The first question to clear up is that of the text. Now several authors, and in particular P. La- grange (Rev. Bibl. 1896, pp. 87-92), have, in the opinion of the present writer, shown irrefutably that the original reading must have been ' 60 fur- longs,' and that ' 160' is a correction meant to enable the Emmaus of St. Luke to be identified with that of 1 Maccabees. 'The 160 furlongs,' Lagrange concludes admirably (p. 89), ' represent neither the ancient tr;iili( ion, nor tlie universal tradition, nor thi- ii.icMusriijn^ ii:iiliti(m. This reading is a critiiiil uiii'. ii]i|Hi>'-.l by the authority of a master, very piob:iblj Origcii,' and collides almost every-
*1G
EMMAUS
ENDURANCE
\\heie with the fiimlj' assured tradition of tlie Churches. To judge from the manuscripts, tlie iiuestiou is settled : we must read " 60 furlonjis." '
AVe must remark, furtlier, that Emmaus^ico- polis was a town before the Christian era and long beyond (iroXis, Jos. BJ II. xx. 4), whereas the Evangelist speaks of a village (Kii/jirj). Even after Euunaus-Nieopolis had been destroyed by the Boman soldiers of varus (A.D. 4), it was not on that account a village ; a ruined town is not a village. It was even the chief town of a toparchy (Jos. BJ III. iii. 5 ; Plin. HN v. 14). The remains of a church have been found there, which date not merely from the Crusades, but very probably from the Byzantine epoch ; it is in vain that a recent author (Barnabe), who favours el-Kubeibeh, has tried to prove that this church was really nothing but a hot-baths establishment. But it is also vain to seek to infer from the presence of a church, even an ancient one, that we have to do with tlie Emmaus of St. Luke.
Another very strong argument against Emmaus- Nicopolis is its excessive distance. It is worth noting what efforts its partisans make to show that the two disciples could have returned the same evening to Jerusalem, walking for this purpose five or six hours. One of the most convinced defenders of this theoiy, Schifi'ers, does not hesitate to affirm that they could have set out again from Emmaus as early as 3 o'clock in the afternoon and arrived at Jerusalem at 9 o'clock {Rev. Blhl. 1894, pp. 26--10 ; see also his book Ariurax, di)x Emmaus des lieil. Ltikas, 1890). In that case it nm>t be held that the word.s 'it is toward evening, ami the day is now far spent' (Lk 24^), may have been spoken immedi- ately after noon.
The failure of the identification of Emmaus- Nicopolis with the Emmaus of St. Luke proves nothing in favour of el-^ubcibeh, which can pro- duce only a late tradition in it« favour. The argu- ment which it has been sought to draw from the name el-Kubeibch as an alleged corruption of Nico- polis (!) refutes itself. But the probabilities indi- cated at the opening of this article in favour of ^olonieh are greatly weakened by the undisputed fact that the ecclesiastical tradition of the first centuries pronounces in favour of "Amwas-Nico- polis ; this fact proves that all recollection of an Emmaus situatecl nearer to Jerusalem had become effaced in the 3rd centmy. Under these circum- stances the most elementary duty is to declare the problem unsolved, and incapable of solution under the present conditions and with the data which we possess.
Nor does the etymology of the name furnish any precise indication. We do not know to what Hebrew or Aramaic term Emmaus [we find also the forms Ammaics, Ammaum, Emmaum; 'A/i/iaovs, 'AfifiaoiJii, 'E/i/Movti] corresponds. A vain attempt has been made to connect it with the root hamam, and to prove thereby that baths existed at this spot. An argument in favour of this has been based on the fact that the baths situated near Tiberias were called by the same name (cf. Jos 19^ Jlammath), but it is now known that the correct reading is Amnutthus {' A/ifmeovs ; cf. ZDPV xiii. pp. 194-198). It is on the frail basis of this hypothetical derivation that Mrs. Finn grounds her theory that Emmaus = Urtas, to the south of Bethlehem, near Solomon's Pools, 60 furlongs from Jerusalem (see PEFSt, 1883, pp. 53-64). It is by an eq^ually dubious etymological process that Colonel Conder has been led to seek for Emmaus in K/utDiasa, to the S.W. of Jerusalem, at a dis- tance, moreover, not of 60, but of 80-90 furlongs. We may also note the attempt to place the Em- maus of St. Luke at Abu-Ghosh (^iriet-el-'Enftb). FiOMi the point of view of distance this wouM be
sufficiently exact, but there is nothing to lead us to conclude in favour of this particular spot rather than any other within the same circuit.
Lastly, we recall the fact that the Talmud speaks of Kolonich as being also called Mosa or bam-Mosa, a name which we may connect with the n>--n of Jos 18=« (LXX : 'A/xwcrti, but also 'AiMWKii]. Near Kolonich there exists to-day a place called Beit-Mizzeh, which recalls Mosa.
LlTERATrnE.— P£F5(, 1874, pp. 149, 160, 162-104, 1876, pp. 172-175, 1879, PP- 105-107, ISSl, pp. 46, 237 f., 274, 1882, pp. 24-37, 1S83, pp. :•■'-'•*. 1»*4. ri' "-"-^^ 1"^, pp. 11«-1-'!, 1^^;, •■ 17,
1901, pp. li.,". n,7. -hi; I-I-:I'\I.u ,.,,;,. m; U, 1,;h,. : //i/t
xiii. 194-l:i-. 1' \ W . . 1,