Who is the second disciple on the road to Emmaus?

[Lunam_Meam]

Regarding Lk. 24:13:35, it is known one of the disciples from Emmaus was named Cleopas (Lk. 24:18), and I understand him to have been the son of Cleopas, a Synagogue leader at Emmaus.

Some claim the second disciple is unidentified, but I understand him to be named “Simon”, and the father-in-law of the other disciple, Cleopas, as he was married to his eldest daughter.

Recently, I discovered the following theologians agree his name was “Simon”, and that he was a relative of Cleopas, though there is disagreement over how they are related.

Origen
"Simon and Cleopas too, when talking to each other about all that had happened to Jesus Christ Himself, then risen, though they did not know that He had risen from the dead, speak thus, Luke 24:18-21 “Do you sojourn alone in Jerusalem, and know not the things which have taken place there in these days? And when he said what things? They answered, The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet, mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to be sentenced to death and crucified Him. But we hoped that it was He which should redeem Israel.” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, ch. 7)

St. Cyril of Alexandria
“And you must know that those two belonged to the number of the seventy, and that Cleopas’ companion was Simon,----not Peter, nor he of Cana,----but another of the seventy” (Commentary on Luke, ch. 24:13)

Please share your thoughts, and try to stay on topic!

Thank you.

 

[otjm]

I cannot answer the question as to who it was. However, the event occurred the evening of the Resurrection.

How did the two recognize Christ in the Breaking of the Bread, unless they too were at the Last Supper? there is no particular reason I know of to presume that only the 12 Apostles were at the Passover meal.

 

[hope]

How did the two recognize Christ in the Breaking of the Bread, unless they too were at the Last Supper?

Not necessarily. There is no reason that they would have to be at the last Supper in order to know Jesus at the breaking of the bread.
They had prevented from recognizing Jesus

but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.

And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

They were no longer being prevented from recognizing Jesus. Not connected with them being present at the Last Supper. I know that others have speculated that the Apostles were not the only ones present. I reject that because that is when the Apostles were instituted as priest.

 

[otjm]

The fact that the Apostles were ordained (and I would not say “priests”, but rather “bishops”) would not prevent others from attending that meal - and that would include Mary.

Keep in mind also that the Apostles did not recognize him (John 21: 4-7, and read John 20.

And in Luke 24, the two were back with the Apostles "and those with them who were saying… (24-33), indicating the eleven were [again/ - my question] not gathered as a separate group, but with those whom they had known for several years; and two verses later, in 325 they, in spite of the testimony of Peter and the two, "were startled and terrified and thought they were seeing a ghost’.

The short of it is that the Gospels don’t have many details post Resurrection; but presuming that the Apostles were the only ones who were at the Passover meal and then three evenings later the eleven were with others, and the two came back to that gathering, 3 evenings later; and other instances show that other including the Apostles did not recognize Jesus seems to fit that while their sight was “withheld” until the meal, why would they have any knowledge at all of the meaning of the meal, unless they had participated also?

We simply have too little information, and what we have does not necessarily make sense unless the two were present 3 evenings previously. John does not say they recognized him “when” he broke bread, meaning at that time, but rather says they recognized him “in the breaking of the bread” - the act itself caused recognition. And if they had not seen the act, there was no reason for it to cause recognition.

 

[hope]

I think there is a case to be made that the second disciple was Simon a disciple. Or at least the case is made that others thought so.

St. Cyril of Alexandria also said

24:33. They rose up that same hour.

Cleopas, it says, and his companions, rose up that same hour, the same of course in which Jesus had vanished out of their sight, and returned to Jerusalem: but it does not say that they found the eleven gathered together that same hour, |728 and told them what had happened concerning Jesus, but this took place on the fortieth day after His resurrection, on which day He was also taken up. This evangelist therefore has omitted the events which took place in the intervening time, and which Cleopas and his companions found the eleven discussing in private, and saying, that “the Lord is risen, and has been seen by Simon:” and of him he has not mentioned either where, or when, or how this took place. It was during these days that those events also took place which were done in Galilee, and which Matthew has recorded.

This isn’t clear to me what he meant. There was also a footnote

1. o This passage is given so much more probably in Cramer, that I append it: ‘But not that they found the eleven gathered together that same hour, and told them what had happened concerning the Lord Jesus, but after the lapse of as many hours as sufficed for walking the sixty furlongs between the two places; and during this interval it was that the Lord was seen by Simon.’

 

[hope]

The fact that the Apostles were ordained (and I would not say “priests”, but rather “bishops”) would not prevent others from attending that meal - and that would include Mary.

My opinion is that it would. If others had been present, I think they would have been mentioned.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

I cannot answer the question as to who it was.

Any thoughts on the opening post, specifically the theory he was named “Simon”, and one of the seventy-two disciples of Jesus? (Lk. 10:1)

 

[hope]

@ Lunam_Meam I believe that you mentioned that Alphaeus was also known as Alphaeus Correct?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

@Lunam_Meam I believe that you mentioned that Alphaeus was also known as Alphaeus Correct?

I have said that Jesus’s father, Joseph, had a brother named Alphaeus (or Cleophas/Clopas) who resided in Nazareth as well. And, that Alphaeus had a son named “Simon” (Mk 6:3, Matt.13:55-56), who initially was a disbeliever in Jesus, but later became a disciple.

Some theologians speculate Cleopas of Emmaus is Joseph’s brother, but I understand him to have been the son of Cleopas, a Synagogue leader at Emmaus, and the son-in-law to the other disciple of Emmaus, Simon, as he was married to Simon’s eldest daughter.

There is debate etymologically speaking regarding the variants of the name “Alphaeus”.

 

[hope]

Thank you for the clarification as it is late here I will leave further comment later as there is another factor but as I said it is late and my mind is a fog.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Thank you for the clarification as it is late here I will leave further comment later as there is another factor but as I said it is late and my mind is a fog.

You’re welcome.

 

[BartholomewB]

@Lunam_Meam, before we go any further, allow me to ask you this. Do you see the purpose of this thread as:

(A) To establish beyond all reasonable doubt the identity of Cleopas’ companion on the road to Emmaus?

or

(B) To discuss the various possibilities, while accepting that we will never attain certain knowledge of the companion’s identity?

 

[hope]

John 19
25 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

It is unclear if there are three or four women but there are those who contend that Mary the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary. Being the wife of Clopas she would either be a cousin or as some contend the sister-in-law. Being that Clopas had a wife at the crucifixion it is no wonder he knew what had happened. It is also speculated that his wife was the unnamed companion. It is interesting to not that this hypothesis seems to be modern. I cannot find reference of this idea in the first few centuries. However, if there is one I would love to see it.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

I have said that Jesus’s father, Joseph, had a brother named Alphaeus (or Cleophas/Clopas) who resided in Nazareth as well. And, that Alphaeus had a son named “Simon” (Mk 6:3, Matt.13:55-56), who initially was a disbeliever in Jesus, but later became a disciple.

Some theologians speculate Cleopas of Emmaus is Joseph’s brother, but I understand him to have been the son of Cleopas, a Synagogue leader at Emmaus, and the son-in-law to the other disciple of Emmaus, Simon, as he was married to Simon’s eldest daughter.

There is debate etymologically speaking regarding the variants of the name “Alphaeus”.

John 19:25 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

It is unclear if there are three or four women but there are those who contend that Mary the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary. Being the wife of Clopas she would either be a cousin or as some contend the sister-in-law. Being that Clopas had a wife at the crucifixion it is no wonder he knew what had happened. It is also speculated that his wife was the unnamed companion. It is interesting to not that this hypothesis seems to be modern. I cannot find reference of this idea in the first few centuries. However, if there is one I would love to see it.

As I mentioned, Jesus’s father, Joseph, had a brother named “Alphaeus”. Well, his wife was also named “Mary”, which made her and Joseph’s wife sister-in-laws. So, Alphaeus’s wife and Mary of Clopas mentioned in Jn. 19:25 are one and the same. It is understood among some that “Clopas”, “Clophas”, or “Cleophas” are variants of the name “Alphaeus”. Alphaeus and Mary had four sons, Jesus’s “cousins”:

Simon
Joseph
James (apostle)
Judas (apostle)

And, there was four women named Mary:

(i) Mary of Joseph (Jesus’s mother)
(ii) Mary of Alphaeus (Jesus’s “aunt”)
(iii) Mary Magdalene of Bethany (Lazarus’s and Martha’s sister)
(iv) Mary Salome of Zebedee (mother of apostles John and James)

 

[BartholomewB]

(iii) Mary Magdalene of Bethany (Lazarus’s and Martha’s sister)

Are you seriously suggesting that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same person?

(iv) Mary Salome of Zebedee (mother of apostles John and James)

Usually named as just Salome. Where does the additional name “Mary” come from?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

(iv) Mary Salome of Zebedee (mother of apostles John and James)

I’m willing to bet cash that this is who is meant by Jesus’s mother’s sister.

 

[Dan_Defender]

(B) To discuss the various possibilities, while accepting that we will never attain certain knowledge of the companion’s identity?

It should be this of course. There is not enough information to ‘prove’ the identity. My own opinion is that it was Luke himself, because he is the only one including the Emmaus episode. Just like Mark is the only one including the episode of the young man who ran away during Jesus’ arrest so IMO himself was the young man. Can I prove it? of course not!

 

[hope]

Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany

Check the Catholic Encyclopedia. This would make a nice topic but it is not this topic.
St. Mary Magdalen
The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three persons:

• the “sinner” of Luke 7:36-50;
• the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke 10:38-42 and John 11; and
• Mary Magdalen.

On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same.

 

[hope]

I too was surprise. I think I agree with the Greek Fathers.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

@Lunam_Meam, before we go any further, allow me to ask you this. Do you see the purpose of this thread as:

(A) To establish beyond all reasonable doubt the identity of Cleopas’ companion on the road to Emmaus?

or

(B) To discuss the various possibilities, while accepting that we will never attain certain knowledge of the companion’s identity?

I have stated who I am certain the second disciple from Emmaus is in my opening post. As for others, as long as they stay on topic, people can post as they wish. I have no expectation of them beyond sharing their thoughts.