Both Luke and John describe post-Resurrection encounters where the disciples didn’t recognise Jesus until they’d spoken to him, or where he didn’t look as they remembered but they somehow knew it was him. Various people have speculated about why this might be so. I wonder why Luke and John recorded it. No. That’s not quite true. I assume they recorded it because it was true. What I wonder is why people think the writers of Luke and John might have invented such an unnecessary and confusing detail. One is a skilled story-teller; the other scholarly writer. Such a narrative blunder seems highly unlikely.
Joyful Papist 
Like so much which people say doesn’t add up, they recorded it as they saw it, and that makes it all the more convincing to me. Of course, they were not expecting to see Him because they thought He was dead. Love the picture too.
What I wonder is why people think the writers of Luke and John might have invented such an unnecessary and confusing detail. One is a skilled story-teller; the other scholarly writer. Such a narrative blunder seems highly unlikely.
Really?? It’s either literally true or it’s a narrative blunder??? I accept that you regard the delayed recognition in both the Emmaus story and the encounter by the sea shore as a confusing, inexplicable narrative blunder. But I find your view incredible. To me those are two of the most beautiful incidents in the whole New Testament. The Emmaus story in particular in which the presence of Christ is recognised in the breaking of the bread is exquisite. BXVI’s discussion of it in Volume II of his study of Jesus goes into the symbolism.
I really don’t see how that motif of delayed recognition of a divine presence (very common in ancient literature) is in any way a narrative blunder… please explain??
And why would any one be confused by the motif any way? Luke for example is writing for educated Greek readers of Gentile background. It would be impossible to count the number of times the motif of the divine presence going unrecognised until a crucial moment is used in classical literature. — Homer? Virgil? Remember??
This dichotomy you’ve set up between literal truth and inexplicability is an utterly false one. — And involves massively underestimating both the authors and their audience. Very strange approach in todays post I must say
They probably write as they do for the sake of the theological points they want to make. The gospels are theological & kerygmatic documents, full of echoes of the OT – they are not biographies, but documents for proclaiming Who Jesus is.
About the matter of truth: historical truth may be applicable to human beings, but not to praeternatural or divine beings.
I wonder why Luke and John recorded it. No. That’s not quite true. I assume they recorded it because it was true. What I wonder is why people think the writers of Luke and John might have invented such an unnecessary and confusing detail. One is a skilled story-teller; the other scholarly writer. Such a narrative blunder seems highly unlikely.
Sorry I really can’t get past this. Of all the outrageously false choices I’ve been offered in an argument, this is one of the worst.
Mea culpa. I dashed off a quick post and paid the price for not thinking things through. I don’t resile from what I meant, but I do both take responsibility for and step away from what I said. ‘Narrative blunder’ was the wrong term. Sadly, explaining things further means putting in time I just don’t have. I’ll have to ask for a rain check and come back to you – but it is likely to be three weeks away. I’m sorry, Jerry.
Just a couple of notes from Octavian Baban (2006):
RECOGNITION AND HELLENISTIC PARALLELS The meaning of the journey is particularly highlighted in the recognition scene at the breaking of the bread. Reflecting
The Way and Synoptic Mimesis 124
Luke’s Christological agenda, the scene is exquisitely narrated as a ‘divine’ recognition, since the disciples’ eyes are opened to know him, au)tw~n de\ dihnoi/xqhsan oi( o)fqalmoi kai\ e)pe/gnwsan au)to&n (Lk. 24:31).764 The combination between recognition and reversal of journey makes the meal scene a memorable one (for Aristotle the finest recognition is ‘that which occurs simultaneously with reversal’).765 Through recognition, the two disciples are restored to fellowship with the other apostles (Lk. 24:34-35; 36-50). An almost perfect case of cultural relevance, the similarity of the Emmaus recognition scene to other such scenes in the Greek novels, can be illustrated by two specific examples. A first parallel is the recognition scene between Chaereas and Callirhoe (a story written between 25 BC – AD 50, contemporary to Luke). Their story is the story of two spouses separated by terrible adventures, who come together at the end of a long and periplous journey (during a siege, Chaereas captures the town of Aradus, and finds his wife amid the prisoners).
[note well!!]
The encounter scene describes how, getting near her, Chaereas felt his heart strangely stirred and was seized with excitement (e)tarax&qh th_n yuxh_n kai\ mete/wrov e)ge/neto) although he did not know she was his former wife (cf. the disciples’ ‘burning hearts’, in their ‘premonition’ on the Emmaus road).
766 Proper recognition takes place, later, when Chaereas starts speaking: ‘While he was still speaking, Callirhoe recognised his voice and uncovered her face [et!i le/gontov h( Kalliro&h gnwri/sasa th_n fwnh_n a)pekalu&yato]’.767 Another captivating novel parallel is the recognition or, rather, mis-identification by voice and appearance, found in Iamblichus, Babyloniaka,768 a later story than Luke-Acts, yet relevant through its play on the theme of death and return to life. Here, an Aphrodite priestess believes she saw her dead son Tigris alive, risen from the dead, ‘recognising’ him by the way he speaks and looks (h!dh ga&r se ginw&skw, kai\ w{n ei}pav a)kous&asa kai\ o!yin i)dou~sa), while she was actually beholding another young man, Rhodanes.769 The real recognition scene is delayed, here, however, since Rhodanes and Sinonis, his young female companion, continued for a time to play the roles of Tigris and Aphrodite, taking advantage of the naiveté of the islanders.770 By contrast, Cleopas and his companion do not recognise Jesus (e)pe/gnwsan) by his voice or by his appearance.771 The
The Way and Synoptic Mimesis 125
prolonged dialogue on the road enhances the narrative suspense. Also, just before the actual recognition at the meal (Lk. 24:30), Luke indulges a little longer in the theatrical features of his story: after Jesus is mistaken for a stranger, paroikei=v, who wants to join the journey (Lk. 24:18), now, Jesus pretends he wants to journey further (a mimesis or imitation of journeying? cf. Lk. 24:28).772 The plot displays a remarkable internal symmetry: Jesus had joined the two disciples as a stranger, and now wants to journey further, still as a stranger. The comparison with Romulus’ appearance is valid for this part of the Emmaus account, as well, yet one has to remark that the mystery surrounding Jesus is certainly deeper: his identity remains still hidden at this point of the story.
the greek letters got scrambled taking it from the pdf, but the English is all you need for the meaning
Maybe he’d just lost some weight.
Happened to Toad once.
Failed to recognize one of his ex-wives, she’d got so thin.
Embarrassing.
Kippers are always nice for breakfast.
Not if you’re a Kipper
…More of a Carp, myself.
“Both St. Luke and S. John describe post-Resurrection encounters where the disciples didn’t recognise Jesus until they’d spoken to him, or where he didn’t look as they remembered but they somehow knew it was him. Various people have speculated about why this might be so. I wonder why Luke and John recorded it.”
## In St. Luke, He is known “in the breaking of the bread” – the Eucharist, or possibly the *agape* sometimes preceding it. The recognition at Emmaus is what happens at the Eucharist; the preceding scene corresponds to the reading & exposition of Scripture. This agrees with the Lucan emphasis on the Liturgy – first that of the Temple, then that of the Church.
In St. John, the major NT theme of the identity of Jesus is presented in a different way. Luke’s approach is one way – in John, there are numerous questions, about who Jesus Is, & about His origin. This incident is one of those, and needs to be compared with the earlier ones. Here, He is recognised – and that is the crucial point which distinguishes it from the questionings earlier in this gospel;. This scene is also important for its connection with (a) food (b) provided by Jesus, and for the fish-motif, which harks back to the miraculous draught of fishes earlier in the Gospel.
If people would only remember that the gospels are for proclaiming who Jesus, and that they use narratives to do so, and that they are theological documents, then the readers might avoid many blunders. Fundamentalism has done untold harm, by leading people to look in the gospels for what they do not profess to give.
Excellent point. Part of the problem stems from the fact that the Church tends to read the gospels (written by late first century Jews) through the lens of the ‘Fathers’, (gentiles writing in the 2nd and later centuries).
The adoption of Jewish texts by Greek gentiles led to distortions which have only been undone in the last couple of centuries. The gospels are (to a great extent) reworking of Old Testament narratives to frame a proclamation of Christ. It’s midrash. — A concept alien to the later “Church Fathers” who literalised the gospels.
Are you all right Joyful?
Reassure us, please.
I second that, hope you and yours are well JP.
You are not all right, are you?
What’s up?