Cheerful Charlie

This particular verse does not appear in most early manuscripts and is a late addition. Apparently an attempt to make Luke harmonize with John 20 somewhat.

CC

neilgodfrey

If Luke did not basically copy it from John then this verse has been inserted into Luke from someone who had a clear memory of it from John. Luke speaks of the apostles in verse 10 and then "two of them" (presumably more than 12 apostles in the final Luke) with the Emmaus story. This Peter scene breaks the narrative flow. It also adds narrative coherence complications. We have enough on our plate with the questions raised in my/our previous posts that come out of the Emmaus episode.

Ben C Smith

Correct. It is discourse introduced by an accusative participle.

But it is grammar at its most basic; I gave you relevant examples.

I have no idea why the comment would be a non sequitur.

There are no grammatical loose ends to tie up. None. The accusative participle agrees with the accusative direct object.

What is there to tell? The two return to Jerusalem and find the eleven gathered. The eleven tell them: The Lord really [οντως] has risen, and has appeared to Simon (Peter). What is omitted, but easy to understand, is the initial report of the two to the eleven. That is what the really is doing there: The two report that Jesus has risen, and the eleven reply that indeed, he really has. Then the two elaborate on their presumed initial report. A bit condensed? Sure. Ungrammatical or illogical? Not at all.

What would be strange is if the two reported that Jesus had appeared to Simon; I ask again, why not to both of them?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

This is incorrect. Most early manuscripts include this verse. Only Bezae and a few Old Latin manuscripts omit it.

Ben.

neilgodfrey

The debate about whether it was the 2 who reported the resurrection appearance to Simon or the eleven who reported it to the two becomes irrelevant if the author had only the the letter to the Corinthians as his source and no narrative source to rely on. The fact that the author relies on a "report" to tell readers that Simon had the priority in this, and no narrative, is the real point.

There was no story to tell. Simon was neither with the 2 nor with the 11. He was only in the author's mindfulness of what he read in the first letter to the Corinthians and what people were saying about that.

That would also explain why the grammatical differences arose in the first place. Different editors each trying his own way to make better sense of the clumsily inserted report.

It was becoming a doctrinal necessity to bring in the claim that Peter had the first appearance.

Neil

Ben C Smith

I doubt the author had Simon in mind as one of the two. That makes the report naming only one of them seem weird.

But I agree that the Bezae reading could easily have arisen because of the awkwardness of the report.

Ben.

spin

If we assume your analysis of what happened, why did the eleven say to the two "The Lord has indeed risen", when the information is irrelevant to them, having seen first hand? The new information in the eyes of the two is that Jesus had risen because they had seen him. Hence they are giving the information. Besides, there is nothing in the narrative anywhere to justify the unprecedented claim that the risen Jesus appeared to Simon.

You continue to say this, while apparently not interacting with the narrative, as I see it.

A simple change of vowel changes the significance of the verse.

And what makes you think that Jesus appeared to Peter? From the indications we have he didn't.

Not if it is Simon who has prestige. When Jesus was before Pilate, he was also before other Roman officers, but the writer wasn't interested. It is only Pilate who was of importance. You'll find a similar approach with Jesus.


spin

neilgodfrey

Hold the debate. There's much more to the texts. I have found the above French article online in English and it gives some very interesting reasons for reading Cleopas as a pseudonym for Simon Peter. If I weren't busy at work I'd give a bit more detail to justify the link, but check it for yourselves:

http://www.raco.cat/index.php/RevistaTeologia/article/view/71224/93983

It has caused me to go back to square one and find an alternative explanation to the one I have been arguing till now.

Neil

Ben C Smith

Confirmation.

The two (presumed): The Lord has risen!
The eleven: He has indeed [οντως]! In fact, he appeared to Simon!

Quite agreed that nothing in Luke justifies this claim. But for those of us with access to 1 Corinthians 15, there is no mystery at all....

You keep saying there are grammatical loose ends; but there are not. You keep justifying your grammatical loose ends with narrative concerns. The two are not the same, and your persistence in treating them as if they were is making me wonder if you know the difference between narrative logic and grammatical agreement.

Yes, it does.

What I myself think about Jesus appearing to Peter is irrelevant. I think that Luke is aware of something like 1 Corinthians 15.5 and, like so many others, presumes (whether correctly or incorrectly) that Cephas is Simon Peter.

If Cleopas has enough prestige to be named in 24.18, why not in 24.34? How is this situation analogous to completely unnamed Roman officers at the trial?

And what is the οντως doing in 24.34 on your reading?

Please note: This discussion has slowly turned into a discussion of which variant in 24.34 is original, and I am not actually all that interested in that topic right now. I jumped in because your first post did not seem to show any awareness that the participle in virtually the entire textual tradition (even the Byzantine and its offshoots) had to agree with the object, not the subject. You seem to agree (now?) that, if the majority participle is original, the Simon cannot be the companion on the road; that was my original point.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I don't think you are necessarily correct with this reconstruction. It seems to me, taking into account the clarification on who is offering the information about Simon, that the passage reads as though the two walked in on an ongoing discussion about the appearance to Simon and, after being given the "bottom line" (ie the Lord appeared to Simon), they shared their personal story of an appearance.

Whadayathinkathat?