The Christian Forger and the Emmaus Narrative

[iskander]

number 1

Three explanations for these coincidences have been considered.
(1) They could be due to chance. But this would seem to gainsay the three
independent forms of evidence listed above. In particular, it is di±cult to ignore
that the only two known examples of the "third day" as a participial phrase
appears in texts with so many other structural resemblances. Some common
literary milieu seems mandatory; the question is the form it took.
(2) The coincidences may be due to a Christian interpolator who

[iskander]

Your endless monologues are a disgrace . Please explain the pdf of your OP . Thank you

[Secret Alias]

My point is that Eusebius might not have been the first 'master forger' in Christianity. I think there is a strong circumstantial correlation between the person of Julius Africanus and the emergence of an expansion of Mark in Luke and Julius Africanus's interest in Emmaus.

[iskander]

My point is that Eusebius might not have been the first 'master forger' in Christianity. I think there is a strong circumstantial correlation between the person of Julius Africanus and the emergence of an expansion of Mark in Luke and Julius Africanus's interest in Emmaus.

You write like Mountainman did, one poster you often insulted. Yet, you should kindly ask him to advise you .It Is late here . Good night

[Secret Alias]

I have to admit I propose extreme caution with respect to this subject matter. But clearly the appearance at Emmaus is fictitious. Mark doesn't know about it. The first Church Father to mention it as far as I can see is Irenaeus Book 3:

And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread.

Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples after the resurrection, "O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? "

and Book 4:

For thus it was that the Lord discoursed with, the disciples after His resurrection from the dead, proving to them from the Scriptures themselves "that Christ must suffer, and enter into His glory, and that remission of sins should be preached in His name throughout all the world."

The various references in Tertullian likely ultimately derive from Irenaeus (i.e. Against Marcion and the Prescription). So it is plain that the earliest reference to this narrative was contemporaneous with Julius Africanus. If the gospel of Luke first appeared at the end of the second century (or at least the earliest reference to it as a named gospel) the devotion of Julius Africanus to the Emmaus narrative in particular is puzzling. It couldn't have had a deep attachment with contemporary Christianity. Emmaus presents the clearest proof that Jesus was the messiah of the Jews and more importantly how his crucifixion and resurrection was compatible or indeed the fulfillment of ancient Jewish messianic speculation.

[Secret Alias]

I don't think a single Church Father mentions Emmaüs by name.

[MrMacSon]

My point is that Eusebius might not have been the first 'master forger' in Christianity. I think there is a strong circumstantial correlation between the person of Julius Africanus and the emergence of an expansion of Mark in Luke and Julius Africanus's interest in Emmaus.

What do you mean by "an expansion of Mark in Luke" ?? and the emergence of such an 'expansion' ??

eta: I presume you mean this: -

Emmaus in the New Testament

The Gospel of Luke, at Luke 24:13-35, records that Jesus appeared to two disciples who were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus, which is described as being 60 stadia (10.4 to 12 km depending on what definition of stadion is used) from Jerusalem, after his resurrection. One of the disciples is named as Cleopas in verse 18, while his companion remains unnamed.

• < . . snip . . >

A similar event is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:12–16:13) although the disciples' destination is not stated. This passage is believed by some to be a late addition derived from the Gospel of Luke.[4] The incident is not mentioned in the gospel of Matthew or John, or in the list of witnesses to the resurrection given in 1 Corinthians 15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmaus#Em ... _Testament

4. Hooker, Morna D. (1991). A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. Black's New Testament commentaries. London: A & C Black.

[MrMacSon]

.
Do we know where the Emmaus mentioned in Luke was?

Emmaus was suppposedly an ancient town in Judaea mentioned in the Gospel of Luke.

Emmaus Nicopolis is an archaeological site in Israel, once the Arab village of Imwas* - "traditionally (possibly from as early as the 3rd century, but probably incorrectly) identified with the biblical Emmaus".

Emmaus is the name of a village in Galilea mentioned by Flavius Josephus as the location of hot springs, near the city of Tiberias.

• War bk 4, chap 1, but that reference seems to be to a different place to that in Antiquities bk 18, chap 2. See below

• * Imwas

Classical antiquity

• Main articles: EmmausX and Emmaus_Nicopolis

Emmaus is also mentioned in the first Book of the Maccabees as the site where Judas Maccabeus defeated the Syrian General Gorgias in the 2nd century BCE.[6] It was subsequently fortified by Bacchides in 160 BCE, and replaced Gezer as the head of a toparchy in 47 BCE.[4] Edward Robinson relates that its inhabitants were enslaved by Cassius, while Josephus relates that the city (called Άμμoὺς) was burned to the ground by Varus after the death of Herod in 4 BCE.[6][7] Imwas has been identified as the site of ancient Emmaus, where according to the Book of Luke (24:13-35), Jesus appeared to a group of his disciples, including Cleopas, after his death and resurrection.[8]

Reduced to a small market-town, its importance was recognized by the Emperor Vespasian, who established a fortified camp there in 68 CE to house the fifth ("Macedonian") legion, populating it with 800 veterans.[4][9] In 131 CE, the city was destroyed by an earthquake.[4] It was rebuilt and renamed Nicopolis ("City of Victory") by Elagabalus in 221 CE, becoming the chief polis in a region that bore its name.[4][10] Robinson writes that the town was rebuilt "by the exertions of the writer Julius Africanus."[8][6] In 222 CE, a basilica was erected there, which was rebuilt first by the Byzantines and later by the Crusaders.[11] In the 4th century, the city served as an episcopal see.[7] Remains of a Samaritan synagogue point the presence of a Samaritan community in Imwas in the late Roman period.[10]

Described by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Onomasticon, Jerome is also thought to have referred to the town and the building of a shrine-church therein, when he writes that the Lord "consecrated the house of Cleopas as a church."[8] In the 5th century, a second tradition associated with Emmaus emerges in the writings of Sozomen, who mentions a fountain outside the city where Jesus and his disciples bathed their feet, thus imbuing it with curative powers.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imwas#History

X Emmaus (Greek: Ἐμμαούς, Emmaous Latin: Emmaus; Hebrew: אמאוס‎; Arabic: عمواس‎‎, ʻImwas) is a town mentioned in the Gospel of Luke from the New Testament. Luke reports that Jesus appeared, after his death and resurrection, before two of his disciples while they were walking on the road to Emmaus.

Its geographical identification is not clear, several locations having been suggested throughout history. We only know that it was connected by a road with Jerusalem; the distance given by Luke varies in different manuscripts and the figure given has been made even more ambiguous by interpretations.

Name

The place name Emmaus is relatively common in classical sources about the Levant and is usually derived through Greek and Latin from the Semitic word for "warm spring", whose Hebrew form is hamma or hammat (חמת). There are many sites with the name Hama, Hamath and variations thereof in the ancient and present-day Middle East.[3]

• 3. http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=hamath

In the case of one possible candidate for Luke's Emmaus, namely modern Motza, another evolution of the name has been suggested.


Historical identification

Many sites have been suggested for the biblical Emmaus, among them Emmaus Nicopolis (c. 160 stadia from Jerusalem), Kiryat Anavim (66 stadia from Jerusalem on the carriage road to Jaffa), Coloniya (c. 36 stadia on the carriage road to Jaffa), el-Kubeibeh (63 stadia, on the Roman road to Lydda), Artas (60 stadia from Jerusalem) and Khurbet al-Khamasa (86 stadia on the Roman road to Eleutheropolis). The oldest identification that is currently known is Emmaus Nicopolis.

Emmaus-Nicopolis/Imwas

• Main articles: Emmaus_Nicopolis and Imwas [cited above^ in this post]

The first modern site identification of Emmaus was by the explorer Edward Robinson, who equated it with the Palestinian Arab village of Imwas (Arabic: عِمواس‎‎), near the Latrun monastery. Before its destruction in 1967, the village of Imwas was located at the end of the Ayalon Valley, on the border of the hill country of Judah, at 153 stadia (18.6 miles) from Jerusalem via the Kiryat Yearim Ridge Route, 161 stadia (19.6 miles) via the Beth-Horon Ridge Route and 1,600 feet (490 m) lower by elevation.

Eusebius was probably the first to mention Nicopolis as biblical Emmaus in his Onomasticon. Jerome, who translated Eusebius’ book, implied in his letter 108 that there was a church in Nicopolis built in the house of Cleopas where Jesus broke bread on that late journey. From the 4th century on, the site was commonly identified as the biblical Emmaus.


Al-Qubeiba/Castellum Emmaus/Chubebe/Qubaibat

...west of Nabi Samwil on the Beit Horon road northwest of Jerusalem. ...there is no source from the Roman, Byzantine or Early Muslim periods naming it as "Emmaus" for the time of Jesus [but if the gospel or other references to Emmaus were written much later, they may not be based on what existed or happened in 'the time of Jesus'].


Abu-Ghosh/Kiryat Anavim


Emmaus/Colonia/Motza/Ammassa/Ammaous/Beit Mizzeh

Colonia, between Abu Ghosh and Jerusalem on the Kiryat Yearim Ridge Route, is another possibility. At a distance of c. 8 km from Jerusalem, it was referred to as Motza in the Old Testament (Joshua 18:26). One mile to the north of modern Motza is a ruin called Beit Mizzeh, identified as the biblical Motza. Listed among the Benjamite cities of Joshua 18:26, it was referred to in the Talmud as a place where people would come to cut young willow branches as a part of the celebration of Sukkot (Mishnah, Sukkah 4.5: 178). Motza was identified as the Emmaus of Luke in 1881 by William F. Birch (1840-1916) of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and again in 1893 by Paulo Savi.[6]

[Professor Carsten Peter Thiede was a strong proponent of Motza as the real Emmaus. Excvations were stopped with his sudden death in 2004]. He offered that the Latin Amassa and the Greek Ammaous are derived from the biblical Hebrew name Motza: Motza – ha-Motza ("ha" is the Hebrew equivalent of the definite article "the") – ha-Mosa – Amosa – Amaous – Emmaus. His excavation summaries were removed from the website of the Basel college he was teaching at, but a book and at least one article he published on the topic are available.[7][8][9] He contended that neither Nicopolis, Abu Ghosh, or Al-Qubeiba can be considered because the first was located too far from Jerusalem, while the two others were not called Emmaus at the time of Jesus.[10]

Josephus Flavius writes in Antiquities of the Jews about a city called Emmaus in the context of the Maccabean Revolt, which corresponds well with the large city later called Emmaus Nicopolis, located at over 170 Roman stadia from Jerusalem, while in The Jewish War he brings up another Emmaus, just 60 Roman stadia from Jerusalem, where Vespasian settled 800 Roman legionnaires after the First Jewish Revolt.[8][11] ... The difference in distance to Jerusalem between Luke's and Josephus' Emmaus, 60 vs. 30 stadia, is still much smaller than the one to Nicopolis, which lays full 176 stadia down the Roman road from Jerusalem.[8] Thiede recalculated the actual distance between Jerusalem's western city gate at the time, and his excavation site at Motza which unearthed the Jewish village that predated the Roman veterans colony, and came up with a figure of 46 stadia.[8] That would put it squarely in the middle between Luke's and Josephus' stated distances, which Thiede considers a good approximation for the time.[8] ...With no other Emmaus in the vicinity of Jerusalem, Motza was thus the only credible candidate.[8]

8. Thiede, Carsten Peter (2005). "Die Wiederentdeckung von Emmaus bei Jerusalem" [Rediscovering Emmaus near Jerusalem]. Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum (in German). Walter de Gruyter. 8: 593–599.

9. Thiede, Carsten Peter (2006). The Emmaus Mystery: Discovering Evidence for the Risen Christ. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 184. ISBN 978-0-8264-8067-5 – via Google Books. "… the biblical history of Moza, the Christian history of Emmaus, and the Jewish history of the Mishnaic period met at this site."

[davidbrainerd]

deleted

[MrMacSon]

• Emmaus

Emmaus/Colonia/Motza/Ammassa/Ammaous/Beit Mizzeh

... Josephus Flavius writes in Antiquities of the Jews about a city called Emmaus in the context of the Maccabean Revolt, which corresponds well with the large city later called Emmaus Nicopolis, located at over 170 Roman stadia from Jerusalem, while in The Jewish War* he brings up another Emmaus, just 60 Roman stadia from Jerusalem, where Vespasian settled 800 Roman legionnaires after the First Jewish Revolt.[8][11]

* eg. Jewish War 4.1.3

• 3. "But Vespasian removed from Emmaus, where he had last pitched his camp before the city Tiberias, (now Emmaus if it be interpreted, may be rendered A warm bath, for therein is a spring of warm water, useful for healing), and came to Gamala; yet was its situation such that he was not able to encompass it all round with soldiers to watch it. But where the places were practicable, he set men to watch it, and seized upon that mountain which was over it."

and Jewish War 4.8.1. - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-4.html


Interestingly, Jewish War Bk 4 gives accounts of

• "The best esteemed also of the High-priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus, when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth; and excited them against the zealots." (War 4.3.9)
  
  a John who features throughout War Bk 4 made a speech at the end of Chapter 3 [see further below too]
  
  Chapter 4 begins: -
  
  1. "Now, by this crafty speech John made the zealots afraid. Yet durst he not directly name what foreign assistance he meant; but in a covert way only intimated at the Idumeans. But now that he might particularly irritate the leaders of the zealots, he calumniated Ananus, that he was about a piece of barbarity, and did in a special manner threaten them. These leaders were Eleazar, the son of Simon; who seemed the most plausible man of them all, both in considering what was fit to be done, and in the execution of what he had determined upon: and Zacharias the son of Phalek..."
  
  a Jesus then also makes a long speech to the Idumeans sent for by the zealots; and Simon the Idumean makes a reply (Chap 4, v.3). But the Idumeans raged and plundered and slaughtered.
  
  But "..the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters: but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met. And for the other multitude they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them; but they sought for the High-priests; and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them. And as soon as they caught them, they slew them: and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people; and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial: although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.12 I should not mistake if I said, that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city: and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs; whereon they saw their High-priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man: and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honour, of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people. He was a prodigious lover of liberty; and an admirer of a democracy in government: and did ever prefer the publick welfare before his own advantage: and preferred peace above all things. For he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow: and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dextrously, they would be destroyed. To say all in a word: if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters. For he was a shrewd man in speaking, and persuading the people: and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him: and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest. And I cannot but think, that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders, and well wishers. While those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the publick worship,13 and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth, when they came into our city, were cast out naked; and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these mens case; and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus." (War 4.5.2.)
  
  http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-4.html
  
  12. "As at the crucifixion of Christ."
  
  
  footnote 5 is interesting, too: -
  
  • 5. 'Here we may discover the utter disgrace and ruin of the High-priesthood among the Jews. When undeserving, ignoble, and vile persons were advanced to that holy office by the seditious. Which sort of High-priests, as Josephus well remarks here, were thereupon obliged to comply with, and assist those that advanced them in their impious practices. The names of these High-priests, or rather ridiculous and profane persons, were Jesus the son of Damneus; Jesus the son of Gamaliel; Matthias the son of Theophilus; and that prodigious ignoramus Phannias, the son of Samuel. All whom we shall meet with in Josephus’s future history of this war. Nor do we meet with any other so much as pretended High-priest after Phannias, till Jerusalem was taken and destroyed.'
    
    It relates to War 4.3.6 -
    
    6. "Now the people were come to that degree of meanness, & fear, & these robbers to that degree of madness, that these last took upon them to appoint High-priests(5). So when they had disannulled the succession, according to those families out of which the High-priests used to be made, they ordained certain unknown and ignoble persons for that office: that they might have their assistance in their wicked undertakings. For such as obtained this highest of all honours, without any desert, were forced to comply with those that bestowed it on them. They also set the principal men at variance one with another, by several sorts of contrivances and tricks: and gained the opportunity of doing what they pleased, by the mutual quarrels of those who might have obstructed their measures. ’Till at length, when they were satiated with the unjust actions they had done towards men, they transferred their contumelious behaviour to God himself, and came into the sanctuary with polluted feet.
    
    7. "And now the multitude were going to rise against them already. For Ananus,3 the ancientest of the High-priests, persuaded them to it. He was a very prudent man, and had perhaps saved the city if he could but have escaped the hands of those that plotted against him. Those men made the temple of God a strong hold for them, and a place whither they might resort, in order to avoid the troubles they feared from the people: the sanctuary was now become a refuge, and a shop of tyranny. They also mixed jesting among the miseries they introduced, which was more intolerable than what they did: for in order to try what surprize the people would be under, and how far their own power extended, they undertook to dispose of the High-priesthood by casting lots for it: whereas, as we have said already, it was to descend by succession in a family. The pretence they made for this strange attempt was an ancient practice, while they said that of old it was determined by lot.4 But in truth it was no better than a dissolution of an undeniable law, and a cunning contrivance to seize upon the government, derived from those that presumed to appoint governors as they themselves pleased."

  ---

  A John features throughout War Bk 4 too, associated with a band of robbers: -
  
  • The Galileans [had] advanced this John, "and made him very potent. Who made them suitable a requital, from the authority he had obtained by their means. For he permitted them to do all things that any of them desired to do. While their inclination to plunder was insatiable: as was their zeal in searching the houses of the rich." (War 4.9.10)
    
    v.11. "Yet did the army that was under John raise a sedition against him: and all the Idumeans separated themselves from the tyrant, and attempted to destroy him: and this out of their envy at his power, and hatred of his cruelty. So they got together, and slew many of the zealots, and drove the rest before them into that royal palace that was built by Grapte, who was a relation of Izates, the king of Adiabene: the Idumeans fell in with them, and drove the zealots out thence into the temple, and betook themselves to plunder John’s effects. For both he himself was in that palace; and therein had he laid up the spoils he had acquired by his tyranny...."
  Chapter 2: -
  1. "Now no place of Galilee remained to be taken but the small city of Gischala, whose multitude yet were desirous of peace; for they were generally husbandmen, and always applied themselves to cultivate the fruits of the earth. However, there were a great number that belonged to a band of robbers, that were already corrupted, and had crept in among them, and some of the governing part of the citizens were sick of the same distemper. It was John, the son of a certain man whose name was Levi, that drew them into this rebellion, and encouraged them in it. He was a cunning knave, and of a temper that could put on various shapes; very rash in expecting great things, and very sagacious in bringing about what he hoped for. It was known to every body that he was fond of war, in order to thrust himself into authority; and the seditious part of the people of Gischala were under his management, by whose means the populace, who seemed ready to send ambassadors in order to a surrender, waited for the coming of the Romans in battle array. Vespasian sent against them Titus, with a thousand horsemen, but withdrew the tenth legion to Scythopolis, while he returned to Cesarea with the two other legions, that he might allow them to refresh themselves after their long and hard campaign, thinking withal that the plenty which was in those cities would improve their bodies and their spirits, against the difficulties they were to go through afterwards; for he saw there would be occasion for great pains about Jerusalem, which was not yet taken, because it was the royal city, and the principal city of the whole nation, and because those that had run away from the war in other places got all together thither."
  
  3. "Now none of the populace durst not only make a reply, but durst not so much as get upon the wall, for it was all taken up by the robbers, who were also the guard at the gates, in order to prevent any of the rest from going out, in order to propose terms of submission, and from receiving any of the horsemen into the city..."
  
  5. ..."Titus was greatly displeased that he had not been able to bring this John, who had deluded him, to punishment. Yet he had captives enow, as well as the corrupted part of the city, to satisfy his anger, when it missed of John. So he entered the city in the midst of acclamations of joy."