EMMANUEL.— See Immanuel.
EMMAUS {'Eiifj.a.oiis). — The question of Emmaus would seem at first sight to be simple, and the iden- tification of this place easy. Indeed, Emmaus not being mentioned more than once in the Gospels, there are no difi'erent texts to be harmonized. We read in Lk 24'^ that Emmaus was a village 60 furlongs from Jerusalem, and that after having arrived there at the close of the day, and having sat with Jesus at a meal, the two disciples were able to return the same evening to Jerusalem and there find the Ai^ostles still assembled together. The only parallel passage in Mk. (16'^), part of the unauthentic close of the Second Gospel, does not mention the name of the locality, and speaks only of an appearance to two disciples 'as they walked on their way into the country' (Suirti/ . . . TrepLTraTovffLV . . . iropevofiivois els dyp6v). On the other hand, Josephus says (BJ VII. vi. 6) that Vespasian established a colony of 800 Roman veterans on the lands which he gave them at a distance of 60 [v.l. 30) furlongs from Jerusalem, at a place called Emmaus. Now, there still aotuaUv exists to the west of Jerusalem, on the road which leads to Jaffa, a place named Kolonieh. It is true that the distance is less than 60 furlongs : authors estimate it sometimes at 45, but more frequently at only 35, furlongs. It might be held, however, that the teiTitory of the colony extended over an area of several miles, and that it might, according to circumstances, be thus considered as being distant either 30 or 60 furlongs from the capital. Under these conditions nothing would seem to oppose our placing, on the grounds indicated above, the Em- maus of St. Luke, identified with that of Josephus, at Kolonieh.
It must, however, be remarked that the different reading noted in the passage fiom Josephus (60 or 30) creates some uncertainty. It must also noted that, according to some authors, the name Kolonieh is not to t)e explained by the Latin rolonia at all, but by the name Kiilon (KovKdi/). mentioned in Jos 15'" (LXX) as that of a town of Judah situated in the hill country. These diffi culties, however, would not be altogether insur mountable if they were the only ones ; a further
and graver complication i
facts.
from the following
vanquished Gorgias there in B.C. 166- 340. 5^ 43-25 . cf Jog_ ^„^_ XII. vii. 4) ;
In 1 Mac. an Emmaus is spoken of more than once as the scene of various occurrences : Judas Maccab? 167 (1 Mac
and in B.C. 160 Bacchides fortified it and placed garrison in it (1 Mac 9™'- ; cf. Jos. Ant. XIII. i. 3). The position of this place is easy to determine ; it must have been situated between Jerusalem and Jaffa, nearer the latter, at the spot where the lopes of the mountainous region descend towards the great maritime plain. In this quarter, indeed, found a site which has left important ruins, and hich is mentioned several times in the course of the first centuries of the Christian era under the name Emmaus. From the 3rd cent, onwards it was called Nicopolis, without the remembrance of the ancient Semitic name being lost ; and, as is the case with most of those places with two names, under the Arab domination it resumed its earlier name and was called 'Anuvdi, the appellation it bears. Now, from the earliest times of ecclesi- astical history, the opinion gained ground that this Emmaus-Nicopolis was the Emmaus of St. Luke. Eusebius, no doubt reflecting the views of Origen, and after him Jerome, maintained this identity {OS- 257. 21, 121. 6) ; and after them this view or the case held sway for a long time in the Church. If it is asked how this conclusion could be formed, seeing that Emmaus-Nicopolis is situ- ated at a distance from Jerusalem which is esti- mated (according to the particular route adopted) at 180, 175, 170, or 166 furlongs, almost thrice the 60 furlongs mentioned above, the reply is promptly given : N and some other MSS read ' 160 ' instead of '60.' The tendency to identify Emmaus-Nico- polis and the Emmaus of St. Luke became so strong, so irresistible, that it led to a curious result : in the Middle Ages, at the time of the Crusaders and afterwards, the memory of Emmaus- Nicopolis having been lost, the Emmaus of St. Luke was looked for nearer Jerusalem, and when it was believed that it had been found, not only tlie name of Emmaus, but also that of Nicopolis, was given to it.
From the 13th cent. (1280) or perhaps from the last years of the 11th (1099, see ZDPV xvi. p. 300), a tradition arose which for more clearness may be called the Franciscan tradition, and which places the Emmaus of St. Luke at el-Kuhelbeh, to the N.W. of Kolonieh, at some distance to the north of the roatl from Jerusalem to Jafta, and about 60 (more exactly 62-64) furlongs from the capital. Still, indeed, all the eftbrts of the champions of the Franciscan theory are directed towards establish- ing that the Emmaus of the Evangelist is el- Kubeibeh. Interesting ruins have been discovered there : those of a church dating from the time of the Crusades, and in the interior of its enceinte the remains of a more ancient structure, which might be those of a Byzantine church, but which the defenders of the Franciscan tradition consider to be the very house of Cleopas, around which the sanctuary had been built.