Roland

In Luke 24:35, a man bursts into the room where the remaining eleven disciples are sitting and exclaims, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon."

What I would like to know is who this Simon is. Is he Simon Peter? If so, why would this man blurt this out when Peter himself was sitting in the room with the disciples? And if this is Peter he's talking about, why doesn't Luke show us this scene of Jesus appearing to the most prominent of his followers? Or could it be a different Simon altogether?

The reason I'm asking is because 1 Cor 15 DOES say that Jesus appeared first to Peter, THEN to the twelve (although by that time there were, at most, eleven disciples left), implying a chronological progression of some sort. I'm wondering if this butresses the apologists's case that Paul's list of sightings doesn't necessarily contradict the gospel accounts.

Chris Weimer

Interesting, I was just musing over the thought of the Euaggelion kata Paulon, and noticed that Paul has Simon Peter apart from the twelve. Who are the twelve in Paul's corpus?

Diogenes the Cynic

He doesn't say. The only names he mentions are Cephas/Peter, James and John.

Chris Weimer

Galatians 2:9, but they are listed as "pillars" - I wonder what he meant by the Twelve? Could this be a later interpolation (but earlier than Luke) based off of Mark's use of twelve from the tribes of Israel?

Vivisector

I'm not interpreting it this way. The relevant verses are (NIV):

33 They [Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus] got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.� 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

As I read it, it was the Eleven and those with them who were talking about Jesus having appeared to Simon. The two on the road to Emmaus didn't know about the appearance to Simon - only their own experience - until they heard it from those who were with Simon.

It is interesting, though, that in Luke's 14 references to Simon the disciple, he uses "Simon Peter" only once (5:8) and "Simon whom he named Peter" once (6:14). The 6:14 reference almost appears to be a misplaced explanatory gloss.

Also interestingly, Luke goes on to mention a Peter 16 times. Were it not for 6:14, it seems it would be easy to conclude, on the basis of Luke alone, that 5:8 is a conflation and Luke is referring to two different people.

So I disagree with your interpretation of 24:33-35, but agree that there's something a little puzzling going on.

Actually, the text of 1 Cor 15:5 reads "Cephas" rather than "Peter." Paul could have meant to imply that Jesus appeared to Cephas alone first, then to all of the twelve - including Cephas - as a group.

Personally, what I find more puzzling is this. Paul refers to Cephas (not Peter) in the following: 1 Cor 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Gal 1:18, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:11 and Gal 2:14. Paul mentions Peter (not Cephas) only twice, in Gal 2:7 and 2:8 - sandwiched between, and immediately preceding, references to Cephas. If I were going only on what Paul says, then again, I'd conclude he was talking about two different people, one with a Greek name and one with an Aramaic, whose names happened to mean the same thing.

One could almost conclude that Luke knew a Simon and a Peter, but not a Cephas. One could also almost conclude that Paul knew a Cephas and a Peter, but not a Simon. There's exactly one place I can find that ties all three names together, and strangely enough, it's in John (1:42)!

I really wish someone would clear this up for me. :banghead:

Cheers,

V.

Roland

Actually, I tend to think you're right. I think now that I was reading that wrong. I still wonder why Luke didn't provide a version of that appearance to Peter (i.e. Simon), but I guess we'll never know.

Vivisector

I found it very strange myself that Luke would describe the appearance to a hitherto unmentioned Cleopas and an unnamed companion, but not the appearance to Simon. But if I've learned anything in this area, it's that the more I know, the more I know there is that I don't know (a little Rumsfeldish, I realize).

Cheers,

V.

Jaguar Prince

I think your explanation has a loophole in it, Vivisector, although Greek grammar seems to be on your side since "saying" in Greek is legontas, an accusative* that apparently refers back to "the Eleven and those that were with them". There is however a difficulty here since v.35 says:

And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread

It seems more natural to think that "saying" in v.34 and "they told" in v.35 should refer to the same speakers, specially in view of the fact that the two verses are united by "and" (kai in Greek). One would first say: "I have seen Jesus", and then go on to tell the rest of the story. But in our present version, what one finds is that the Eleven have stolen the "scoop" from Cleophas and his companion, which is utterly implausible.

The big trouble is that Luke 24:11 tells us that the Eleven didn't believe the stories of the empty tomb and the resurrection. Therefore they cannot have told the two travelling disciples to Emmaus (Cleophas and his wife Mary) enthusiastically: "The Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared to Simon". The fact is they didn't believe the stories of the women at all! For them, it was all hysterical stuff spun by weak and delirious creatures.

Could it be that "Simon" is the other name of Cleophas (the husband of one of the three Marys present on Golgotha according to "John" 19:25) ? But then why not say: "the Lord has appeared to us? Because a woman doesn't matter?

Maybe...

Or are the two disclosing a secret Jesus told them? But Jesus disappeared the very moment they recognized him! Therefore he could not have told them: "Yes, It is I, Jesus. I have risen from the dead and I have also appeared to Simon Peter while I was talking with you on the road". Besides, Peter was among the Eleven... :huh:

Is it a late and clumsy interpolation implying an undescribed apparition to Peter between his first and unconclusive foray to the tomb and the return of the Emmaus pilgrims? Is it a liturgical formula anachronistically put in the mouth of the disciples? It sounds like one to me!

I tend to think that the interpolation only took place in the second part of the verse. The pilgrims said: "The Lord has risen! He has appeared to us!" The scribe scrapped "us" and replaced it by "Simon", which was more "ecclesiastically correct" and corresponded to a formula widely used in the liturgy of his own Christian sect.

I do think that it is the travelers who spoke first, not the Jerusalem disciples. That would be the expectation with a great piece of news and it is in tune with the logic of the narrative: "Rising up immediately, they returned to Jerusalem, they found the Eleven and the others and said to them: "The Lord is alive! We have seen him!"

The accusative of legontas ("saying") could be explained by attraction to the accusative cases of the preceding words tous endeka kai tous sun autois (the eleven and those with them).

Another hypothesis is that "saying" (legontas) refers not to the incredulous Eleven but to those who were with them, possibly the women who had seen the angels at the tomb and who were trying to convince the males that they were not in a state of trance. But how did these people know about the apparition to Peter? Could it be that the text was modified in light of Pauline claims in Corinthians and that it originally read something like:

The Lord has risen and has appeared to the women/to us/to Mary Magdalen ?????

We will never know...

Note how "John" flatly contradicts Luke and Paul by his bold claim that Jesus appeared first to Mary the Magdalen, his beloved disciple.

*accusative is the case of direct object in Greek. "The Eleven and those who were with them" are the direct object of "found" (euron in Greek).

offa

LOL!!!

Only Offa knows. Crucified alongside Jesus was the infamous Simon Magus. Simon replaced John the Baptist as the "Father" (a chief priest and subordinate to Caiaphas, which Caiphas, BTW, is alo referred to as GOD). When Jonathan Annas became chief priest about the time of the crucifixion he became the father of Jesus. This Jonathan Annas became the son-by-law to Caiaphas (GOD). Biblical scolars seem to think that Annas is Caiaphas' son-in-law! Getting back to the Samaritan Simon Magus, better known as Lazuras, he was crucified with Jesus, Simon, being a former chief priest is an "angel". He told Jesus' very pregnant spouse that "he is risen". He is also known as Simon of Cyrene and is also the author of Simony. His is very alive and well in Acts as the Coppersmith proving that both Simon and Jesus survived the crucifixion.

gotta go to work before the sun rises,

offa

Jaguar Prince

Mark 16:11 confirms the deep disbelief of the disciples prior to the collective apparition in the Cenacle. V. 14 in the same chapter of the Gospel of Mark even has Jesus upbraid the disciples for their "hardness of heart". Therefore Luke 24: 34 as an expression of faith by the Eleven is absolutely unbelievable and in contradiction with the rest of the Gospel narratives.