all the interesting parts of [name_m]Gideon[/name_m], but all the charm of [name_m]Simon[/name_m]. It feels equally Hebrew AND Biblical to me; I just love it. [name_m]Simon[/name_m]'s much more mainstream, but I find [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] to be so much cooler. [name_m]Simon[/name_m] has better associations ([name_m]Simon[/name_m] [name_m]Peter[/name_m]), but [name_m]Simon[/name_m] and [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] are related, so I am not too fussed on that angle. I do like [name_m]Simon[/name_m], but not nearly so much as [name_m]Simeon[/name_m]!
I prefer [name_m]Simeon[/name_m]. It has a completely different feel than [name_m]Simon[/name_m]. [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] has a spark that I don’t find with [name_m]Simon[/name_m].
I definitely like [name_m]Simon[/name_m]. [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] reminds me of [name_m]Gideon[/name_m] and I dislike that name as well, so, [name_m]Simon[/name_m] wins. I always resonated [name_m]Simon[/name_m] as a biblical name, but I haven’t researched the name, so I’m sure there are other [name_m]Simon[/name_m] factoid I’ve yet to learn. Many names have more than one origin, or the meaning of the name varies from one ethnic background to another.
@maepae - [name_m]Simon[/name_m] [name_m]Peter[/name_m] was one of [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] [name_m]Christ[/name_m]'s apostles. He is featured prominently in the [name_m]New[/name_m] Testament Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and is venerated as a saint and the first Pope by the Catholic Church. If that’s not a Bible name I don’t know what is.
I used to like [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] when I was a teenager until someone pointed out that it was too similar to the word “simian” or ape-like. I used to play “[name_m]Simon[/name_m] Says” as a child. [name_m]Simon[/name_m] Cowell is my association nowadays (not a fave).
[name_m]Both[/name_m] names are gorgeous but indicate a different style. If you like the sleek, handsome preppy style then [name_m]Simon[/name_m] is the go but if you love the older style Biblical names then [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] is a winner.
I’ve never been very fond of [name_m]Simon[/name_m], but this is the reason why [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] isn’t on my list. He’s such a wonderful biblical character, it’s too bad about the homophone.
[name_f]Every[/name_f] name that pops up in the Bible is going to be a “Biblical” name if you choose to see nothing else but the Bible. But most of these names are either a) Anglicized versions of a name or b) extremely common names at the time that happened to exist before the Bible was written, which makes a name more more a “Bible” name than it makes “[name_m]Bill[/name_m]” or “[name_m]Tom[/name_m]” a [name_m]Lord[/name_m] of the Rings name just because it happens to show up. It exists within that microcosm, yes, but there happens to be a macrocosm in which it exists, and a macrocosm has more ‘say’ to a thing than a microcosm.
Also remember, the Bible has been translated and mistranslated and translated again so many times and the original names have been Anglicized. For example, [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] is actually [name_m]Yeshua[/name_m] is older translations, and Yashushua in even older translations, and both names also translate into [name_m]Joshua[/name_m]. Fun fact, [name_m]Matthew[/name_m] 1:21 interprets the name originally as [name_m]Joshua[/name_m] in many copies of the Bible (later ones tend to correct this error, depending on how much of an error it is) and even the name [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] is mistranslated in two places [Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8] in the [name_m]New[/name_m] Testament it is used where is means [name_m]Joshua[/name_m], the leader of the Jews into [name_m]Canaan[/name_m]. In fact many religious scholars believe that the stories of [name_m]Joshua[/name_m] and [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] were either two separate stories that ended up acquiring facets of each other or that the [name_m]Joshua[/name_m] story was a ‘rough draft’ of the [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] story.
As far as [name_m]Simon[/name_m] goes, there are certain arguments that [name_m]Simon[/name_m] is actually on Greek origin, whereas [name_m]Shimon[/name_m] would be the Hebrew form. [name_m]Simon[/name_m] appears in Greek mythology long before the Bible started being written (which is roughly 300 years after the events supposedly occurred) as one of the Telchines, which would make it a Greek name or a mythological name before it’s a Biblical name (though to be fair Biblical names are still mythological names). And of course the prevalence in Macedonia would make it Macedonian far before it is Biblical. If someone is considering [name_m]Simon[/name_m] as a Biblical name, they should be going to the actual Biblical incarnation, which would be [name_m]Shimon[/name_m].
That’s why [name_m]Simon[/name_m] is not a “Biblical name”.
@maepae - [name_m]Simon[/name_m]'s original name was the Hebrew [name_m]Shimon[/name_m] and [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] gave him the name [name_m]Peter[/name_m] (“rock”) because upon “this rock” he will build his church (which would be St [name_m]Peter[/name_m]'s in [name_m]Rome[/name_m]). People who are not of Jewish faith would most probably use the English form of [name_m]Simon[/name_m]. If that’s the version in the Bible that they are familiar with from their experience, that’s the name they’ll use. It doesn’t make it less Biblical than [name_m]Shimon[/name_m], does it? [name_m]Jesus[/name_m] and [name_m]Joshua[/name_m] are pretty well the same name but they were different people. There are numerous cultures and languages represented in the Old and [name_m]New[/name_m] Testaments (Hebrew, Greek, [name_m]Roman[/name_m], Persian etc…) and there are spelling variations of the same name ([name_m]Jonah[/name_m] vs. [name_m]Jonas[/name_m], [name_m]Simon[/name_m] vs. [name_m]Shimon[/name_m], [name_m]Tobiah[/name_m] vs. [name_m]Tobias[/name_m] etc…). Spelling or origin doesn’t change the fact that they’re all mentioned in Bible so therefore they’re Biblical to the majority of people who believe in them.
Thank you, everyone, to offering their perspectives on [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] vs. [name_m]Simon[/name_m]! It has really aided me a ton.
I understand what you’re saying, maepae, and what you’re saying is actually very sound. I know of the belief of Bibles being mistranslated, but I did not know that [name_m]Simon[/name_m] [name_m]Peter[/name_m] could have once been [name_m]Shimon[/name_m]. Thanks for letting me know - either way I still consider [name_m]Simon[/name_m] to be Biblical because this man that was an apostle of [name_m]Jesus[/name_m], I have always known him as [name_m]Simon[/name_m]. Anyway, I didn’t mean to start an argument with or between anyone. (: Thanks again!
Well I guess that depends on how much you actually care about how mangled the translations in the Bible would be. [name_f]One[/name_f] would think there would be a great deal of concern with how genuine a translation of a supposed holy text would be, including the names and origins of the various characters and myths. Perhaps that’s my biggest problem with the whole argument, I think people should be more concerned about the veracity of the things the base their lives around than they actually are. In a bit of curious googling I discovered only 10% of Christians ever read the entire Bible (via Gallup&[name_m]Procter[/name_m]), so I suppose they’re less concerned about what it actually says than I am.
The same argument (Spelling or origin doesn’t change the fact that they’re all mentioned in Bible so therefore they’re Biblical to the majority of people who believe in them) could be used to declare that [name_f]Acacia[/name_f] is a Biblical name because acacia trees are mentioned in the Bible. Association doesn’t delegate something into a single category. Try thinking of it as a [name_m]Venn[/name_m] diagram, and names fall into multiple circles. [name_m]Simon[/name_m] might have a small part of its circle dipping into the circle of the Bible, but there are so many other categories it’s crossing into (Greek, Macedonian, European history, American history, literature, etc) that it’s as unfair to call it a Bible myth name as it is to call it a Greek myth name. It’s no more or less Biblical than [name_f]Acacia[/name_f]. And association is, primarily, a personal thing, and anyone can (and will) associate anything they want with the Bible as long as they want to hard enough. [name_f]One[/name_f] could claim that the names [name_u]Salmon[/name_u], [name_m]Fish[/name_m], and [name_m]Pike[/name_m] and [name_m]Christian[/name_m] names because of the [name_m]Christian[/name_m] fish symbol. Point is, something may pop up in the Bible, but it doesn’t make it uniformly and ubiquitously Biblical. It goes back to something someone said in another thread: Quote Originally Posted by rkrd
No way! It’s a literary name. Evangelicals might not read enough beyond the Bible to realize it though. (I was raised as one…I speak from experience).
Of the two I prefer [name_m]Simon[/name_m]. [name_m]Simeon[/name_m]'s three syllables clunk and sound like “simian” meaning a monkey. And [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] is not, no disrespect to previous posters, particularly more Hebrew than [name_m]Simon[/name_m].
If anything, it’s further away from the Hebrew pronunciation, being 3 syllables instead of two.
Neither sounds quite like the Hebrew. That’s ok. I like the translations of a number of Biblical names. Some English, some Spanish, some Russian, etc. They still were used by faithful believers as Biblical names, I’m not trying to be rude when I say they’re not the Hebrew.
For me as a Jew I don’t think of the [name_m]New[/name_m] Testament, no offense, I think of the Twelve Tribes of [name_m]Israel[/name_m] ([name_m]Simon[/name_m] was one). But really, I prefer the names of a number of the other tribes. And for S Biblical names, I adore [name_m]Samson[/name_m].
I prefer the sleeker [name_m]Simon[/name_m]. He sounds classic and handsome, whereas [name_m]Simeon[/name_m]'s extra syllable makes him sound a bit more clunky. [name_m]Simon[/name_m] also fits in better with my naming style, which is another reason why I prefer him (he’s on my longlist) but I’d say if you like common classics go with [name_m]Simon[/name_m], if you like less common vintage go with [name_m]Simeon[/name_m].
I feel like it has all the interesting parts of [name_m]Gideon[/name_m], but all the charm of [name_m]Simon[/name_m]. It feels equally Hebrew AND Biblical to me; I just love it. [name_m]Simon[/name_m]'s much more mainstream, but I find [name_m]Simeon[/name_m] to be so much cooler. 