Home Page

French

History

Gospel of Luke

Contact

    
power   ed byFreeFind*

- I - Who was Cleophas' Companion?

So many disciples and characters in the Gospels are shrouded in anonymity that the authors of the texts did not see it necessary to identify them by name. The man with Cleophas was one of these.  So why should we look into his identity?
For the simple reason that this is what commentators have been doing since ancient times.


A - ANCIENT TRADITIONS

James the Greater
    - Based on the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which states that the resurrected Jesus appears before James (1 Corinthians 15:7), tradition has it that the disciple walking alongside Cleophas was the brother of John, known as James the Greater.

Caravaggio, Last Supper at Emmaus, London NG.

James the Greater was the central figure in the pilgrimage of Saint James of Compostela; so in representations of the Supper at Emmaus, a scallop-shell can sometimes be seen on the clothing or on the hat of the unidentified companion of Cleophas, when it is not on Christ himself. The expression "Emmaus pilgrims" is derived from the influence exerted by this tradition. However, it obviously cannot be James, the brother of John, as he was one of the Twelve Apostles. Upon their return, the two travellers met the Eleven all together that is to say the Twelve less Judas the missing Apostle). If we identify the person with Cleophas as James the Greater, we are ignoring this aspect, as detailed by Luke. And if we substitute him for the Apostle James, Son of Alphaeus, we end up with the same conclusion. So we need to look elsewhere.

   - In the prologue to his commentary on Daniel, Gregory the Great noted another legend (one which he gave no credence) which was later reiterated by Theophrates and then by James of Viraggio, right up to Catherine Emmerich: Cleophas' companion was none other than the Evangelist himself - Luke.

- Indeed, his account - twice as long as that of Jesus' appearance before the women or even before the group of Apostles - is not repeated anywhere else. But as he ought to be a citizen of Antioch and probably not a disciple of Jesus, Augustine sought to ingeniously combine this legend with the other - making Luke the host in the Emmaus village. As a witness to the Supper, he would have become a disciple along with the others at this time. The host therefore became an important witness.         - Quoted by Eusebius, the explanation favoured by Hegesippus was that the companion was the son of Cleophas, who he believed took over the leadership of Jerusalem upon the death of his cousin Jacob in 62. He called him Simon - a name repeated by Origen. However, there are some ideas which do not tally with these accounts.      - Ambrose and Maxim of Turin called him Ammon   - Epiphanes saw him as Nathaniel and the Ethiopian synaxary Nicodemus.     - Others thought of Matthias, who would take the place of Judas.

These theories have just as little supporting evidence as the suppositions made about the village to which the two men were travelling: the identification of this village is examined in an article presented before the archaeology section.

     - As things stand

In his accounts of the resurrection, Luke took great care to name the protagonists.
Mary Magdalene and Joanna had already been introduced, following which there was Mary, mother of James - named for the first and last time, as happened with Cleophas. They then went to tell the Eleven Apostles, none of whom were identified by name. Many other characters were similarly left in anonymity.

But in this section, the first person to see Jesus is famously unknown. How do we know that Jesus appeared before him first?  It must have been the first appearance, as the two companions had left the Apostles after they heard the news of the empty tomb from the women. When they returned to Jerusalem, they learnt that the resurrected Christ also appeared before Peter:
« The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. » Lk 24:34

When did this appearance happen? Apparently during their return journey. They had been walking with Jesus for almost three hours before taking Supper with him. He went to Peter after making himself invisible to them. The reader learns about the appearance according to this chronological order, with Cleophas and his companion seeing him first, while Peter saw him after this. But the Apostles learnt of the Resurrection from Peter himself, before any mention of the two companions.

Anybody personally witnessing an appearance was seen as an authority in the eyes of everybody else. This could only strengthen the trust placed in Peter, consolidating his authority.
So how one can acknowledge and admit the fact  that Jesus made a previous appearance to two other people?

To answer this, the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark puts the two companions in the place given to Mary Magdalene and the two other women: that of telling the Apostles who were slow to believe. They were not believed any more than the women. And it was to the gathered Apostles, and not to his two travelling companions, that Jesus reproached for their lack of faith.

This presentation of events totally leaves the issue of the Jesus' Last Supper with the two disciples to one side - as if it were of absolutely no consequence. But - and this is what has posed us so many problems - this Supper was a clarification of the above: by blessing the bread, breaking it and giving it to them, Jesus revealed himself to the two men. By making himself invisible, the words spoken before the Passion "This is my Body" were actualized.  This Last Supper was necessary to understand the meaning behind Jesus' actions on the evening of Passover, all the more so given that in the Gospel of Luke, according to Codex Bezae , there was no command to "do this in memory of me" ending the Eucharist. It is what is known as the Supper at Emmaus that gave rise to extending the action revealing his presence.
However, this command is included in the two other Synoptic Gospels that do not mention this last meal of Jesus.


By altering the meaning, the longer ending of Mark shows just how problematic this episode is from a hierarchical point of view. How can the Tradition include this position?  For this to happen, Cleophas' companion had to be the second of the Twelve Apostles, or at least one of them.
That the Church Fathers and their resulting traditions wanted to see the Apostle James (the second in the list of Apostles)  as Cleophas' companion is therefore perfectly understandable.
But it could not have been James the Greater. So who was it?

    Codex Bezae :   Simon - Peter?

The participle "saying" is a plural nominative (LEGONTES); Cleophas and his companion are the subject. In other manuscripts, this participle has been put in the accusative (LEGONTAS), with the Eleven disciples and all the others as the subject.
According to the Codex Bezae, we are not talking about the Apostles, but rather the two disciples.
Cleophas emphasises that his companion - in this case Simon Peter (?), the first of the Apostles - had seen the Lord alive. The equivalent text in Latin avoids this problem, as DICENTES is both nominative and accusative, thereby not forcing the translator to make a choice between the two.
This choice was a very old attempt to introduce Simon Peter as the anonymous companion; it resolved the thorny issue of the supremacy of Peter with regard to the Institution of the Eucharist.. However, it is based on what is mostly viewed as transcription error.
Furthermore, the second century writer, Hegesippus, named Cleopas' companion as Simon, a cousin of Jesus. He must have been using the same text as the Codex Bezae, which was not the only source in scripture to include LEGONTES.

    James the Just and the tradition

We cannot overlook the apocryphal writing of the first century - the Gospel According to the Hebrews - which recounted the celebration of a Supper after the Resurrection in the presence of James the Just:
«but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James(for James had. sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says "`Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord." And immediately it is added, "He brought bread and blessed and brake and gave to James the Just and said to him, `my brother eat thy bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.»(Jérôme, Illustrious Men, James )

Jerome must have held this gospel in high esteem, as he translated it himself.
The name "Son of Man" is a sign of its age. It disappeared from the Apostolic and Patristic Writings, although we can find it in the most recent chapters of the first Book of Enoch (end of the first century). Like them, the Gospel According to the Hebrews was based on Judeo-Christian literature drawn up within communities which had not separated from the Synagogue and where the character of James, the Brother of the Lord, was predominant. It had a strong influence on the Gospel of Thomas:
James the Just was the man that Hegesippus, a contemporary of Justin and quoted by Eusebius, said:
 But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

Clement of Alexandria also wrote:

But Eusebius, who was only willing to consider two James' - the two Apostles from among the Twelve - put forward James the Just as the son of Alphaeus. This does not tally with Jerome's De Viris Illustribus.

The character of James the Just, who gradually faded into obscurity as the Roman Institution increased in power, was totally forgotten for centuries. He only resurfaced in this connection over the course of the past decade.
But to my knowledge, no connection has been made between him and the companion of Cleophas.

However, this is the person that Paul placed among the people witnessing the appearances of the Resurrected Jesus.
James was in second to last place in this line, just before Paul. The first place was given to Peter. Was this a chronological order? The number Twelve puts a question mark over this. Using the expression "the Twelve" does not match the historical reality. On the day of the Resurrection, there were only Eleven Apostles. The appearance in front of all the Apostles has to be taken as the meeting of the Twelve Apostles with the 120 disciples on Pentecost.
Going beyond a chronology, the order of the appearances was a hierarchical view. Otherwise, Paul - in last place - would not have needed to add:
« But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. »1 Co15:10


The writings of Paul indicate a gap, suggesting that Cleophas' companion was behind James the Just, and was chronologically the first to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion.

  James the Just in the Gospel of Luke

The accounts of the Acts paint a faithful picture of James the Just, although they do not give his origins or his genealogical heritage. He appears in the gospel, where he is discreetly, indirectly mentioned.

"Mary of James"
Her name appears in the first verse of chapter 24. There was a "Mary of James" among the women who went to the tomb early in the morning. This is the first and only time she is mentioned.
Was she his daughter or his wife?
The genitive aspect of the expression denotes belonging. Mary was OF James - she was either his daughter or his wife.  The second proposal - that she was his wife - is the most likely, as it was mainly married women who followed Jesus.
According to Paul (1 Co 9:5), the brothers of the Lord were accompanied by their "sisters - wives" - meaning wives who have themselves become disciples. Was this Mary of James the wife of James the Just?

"Jude of James"
Luke was no more revealing about "Jude of James" - one of the Twelve. This expression indicates the paternal link. But in his Epistle, Jude presented himself as the "brother of James", who is generally recognised as James the Just. But was this the same Jude? If the Jude from the list of the Twelve was the author of the eponymous epistle, we must deduce that James the Just and Jude had a father called James. The eldest son was given the name of the paternal grandfather. James - younger than his brother Jude - would have been given the name of his maternal grandfather.


"Jacob the patriarch"
Luke alluded to Jacob the Patriarch in his account of Jesus' appearance to two disciples, as well as in the previous verse:

     - the stone rolled away from the tomb evokes the stone rolled away from the mouth of the well by the Patriarch Jacob upon the arrival of Rachel. The rolled stone was a symbol of heightened love at the sight of the loved one. Mary, the wife of James (transcription of Jacob) was there to remind him.
     A vision of angels: according to Cleophas and his companion, the women would have had a vision of angels, although they definitely saw two men in bright clothing. Their version enabled the two companions to evoke the vision of the Patriarch Jacob and his dream at Bethel.

     Oulammaous: As we can see, the Codex Bezae gives the name OULAMMAOUS rather than EMMAUS. OULAMMAOUS was the first name for BETHEL. This is covered in another article, a summary of which reads as follows:  EMMAUS NICOPOLIS was too far from Jerusalem to have been the village in question. Other ideas have been put forward, but nobody seems to have noticed that OULAMMAOUS was the ancient name for Bethel in LXX, and that Bethel has been identified from Roman milestones which were used by Eusebius in his Onomasticon, and which appeared in the reports from 1870. OULAMMAOUS was in existence in that very location alone in LXX when Jacob had his dream. This choice avoids us having to recall idolatrous Bethel and forget the etymology of the name: House of God.
Just as OULAMMAOUS hid BETHEL, anonymity was intended to preserve James the Just. But from what did he need to protect himself?

     Rivalry between Apostles

Rivalry never spared anyone, and certainly not those who sought to become closer to Christ.
Luke echoed what was worrying the Apostles:
These words remain enigmatic, as the Greek can be read in two ways, with the disappearance of the article before the predicative superlative: [the] most important [among] them - which can be taken as a comparative and read as "more important than them". Mark and Matthew resolved this issue by getting rid of the pronoun. The question was knowing who was the most important after Jesus and thereby given first place.
But the comparative gives us to understand that they feared the pre-eminence of a disciple from outside the group like this anonymous person chasing away the demons in the name of Jesus held his trust without being a disciple.
James the Just could well have been at the heart of this dilemma - the man who Paul called the brother of the Lord and who Joseph called the brother of Jesus. His parental link with Christ was a source of intimacy which attracted a certain amount of jealousy. Even though Jesus had been careful to show that he did not favour nepotism, the Apostles feared anyone coming between Jesus and themselves.
In his epistle, James compared a man looking in a mirror and immediately afterwards forgetting what he looked like with someone not practicing as they preach. And therein is a connection with the words of Jesus:

James was therefore very careful not to forget what he had heard.

Was he too young to take the place vacated by Judas? There were conditions for his replacement: they had to have been a follower since the baptism of John. This ruled him out, as he was not one of the followers at the time.
James was present alongside Peter when Paul was presented by Barnabas in Jerusalem. But Luke was careful to just name him later, when Peter - finding refuge outside Jerusalem in around 43 after miraculously escaping from Herod's prison - entrusted James with the community with James, who remained its leader until his martyrdom in 62.

His was both an important and a discreet presence. He listened to the brothers before speaking. After having given his point of view, decisions were taken collectively. This is seen in two of the verses in the Acts where he is mentioned. He practiced what he preached. His letter was an appeal to be quick to listen and slow to speak.

If Luke kept his name out of the gospel, it was probably at his request. It may have seemed to him to be preferable to stay in the background so as not to weaken the government of Peter, but rather to enable him to count on him. His deep, gentle character was a great consolation for the community that he helped to create and to grow, through all his trials.

After 43, the year when Peter left Jerusalem, there was no further reason for James to keep silent.  This detail strenghtens the assumption of an early writing addressed to Theophilus the High Priest from  37 to 41.

But was Luke the only evangelist to know James, the brother of the Lord?


 First Part : Identification of Oulammaus/Emmaus
Second Part : Cleopas' companion 
Third part : The beloved disciple 


Sylvie Chabert d'Hyères
© Copyrighted January 2006

Bibliogr:
Mark Cameron: (mai2000) James on the road to Emmaus,