spin

I think you sat too long with the edit box open before responding.


spin

mountainman

Why did the event occur at Emmaus?
Anything special about this town?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

A bit off topic, but Emmaus New AdventMake of that what you will.

neilgodfrey

Emmaous or oulammaous? Luke's use of the Jewish Scriptures in the text of Luke 24 in Codex Bezae = Emmaous ou oulammaous ? L'utilisation lucanienne de la littérature juive en Luc 24 dans le Codex de Bèze

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14424111


Résumé / Abstract
There is a well-known difficulty in locating Emmaus, mentioned in Lk 24.13 as the village to which two disciples were walking when they met Jesus in a post-resurrection appearance. This article suggests that the solution to the problem lies in the reading of «Oulammaous» found in Codex Bezae. The name is that given in the LXX text of Genesis 28.19 to the place where God appeared to Jacob in his dream of the ladder reaching to heaven and the author of the Bezan text draws on traditional Jewish exegesis of the Genesis story to establish parallels between the two scenes. There are further clues in Codex Bezae that the disciple called Cleopas is none other than Simon Peter («Cephas» according to Jn 1.42). The text read by the other manuscripts of Luke 24 tend to tone down the theological message by eliminating some of the Jewish allusions and subtleties of character portrayal to give a more factual and literal account.

Neil Godfrey

neilgodfrey

Seems there is just as much grounds to infer that Jesus told them he had appeared to a Simon as to infer that one of the two is named Simon. At least the former inference raises fewer questions than the strange way the unnamed person is supposed to be have been identified. If I had been part of a duo who had just talked to a ghost or whatever I'd tell others WE or I had seen him.

(But what if Cleophas is a word game with Cephas?)

Neil

ph2ter

But if only one of the two is the member of the twelve, and the other is not, then becomes understandable why the testimony of that person is more important than the testimony of its companion.

The text appears to suggest that Cleopas and Simon are the same person - Simon Cleopas, and that is not very far from Simon Cephas. Paul also in Corinthians has Jesus firstly appearing to Cephas and then to the 12. So first appearance could be to Cephas (on the way to Emmaus), and afterwards to the twelve (including Cephas when returning) in Jerusalem.
Discrepancies between Luke and Paul emerges if we try to exclude Judas Iscariot from the group of 12 at that point.
(If we believe to John, we must exclude Thomas also)

JoeWallack

JW:
In Marshall's TNIGTC he indicates the following support for λεγοντες:

1) Bezae

2) Origen

3) Latin and Syriac are "ambiguous"

Neither Metzger (Ehrman needs to rewrite the whole thing) or Zhul! even list 24:34 as Textual Variation. Here's Origen:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...gen-john1.html

Presumably Origen had superior texts to what is now extant and it was clear to him that a Simon was one of the two, but not Simon Peter.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

????

All that matters is that the participle is in the accusative case, agreeing with the direct object (not the subject). This is grammar at its most basic.

If the original reading was λεγοντες, as in Bezae, then it is the two disciples speaking, since λεγοντες is in the nominative case, agreeing with the subject (the two). But, if the original reading was λεγοντας, as in the other major manuscripts, then it is the eleven (and those with them) who are speaking.

This makes no sense, and has no bearing on Greek grammar, where a participle can agree with either the subject or the object without confusion.

See Matthew 21.15 for a similar case, in which the participle λεγοντας agrees, not with the nominative subject of the sentence, but with the accusative direct object. See also Jeremiah 11.21 LXX; Acts 6.11, 13; Revelation 5.13.

Ben.

spin

It is not discourse at its most basic. To argue as you do is to make the comment a non sequitur.

That's why I later said:
As I said, it's a matter of narrative discourse. Tell me how the 24:34 fits into the narrative which it is in, ie the two who return from the Emmaus experience (the verses before 24:34) and the description of the experience after 24:34. Codex Bezae with λεγοντες cleans up any grammatical loose ends.


spin

neilgodfrey

Your explanation would be more persuasive if Simon, being the more important one, were named from the outset in place of Cleopas who gatecrashes the gospel here. Your argument rests on the assumption that the author names people on the grounds of their importance. That would mean we could have expected him to write that "Simon and another [nondescript] disciple were walking along the road to Emmaus one day . . . "

What the two say simply does not coherently follow from the preceding narrative. Jesus appeared to two people, and they both are said to report the others that Jesus had appeared to a single named person known to them all.

Like you I'm also going with the assumption that the author and his audience only knew the Corinthian correspondence as the basis of the story of the resurrected Jesus appearing first to Cephas. If there was no traditional story-scene of this event, then it explains why the author here had a hard time inserting the bald fact into his gospel.

If we also accept (with Tyson) that:

1. the gospel as we have it has come to us through the final redaction of the author of Acts,
2. and that it was composed to counter Marcionism,

then this strange reference to Simon may take on a bit more coherence.

The author of Acts/editor of Luke wants to put in the priority of Peter as a counterweight to Marcion but there is only the bare fact of the appearance known to him, no elaborated story. So he has to have it told second hand in the narrative.

Further, the fact that there are 2 disciples here joining up with the eleven (which tells us that Peter was not one of the two) -- makes Jesus first resurrection appearance to a wider circle than the apostles.

This is a vital narrative component that is a perfect match for the narrative themes to follow in Acts. There was a wider pool of witnesses to the resurrection that could qualify to apply to replace Judas.

And the Twelve, although the leaders, are not the exclusive spreaders or witnesses of the gospel. There is Steven, Philip, all the other persecuted and scattered ones. And the Pentecost event fell upon 120, not just the twelve.

This explains the reason the author arranges for a couple of others to be witnesses of the resurrection along with (even before) the apostles -- but at the same time reminding readers with the awkwardly inserted mention that behind the stories he could create or adapt, it was Simon who still had the priority.

But what does Simon have to do with Cephas in 1 Cor 15? Is there any evidence that counts against the idea that the author of Mark's gospel was the one who changed the name of Cephas to its Greek equivalent for his Greek audience to make more obvious to them his little play on the meaning of Rock? I wrote up this idea more fully some time back here.

Is it possible that Mark invented not just the first gospel, but also was the source of the confusion over the Peter and Cephas relationship?

Neil