Here is a 14th century fresco from the Grachanitsa Monastery in Serbia:
Though presented in a very formal manner, it depicts the New Testament tale found in Luke 24:13-35. The story relates that on the same day the tomb of Jesus was found empty (“Resurrection Sunday), two disciples were on the way to the village of Emmaus. Early Greek manuscripts of “Luke” vary in the distance given Emmaus from Jerusalem, with some saying 60 stadia — the equivalent of nearly seven miles, while others give 160 stadia — a figure closer to 18 miles.
On the way, they met a person they did not recognize, who asked what the two were talking about. They told him of Jesus, about the crucifixion, and that some women who had gone to his tomb had seen a vision of angels, who said Jesus was alive.
In the Gospel tale, only one of these disciples is identified by name — Kleopas/Cleopas. There was much speculation about the identity of the other disciple, with some giving his name as Simeon, son of Kleopas, others suggesting it might have been Nathaniel or Nicodemus, or even perhaps it was a female — the wife of Kleopas. But in Eastern Orthodox iconography, the other disciple is generally identified as Luke the Evangelist himself. That is why in this detail, we see Kleopas at left, and the figure at right is shown with the characteristics traditionally given Luke in icons:
In the first image above, the person they meet on the road is Jesus in his customary form.
The central image of the same fresco shows the two disciples sitting at a table in Emmaus. It depicts Jesus breaking the bread, which in the New Testament tale is the moment when the two disciples suddenly recognize him. Then he vanishes:
In another fresco however — this time from the Dechani Monastery in Serbia (also 14th century) — we find something different:
Here the central image — tucked between the seeing of the empty tomb by Peter and the supper at Emmaus — is of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. But in this version, the Jesus they meet is not shown in his conventional form. Instead we see the image of Jesus called “In Another Form.”
We get a better look at that little-known manner of depicting Jesus in the “Supper at Emmaus” segment:
As you can see, this image does not look at all like the conventional depictions of Jesus. The “Jesus in Another Form” iconographic type is discussed in this earlier posting:
The only other place in the New Testament where we find a tale of two disciples meeting a man on the road to Emmaus is in the “longer ending” added later to the Gospel called “of Mark” after verse 16:8, which is where the oldest manuscripts of Mark end with the story of the frightened women running from the tomb. That “longer ending” version of the story (Mark 16:12-13) says only:
“After that he appeared in another form to two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it to the rest; they did not believe them.”
Now interestingly, this brief account contradicts, in one particular, that in Luke:33-34. As we see, in the “longer ending” Mark account, when the two “Emmaus” disciples return to the rest, they tell them of the meeting with Jesus. but “they did not believe them.” The two were not believed by the “rest” in Jerusalem.
This is how it happens in Luke:
“And they [the Emmaus disciples] rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together and those that were with them saying, ‘The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon.'”
So in the Luke account the “rest” in Jerusalem do not doubt the story of the Emmaus disciples, but add their own confirmation by saying that Jesus is truly risen, and has appeared to Simon.
At far right in the Grachanitsa fresco at the beginning of this posting, we see the two Emmaus disciples telling their story to the “rest” in Jerusalem.