Jesus' appearances to Peter and James

[Adam]

The supposed Luke 24:34 was to a Simon, more careful study showing this was another Simon the second of the two at Emmaus.

Even more careful study based on the grammar of the word legontas in that verse shows that the Simon named was not in fact one of the two travelers.

Ah, but "legontas" is what is in question by the better minority reading.
All the better translations leave ambiguous who is speaking to whom. My own Thesis is that the Simon in question (the second Bishop of Jerusalem) wrote this and the rest of his contribution as the author of Proto-Luke.

[rakovsky]

I read an essay proposing that these three gospels were in fact one single gospel, which the ebonites and nazarenes both used.

Did that essay explain the different baptism stories, then?

Here is the essay:
http://hebrewgospel.com/Gospel%20of%20Hebrews.php

He proposes that the Ebionites changed thing further in Matthew's gospel, that is, that the Ebionites' gospel was a later version of the gHebrews, which was a later version of gMatthew.

What is the contradiction that you see between the baptism stories?

[rakovsky]

First of all, why do you think it was Hermon?

Because Jesus had just been at the temples to Pan area near Caesarea Phillipi where he talked about the gates of hell. Mt. Hermon is right there and provides a contrast to the gates. There is snow on the mount, hence the whiteness on Jesus, perhaps. And it says that after the Transfiguration they went to Galilee. But Mt Tabor is in Galilee.

Second, it is not even clear that the whisking away of Jesus by one of his hairs pertains to the transfiguration; another option is the temptation; scholars have argued for both, but none of them with any sense of final certainty, because our information is just too slender.

No it wouldn't be Satan and the temptation, because it says:
“ ‘Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away onto the great mountain Tabor.’”

Also the part about being carried on a hair is a bit gnostic.

Why? What makes that part gnostic? And why would it being gnostic make the gospel more likely to be a later reworking of Matthew? (Why not of John, for example? Or why not just its own thing?)[/quote]
It was a reworking of Matthew according to the commentaries of the era and because it is close to Matthew in its topics and verses and episodes described compared to John.
The part about the Spirit being the "Mother" sounds like a later confused update to the gospels, because in the canonical gospels, Mary is his mother. In the later apocryphal gospels we get more and more "secret" fantastic theological info like the talking cross of gPeter, etc.

Young later adds,
“In addition, the early church fathers fought against a heretical form of vegetarianism that sprang from Gnostic dualism. The Gnostic belief that the physical realm was evil turned meat eating and marriage into works of the devil. Since the fathers believed the world was good, they could not condemn meat eating. The willingness to eat meat was for them a certification of orthodoxy.”8

Epiphanius quoted from the Gospel of the Hebrews explaining that the Ebionites had changed the text of Matthew’s Gospel, which originally stated that John ate locusts, which violated their vegetarian beliefs. The “locusts” were deleted and the words “manna as a cake in oil” was added. http://hebrewgospel.com/Gospel%20of%20Hebrews.php

[Ben C. Smith]

I read an essay proposing that these three gospels were in fact one single gospel, which the ebonites and nazarenes both used.

Did that essay explain the different baptism stories, then?

Here is the essay:
http://hebrewgospel.com/Gospel%20of%20Hebrews.php

He proposes that the Ebionites changed thing further in Matthew's gospel, that is, that the Ebionites' gospel was a later version of the gHebrews, which was a later version of gMatthew.

What is the contradiction that you see between the baptism stories?

Did I say there was a contradiction? I said that there were different baptism stories. Here is one:

When the people had been baptized Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And, as he came up out of the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove coming down and going into him. And there was a voice from heaven saying, "You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased," and again, "Today I have begotten you." And straightway a great light shone about the place, which John saw, and then he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And again there was a voice from heaven toward him: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." And then John fell down toward him and said, "I beg you, Lord, you baptize me." But he forbade him, saying, "Allow it, since thus it is proper for all things to be fulfilled."

Here is another:

[It is said,] "The whole fountain of the Holy Spirit shall descend over him." .... Moreover, it happened that, when the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested over him, and said to him, "My son, in all the prophets I was expecting you, that you should come and I might rest in you. You indeed are my rest. You are my firstborn son, who reigns in eternity." ....

These are clearly two very different versions.

Ben.

[rakovsky]

I would highly recommend reading Klijn, if you can.

Would you like to give me a link?

[rakovsky]

Did I say there was a contradiction? I said that there were different baptism stories. Here is one:

When the people had been baptized Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And, as he came up out of the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove coming down and going into him. And there was a voice from heaven saying, "You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased," and again, "Today I have begotten you." And straightway a great light shone about the place, which John saw, and then he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And again there was a voice from heaven toward him: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." And then John fell down toward him and said, "I beg you, Lord, you baptize me." But he forbade him, saying, "Allow it, since thus it is proper for all things to be fulfilled."

Here is another:

[It is said,] "The whole fountain of the Holy Spirit shall descend over him." .... Moreover, it happened that, when the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested over him, and said to him, "My son, in all the prophets I was expecting you, that you should come and I might rest in you. You indeed are my rest. You are my firstborn son, who reigns in eternity." ....

These are clearly two very different versions.
Ben.

I agree. I think that the author of the essay I sent you says that the Ebionites wrote a different version of the same gHebrews.
Who knows. I don't have a strong opinion about that.
But it looks to me like both are later versions of gMatthew. Take for example how in the first citation you gave the dove actually goes into Jesus and John has a conversation with the voice. That's a later addition for what the canonical gospels say.

[Ben C. Smith]

First of all, why do you think it was Hermon?

Because Jesus had just been at the temples to Pan area near Caesarea Phillipi where he talked about the gates of hell. Mt. Hermon is right there and provides a contrast to the gates. There is snow on the mount, hence the whiteness on Jesus, perhaps. And it says that after the Transfiguration they went to Galilee. But Mt Tabor is in Galilee.

Thank you for filling that out. It is not that I necessarily disagree, but I like to know the rationale behind assertions. I have no real opinion on this mountain's identity.

Second, it is not even clear that the whisking away of Jesus by one of his hairs pertains to the transfiguration; another option is the temptation; scholars have argued for both, but none of them with any sense of final certainty, because our information is just too slender.

No it wouldn't be Satan and the temptation, because it says:
“ ‘Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away onto the great mountain Tabor.’”

Well, it would not be our canonical version of the temptation, just as it is obviously not our canonical version of the transfiguration. Again, I have no firm opinion on this, but I find your explanation quite overcertain in this case.

Also the part about being carried on a hair is a bit gnostic.

Why? What makes that part gnostic? And why would it being gnostic make the gospel more likely to be a later reworking of Matthew? (Why not of John, for example? Or why not just its own thing?)

It was a reworking of Matthew according to the commentaries of the era and because it is close to Matthew in its topics and verses and episodes described compared to John.

You still have not explained why the whisking away by a hair is gnostic; nor have you explained the connection between it being gnostic and it being a reworking of Matthew (instead, you have simply restated your main point that the fathers assumed it was a reworking of Matthew). Perhaps you meant nothing in particular by your comment that the whisking away felt gnostic. Perhaps it was a side remark having nothing to do with the source or identity of the gospel of the Hebrews. If so, please tell me now so we waste no more time on it. If not, then you will have to explain what your argument is.

The part about the Spirit being the "Mother" sounds like a later confused update to the gospels, because in the canonical gospels, Mary is his mother. In the later apocryphal gospels we get more and more "secret" fantastic theological info like the talking cross of gPeter, etc.

("Spirit" is feminine in Hebrew, incidentally. Just FYI.) How could someone confuse Mary with the spirit? What do you think is going on? And how does it demonstrate that the development was not in the other direction (to wit, the spirit as mother came first, and Mary as mother was an orthodox correction in order to keep or make Jesus human)?

Young later adds,
“In addition, the early church fathers fought against a heretical form of vegetarianism that sprang from Gnostic dualism. The Gnostic belief that the physical realm was evil turned meat eating and marriage into works of the devil. Since the fathers believed the world was good, they could not condemn meat eating. The willingness to eat meat was for them a certification of orthodoxy.”8

Epiphanius quoted from the Gospel of the Hebrews explaining that the Ebionites had changed the text of Matthew’s Gospel, which originally stated that John ate locusts, which violated their vegetarian beliefs. The “locusts” were deleted and the words “manna as a cake in oil” was added. http://hebrewgospel.com/Gospel%20of%20Hebrews.php

Well, I quite agree that the Ebionite gospel is a modification of other gospels. What I dispute is that it is the same as the gospel of the Hebrews. It is pretty clearly not.

Do you also think that Tatian's Diatessaron is the gospel of the Hebrews? After all, Epiphanius says it was called that, too.

Ben.

[rakovsky]

The supposed Luke 24:34 was to a Simon, more careful study showing this was another Simon the second of the two at Emmaus.

Even more careful study based on the grammar of the word legontas in that verse shows that the Simon named was not in fact one of the two travelers.

Ah,

Ahh.... I can imagine a sprite bottle opening.

but "legontas" is what is in question by the better minority reading. All the better translations leave ambiguous who is speaking to whom.

Legontas is what the texts generally say and legontas is not ambiguous in meaning because it is in the accusative case in Greek.

They... found the eleven gathered together ... [those whom (accusative) were] saying, "The Lord... appeared to Simon."

To say that Simon was one of the two travelers you would have to say that the texts are generally wrong in using "legontas" AND that the Simon referred to was not Simon Peter, AND that Paul was wrong in saying that Jesus especially appeared to Simon Peter (Cephas) before He appeared to the other apostles.

So you are stuck arguing that legontas is wrong in our texts of Luke 24 and that Paul is wrong in 1 Cor 15 about Cephas.

It just seems more likely that Luke meant to use legontas and that Paul got the story right about Simon Peter/Cephas.

[rakovsky]

Well, it would not be our canonical version of the temptation, just as it is obviously not our canonical version of the transfiguration. Again, I have no firm opinion on this, but I find your explanation quite overcertain in this case.

It seems pretty natural that it would be the transfiguration, not temptation, even if it is a made up version of the canonical story.

In the later traditions, the transfiguration was on the Mount Tabor.

But the devil, not the spirit would be performing the temptations. As a matter of simple logic, even if the story in gHebrews was wrong, it would not be the Holy Spirit leading Jesus along to be tempted, probably.

[Ben C. Smith]

I agree. I think that the author of the essay I sent you says that the Ebionites wrote a different version of the same gHebrews.
Who knows. I don't have a strong opinion about that.
But it looks to me like both are later versions of gMatthew. Take for example how in the first citation you gave the dove actually goes into Jesus and John has a conversation with the voice. That's a later addition for what the canonical gospels say.

We already agree, at least provisionally, that the first citation is from a gospel redacted later than the canonical gospels. That is the gospel of the Ebionites. You do not need to produce examples from that gospel for me.

But what about the second citation? That is the one that Klijn thinks came from the Egyptian gospel of the Hebrews known to the Egyptian fathers (Clement, Origen, Didymus).

Also, the bit about the spirit going into [εἰς] Jesus is not (necessarily) postcanonical; it is right there in the preferred text of Mark 1.11 (καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν, coming down into him).

Ben.