Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [John_Lit] James and Clopas

Expand Messages
  • Frank McCoy
    ... From: Jack Kilmon To: Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] James
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 16, 2004
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:57 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] James and Clopas


      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Frank McCoy" <silvanus55109@...>
      > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:09 AM
      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] James and Clopas

      > > Yes, he equates Cleopas with both Clopas and
      Alphaeus. Even though they are different names, I go
      along with his equating the Cleopas in the NT with the
      Clopas in the NT. However, I think he perhaps
      over-reaches in equating the Cleopas in the NT with
      the Alphaeus in the NT.
      >>

      > No, it is not over-reaching. The Semitic name is
      from xlp, Arabic is Halif, Aramaic khalefa for "sharp"
      or "knife" xylpa "kheelefa." Alphaeus is a Greek
      transliteration of the Aramaic and Clopas/Cleophas are
      Greek renderings, the het being either a rough
      breathing in Greek or a kop. The f/p shift requires
      no explanation.
      >

      Jack Kilmon:

      Note that my argument is that the Cleopas *in the NT*
      is not the Alphaeus *in the NT*. In my post to which
      you are responding, only one of the three reasons I
      give to support this argument involves the question of
      whether or not Cleopas and Alphaeus are two variants
      of the same word. This is where I question Eisenman's
      contention that the difference of a kappa and an alpha
      is a small matter. So, even if Clopas and Cleopas and
      Alphaeus are all variations of one basic name, this
      does not weaken in a funadamental way, the thesis that
      the Cleopas in the NT is not the Alphaeus in the NT.

      Further, in the NT, we have:
      1. Alphaeus the father of Levi (Mark 2:14)
      2. Alphaeus the father of James (Mark 3:18 and
      parallels)
      3. Cleopas (Luke 24:18)
      4. Clopas (John 19:25)

      Both Cleopas and Clopas appear to have been in the
      Jerusalem area at about the same time (assuming that
      Clopas is the husband/betrothed of Mary), so I think
      it reasonable to premise that they are one and the
      same person.

      I see no reason to connect this Cleopas/Clopas to any
      NT figure named Alphaeus. For example, neither
      Cleopas nor Clopas is said to be the father of a Levi
      or the father of a James.

      > Clopas and Alphaeus is the same person, who would
      have been Kheelefa, the brother of Joseph, father of
      Jesus. Jesus' uncle Clopas married also to a woman
      named Mary. Clopas and Mary were the parents of Yaqub
      (James, the "lesser") and Matthew and a younger
      Shymeon who would become head of the Jerusalem group
      in 64 CE when James the Just was murdered.
      >
      > It is not rocket science, it is simply using all the
      sources.
      >

      If Simeon bar Clopas is the son of a brother of
      Joseph, then he was a contemporary of Jesus and James
      and, so, most likely born shortly before or after the
      transition from BCE to CE. This makes him implausibly
      old at the time of his martyrdom in 106 or 107 CE.

      The hypothesis of Thiering, which is that the
      Clopas/Cleopas of the NT is James the brother of
      Jesus, is more plausible on this count--for, in this
      case, Simeon would not have been at an implausibly old
      age at the time of his martyrdom. This hypothesis
      also elegantly explains why Simeon succeeded James as
      the head of the Jerusalem group--for, as the son of
      this James/Clopas, he would have been his logical
      dynastic successor.

      How do you arrive at Matthew being a son of
      Clopas/Alphaeus? Mark does not link Levi and Matthew.
      Further, in Mark 3:18, Mark lists Matthew as a
      disciple, but does not call him a brother of James the
      son of Alphaeus. This is an argument from silence,
      but I think it of great weight nevertheless because,
      after all, Mark does stress that a disciple named John
      was the brother of another disciple, James the son of
      Zebedee, in the immediately preceding 3:17.

      How do you arrive at James the Lesser being James the
      son of Alphaeus? As I pointed out in an earlier post,
      relating Mark 15:40 to John 19:25 apparently suggests
      that James the Lesser is James the brother of Jesus.

      Regards,

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 15
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109






      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
      http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.