Tuesday, January 26, 2021

Arthur A. Just Jr., on the Debate Concerning the Location of Emmaus

Critics sometimes point to the fact Latter-day Saints do not agree with one another about the location of certain Book of Mormon places, even when they agree with the general geographical location (e.g., Mesoamerica [which I hold to]). However, even within biblical archaeology, there are on-going debates about the location of sites, including Emmaus, where the resurrected Jesus and the 11 apostles had a meal (Luke 24:13). On this, Catholic scholar Arthur A. Just Jr., wrote:

 

But where was Emmaus? Traditionally there are three proposed possibilities. Anwas (near the modern Latrun), the village of Qubeibeh, and Kolonieh (45). The last, located nearly four miles (i.e. thirty stadia) northwest of Jerusalem, seems the most likely candidate, and therefore the sixty stadia of Luke may represent a round-trip from Jerusalem and back. This would be a one-hour walk each way, just sufficient to establish clearly that the meal was taken well outside the boundaries of the city. (Arthur A. Just Jr., The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1993], 52)

 

Notes for the Above

 

(45) There have been a great deal written on the location of Emmaus. Wanke, Die Emmauserzählung, 37-42 discusses the location of Emmaus and provides a thorough bibliography on the subject . P.A> Arce, “Emmaús y algunos textos desconocidos,” EstBíb 13 (1954) 53-90 offers an exhaustive analysis of the issue through history and the various locations that have been cited as possibilities for the biblical Emmaus. Guillaume, Luc interpréte, 96-109 looks at the textual critical problems concerning sixty/a hundred-and-sixty stadia, and the archaeological evidence. See also R.M. Mackowski, “Where is Biblical Emmaus,” ScEsp 32 (1980) 93-103; Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 1561-1562.

 

(46) Cf. P. Benoit, The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 273-274: “Where then is Emmau? Qubeibeh is certainly 60 stadia away, but it was picked out for exactly that reason, and its tradition does not appear until the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Kolonieh, it is objected, is no more likely since it is only 30 stadia away. This is true, but there could be a slight confusion in the physical data here without offending against scriptural inerrancy. Luke does not belong to the country, he merely noted down the information he had gathered: they went to Emmaus, came back the same evening, 60 stadia. Later, using these notes for the writing of his gospel, he makes Emmaus 60 stadia away, forgetting that the figure referred to the double journey. This is a possible explanation. In general, critics adopt Kolonieh as the Emmaus of the gospels. There is no real evidence, but in a case like this we have to be content with probabilities.”