What I don't get is the need to question, challenge or review something like the age of Simeon when very little seems to hang upon it.
Not because I think that it's profane to question or challenge received interpretations but because in this particular instance there doesn't seem to be a great deal of point. What possible difference does it make?
So much imagery and sermon content seems to make this a happy impromptu baby shower put on by two seniors. That doesn't seem right or faithful to the text. I see it as being much more nuanced and surprising. Yes, there is rejoicing at the presence of Messiah - and also recognition of release from life, rising and falling, intense psychological pain for Mary.
I wonder if there's also a tiny bit of gender role reversal: Simeon holds the baby, while Anna boldly tells all comers to the Temple about the child.
Leaf is approaching this from the context of a pastor called on to preach on this text. In that context, it’s reasonable to ask whether the text actually says what it has long been taken for granted as saying.
In the context of preaching the sermon I think it’s a worthwhile question to raise. I wouldn’t, for example, want to build too much of a homiletical edifice on Simeon’s age based on the rather fragile exegetical foundation. I do think there are possible hints in the text that it is an old man, and I would certainly happily allude to it, and reference the long tradition. On the other hand, I think there could be real value in exploring the possibility that he is younger and possibly in some other way than old the age at the end of life.
Similarly, at Christmas I do not choose to make a big thing of the coldness and draughtiness of the stable, animal faeces et cetera when I firmly believe (on the basis of the language of the story, and archaeological understanding of housing in first century) that in all probability Jesus was born in the family quarters of a house, rather than the guest room (“inn”). And that his first makeshift bed was a manger/crib.
Indeed, there might be something to be made of the idea of makeshift, borrowed bed and borrowed grave, and the language in the prologue to John’s Gospel about Jesus dwelling among us.
Gamma Gamaliel, I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just that 99 times out of 100, when someone mentions sola Scriptura, it's to run it down. And that gets really old.
I'm not at all sure that "sola Scriptura" is being used correctly here, anyway. I myself have only ever heard it used to describe matters of salvation--as in, we are saved by grace (sola gratia) and thus believe (sola fide) in Jesus Christ (solus Christus) on the basis of what we find in the Bible ((sola Scriptura).
I have never heard it used to describe an approach to Bible interpretation which refuses to consider any input from external sources (culture, language, archaeology, tradition, what have you), just "the Bible and me" here and now in this room. If I mistake not, that is the straw man you are trying to shoot down. The closest I've ever seen to such a position is the rare "If King James is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" idiot. Certainly the "Bible and me only" approach which you seem to be postulating ought not be dignified with such an honorable title as "sola Scriptura." God forbid.
Now, as for why we should bother picking up the tiniest points of the text and seeing what we can learn from them--
well, it IS Kerygmania, after all. Nitpicking is what we do here. And there's value in nitpicking, sometimes. If nothing else, it prevents you from making unforced errors such as the ones BroJames mentions in retelling the Christmas story. Which is a situation that directly affects me, as I am tasked with creating a large amount of publicly used material on that theme every year--and you won't find a single reference to a stable in it, precisely because of the "nitpicky" approach to the text. Why mislead people?
More to the point, maybe--
I find that when I look really closely at the text (yes, I'm an English major, I was trained in close reading, outdated as it may be nowadays), I often find little points that bother me--such as this one. Sometimes nothing comes of it. Sometimes, though, if you continue to pick and prod at the strange bit, a huge wealth of riches comes tumbling down on you, stuff you never would have imagined otherwise. An example of this comes in Isaiah 6, where God says,
“Go, and say to this people:
“‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”
Now this sounds very like "I'm writing these people off for good. They are a total loss and I'm not wasting any more time on them." Very offensive to us who would like to see all people saved.
The same contrast comes up when Jesus quotes this in reference to why he himself tells parables instead of speaking straightforwardly. If you take the answer as it stands, it's very offensive. And lots of people will just walk away. Why waste time on a God like this, a Bible like this, a passage like this?
But dig at it a little longer. Look at the context. God says this... in the context of calling a new prophet. And not just any prophet, but one of the very greatest. If God's words say "I'm giving up," his actions say the opposite. And the same is true of Jesus' parables. You don't tell parables to people you expect will never, ever, EVER come to any understanding, faith or salvation. If Jesus intended them to be obfuscated forever, he would have just walked away and not wasted his time. But he didn't. He placed the understanding of the parables in the hands of the disciples, who could pass it along later. And in the meantime, those odd little stories would keep niggling at the back of their minds...
So the tiny, nitpicky point forces me through to a better understanding of God and Christ. And this has happened too many times for me not to be deeply respectful of nitpicking. I can't tell you now why Simeon's age does or does not matter. But who knows? In five years, or ten, or by the end of this thread when someone else strikes gold, it may become heartily worth considering.
(and after writing all that crap, I now realize I should have simply pointed y'all to Jesus' argument with the authorities about whether the dead are raised, which he bases on a single Hebrew word. Yikes. )
What I don't get is the need to question, challenge or review something like the age of Simeon when very little seems to hang upon it.
Not because I think that it's profane to question or challenge received interpretations but because in this particular instance there doesn't seem to be a great deal of point. What possible difference does it make?
So much imagery and sermon content seems to make this a happy impromptu baby shower put on by two seniors. That doesn't seem right or faithful to the text. I see it as being much more nuanced and surprising. Yes, there is rejoicing at the presence of Messiah - and also recognition of release from life, rising and falling, intense psychological pain for Mary.
I wonder if there's also a tiny bit of gender role reversal: Simeon holds the baby, while Anna boldly tells all comers to the Temple about the child.
Leaf is approaching this from the context of a pastor called on to preach on this text. In that context, it’s reasonable to ask whether the text actually says what it has long been taken for granted as saying.
Yes, but little of the above has anything to do with Simeon's age.
I can see the point about the role-reversal observation. I think that's an interesting observation.
The age thing far less so.
Now it's me who's being picky ...
To back up a bit.
Yes, I do have an issue with the 'solas' as I'm now operating within a Tradition that doesn't 'use' them and which can take an unfairly negative attitude towards them as somewhat reductionist slogans.
That said, as I've repeatedly made clear, I do accept that there's more to them than their opponents - here and elsewhere - often care to admit.
My reaction here on this particular thread was more to do with frustration that exegesis of this particular passage didn't seem to be yielding much more than what I took to be fruitless speculation as to whether 1st century 40 year olds were like contemporary 80 year old or whether it had anything to tell us about middle-aged men's well-being. Get your arses checked for prostate cancer guys ... (?)
Confession time. I'd missed @Leaf's point about an element of role reversal. That'll teach me to do some more close-reading of OP's in future ...
I s'spose if the thread title had focused on the respective roles of Anna and Simeon rather than the age of one of them then I'd have got the point more readily. It would also have helped if I'd read some of Leaf's comments more closely. 😀
FWIW I meant no offence and probably shouldn't have played the 'call this sola scriptura?' card as it endangered the thread.
Equally though, there's more than one 'English major' here (the very model of a modern major general?) and if you were to attend my poetry group this Thursday you'd see us engaging in close reading of some of Shakespeare's sonnets.
Please don't misunderstand me.
I'm not denigrating the efforts of those who're getting under the bonnet (the hood) to exposit the text for the benefit of their congregations. Far from it.
I was just expecting something more meaty that's all than the lack of mention of zimmer frames or monkey-glands.
It's a perfectly fine topic, the title is a bit click baity.
I say nativity and you think 3 kings, I say Simeon and you say old but why?
As we established fairly early on (unless someone has a fascinating Greek lesson awaiting), there isn't anything on the bible passage to say conclusively, and from mousethief et al, tradition isn't in this case making a strong case.
All in all, it's open, with me prepared to bet my lunch money, but not much more let alone my soul in him being something I'd call old.
A number of people have made reasonable arguments for the things that could be got from a younger picture of Simeon. It definitely made me think. And it's not all about me or you.
Hundreds of sermons have got things from an older picture of Simeon.
I'm not sure what kind of meat you are expecting. If there was something Simeon/Anna adjacent you had, it would be easy to insert. If you have something on a different topic you could start an op. And obviously the predigested dead horses aren't meat.
The 'timing of Nazareth return' thread being an example where it was approached in a fresh way, but not every thread can do that, and it isnt essential or desirable to limit to that.
Sure. I get the click-bait-ness of the title and truth be told, that's probably what wrong-footed me though.
I would be interested in knowing more about the Temple-context and background for all this. Perhaps that's scope for another thread.
I'm interested about Anna being there, for instance and what her role would have been.
Orthodox Tradition has all.sprys of things going on in the Temple - notably the Virgin Mary being brought up there - something many consider highly unlikely but others insist there is some evidence that this sort of thing did go on.
I've even heard the apparent presence of dedicated 'religious' in the Temple - although Simeon may have been a priest it would seem - was a precursor of Christian monasticism.
I think there's a lot more we could say and discuss about Anna and Simeon and their respective roles in the Temple and the infancy narratives.
Leaf is approaching this from the context of a pastor called on to preach on this text. In that context, it’s reasonable to ask whether the text actually says what it has long been taken for granted as saying.
This. Thank you.
Questioning imagery is a line of inquiry which I find is often surprisingly fruitful. We are all shaped by imagery in art and music. Sometimes that imagery illuminates, sometimes it distorts. Where it distorts, that can cause us "not to see" people who maybe should be seen in the light of the text. Where it distorts in a way that privileges people who already enjoy a fair amount of privilege, it makes me squint even harder.
Take Simeon. Poor guy, living his life, trying his best to be faithful and devout, not trying to be grist for someone's exegetical mill. He had received a rare gift from the Holy Spirit: "It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Messiah." (Luke 2:26, NRSV)
So far, in the gospel - and we're just past the first chapter! - we keep finding this formula: biological anomaly + the promises of God = living object lesson in new creation. I would be happy to find a more succinct description, but here we are.
Elizabeth: older infertile woman becomes pregnant, according to the promise of God.
Zechariah: older man with verbal ability, suddenly mute and then unmuted according to the promise of God.
Mary: virgin becomes pregnant, according to the promise of God
All of these people are anomalies. Their society would not expect them to have such sudden and surprising physical changes in the way that they did. I would call them "healing", except that being an older woman or a virgin are not conditions requiring healing IMO. And their physical changes are not something the Holy Spirit does for shits and giggles, but in order to point toward the new creation in Christ. Indeed, I think these are all preparations for the greatest object lesson, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Simeon being an older man with death on the foreseeable horizon... would not be an anomaly. I'm not saying he was or wasn't older, because the text doesn't say that. It's just that he would be the first to break the developing pattern in the gospel. Which, fine.
If we take "healing" - however construed - to be one of the themes of the gospel of Luke, then what Simeon is healed from is a hope deficit. He longs for the consolation of Israel, and then is blessed to hold the hope in his arms. His song is not primarily about gracious acceptance of his own death, but about the gracious activity of God for the wider world.
Anna was likely a regular of the Court of the Women. This Wikipedia article may help.
In contrast Luke hints that Simeon went to the temple specially because today was the day...so presumably wasn't an on site priest. But that leaves plenty of options.
In my head, Anna was in the court of women and Simeon, respected, venerable and vaguely priestly, in the court of men.
But obviously that's not the case (and almost certainly as well as all sorts of other factors, there's some sexist assumptions going into that picture).
Mary's is very much there, and unlikely to be trespassing, and they meet Simeon first (they could both be on the way out, or reported out of order)
Leaf is approaching this from the context of a pastor called on to preach on this text. In that context, it’s reasonable to ask whether the text actually says what it has long been taken for granted as saying.
This. Thank you.
Questioning imagery is a line of inquiry which I find is often surprisingly fruitful. We are all shaped by imagery in art and music. Sometimes that imagery illuminates, sometimes it distorts. Where it distorts, that can cause us "not to see" people who maybe should be seen in the light of the text. Where it distorts in a way that privileges people who already enjoy a fair amount of privilege, it makes me squint even harder.
Take Simeon. Poor guy, living his life, trying his best to be faithful and devout, not trying to be grist for someone's exegetical mill. He had received a rare gift from the Holy Spirit: "It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Messiah." (Luke 2:26, NRSV)
So far, in the gospel - and we're just past the first chapter! - we keep finding this formula: biological anomaly + the promises of God = living object lesson in new creation. I would be happy to find a more succinct description, but here we are.
Elizabeth: older infertile woman becomes pregnant, according to the promise of God.
Zechariah: older man with verbal ability, suddenly mute and then unmuted according to the promise of God.
Mary: virgin becomes pregnant, according to the promise of God
All of these people are anomalies. Their society would not expect them to have such sudden and surprising physical changes in the way that they did. I would call them "healing", except that being an older woman or a virgin are not conditions requiring healing IMO. And their physical changes are not something the Holy Spirit does for shits and giggles, but in order to point toward the new creation in Christ. Indeed, I think these are all preparations for the greatest object lesson, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Simeon being an older man with death on the foreseeable horizon... would not be an anomaly. I'm not saying he was or wasn't older, because the text doesn't say that. It's just that he would be the first to break the developing pattern in the gospel. Which, fine.
If we take "healing" - however construed - to be one of the themes of the gospel of Luke, then what Simeon is healed from is a hope deficit. He longs for the consolation of Israel, and then is blessed to hold the hope in his arms. His song is not primarily about gracious acceptance of his own death, but about the gracious activity of God for the wider world.
Yes, that 'hope deficit' opens up so much for reflection.
Leaf is approaching this from the context of a pastor called on to preach on this text. In that context, it’s reasonable to ask whether the text actually says what it has long been taken for granted as saying.
This. Thank you.
Questioning imagery is a line of inquiry which I find is often surprisingly fruitful. We are all shaped by imagery in art and music. Sometimes that imagery illuminates, sometimes it distorts. Where it distorts, that can cause us "not to see" people who maybe should be seen in the light of the text. Where it distorts in a way that privileges people who already enjoy a fair amount of privilege, it makes me squint even harder.
Take Simeon. Poor guy, living his life, trying his best to be faithful and devout, not trying to be grist for someone's exegetical mill. He had received a rare gift from the Holy Spirit: "It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Messiah." (Luke 2:26, NRSV)
So far, in the gospel - and we're just past the first chapter! - we keep finding this formula: biological anomaly + the promises of God = living object lesson in new creation. I would be happy to find a more succinct description, but here we are.
Elizabeth: older infertile woman becomes pregnant, according to the promise of God.
Zechariah: older man with verbal ability, suddenly mute and then unmuted according to the promise of God.
Mary: virgin becomes pregnant, according to the promise of God
All of these people are anomalies. Their society would not expect them to have such sudden and surprising physical changes in the way that they did. I would call them "healing", except that being an older woman or a virgin are not conditions requiring healing IMO. And their physical changes are not something the Holy Spirit does for shits and giggles, but in order to point toward the new creation in Christ. Indeed, I think these are all preparations for the greatest object lesson, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Simeon being an older man with death on the foreseeable horizon... would not be an anomaly. I'm not saying he was or wasn't older, because the text doesn't say that. It's just that he would be the first to break the developing pattern in the gospel. Which, fine.
If we take "healing" - however construed - to be one of the themes of the gospel of Luke, then what Simeon is healed from is a hope deficit. He longs for the consolation of Israel, and then is blessed to hold the hope in his arms. His song is not primarily about gracious acceptance of his own death, but about the gracious activity of God for the wider world.
Cool.
Interesting insights.
I'm sorry @Leaf if I overlooked some of your earlier comments. This isn't an excuse for my lack of close reading but I think the thread title threw me off the scent a bit and down some rabbit holes.
I agree that a 'developing pattern' doesn't necessarily negate the introduction of a new theme - so yes, Simeon breaking the patten of 'biological anomaly' may not pose a problem.
No, I don't think it is. The only thing that is important here is that I'm right and those who disagree are wrong. 😉
More seriously, I'm not sure it is important in the overall scheme of things but the context seems to suggest that Simeon was old. If he wasn't it's no big deal and doesn't detract from the overall story.
Unless the UK governments got put in charge, I'm pretty sure it's not on the celestial citizen test.
On a lower level:
representation is a thing, we can see on this thread that there are people who can connect to different things.
It's good to recognise assumptions and where they come from.
We're built to be curious about the unknown, and e.g. this case Simeon does definitely have an age.
Comments
Leaf is approaching this from the context of a pastor called on to preach on this text. In that context, it’s reasonable to ask whether the text actually says what it has long been taken for granted as saying.
Similarly, at Christmas I do not choose to make a big thing of the coldness and draughtiness of the stable, animal faeces et cetera when I firmly believe (on the basis of the language of the story, and archaeological understanding of housing in first century) that in all probability Jesus was born in the family quarters of a house, rather than the guest room (“inn”). And that his first makeshift bed was a manger/crib.
Indeed, there might be something to be made of the idea of makeshift, borrowed bed and borrowed grave, and the language in the prologue to John’s Gospel about Jesus dwelling among us.
I'm not at all sure that "sola Scriptura" is being used correctly here, anyway. I myself have only ever heard it used to describe matters of salvation--as in, we are saved by grace (sola gratia) and thus believe (sola fide) in Jesus Christ (solus Christus) on the basis of what we find in the Bible ((sola Scriptura).
I have never heard it used to describe an approach to Bible interpretation which refuses to consider any input from external sources (culture, language, archaeology, tradition, what have you), just "the Bible and me" here and now in this room. If I mistake not, that is the straw man you are trying to shoot down. The closest I've ever seen to such a position is the rare "If King James is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" idiot. Certainly the "Bible and me only" approach which you seem to be postulating ought not be dignified with such an honorable title as "sola Scriptura." God forbid.
well, it IS Kerygmania, after all. Nitpicking is what we do here. And there's value in nitpicking, sometimes. If nothing else, it prevents you from making unforced errors such as the ones BroJames mentions in retelling the Christmas story. Which is a situation that directly affects me, as I am tasked with creating a large amount of publicly used material on that theme every year--and you won't find a single reference to a stable in it, precisely because of the "nitpicky" approach to the text. Why mislead people?
More to the point, maybe--
I find that when I look really closely at the text (yes, I'm an English major, I was trained in close reading, outdated as it may be nowadays), I often find little points that bother me--such as this one. Sometimes nothing comes of it. Sometimes, though, if you continue to pick and prod at the strange bit, a huge wealth of riches comes tumbling down on you, stuff you never would have imagined otherwise. An example of this comes in Isaiah 6, where God says,
Now this sounds very like "I'm writing these people off for good. They are a total loss and I'm not wasting any more time on them." Very offensive to us who would like to see all people saved.
The same contrast comes up when Jesus quotes this in reference to why he himself tells parables instead of speaking straightforwardly. If you take the answer as it stands, it's very offensive. And lots of people will just walk away. Why waste time on a God like this, a Bible like this, a passage like this?
But dig at it a little longer. Look at the context. God says this... in the context of calling a new prophet. And not just any prophet, but one of the very greatest. If God's words say "I'm giving up," his actions say the opposite. And the same is true of Jesus' parables. You don't tell parables to people you expect will never, ever, EVER come to any understanding, faith or salvation. If Jesus intended them to be obfuscated forever, he would have just walked away and not wasted his time. But he didn't. He placed the understanding of the parables in the hands of the disciples, who could pass it along later. And in the meantime, those odd little stories would keep niggling at the back of their minds...
So the tiny, nitpicky point forces me through to a better understanding of God and Christ. And this has happened too many times for me not to be deeply respectful of nitpicking. I can't tell you now why Simeon's age does or does not matter. But who knows? In five years, or ten, or by the end of this thread when someone else strikes gold, it may become heartily worth considering.
(and after writing all that crap, I now realize I should have simply pointed y'all to Jesus' argument with the authorities about whether the dead are raised, which he bases on a single Hebrew word. Yikes. )
Yes, but little of the above has anything to do with Simeon's age.
I can see the point about the role-reversal observation. I think that's an interesting observation.
The age thing far less so.
Now it's me who's being picky ...
To back up a bit.
Yes, I do have an issue with the 'solas' as I'm now operating within a Tradition that doesn't 'use' them and which can take an unfairly negative attitude towards them as somewhat reductionist slogans.
That said, as I've repeatedly made clear, I do accept that there's more to them than their opponents - here and elsewhere - often care to admit.
My reaction here on this particular thread was more to do with frustration that exegesis of this particular passage didn't seem to be yielding much more than what I took to be fruitless speculation as to whether 1st century 40 year olds were like contemporary 80 year old or whether it had anything to tell us about middle-aged men's well-being. Get your arses checked for prostate cancer guys ... (?)
Confession time. I'd missed @Leaf's point about an element of role reversal. That'll teach me to do some more close-reading of OP's in future ...
I s'spose if the thread title had focused on the respective roles of Anna and Simeon rather than the age of one of them then I'd have got the point more readily. It would also have helped if I'd read some of Leaf's comments more closely. 😀
FWIW I meant no offence and probably shouldn't have played the 'call this sola scriptura?' card as it endangered the thread.
Equally though, there's more than one 'English major' here (the very model of a modern major general?) and if you were to attend my poetry group this Thursday you'd see us engaging in close reading of some of Shakespeare's sonnets.
Please don't misunderstand me.
I'm not denigrating the efforts of those who're getting under the bonnet (the hood) to exposit the text for the benefit of their congregations. Far from it.
I was just expecting something more meaty that's all than the lack of mention of zimmer frames or monkey-glands.
Ok. I'm being naughty 😜.
Ignore me and carry on.
I say nativity and you think 3 kings, I say Simeon and you say old but why?
As we established fairly early on (unless someone has a fascinating Greek lesson awaiting), there isn't anything on the bible passage to say conclusively, and from mousethief et al, tradition isn't in this case making a strong case.
All in all, it's open, with me prepared to bet my lunch money, but not much more let alone my soul in him being something I'd call old.
A number of people have made reasonable arguments for the things that could be got from a younger picture of Simeon. It definitely made me think. And it's not all about me or you.
Hundreds of sermons have got things from an older picture of Simeon.
I'm not sure what kind of meat you are expecting. If there was something Simeon/Anna adjacent you had, it would be easy to insert. If you have something on a different topic you could start an op. And obviously the predigested dead horses aren't meat.
The 'timing of Nazareth return' thread being an example where it was approached in a fresh way, but not every thread can do that, and it isnt essential or desirable to limit to that.
I would be interested in knowing more about the Temple-context and background for all this. Perhaps that's scope for another thread.
I'm interested about Anna being there, for instance and what her role would have been.
Orthodox Tradition has all.sprys of things going on in the Temple - notably the Virgin Mary being brought up there - something many consider highly unlikely but others insist there is some evidence that this sort of thing did go on.
I've even heard the apparent presence of dedicated 'religious' in the Temple - although Simeon may have been a priest it would seem - was a precursor of Christian monasticism.
I think there's a lot more we could say and discuss about Anna and Simeon and their respective roles in the Temple and the infancy narratives.
This. Thank you.
Questioning imagery is a line of inquiry which I find is often surprisingly fruitful. We are all shaped by imagery in art and music. Sometimes that imagery illuminates, sometimes it distorts. Where it distorts, that can cause us "not to see" people who maybe should be seen in the light of the text. Where it distorts in a way that privileges people who already enjoy a fair amount of privilege, it makes me squint even harder.
Take Simeon. Poor guy, living his life, trying his best to be faithful and devout, not trying to be grist for someone's exegetical mill. He had received a rare gift from the Holy Spirit: "It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Messiah." (Luke 2:26, NRSV)
So far, in the gospel - and we're just past the first chapter! - we keep finding this formula: biological anomaly + the promises of God = living object lesson in new creation. I would be happy to find a more succinct description, but here we are.
Elizabeth: older infertile woman becomes pregnant, according to the promise of God.
Zechariah: older man with verbal ability, suddenly mute and then unmuted according to the promise of God.
Mary: virgin becomes pregnant, according to the promise of God
All of these people are anomalies. Their society would not expect them to have such sudden and surprising physical changes in the way that they did. I would call them "healing", except that being an older woman or a virgin are not conditions requiring healing IMO. And their physical changes are not something the Holy Spirit does for shits and giggles, but in order to point toward the new creation in Christ. Indeed, I think these are all preparations for the greatest object lesson, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Simeon being an older man with death on the foreseeable horizon... would not be an anomaly. I'm not saying he was or wasn't older, because the text doesn't say that. It's just that he would be the first to break the developing pattern in the gospel. Which, fine.
If we take "healing" - however construed - to be one of the themes of the gospel of Luke, then what Simeon is healed from is a hope deficit. He longs for the consolation of Israel, and then is blessed to hold the hope in his arms. His song is not primarily about gracious acceptance of his own death, but about the gracious activity of God for the wider world.
In contrast Luke hints that Simeon went to the temple specially because today was the day...so presumably wasn't an on site priest. But that leaves plenty of options.
In my head, Anna was in the court of women and Simeon, respected, venerable and vaguely priestly, in the court of men.
But obviously that's not the case (and almost certainly as well as all sorts of other factors, there's some sexist assumptions going into that picture).
Mary's is very much there, and unlikely to be trespassing, and they meet Simeon first (they could both be on the way out, or reported out of order)
Yes, that 'hope deficit' opens up so much for reflection.
Cool.
Interesting insights.
I'm sorry @Leaf if I overlooked some of your earlier comments. This isn't an excuse for my lack of close reading but I think the thread title threw me off the scent a bit and down some rabbit holes.
I agree that a 'developing pattern' doesn't necessarily negate the introduction of a new theme - so yes, Simeon breaking the patten of 'biological anomaly' may not pose a problem.
Please forgive my earlier crossness.
Done.
Welcome back @Dave1 !
[/tangent]
Is it really important?
No, I don't think it is. The only thing that is important here is that I'm right and those who disagree are wrong. 😉
More seriously, I'm not sure it is important in the overall scheme of things but the context seems to suggest that Simeon was old. If he wasn't it's no big deal and doesn't detract from the overall story.
On a lower level:
representation is a thing, we can see on this thread that there are people who can connect to different things.
It's good to recognise assumptions and where they come from.
We're built to be curious about the unknown, and e.g. this case Simeon does definitely have an age.