Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
11-18-2007, 03:52 PM | #71 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
|
Thank you Neil--I was about to post the following, after which I'll respond to some of your comments:
We must remember that Luke (ALuke, that is) is merging different sources into a single tale. [For spin: the evidence for this is in the prologue to Luke (GLuke, that is--which ALuke wrote!).] He is probably doing whatever it takes to make all the sources tell the same story. If he uses a name like "Cleopas", it could be for any reason--maybe it was a patronym in one source, or maybe it was the name of one of the travelers, or maybe he just used it because it was there (for example, he may have shared a source with John [for spin: GJohn, that is--which AJohn wrote!]--see Jn 19:25.) However, here is a grammatical question: is Luke (both ALuke and GLuke, that is) really saying that the eleven make the claim about the resurrection and appearance to Simon? Why couldn't it be "those that were with them"? Remember that back in 24:10, the women are also joined by others who proclaim the resurrection. These others do not accompany the women to the tomb, but there they are on the way back--more evidence that Luke is trying to merge at least two sources. And then they seem to make another appearance in 24:34, saying just what they said in 24:10, but with more elaboration. They don't make the claim about Simon in 24:10, but what if they did in the original source--and so Luke is trying valiantly to explain why they would say so? (By making space in the narrative for it to happen.) This doesn't answer the question of whether one of the two travelers was Simon or not, though I should point out that it would be odd for Luke to deliberately leave out an appearance to Simon. And if Emmaus is the appearance to Simon, then it would be odd for Luke to leave out his name! Is GLuke overtly anti-Petrine? ALuke is doing something funny here, but it's unclear what. Finally, we can't leave out the possibility that one name or other has been overwritten by a later scribe in an attempt at harmonization--perhaps it was "Simon" with "Cleopas", or it was "Cleopas" with "Simon". To which I'll add: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-19-2007, 06:38 AM | #72 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Ben. |
|
11-19-2007, 06:52 AM | #73 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Do you think John thought Clopas was Peter too? Or that Luke mistook him to be saying so? Or that Luke artificially turned Clopas into Cleopas = Peter? Ben. |
|
11-19-2007, 01:14 PM | #74 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Now of course you can wriggle against the narrative intent, but that would seem wanton. spin |
|
11-19-2007, 01:22 PM | #75 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
One general observation, though: It seems possible to me that, once I am through with a text, it might contain more examples of unevenness or fatigue than the original author included, while, once you are through with it, it might contain fewer such examples than the original author included. Ben. |
|
11-19-2007, 01:37 PM | #76 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Quote:
spin |
||
11-19-2007, 07:12 PM | #77 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
|
Quote:
Luke for some reason doesn't want to give Peter (or even a "Simon"!) the theophany at Emmaus. I suspect this means that originally (in the theophany in the original source) there was either no Simon involved at all, or there was, but Luke knew it wasn't Simon Peter. (Note that in John, it's Mary who gets the theophany!) Luke (like most if not all the canonical gospel writers) is trying to clean things up. This does not quite clear up the question of who said that Jesus had appeared to Simon. But that is a separate issue from the question of Clopas. |
|
11-19-2007, 07:18 PM | #78 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
|
Quote:
Remember also--in favor of the canonical reading--that Luke is trying to synthesize sources. He might have had a source in which two disciples encouter Jesus, and he might have known that Jesus appeared first to a "Simon" (perhaps Cephas, perhaps Peter), without having a specific story about it. He didn't want to eliminate either claim, so he just engineered them both into the same narrative. The appearance to Simon happens off-stage, because...Luke didn't have an actual story for it! He just knew about it. (Of course, this also assumes Luke knows that Simon is also either Cephas or Peter...which may not be true.) You could try to argue that there was an original in which one of the travelers was identified as Simon, but...were is the textual support for this? Or (and this is an interesting idea IMO) did Luke know, or assume his readers knew...that Clopas was Simon? (BTW I'm not sure that Origen's testimony is of any value here--it just means there was at least one version in which the two travelers announce that Jesus appeared to Simon--but we knew that already, from Bezae. It doesn't tell us which version has priority.) |
|
11-19-2007, 07:31 PM | #79 | ||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
spin |
||||||
11-19-2007, 08:23 PM | #80 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|