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.”