spin

When Jesus makes his first appearance after his resurrection at Emmaus, the two who had the meeting run back to the eleven and one of them says, "The Lord has risen indeed, and he appeared to Simon!"

The two were not a part of the eleven, yet one of them is called Simon and needed no further clarification.

Leaving aside what we are generally told in the gospels (which helps us find smoothing explanations), are we dealing with a fragment which comes from a different tradition, one which does see Simon, who is frequently called Peter, as separate from the disciples? Is this Simon not the normal Simon? Is this a sign of multiple authorship? What is one to make of this Simon?


spin

neilgodfrey

Okay I'll bite. Where in the text do we see that one of them was called Simon? (If the reference is not a clumsy insertion it nevertheless sets Simon apart from the 11 surviving apostles.)

Neil

spin

Lk 24:33-34. After they had their experience with the risen Jesus, they returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven. That's when one said that Jesus had appeared to Simon.


spin

Ben C Smith

If one of the two travellers was named Simon, and Jesus had appeared to both of them, why would the other one (Cleopas; see verse 18) say that he appeared to Simon? Why not to us?

But such questions are unnecessary. It is not one of the two travellers who says this; it is the eleven. Luke 24.33-34:

Και ανασταντες αυτη τη ωρα υπεστρεψαν εις Ιερουσαλημ, και ευρον ηθροισμενους τους ενδεκα και τους συν αυτοις, λεγοντας οτι οντως ηγερθη ο κυριος και ωφθη Σιμωνι.

Ben.

Toto

Just before the two meet Jesus, there is 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

So Peter did not see Jesus at that point. And apparently Jesus appears to Simon Peter off stage, and he then tells the other disciples about it, who are so shocked that they forget that Jesus renamed him to Peter?

But 1 Corinthians 15 has Jesus appearing to Cephas and then to the 12, and then some other people. . . and then the apostles.

It all makes sense, of course.

Ben C Smith

Agreed, so far as the text as it stands goes. But 24.12 is not absolutely secure, textually speaking. It is one of the so-called western noninterpolations.

Jesus himself calls him Simon again in 22.31.

My suspicion is that Luke knew the Pauline tradition that Jesus had appeared to Cephas first (of all the male disciples, at any rate), and knew (or at least thought he knew) that Cephas was (Simon) Peter, but did not find an actual narration of this appearance in the tradition available to him. So he inserted it as a summary.

Ben.

spin

You don't mention that the subject of the discourse is plural, but change to the object without any discourse justification. Faux pas. Ben C. The normal progress is subject followed by subject, or else some indicator of a change of focus to a different subject. However, the discourse seems to go smoothly from the verb forms in v33 on to λεγοντας. There is no reason to believe that there has been a change in focus. In fact, the discourse continues with an explanation of what had happened on the road to Emmaus.

What you propose, Ben C., is a total change of topic at the end of the Emmaus story without any signal.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Psst, spin:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=001...OR-enlargePage



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

What exactly interests us from that article? (Blank smilie)

Hey, I did get something. Codex Bezae has λεγοντες, which cleans up any grammatical loose ends.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Trust your instincts spin, use "The Verse".



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page