Talk:Emmaus

Location
See ISBN 0-8264-6797-0 for archaeological evidence supporting Kolonya.

1. Imwas (‘Amwas)/Emmaus/Nicopolis. Even though this site has been favored by tradition, a major problem still exists: it does not fit the biblical account. In the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament (including Papyrus Bodmer (P75), Codex Alexandria, Codex Delta and Codex Vaticanus), Luke 24:13 states that the distance between the village and Jerusalem was “sixty stadia.” Later manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Palestinian Syriac, in Eusebius and Jerome) having “one hundred and sixty stadia,” the distance separating Jerusalem from Nicopolis, are considered as poorer readings, and are less likely to be true according to rigorous textual biblical criticism. It would appear that the manifestation of the change in later manuscripts would correspond with the identification of the site as Nicopolis in the Onomasticon. Secondly, the distance of 160 stadia seems too long for a round trip in one day. Robinson made a good defense of the case, saying that the distance could have been traveled within the chronology of the gospel account, but in the overall his study is not critical enough to be convincing. According to the Lukan text, Jesus and the disciples arrived at Emmaus “toward evening,” and some time later they ate. In Palestine during the Passover season sunset occurs around 6:30 pm, and in the Hebraic culture people tended to eat after dusk; it thus would not be expected to have the disciples leave before at least seven o’clock. Adding six hours to travel back to Jerusalem, which is not much considering darkness, fatigue and the great distance, the return of the disciples in Jerusalem would then end up around 1:00 am. Even though it would be understandable to expect the other disciples to still be awake that late after the incredible day that they had, the timing goes against the parallel account of John 20. Although Jesus’ appearance on the road to Emmaus is not recorded in that account, His appearance to the disciples at the end of the day in Jerusalem is. In John 20:19, when Jesus appears to his disciples, the Greek word describing the time of the day is “evening” (opsias), not “night” (nux). The word used, according to a rigorous study made by DeGulielmo, would correspond to a period of time between 6:30 and 9:30 pm, too early in any case for an arrival on time by the two disciples. Therefore, Nicopolis should not be considered a plausible site.

2. El-Qubeibeh/Castellum Emmaus/Chubebe/Qubaibat. Apart for its name and right distance from Jerusalem, el-Qubeibeh has little evidence defending its identification as the biblical Emmaus. The religious connotation of its name, “little dome,” has seduced many people to believe that this site had previously been venerated by Christians. However, the root of its medieval appellation by those Christians, “Small Mahomeria,” favors more likely a Muslim dome. The major problem facing el-Qubeibeh is the lateness of the tradition. It would appear strange that a site having the right distance and the right name would simply be ignored for centuries, especially by a serious scholar like Eusebius. Archaeologically, the evidence is very weak, to such an extent that a pile of rock is equally identified as belonging to a Roman house and a Byzantine church. Moreover, all the traditional “evidences” of the site go in conflict with Nicopolis, specifically the claims of the house of Cleopas and the Byzantine church. Josephus places Emmaus as one of eleven Judean Roman districts after the war. It was mentioned as being less important and prominent than Jerusalem, but was nevertheless put on the same rank as Jericho, En-Gedi and Herodium. Even though the city might have prospered after the Romans used it, the fact that the city in itself became a district might explain why there are so many sites with names' similarities on the Kiriath-Jearim ridge and its surroundings. Emmaus was a fairly common name in Palestine. Castellum Emmaus, an old Roman fort, was probably built later than Jesus’ time. The name would therefore correspond better to the district than the city.

3. Abu-Ghosh/Kiryat el ‘Enab. Since Thomson’s book "The Land and the Book," Abu Ghosh is usually mentioned as an alternative site but it is not really defended as such anymore. In it Thomson proposed el’Enab to be the biblical Emmaus. However, because of rising objections he later abandoned his own view. There is indeed no other evidence for the site than the distance separating it from Jerusalem, and that is even more than thirty percent off. Originally the site of an Abassid karawanserai, the earliest archaeological traces are from the resident Roman legion, a first-century officer's sarcophagus and coins post-dating 25AD. There are no Jewish remains, it was never known as Emmaus or anything vaguely like it until the Hospitallers set up in 1141. Still too far.

4. Emmaus/Colonia (Qaloniya)/Motsa/Ammassa/Ammaous/Beit Mizzeh. A Roman bridge and painted tombs were found, but apart from these traces of Roman occupation there is no traditional or historical evidence that the site was ever identified as the biblical Emmaus before recent times. Some people interpret the distance of 60 stadia recorded in Luke as a round trip, matching therefore the 30 stadia of Josephus. Even though there is no evidence favoring such interpretation, little goes against it either, except the fact that the Bible never mentions any distance in this manner. If the interpretation is right, then all of the confusion about Emmaus’ site identification throughout the centuries would be resolved. For this reason alone the site might be a good candidate, however, it has to be noted this it is so because of a lack of general evidence about it. Geographically it is in doubt, and archaeologically and traditionally there is only silence.

5. Urtas, Khurbet el-Khamasa. Ditto, no prior evidence, still too far.

6. Hammat (Hebrew: חמת) is a Talmudic Period Town in Teberius (Hebrew: טבריה) There is no Connection between Hammat and Emmaus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.71.43 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: The analysis of evidence concerning the site identification of Emmaus does not reach any dogmatic conclusion. Traditionally and historically Nicopolis has the most evidence, but geographically its location does not follow the Bible. Geographically, el-Qubeibeh fits well, but historically and archaeologically no evidence was ever found until twelve centuries after the event. Abu Ghosh has literally no support for it, and Colonia is a good candidate only because of the confusion generated by a round-trip hypothesis that is as doubtful as it is not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.103.78 (talk • contribs)

Stadia
Which "stadia" are we talking about? Our page stadia says that one stadium is 157, 185 (Greek), or 210 m long. This article says Assuming that 1 mile is about 1609 m, this would make one stadion about 201 m, 196 m, 196 m, 175 m, 184 m, 196 m long. That does not make much sense to me. In particular, a number like 18.6 miles suggest a precision that is just not correct; using 175 m for a stadion, 153 stadia would be 26.775 km or about 16.6 miles, but using 201 m we would get more than 30 km, or more than 19 miles.
 * 60 stadia = 7.5 miles
 * 160 stadia = 19.5 miles
 * 153 stadia = 18.6 miles
 * 161 stadia = 19.6 miles
 * 83 stadia = 9 miles
 * 35 stadia = 4 miles.

Is there agreement on which "stadia" were meant? If not, then we should just say that one stadion is ABOUT 200 m long, and mention only approximate figures for the modern distances.

The very model of a minor general (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding the distance, why is this comment "but this poses a problem for the biblical story since its distance from Jerusalem is 160 stadia not 60, and this makes it too far for the two disciples to have returned to Jerusalem that evening" present on the page? Since 160 stadia is only about 20 miles or so at most, is the ability to walk this distance in a day really considered a problem? This distance could comfortably be walked by most people today in about 6 hours. One would assume that it could even more easily be walked in the first century by people who walked much more frequently than most people today. Anybody object to removing this? There's a similar comment in the Nicopolis article that sues the word "impossible" in regard to walking this distance. Am I missing something here? --Aubee91 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

merge
Why are two articles needed for Emmaus with the same information? Emmaus and Emmaus Nicopolis should be merged.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a bit of a muddle. However, I suggest that we keep them separate but give them different jobs:


 * Emmaus should be the starting point for someone whose interest comes from the gospel account. So it should tell us what Luke says about Emmaus, what other sources say about it, and then say a bit about each of the places that have been supposed to be Luke's Emmaus, including Emmaus Nicopolis.
 * Emmaus Nicopolis should be devoted to that identified location, and should link back to Emmaus for details of the gospel account and other places that have been claimed to be Luke's Emmaus.

A related question is whether we should be amalgamating Imwas with Emmaus Nicopolis. And the biblical material (which I think the present article should focus on) is largely repeated at Cleopas (indeed, I have just made the overlap worse in an effort to make this article make more sense). However the main thing is usability: the largest numbers of users are likely to know nothing about Emmaus except that it is mentioned in Luke, and we need to lead them gracefully towards what is actually known. seglea (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should include also information about the Emmaus organization http://www.emmaus-international.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.17.55 (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Emmaus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050521164551/http://www.sthbasel.ch:80/downloads/Prospekt_Ausgrabung_2005.pdf to http://www.sthbasel.ch/downloads/Prospekt_Ausgrabung_2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Imwas
Per Talk:Imwas I have merged Emmaus Nicopolis in here. per the comments made by some of you at that discussion we are now overweight in that section, and should move some of the post-Biblical / pre-modern information over to Imwas. Please could you comment on what information you think belongs here and what should move? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with all that, and it looks like progress and clarification. I've just removed a self-referential hatnote. I think the subheads are confusing within the newly migrated Emmaus Nicopolis section; they aren't necessarily that distinct from those for unrelated sites. IMHO the aim should be that the Emmaus Nicopolis hypothesis is covered there, but all the historical information should be merged in at Imwas, and then I'd hope the section needs no further subdivision and is more proportionate with other hypotheses.­ --Cedderstk