L5 Bible Places Mileage Discrepancy - Jerusalem to Emmaus

Hi ...

Luke 24:13 tells us that Jerusalem was about 7 miles from Emmaus, but when I use the <Ctrl>+Drag mileage tool in Bible Places, I get a distance of ~14 miles.

I tried it on two different maps with the same result.

Looks like it's about double what it's meant to be, unless I'm misunderstanding something?

Thanks
Richard

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

fgh

I don't have Logos open right now, but I can tell you this: no one knows for sure where the biblical Emmaus is. There are at least three places claiming to be it.

Richard Lyall

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469536#Comment_469536

Sure, but when the mileage is listed in Scripture, would it not make sense to pick locations that match that, or are there textual or other reasons for not taking the distance literally?

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469544#Comment_469544

Sure, but when the mileage is listed in Scripture, would it not make sense to pick locations that match that, or are there textual or other reasons for not taking the distance literally?

Here's an excerpt from WBC, vol. 35c:

There have been three sites identified as Emmaus. (i) There was an Emmaus about twenty miles west-northwest of Jerusalem, which is mentioned in 1 Macc 3:40, 57; 4:3; etc and also referred to by Josephus (War 2.63; Ant. 17.282; etc). Its name later became Nicopolis, but the modern name of the village is ˓Amwas, which is an Arabic rendering of the Greek for Emmaus. (ii) Another Emmaus was also known to Josephus (War 7.217). This one was about three and a half miles northwest of Jerusalem. Its modern name is Kuoniyeh. It lay on the site of ancient Mozah (Josh 18:26). (iii) The Crusaders identified the village of el-Qubeibeh as the Gospel Emmaus. It is about 7.1 miles from Jerusalem, on the road to Lydda. Though modern Arabs refer to the place as ˓Amwas, this practice would seem to have no antiquity. (For further details on the sites, see Fitzmyer, 1561–62.) Luke’s “sixty stadia” fits the third option (a stadion is 607 feet), but for lack of ancient support, this option must be judged a Crusader identification of convenience. The second site seems the most likely, with Luke’s text to be explained either as intending to mean “sixty stadia round trip” or as reflecting a confusion between the round-trip distance and the actual distance. It is possible that some of those who were crammed into (greater-)Jerusalem to meet the Passover requirement that they reside there for Passover moved away from the crowding for the remaining days of Unleavened Bread.

John Nolland, vol. 35C, Luke 18:35–24:53, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 1201.

Here's an excerpt from Marshall's commentary (NIGTC) on v. 13:

The distance is measured in terms of the στάδιον, i.e. 600 Greek feet (equivalent to 625 Roman feet; or 607 English feet; or 192 metres; cf. AG s.v.; the noun can have a neuter or masculine plural (BD 493); cf. Mt. 14:24; Jn. 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16; also meaning ‘stadium, arena’, 1 Cor. 9:24**). 60 stades is thus roughly 7 miles. Instead of ἑξήκοντα some MSS have ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα (א K* N Θ Π 079vid 1079* sypal arm Eus Hier), i.e. about 18 1/2 miles; this reading is due to an attempt to find a reference to Amwas (mod. Nicopolis), 20 miles from Jerusalem on the road to Joppa (cf. Lagrange, 617–622; Metzger, 184f.). The similarity in spelling quickly led to the identification of this well-known site with the mere village mentioned here (1 Mac. 3:40, 57; 4:3; cf. 9:50; Jos. Ant. 12:306f.; Bel. 1:222 and frequently); so Eusebius and Jerome, and in modern times SB II, 269–271; Dalman, Sites, 226–232; Abel, II, 314–316; Bouwman, 13; Finegan, 177–180; J. Wanke*, 37–42. If so, either Luke got the distance wrong, or the variant reading is a correct emendation of a primitive textual corruption. The obvious difficulty is the great distance from Jerusalem, but Abel asserts that this is no problem to those familiar with the capabilities of Palestinian people. Other identifications, more in accord with a seven-mile radius from Jerusalem, have been suggested. Of these the favourite is El-Qubeibeh, a village seven miles NW of Jerusalem where Crusaders found a fort (1099) called Castellum Emmaus, and where recent archaeology has found a village of first-century date (so Zahn, 716–720; Plummer, 551f.; Rengstorf, 271; Geldenhuys, 636). The difficulty here is the lack of firm evidence for the name of the site in the first century. Also, the Hebrew word means ‘spring’, and there are no springs at this site (cf. Rengstorf). Third, Josephus mentions a military colony of Vespasian 30 stadia W of Jerusalem at Ἀμμαοῦς (Bel. 7:217). This site has been identified with modern Kaloniye (i.e. Latin colonia) some four miles W. of Jerusalem or with Mozah (a village just north of Kaloniye; modern Kh. Beit Mizza; cf. SB II, 271, for rabbinic evidence suggesting that the old village became a Roman camp). This site is accepted by Schürer, History, 512 n. 142; Wellhausen, 138; J. Weiss, 523; K. Lake*, 99f.; Harvey, 297 n.; Benoit, Passion, 271–274. The difficulty here is that the distance is half that given by Luke; Benoit suggests that Luke has mistakenly given the distance for the journey there and back. It must be admitted, therefore, that in both of the two possible identifications the distance given by the present text of Luke is wrong. On the whole Amwas has more to be said for it, since later on the point of the story is the return of the disciples to Jerusalem despite an apparently lengthy journey; but certainty is impossible.

I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 892-93.

As for the possibility of it being a symbolic distance, this is from J. Read-Heimerdinger, "Where is Emmaus" in Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, edited by David G. Taylor (SBL, 1999) (not available in Logos); unfortunately the next page was not available in the preview on Google Books:

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469544#Comment_469544

Just one more thing to keep in mind...the distance would not be "as the crow flies". They had no possible way of determining that back then. It would have been according to distance traveled. As a result, a destination that is 10 vector miles could easily be 15 miles or more on foot due to topographical concerns. Reverse that idea. Hilly country, such as found in Judea, would necessarily offer travelers a winding path. Assuming that the 7 miles figure is correct, then the town would be quite close indeed on a map--conceivably 5 miles or less.

Richard Lyall

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469559#Comment_469559

Thanks for those. I might check a commentary before posting next time [8-|]

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469560#Comment_469560

Thanks for those. I might check a commentary before posting next time

Peace, Richard! Am Glad you posted!!! *smile*

Did you ever also consider the time of day (night!!!) when they walked back to Jerusalem after Jesus disappeared??? Of course there was a full moon because of the season! *smile* A pleasant night-time walk, filled with Joy and Excitement!

and now -- in the Western Church -- Easter is the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox, eh???

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469568#Comment_469568

Did you ever also consider the time of day (night!!!) when they walked back to Jerusalem after Jesus disappeared???

See Luke 24:27, 28, 29 ...especially the last verse.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469568#Comment_469568

Thanks for those. I might check a commentary before posting next time

Peace, Richard! Am Glad you posted!!! *smile*

I echo Milford. I'm glad you posted because it was a very interesting question. I'd never read anything about the distance from Jerusalem to Emmaus before, and might never have done so if you hadn't raised this question. Digging into my resources and finding that book on Google Books was a learning experience for me. And because of that discovery, I requested that Logos get Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts and more SBL monographs. So your post served multiple purposes. Thanks!

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469574#Comment_469574

Did you ever also consider the time of day (night!!!) when they walked back to Jerusalem after Jesus disappeared???

See Luke 24:27, 28, 29 ...especially the last verse.

Yes, David! How very exciting! Indeed! Peace to you!

28　So they drew near to the village to which they were going. ^qHe acted as if he were going farther, ²⁹but they urged him strongly, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and ^rthe day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. ³⁰When he was at table with them, he took the bread and ^sblessed and broke it and gave it to them. ³¹^tAnd their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And ^uhe vanished from their sight. ³²They said to each other, ^v"Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he ^wopened to us the Scriptures?" ³³And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they ^xfound the eleven and ^ythose who were with them gathered together, ³⁴saying, "The Lord has risen indeed, and ^zhas appeared to Simon!" ³⁵Then they told what had happened on the road, and ^ahow he was known to them in ^bthe breaking of the bread.