Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-19-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

As I have already pointed out in this thread, that there seems to be a confusion between the narrator (who refers to Clephas in 24:18) and the speaker who refers to Simon in 24:34.

Are you suggesting Luke (aka "the author of the gospel")...

(Wouldn't "aLuke" or similar be simpler and less time consuming?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

...is recording verbatim a story he got from elsewhere? Even if he is, why would the two from Emmaus make the claim that Jesus appeared to Simon? The larger question is, whoever first wrote the story of Emmaus down, why didn't they identify Simon if it culminated in an announcement that Jesus had appeared to Simon?

I'm suggesting that people shouldn't confuse the writer with a speaker in a narrative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

No, I am doing the same thing you are doing. There is an a priori question: is the canonical reading better, or the Bezae reading? But that question can't be answered a priori (probably), so we need to compare the evidence for both, by comparing the two different readings and seeing which are more logical. The canonical reading has the problem that Jesus appears to Simon off-stage. But my answer to that is that Luke knew about the priority of a Simon appearance (if we assume that Simon is either Cephas or Peter or both) but had no story about it (which we don't, besides 1 Corinthians--but at least we have that!).

1 Cor 15 doesn't seem trustworthy for reasons I've already mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

The Bezae reading has the problem that if Cl(e)op(h)as and his companion claim that Jesus appeared to Simon, then that is a non-sequitur. You seem to have no answer to that, but I could be wrong.

This is mainly a problem, as I continue to point out, for those who want to confuse the writer with one of the speakers in the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

No, Codex Bezae identifies neither of them as Simon. There is an implied suggestion that one of them was Simon--because otherwise, it is a non-sequitur--but if one of them really was Simon, then why doesn't Bezae identify him directly?

Yes, that comment was really directed at Ben, but I should point out that if Simon is Clopas, then that solves your problem--that Simon is not identified directly.

I'm not interested in the Cleopas is Simon theory. Why would the writer pull such a confusing switch of names? While I can imagine that Cleopas might talk of Simon and not himself, that requires no extra assumptions. Your attempt to create confusion regarding 24:34 doesn't work for me.

spin

the_cave · 11-20-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

(Wouldn't "aLuke" or similar be simpler and less time consuming?)

Sure, we can use "aLuke".

Quote:

I'm suggesting that people shouldn't confuse the writer with a speaker in a narrative.

That still doesn't explain why aLuke (the author of the pericope in which someone says "...and has appeared to Simon") doesn't mention that one of the two travelers is named Simon. Why would this be tacit knowledge? In the case of the Eleven, it makes sense--because the reader would know that Simon Peter was one of the Eleven. But in the case of the traveler, we have no such knowledge. You need to explain why it would make sense for aLuke to leave in the statement "and has appeared to Simon" (whether Luke invented that statement or not), but not to explain that one of the travelers was Simon.

I myself have come up with several reasons why, but instead of listing them all in detail, I want to know your explanation.

Quote:

1 Cor 15 doesn't seem trustworthy for reasons I've already mentioned.

I agree it is unsatisfactory, but at least it's something--whereas your position requires all this guesswork about why aLuke would leave Simon unnamed.

Quote:

I'm not interested in the Cleopas is Simon theory. Why would the writer pull such a confusing switch of names? While I can imagine that Cleopas might talk of Simon and not himself

But why would Cleopas talk of Simon and not himself? From the Emmaus story, it's clear Jesus is revealed to both of them. And why would aLuke leave Simon unnamed?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.