In the New Testament, Simon the Zealot appears only in the apostolic lists (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), eleventh in Matthew and Mark, and tenth in both Lukan lists. He is sometimes referred to as the “Simon the Cananaean” or “Simon the Canaanite,” not to indicate he was from Canaan, but likely as the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek “zealot” (zēlōtēs). Simon, called the Zealot to distinguish him from Peter, is arguably the mirror-opposite of Peter in terms of what we know about his life, ministry, and fate.
Many scholars assume that Simon was called “Zealot” to indicate his affiliation with the party known as Zealots. As a fanatical Jewish sect, the Zealots vehemently resented Palestinian control by Rome. They were prepared to use violence to fight for Jewish independence. Their radicalism was one of the reasons Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. If Simon were indeed a Zealot, there would be much that could rightly be inferred about his character and temperament.
Some writers have built their entire persona of Simon on his supposed affiliation as a Zealot.1 But Keener urges caution in this identification, since no evidence exists for a group of revolutionaries called zealots before AD 66.2 The term zēlōtēs could simply refer to someone who was committed to the fulfillment of the law.3 In fact, zēlōtēs is used many times in the New Testament without reference to the Zealots (for example, Acts 22:3; Gal 1:14; Acts 21:20; 1 Cor 14:12; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 3:13). Simon may have been a member of the Zealots, but more likely he was zealous for the traditions of his predecessors and eagerly awaiting fulfillment of the law.
The extra-biblical information on Simon the Zealot is minimal. Records from the first few centuries of the church, including the Diatessaron (8.11), the Acts of Thomas (1.1), and the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (Homily XXXII), simply mention him in various lists of the Twelve. But a variety of later legends arise about Simon—some possibly with a grain of truth, while others are pure invention. One legend claims Simon was one of the shepherds the angels visited to reveal the birth of Christ.4 In the Byzantine Church, Simon is identified with Nathanael, who was from Cana (John 21:2). Later ecclesiastical tradition identified Judas of James and Simon the Zealot as the brothers of Jesus named “Judas and Simon” (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55).
Even though Simon the Zealot only appears in the apostolic lists in the New Testament, he clearly personally traveled with Jesus for a lengthy period as one of his closest associates. Simon knew Jesus personally, and saw his life, character, and ministry firsthand. He heard Jesus teach, saw him perform miracles, and watched his ascension. He witnessed Jesus alive after he had been killed (1 Cor 15:5; Matt 28:16; Luke 24:36; John 20:19–23; Acts 1:3), and like the rest of the apostles, Simon the Zealot was willing to suffer for his belief in the resurrection (Acts 5:17–29).
Tracking Simon outside the New Testament is not an easy task. One difficulty is that Simon the Zealot is often confused with Simon, son of Clopas (cf. John 19:25), successor to the Jerusalem bishopric after James.5 Hippolytus on the Twelve 11 seems to make this conflation: “Simon the Zealot, the son of Clopas, who is called Jude, became bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just, and fell asleep and was buried there at the age of 120.”6 The (Coptic) Acts of Simon of Cananaean also suffer from this confusion, which is common in the Eastern Church. According to this Apocryphal Act, Simon ministered in Jerusalem and Samaria. After being accused of magic, Trajan demands his crucifixion.7 This is very similar to the version in the Breviarium Apostolorum, except it adds Egypt as part of his travels and places his fate during the reign of Emperor Hadrian:
Simon Zelotes, which means “the zealous,” was first called “the Cananean,” burning with zeal for God. He was Peter’s namesake and equal to him in honor. He received the guidance over Egypt and he is said to have held the chair of Jerusalem after James the Just. After a hundred and twenty years, he was worthy to suffer the martyrdom of passion through the cross during Hadrian’s reign.8
Isidore of Seville has a similar story for the fate of Simon, but he places it under Trajan rather than Hadrian.9
Another Eastern tradition claims Simon the Zealot and Matthias came along with Andrew on his third missionary trip to Georgia. According to this late tradition, Matthias died in the town-fortress of Asparos. Simon the Zealot died later in Abkhazia, and was buried in Nikopsia. Reportedly, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the remains of Simon were transferred to Anakopia.10
The Western tradition, distinct from traditions found in the East, pairs Simon with Judas Thaddeus. The (Latin) Passio Simonis et Judae (Book VI of Pseudo-Abdias) considers Simon and Thaddeus apostles and martyrs in Persia. According to the tradition, they travel around preaching, performing miracles, and countering the magic of Zaroes and Arfaxat. Priests and others attack and kill them for refusing to offer sacrifices to the gods of the sun and moon. The author shows familiarity with the fourth-century Persian kingdom, which provides a terminus post quem for its origin.11
In the History of Armenia, Movsēs Xorenac’I confirms that Simon experienced martyrdom in Persia, although he mentions the city of Veriospore. Movsēs mentions that he is unsure of surrounding details, although he is confident of the martyrdom of Simon.12 The Hieronymian Martyrology also mentions the martyrdom of Simon in Persia, although it mentions the city of Suinar. The ninth-century medieval martyrologies of Hrabanus, Florus, Ado, and Usuard also attribute a shared martyrdom for the two apostles.
One popular tradition reports that Simon—after Joseph of Arimathea was there in AD 36–39—evangelized Britain and was crucified there.13 The earliest evidence comes from Dorotheus, bishop of Tyre (AD 300): “Simon Zelotes traversed all Mauritania, and the regions of the Africans, preaching Christ. He was at last crucified, slain, and buried in Britain”14
While this early fourth-century citation comes relatively late, it is not impossible Simon visited Britain. He would have traveled during the Pax Romana along fortified roads15 in relative peace. If Thomas made it east to India, there is no reason in principle why Simon could not have ventured west to Britain.
Morgan claims there can be little doubt Simon visited Britain.16 Schmidt, however, provides a more reasonable approach:
What of Britain and Gaul? To a modern reader, they may seem so far from Judea that the notion of travel there, especially by apostles in the first century, can only be the stuff of legend. And granted, there are some outlandish traditions …. But is an apostolic missionary venture to the northern fringes of the empire out of the question? First century Roman roads were excellent, and it was a time of relative peace. By land, it is about 2,600 miles from Jerusalem to London. At [this pace], the journey could be made on foot in four months—or six months with fewer miles per day or longer stops. By sea, the journey is quicker, but perhaps more hazardous. Now, take a dozen young men determined to propagate the gospel throughout the empire and give them about fifty years to accomplish it (say AD 35–85), for a total of six hundred man years. Is it unreasonable to think of just one of those years devoted to Britain, and one more to Gaul?17
Admittedly, as far as the prospects of Simon visiting Britain are concerned, Schmidt provides the most optimistic scenario. No record exists of a church founded by Simon in Britain. And Bede the Venerable (eighth century) makes no reference to a visit by Simon in his Ecclesiastical History of England, although he does mention early Christians in Britain explaining how they got there. Modern history books of England often similarly describe Christians there in the early centuries without claiming to know when they first arrived.18 Tertullian mentions Christians in Britain at the end of the second century.19 We have good reason to believe, then, that Christianity had arrived in Britain by the late second century, but evidence for its existence there in the first century is much more difficult to ascertain. While Simon might possibly have traveled to Britain, evidence is scant. The fact that British scholars largely ignore his visit is a sign it may be apocryphal.
Some scholars believe Simon may have gone to Britain, but doubt, as Dorotheus reports, his crucifixion there, because crucifixion was a Roman, not British, practice. Therefore, they conclude, his death by crucifixion was most likely invented as a copycat of the fate of Jesus. This may be true, but it is not entirely unreasonable that Simon could have been crucified in Britain. While Rome and Britain first came into contact during the two brief expeditions of Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BC, lowland Britain was officially brought under Roman hegemony during the reign of Claudius in AD 43. Because of trade, however, Roman influence was felt throughout Britain long before the invasion by Claudius.20 Many times the Romans dealt harshly with the British to establish their control.21 The evidence is late and questionable, but it is not entirely impossible that the Romans crucified Simon in Britain.
Simon the Zealot is an apostle for whom there is simply little reliable information. He traveled with Jesus, and witnessed his life, ministry, and resurrection, and he proclaimed that truth and was willing to suffer for it, but beyond that, the information is minimal. We do know, however, that history has often confused Simon the Zealot with Simon, son of Clopas (cf. John 19:25). As with the other apostles (for example, Philip), this confusion makes it difficult to judge what traditions genuinely apply to the apostle. Second, a variety of traditions exist which tell of his journeys as well as his fate. He is said to have traveled to Jerusalem, Samaria, Egypt, Persia, Armenia, Britain, Gaul, and more. It could be that Simon was particularly zealous for the Lord, and traveled to many or even all of these places, or various churches could simply have invented stories about Simon since there were no reliable traditions at the time. Third, a variety of means for his fate claim he was crucified, slain with a sword, hacked to death with an axe, and even died peacefully. Both Eastern and Western accounts of his supposed crucifixion exist, but given that crucifixion was a common means of execution and that hagiographers wanted to paint the apostles similarly to the crucified Christ, this only has so much evidential value. Finally, we have no strong local traditions for Simon, as seen for Thomas in India or Bartholomew and Thaddeus in Armenia.
Wherever scholars land on the fate of Simon, it must be conceded that there is a significant gap in knowledge within the first few centuries of the church. Clearly, he might have died as a martyr. Jesus warned his apostles of coming persecution, and they publicly followed a crucified savior—a criminal in the Roman Empire. There is also evidence that some of the lesser apostles died as martyrs,22 but it is also possible he died peacefully. Given the breadth of the data, the following conclusions seem most reasonable regarding the travels and fate of Simon the Zealot:
1. Simon the Zealot engaged in missionary work outside Jerusalem—very probably true (Matt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; general evidence for the Twelve engaging in missionary work; [Coptic] Acts of Simon Cananaean; Dorotheus, Synopsis de Apostol; Breviarium Apostolorum; Movsēs Xorenac’I, History of Armenia; Hieronymian Martyrology; Pseudo-Abdias [passio Simonis et Judae]).
2. Simon the Zealot experienced martyrdom—as plausible as not (martyrdom traditions include Dorotheus, Synopsis de Apostol; Movsēs Xorenac’I, History of Armenia; [Latin] Pseudo-Abdias; Breviarium Apostolorum; later martyrologies).
1 H.S. Vigeveno, Thirteen Men Who Changed the World (Glendale, CA: G/L Publications, 1967), 53; Herbert Lockyer, All the Apostles of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972), 164.
2 Evidence seems to count against a unified revolutionary movement of Zealots in first-century Palestine. The term “Zealots” referred to a more limited group. See Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 1:744.
3 Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 1:269.
4 C. Bernard Ruffin, The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997), 145.
5 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.32.
6 Hippolytus on the Twelve 11, as cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1886), 5:255.
7 Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.M. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 2:479–80.
8 Els Rose, Ritual Memory: The Apocryphal Acts and Liturgical Commemoration in the Early Medieval West (c. 500–1251) (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009), 222.
9 Ibid., 223.
10 Giuli Alasania, “Twenty Centuries of Christianity in Georgia,” IBSU International Refereed Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Journal 1 (2006): 117–18.
11 Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:482.
12 Movsēs Xorenac’I, History of Armenia Book IX.
13 For an in-depth analysis of the tradition that Simon went to Britain, see George F. Jowett, The Drama of the Lost Disciples (Bishop Auckland, England: Covenant 2004), 149–60.
14 This quote is from Doretheus, Synopsis de Apostol, as found in Richard Williams Morgan, St. Paul in Britain; Or, The Origin of British As Opposed to Papal Christianity (Oxford: J.H. and Jas. Parker, 1861), 151.
15 Immediately after the invasion by Claudius, the Romans were active in building roads in Britain and other frontiers of the military districts. See Winston S. Churchill, The Birth of Britain (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1956), 42.
16 Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, 150.
17 Thomas E. Schmidt, The Apostles after Acts: A Sequel (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 163–64.
18 For instance, see A.R. Birley, “Britons and Romans c. 100 BC–AD 409,” in The Cambridge Historical Encyclopedia of Great Britain and Ireland, ed. Christopher Haigh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 13; W. E. Lunt, History of England, 4th ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), 28.
19 Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews 7.4.
20 George Clark, English History: A Survey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 19.
21 Walter Phelps Hall, A History of England and the British Empire, 3rd ed. (New York: Ginn & Co., 1953), 7.
22 Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 3.1–2; Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 9; Aphrahat, Demonstration XXI: Of Persecution, §23.