Red Flags In Emmaus

[Polynesian girl]

The pilgrims of Emmaus have recognized Jesus in an inn. They are of course absolutely anxious to tell the rest of the congregation what has happened. Talk of a scoop! So they rush back to Jerusalem...and what do they find there?

They already know it! They, the two pilgrims I mean, are now told what they expected to be the Surprise of the Year. The text says they found the Eleven and others with them saying, 'The Lord has truly risen and he has appeared to Simon." Apparently, the poor breathless travelers never had the opportunity to open their mouths to tell their brothers and sisters the Great News. Failed scoop! Total information debâcle! They could only start their story with the much less exciting details of the conversation on the road to Emmaus and the final recognition episode during supper...

But wait a minute... How did the Eleven not only know that Jesus was alive, resurrected, but also positively bask in the warm, high-octane faith that this had actually happened? Verse 11 in the same chapter 24 describes them as utterly incredulous and scornful of the stories told them by the women who had been to the sepulchre, something positively confirmed by Mark 16:11&14, which has Jesus Himself upbraid the disciples for their "hardness of heart". As for Simon, he too had been to the tomb according to Luke, after the women, and no special apparition to him had apparently taken place...

I don't know, but my sixth sense tells me something is deeply wrong here. I suspect interpolations, late liturgical formulas anachronistically put in the mouth of the first disciples in order to support (Petrine) leadership claims, attempts to put the passage in harmony with Pauline claims in Corinthians that Simon Peter had been the first to see Jesus after His resurrection (bye bye Maggie and the other women!).

I tried to reconstruct the story in verses 33-35 as it seemed more natural to me and here is what it sounds like:

Rising up immediately, they returned to Jerusalem, where they found the Eleven and others who were with them, and told them:

THE LORD HAS RISEN AND HE HAS APPEARED TO US!

And then they told them all the things that had happened on the way and how they had recognized Jesus when He broke the bread for them.

Doesn't that sound much more plausible?

[FirstSunday33ad]

The pilgrims of Emmaus have recognized Jesus in an inn. They are of course absolutely anxious to tell the rest of the congregation what has happened. Talk of a scoop! So they rush back to Jerusalem...and what do they find there?

They already know it! They, the two pilgrims I mean, are now told what they expected to be the Surprise of the Year. The text says they found the Eleven and others with them saying, 'The Lord has truly risen and he has appeared to Simon." Apparently, the poor breathless travelers never had the opportunity to open their mouths to tell their brothers and sisters the Great News. Failed scoop! Total information debâcle! They could only start their story with the much less exciting details of the conversation on the road to Emmaus and the final recognition episode during supper...

But wait a minute... How did the Eleven not only know that Jesus was alive, resurrected, but also positively bask in the warm, high-octane faith that this had actually happened? Verse 11 in the same chapter 24 describes them as utterly incredulous and scornful of the stories told them by the women who had been to the sepulchre, something positively confirmed by Mark 16:11&14, which has Jesus Himself upbraid the disciples for their "hardness of heart". As for Simon, he too had been to the tomb according to Luke, after the women, and no special apparition to him had apparently taken place...

I don't know, but my sixth sense tells me something is deeply wrong here. I suspect interpolations, late liturgical formulas anachronistically put in the mouth of the first disciples in order to support (Petrine) leadership claims, attempts to put the passage in harmony with Pauline claims in Corinthians that Simon Peter had been the first to see Jesus after His resurrection (bye bye Maggie and the other women!).

I tried to reconstruct the story in verses 33-35 as it seemed more natural to me and here is what it sounds like:

Rising up immediately, they returned to Jerusalem, where they found the Eleven and others who were with them, and told them:

THE LORD HAS RISEN AND HE HAS APPEARED TO US!

And then they told them all the things that had happened on the way and how they had recognized Jesus when He broke the bread for them.

Doesn't that sound much more plausible?

Actually no. What has happened is that Luke did not include the trip to Galilee by the eleven.

When Jesus appeared to the Emmaus men, they headed back to Jerusalem but by the time they arrived, the eleven were already gone. They had left for Galilee as Matthew tells us. John then picks up the story and tells us what occurred in Galilee. It is when the eleven return from Galilee that Luke then has the Emmaus men meeting them with the exciting news that Jesus had risen, and it is then that they are told that this is old news.

[Richbee]

Actually no. What has happened is that Luke did not include the trip to Galilee by the eleven.

When Jesus appeared to the Emmaus men, they headed back to Jerusalem but by the time they arrived, the eleven were already gone. They had left for Galilee as Matthew tells us. John then picks up the story and tells us what occurred in Galilee. It is when the eleven return from Galilee that Luke then has the Emmaus men meeting them with the exciting news that Jesus had risen, and it is then that they are told that this is old news.

None.

It is finished.

No contradictions in the NT, just some poor folks like Mag' Bro' suffering from poor reading comprehension skills.

[Jayrok]

[guacamole]

The pilgrims of Emmaus have recognized Jesus in an inn. They are of course absolutely anxious to tell the rest of the congregation what has happened. Talk of a scoop! So they rush back to Jerusalem...and what do they find there?

They already know it! They, the two pilgrims I mean, are now told what they expected to be the Surprise of the Year. The text says they found the Eleven and others with them saying, 'The Lord has truly risen and he has appeared to Simon." Apparently, the poor breathless travelers never had the opportunity to open their mouths to tell their brothers and sisters the Great News. Failed scoop! Total information debâcle! They could only start their story with the much less exciting details of the conversation on the road to Emmaus and the final recognition episode during supper...

But wait a minute... How did the Eleven not only know that Jesus was alive, resurrected, but also positively bask in the warm, high-octane faith that this had actually happened? Verse 11 in the same chapter 24 describes them as utterly incredulous and scornful of the stories told them by the women who had been to the sepulchre, something positively confirmed by Mark 16:11&14, which has Jesus Himself upbraid the disciples for their "hardness of heart". As for Simon, he too had been to the tomb according to Luke, after the women, and no special apparition to him had apparently taken place...

I don't know, but my sixth sense tells me something is deeply wrong here. I suspect interpolations, late liturgical formulas anachronistically put in the mouth of the first disciples in order to support (Petrine) leadership claims, attempts to put the passage in harmony with Pauline claims in Corinthians that Simon Peter had been the first to see Jesus after His resurrection (bye bye Maggie and the other women!).

I tried to reconstruct the story in verses 33-35 as it seemed more natural to me and here is what it sounds like:

Rising up immediately, they returned to Jerusalem, where they found the Eleven and others who were with them, and told them:

THE LORD HAS RISEN AND HE HAS APPEARED TO US!

And then they told them all the things that had happened on the way and how they had recognized Jesus when He broke the bread for them.

Doesn't that sound much more plausible?

I'm probably being rather daft here, but I'm not quite sure that I understand your principle objection. I think you are saying that the story is implausible because it sets up the men on the road to Emmaus as having the ultimate scoop while then turning that back around because the disciples already know?

It would seem that if the narrative is as you present it, then there are even more problems because the other Gospels tell us that Jesus appeared to the disciples and that's how they got the news.

In addition, when they say that Simon Peter was the first to see Jesus, it isn't necessarily disqualifying that the women didn't see him. It's just that, well, how do I put this delicately, women is women.

fwiw
guac.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Verse 11 in the same chapter 24 describes them as utterly incredulous and scornful of the stories told them by the women who had been to the sepulchre, something positively confirmed by Mark 16:11&14, which has Jesus Himself upbraid the disciples for their "hardness of heart".

Well I do think that Mark 16:11-14 was not part of what Mark wrote, partly because of this contradiction! I think the gospel ended at verse 8, for we have another difficulty in the account that follows, we read that Jesus appeared to them while they were eating (Mk. 16:13), only the account in Luke says Jesus asked them "Do you have anything here to eat?" That would be an odd question, if food was on the table.

Now about the disciples not believing, the account is indeed consistent if the disciples didn't believe them at first, but then went to the tomb themselves, and later became convinced:

John 20:8-9 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Blessings,
Lee

[Polynesian girl]

Actually no. What has happened is that Luke did not include the trip to Galilee by the eleven.

When Jesus appeared to the Emmaus men, they headed back to Jerusalem but by the time they arrived, the eleven were already gone. They had left for Galilee as Matthew tells us. John then picks up the story and tells us what occurred in Galilee. It is when the eleven return from Galilee that Luke then has the Emmaus men meeting them with the exciting news that Jesus had risen, and it is then that they are told that this is old news.

Objection: the text doesn't say: he is indeed resurrected and he has appeared to us in Galilee. The text says that Jesus has only appeared to the guy called "Simon". Besides, if they had already seen him in Galilee, why do we read in Luke 24:41 that "they believed not for joy"? The narrative makes it very clear that the apparition and meal was a completely new thing for the disciples (except Simon maybe).

Another objection is that Luke, like John, doesn't tell us anything about a trip to Galilee and there is absolutely no reason to think that the Emmaus pilgrims waited for a few days or weeks in Jerusalem for the disciples to return to Jerusalem. There is no reason to think that Cleophas and his companion (her wife Mary?) didn't find anybody on their return from Emmaus. On the contrary, the text makes it very clear that on returning to Jerusalem they actually found the Eleven and others.

In fact, in your (imaginative) scenario, one doesn't understand why the two went back to Jerusalem in the first place since they should have known that Jesus was expecting the whole congregation in Galilee.

But as I said, in Luke there is no mention of a future rendez-vous in Galilee, the angel simply rebukes the women for seeking Jesus in place of the dead and reminds them of his promises to resurrect when they were in Galilee. Even if that had been the case, the disciples wouldn't have departed since they didn't believe the stories of the women about Jesus being resurrected as v.11 makes perfectly clear (and as Marks confirms in his own account).

Briefly, while one admires your creative effort to reconcile what appear to be contradictory accounts, one remains unconvinced. The texts are simply too clear to allow the kind of manipulative and artificial interpretation you indulged in.

[Polynesian girl]

Hi everyone,


Well I do think that Mark 16:11-14 was not part of what Mark wrote, partly because of this contradiction! I think the gospel ended at verse 8, for we have another difficulty in the account that follows, we read that Jesus appeared to them while they were eating (Mk. 16:13), only the account in Luke says Jesus asked them "Do you have anything here to eat?" That would be an odd question, if food was on the table.

Are you saying that all our Bibles contain false and apocryphal stories, I mean what experts call the longer ending in Mark?

Now about the disciples not believing, the account is indeed consistent if the disciples didn't believe them at first, but then went to the tomb themselves, and later became convinced:

Sorry, but the account of Cleophas himself makes it clear that the disciples went to the tomb and came back empty-handed, as far as faith in the resurrection is concerned, I mean: "but him they saw not" (v.24). If they had been convinced, the pilgrims would have known it and shared their faith.

John 20:8-9 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

The other disciple whom Jesus loved didn't tell Peter or the others anything about his own insight, which is very interesting indeed. I remind you of what the disciples told Thomas: WE have seen the Lord (20:25). This is quite different from: "he has appeared to Simon", in Luke.

Blessings,

Poly

[Polynesian girl]

It would seem that if the narrative is as you present it, then there are even more problems because the other Gospels tell us that Jesus appeared to the disciples and that's how they got the news.

fwiw
guac.

Then why doesn't Luke 24:34 read like John 20:25:

He has appeared to us all! We have seen the Lord!

Luke 24:34 says:

The Lord is risen indeed and he hath appeared to Simon.

Even a primary school child would know from this sentence that, when it was said, Jesus had not yet appeared to the Eleven.

Unsatisfied and puzzled,

Poly

[Jayrok]

In fact, in your (imaginative) scenario, one doesn't understand why the two went back to Jerusalem in the first place since they should have known that Jesus was expecting the whole congregation in Galilee.

But as I said, in Luke there is no mention of a future rendez-vous in Galilee, the angel simply rebukes the women for seeking Jesus in place of the dead and reminds them of his promises to resurrect when they were in Galilee. Even if that had been the case, the disciples wouldn't have departed since they didn't believe the stories of the women about Jesus being resurrected as v.11 makes perfectly clear (and as Marks confirms in his own account).

Briefly, while one admires your creative effort to reconcile what appear to be contradictory accounts, one remains unconvinced. The texts are simply too clear to allow the kind of manipulative and artificial interpretation you indulged in.

An honest posting.. Poly, I've discussed this issue with FS33 also and he gave this story. But the text is clear (at least to me) on what happened on the road to Emmaus according to Luke.

It is obvious by the language of the pilgrims that they were speaking to Jesus the night of his resurrection. Luke 24:22 uses the words "This morning" the women went to the tomb.. Then later that night, Jesus eats with them and disappears.. the men "at once" got up and returned to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven and others with them. The Eleven already knew Jesus was missing as evidenced by verse 33, but they then told their story of what happened on the road.

Now FS33 says they didn't meet the eleven until after the eleven returned from a long walk from Galilee. But the text is clear that they all met on that same night. Also, while they were still standing there talking about what happened (verse 36), Jesus appeared to them all.. There is no way the men could walk to Galilee (some 80 miles away) and back in one day.

Another passage that damages FS33'a theory is in Luke 24:36-37.. He claims that before verse 36, the eleven were in Galilee and that is when Jesus appeared by the Sea of Galilee. Now John tells us that when Jesus appeared to the disciples while they were fishing, it was the third appearance by him to them (john 21:14).. So for his theory to work, it would mean that the appearance by Jesus to the disciples in Luke 24:36 would have to be the fourth time in all.. Now please read verses 37-41 and honestly say that this looked like the 4th time Jesus appeared to them.. They are frightened, startled as if they had seen a ghost, and Jesus said "it is I, touch me and see"..

Does Jesus have to get them to believe it's him each and every time he appears to them? even after four appearances? No.. this is clearly their first time seeing Jesus as a group.. and there was no trip to Galilee according to Luke..



Then we have verses 44 and 45 of Luke 24... This is still the same night when Jesus appeared to the eleven and the others (including the two from the road).. Verse 44 has Jesus explain what he told them would happen to him while he was with them.. then in verse 45, it says "then he opened their minds" so they could understand the scripture. This verse meshes well with verse 44, meaning it is during the same conversation.. Well, I've had another different christian on this site try to tell me that there is a gap of several days or weeks between verse 44 and 45.. that is when they went to Galilee..

This explanation was given to me in an effort to reconcile Luke with Matthew and John, but it really just doesn't jive.. In verse 45, Jesus commands them all to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost (for all intents and purposes). So basically, given the text and how it flows, Luke has no idea the disciples went or were supposed to go to Galilee.. According to him, they remained in Jerusalem until Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon them.. Of course we read in John that Jesus gave the holy spirit in a meeting with his disciples the night of his resurrection..

So, in order to fit a trip to Galilee for fishing, it must fit between verses 44 and 45 of Luke 24, because once Jesus spoke in verse 45, they never left the city of Jerusalem..

But to borrow from your post, The texts are simply too clear to allow that kind of manipulative and artificial interpretation...

[FirstSunday33ad]

Objection: the text doesn't say: he is indeed resurrected and he has appeared to us in Galilee. The text says that Jesus has only appeared to the guy called "Simon". Besides, if they had already seen him in Galilee, why do we read in Luke 24:41 that "they believed not for joy"? The narrative makes it very clear that the apparition and meal was a completely new thing for the disciples (except Simon maybe).

Your reading is both too narrow and too broad at the same time. Too narrow in that you ignore what the other Gospels say and too narrow in that you are assuming that everyone in the room at the time had already met the risen Jesus.

When the eleven (and guests) returned from Galilee, the Jerusalem Christians who did not go with them including the Emmaus men met with them and heard the news that Jesus had risen. It is at that point that Jesus appears and convinces them of the reality of His resurrection by allowing these disciples to touch Him to see that He is real and not a ghost.

The narrative does not make it "very clear" at all that the appearance and meal were new to the eleven. It suggests that this was a common method for Jesus to prove He was back in the flesh and was not a ghost or spirit.

Another objection is that Luke, like John, doesn't tell us anything about a trip to Galilee and there is absolutely no reason to think that the Emmaus pilgrims waited for a few days or weeks in Jerusalem for the disciples to return to Jerusalem. There is no reason to think that Cleophas and his companion (her wife Mary?) didn't find anybody on their return from Emmaus. On the contrary, the text makes it very clear that on returning to Jerusalem they actually found the Eleven and others.

John doesn't mention the eleven leaving for Galilee but he does have the eleven in Galilee and most of his action takes place there. The reason John does not mention the previous actions of going is that there is no need, the synoptics had already mentioned them.

Luke was writing a history after the event and makes clear in his prologue that he only wrote what he was able to corroborate from witnesses:

Scripture Verse:

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Reading Luke it is likely that his sources could not confirm the details of the Galilee trip, so he left this out. He wrote what he could confirm - Jesus had already appeared to the eleven by the time the Emmaus men met them in Jerusalem. Given that this is recorded by Matthew and John as occurring in Galilee, the conclusion is obvious - there is an undisclosed break in the record between the return to Jerusalem and the meeting of the disciples.

In fact, in your (imaginative) scenario, one doesn't understand why the two went back to Jerusalem in the first place since they should have known that Jesus was expecting the whole congregation in Galilee.

They did not go to Galilee because they were not part of the eleven. Jesus was not expecting the "whole congregation" to go to Galilee; the message was for the eleven to go.

But as I said, in Luke there is no mention of a future rendez-vous in Galilee, the angel simply rebukes the women for seeking Jesus in place of the dead and reminds them of his promises to resurrect when they were in Galilee. Even if that had been the case, the disciples wouldn't have departed since they didn't believe the stories of the women about Jesus being resurrected as v.11 makes perfectly clear (and as Marks confirms in his own account).

So you are using Mark to confirm a detail in Luke when it supports your supposition but ignoring the synoptics when they contradict? Matthew, Mark and John make clear that there was a definite instruction to the disciples to go to Galilee. Again, because Luke was writing an after the fact account it is likely that he could not confirm the details of the Galilee trip and so left them out. This is of course only one theory, picking this apart would not destroy the simple fact that Luke simple left the Galilee trip out of his history.

Briefly, while one admires your creative effort to reconcile what appear to be contradictory accounts, one remains unconvinced. The texts are simply too clear to allow the kind of manipulative and artificial interpretation you indulged in.

You remain "unconvinced" - gee what a shock.

The texts as you say are not "unclear" when you realize that you must read all four together and give each equal weight. The details all agree and the time frame holds together. A simple acknowledgement that the writers were not providing a newspaper report nor were they filing a court case, but were providing basic, stripped down accounts of the momentous events they experienced with Jesus and why they were convinced that He was the Christ, is sufficient to overcome all of the supposed objections to the texts they left behind.

If there is any "manipulation" of the texts taking place here, it is you who are the guilty party.

[Jayrok]

They did not go to Galilee because they were not part of the eleven. Jesus was not expecting the "whole congregation" to go to Galilee; the message was for the eleven to go.

That's not true. According to Matthew, the angel told Mary to tell the disciples to go ahead into Galilee and there they will meet Jesus.. He didn't say "go and tell the Eleven chosen disciples"..

This is further evidenced by the two on the road to Emmaus and their conversation:

Luke 24:22-24 -- In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”

According to this passage, the women who spoke with the angels (who told them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee) told the disciples, including these two disciples, that they had seen the angel..

Now, if the women told these two unimportant disciples what the angel said, why didn't these two disciples know to go to Galilee? Because the angel also told the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, yet these two and others didn't go.

So you are suggesting that the women told these guys that the angel said Jesus was gone, but he only wanted to chosen eleven to go to Galilee?

Luke mentions no conversation of the angels telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee.. and the women didn't go just to the eleven as proof by these two minor league disciples on the road to Emmaus.. the women told them all what the angel said.. and the message was not for just the eleven, it was for all..

[FirstSunday33ad]

An honest posting.. Poly, I've discussed this issue with FS33 also and he gave this story. But the text is clear (at least to me) on what happened on the road to Emmaus according to Luke.

It is obvious by the language of the pilgrims that they were speaking to Jesus the night of his resurrection. Luke 24:22 uses the words "This morning" the women went to the tomb.. Then later that night, Jesus eats with them and disappears.. the men "at once" got up and returned to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven and others with them. The Eleven already knew Jesus was missing as evidenced by verse 33, but they then told their story of what happened on the road.

Now FS33 says they didn't meet the eleven until after the eleven returned from a long walk from Galilee. But the text is clear that they all met on that same night. Also, while they were still standing there talking about what happened (verse 36), Jesus appeared to them all.. There is no way the men could walk to Galilee (some 80 miles away) and back in one day.

Another passage that damages FS33'a theory is in Luke 24:36-37.. He claims that before verse 36, the eleven were in Galilee and that is when Jesus appeared by the Sea of Galilee. Now John tells us that when Jesus appeared to the disciples while they were fishing, it was the third appearance by him to them (john 21:14).. So for his theory to work, it would mean that the appearance by Jesus to the disciples in Luke 24:36 would have to be the fourth time in all.. Now please read verses 37-41 and honestly say that this looked like the 4th time Jesus appeared to them.. They are frightened, startled as if they had seen a ghost, and Jesus said "it is I, touch me and see"..

Does Jesus have to get them to believe it's him each and every time he appears to them? even after four appearances? No.. this is clearly their first time seeing Jesus as a group.. and there was no trip to Galilee according to Luke..



Then we have verses 44 and 45 of Luke 24... This is still the same night when Jesus appeared to the eleven and the others (including the two from the road).. Verse 44 has Jesus explain what he told them would happen to him while he was with them.. then in verse 45, it says "then he opened their minds" so they could understand the scripture. This verse meshes well with verse 44, meaning it is during the same conversation.. Well, I've had another different christian on this site try to tell me that there is a gap of several days or weeks between verse 44 and 45.. that is when they went to Galilee..

This explanation was given to me in an effort to reconcile Luke with Matthew and John, but it really just doesn't jive.. In verse 45, Jesus commands them all to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost (for all intents and purposes). So basically, given the text and how it flows, Luke has no idea the disciples went or were supposed to go to Galilee.. According to him, they remained in Jerusalem until Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon them.. Of course we read in John that Jesus gave the holy spirit in a meeting with his disciples the night of his resurrection..

So, in order to fit a trip to Galilee for fishing, it must fit between verses 44 and 45 of Luke 24, because once Jesus spoke in verse 45, they never left the city of Jerusalem..

But to borrow from your post, The texts are simply too clear to allow that kind of manipulative and artificial interpretation...

Creative use of the Gospels is bound to create confusion, but as this is your object, you must be satisfied in a job well done.

Firstly, on what basis do you conclude that it was the same night that the Emmaus men met with the eleven? Does Luke say - That same night or any words to the effect?.

This is what Luke writes:

Scripture Verse:

33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

Note the sequence - they returned at once...; THERE they found...; It does not say the eleven were found that same night. It is unlikely that they could even have found the eleven that same night anyway. The trip back would have been in the dark and stumbling around the countryside and into a major city after nightfall was a good way to get dead very quickly.

A reader of the time would have understood the implication. The Emmaus men did not continue on their journey, but - as soon as feasible; ie in the morning - at once - headed back to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem - eventually - they found the eleven.

Nothing in Luke contradicts this scenario.

When we then add the other Gospels, we get a complete record of events and chronology.

The resurrection accounts are some of the most consistent and coherent records of an event from the first century than just about any other from that period.

[Jayrok]

Creative use of the Gospels is bound to create confusion, but as this is your object, you must be satisfied in a job well done.

Pot, meet kettle..

Firstly, on what basis do you conclude that it was the same night that the Emmaus men met with the eleven? Does Luke say - That same night or any words to the effect?.

This is what Luke writes:

Scripture Verse:

33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

Note the sequence - they returned at once...; THERE they found...;

They left for Jerusalem at once and there they met the disciples gathered together..

Seems clear to me.. they left at once (immediately) and found the others. They were excited and wanted to spread news.

It is unlikely that they could even have found the eleven that same night anyway.

It's also unlikely that a man could rise from the dead.. we are talking about miracles here, right? Luke's gospel is divinely inspired, right?

The trip back would have been in the dark and stumbling around the countryside and into a major city after nightfall was a good way to get dead very quickly.

speculation on your part. The holy spirit was guiding them, for they had a mission..

A reader of the time would have understood the implication.

how many people could read at that time?

The Emmaus men did not continue on their journey, but - as soon as feasible; ie in the morning - at once - headed back to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem - eventually - they found the eleven.

as soon as feasible = at once, now? When did the word "eventually" slip in there? what is eventually... a week, two weeks?

The resurrection accounts are some of the most consistent and coherent records of an event from the first century than just about any other from that period.

[FirstSunday33ad]

That's not true. According to Matthew, the angel told Mary to tell the disciples to go ahead into Galilee and there they will meet Jesus.. He didn't say "go and tell the Eleven chosen disciples"..

This is further evidenced by the two on the road to Emmaus and their conversation:

Luke 24:22-24 -- In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”

According to this passage, the women who spoke with the angels (who told them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee) told the disciples, including these two disciples, that they had seen the angel..

Now, if the women told these two unimportant disciples what the angel said, why didn't these two disciples know to go to Galilee? Because the angel also told the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, yet these two and others didn't go.

So you are suggesting that the women told these guys that the angel said Jesus was gone, but he only wanted to chosen eleven to go to Galilee?

Luke mentions no conversation of the angels telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee.. and the women didn't go just to the eleven as proof by these two minor league disciples on the road to Emmaus.. the women told them all what the angel said.. and the message was not for just the eleven, it was for all..

Again you selectively use the verses.

Note what else the Emmaus men say:

"“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.

If these men were disciples in the same sense that the eleven were disciples, they would not have described Jesus as being a prophet. Especially as Peter at this time had already declared Jesus to be the "Christ, the Son of the Living God".

In light of this information, when these men say that "some of our women..." this sense indicates a community of followers that resided in Jerusalem that was led by Peter and the eleven. It is more likely that these men heard the report of Jesus' resurrection through the grape-vine and not first hand and this is the reason that they did not know what to make of this news.