ON THE SCENE OF THE MIRACLE OF THE FIVE LOAVES AND FIVE THOUSAND,

AND THE SITES OF CAPERNAUM, BETHSAIDA OF GALILEE, AND OTHER PLACES ON THE LAKE OF TIBERIAS.

THERE are transactions recorded and places mentioned in the sacred narrative, respecting the scenes and localities of which a mistake may be committed without any serious consequence; but there are also cases in which it might give an appearance of inconsistency to the Scriptures; and everything that may have this effect should be carefully avoided; or, if unhappily committed, corrected as soon as it is discovered. Dr. Robinson is undoubtedly mistaken in placing the scene of the miracle in question on the east side of the lake of Tiberias, and his mistake has betrayed him into several others worse than itself, and they have all been copied by other writers, who relied upon his

accuracy.

Tradition seems to be right in this instance, and the reputed scene of the miracle to be the true one. It is near the road from Nazareth to Tiberias, and not far from the latter place, which agrees with John vi. 23, which the Doctor and his followers have all overlooked. There were two places near the lake called Bethsaida-one near Tiberias, called Bethsaida of Galilee (John xii. 21), and the birthplace or residence of three of the Apostles (i. 44), and the other, which was afterward called Julias (Josephus, Ant. xviii. 11, 1), at the head of the lake on the east of the Jordan. Dr. R., misled by another mistake about the use of Tégav in the New Testament, which is commonly rendered the other side,' or 'beyond,' and partly also by other circumstances, places the scene of the miracle near the latter place, which is irreconcilable with John vi. 23, already referred to. He says that Téρav, or rather the other side,' which occurs in all the three accounts of the miracle, 'is in the New Testament almost exclusively applied to the country east of the lake and the Jordan' (Researches, iii. 278), which is not the case. It occurs twentythree times in the New Testament, and in ten of these it certainly refers to places on the west of the lake and the Jordan, and is at least doubtful in eight more, so that there are only four passages in regard to which the Doctor is right. In the Septuagint épav is often used both for this side' and 'the other side,' and sometimes for both in the same passage (Num. xxxii. 19; 1 Sam. xiv. 4). In John vi, 22 it evidently refers to Tiberias or its vicinity, and

should be rendered 'this side;' and again, in ver. 25, it as evidently refers to Capernaum or its vicinity, and should have been rendered 'the other side;' but both places were on the west side of the lake. It also refers to opposite sides in Mark v. 1, 21. The shore of the lake is neither a straight line nor a regular curve, but, according to Lamartine, is indented with a number of bays, or inlets, running in between projecting headlands or promontories, and régav occurs in different passages where it refers to the other side' of one of these bays or headlands, and that even when a cursory view would induce us to think that it referred to 'the other side' of the lake. Of this we have an instance in John vi. 1: 'Jesus went over, or to, the other side of the sea of Galilee.'

6

It appears to have been at, or near, Tiberias, that our Lord, on returning from Jerusalem to the lake, met with his disciples, and received their reports of their mission, and heard of the death of John the Baptist. He was followed by a crowd to the scene of the miracle, and, as many who were there belonged to Tiberias, and followed him to Capernaum next day, it can hardly be doubted that they formed at least a part of the crowd who went to the scene of the miracle along with him. But he did not go over to the other side of the lake, but only crossed a bay, and again came to land on the same side. Many of those whom he had left on the land, observing to what place he directed his course, ran thither on foot, and arrived before him (Matt. xiv. 13; Mark vi. 33). This, however, they could not have done had he gone over to the other side of the lake; and more especially at the time of the passover, when the Jordan was in flood, and not fordable at either end of the lake.

It appears, from a comparison of the particulars given, that our Lord must have landed near to the place where Tiberias now stands, which is fully a mile further up the lake than its ancient site, as its ruins show. Between the two places there is a recess in the land, and a narrow strip of low ground runs round the bay along the foot of the mountain from the one place to the other, so that the crowd were able, through this communication, to meet him when he came to land. Here the mountain rises abruptly, and the reputed scene of the miracle lies a little beyond its brow, which so far agrees with John vi. 3, which says, that he went up into the mountain, and there sat down with the disciples. Though the place is said to have been nigh to Tiberias,' it was within the territory or district of land belonging to Bethsaida, and consequently near to it likewise. Luke ix. 10.

Not far from the reputed scene of the miracle, and in the direction between it and the plain of Gennesareth, are the ruins

called Irbid, which Pococke identifies with Bethsaida, having heard it called by that name, but slightly altered, by the inhabitants of the district, a fact which Dr. Robinson disputes, or tries to explain away, while he himself identifies it with the Arbela of Josephus and the Betharbel of Hos. x. 14. Both may be rightBeth Tsida is the Syriac, and was probably the Hebrew form of the name. El, in Betharbel, may be an addition to the name Betharb, as it is in Jephthah-el and Megdal-el, the names of places in the same quarter (Josh. xix. 27, 38), and Beth Arb and Beth Tsaid admit the same signification—namely, the home, or place of frequent resort, for the lier in wait for prey, such as the hunter, the fisher, or the robber. Lying on the principal line of communication between the plain of Esdraelon and the country to the south of it, and the upper Jordan with the country beyond it, the cave of Árbela, in the face of the mountain, is admirably fitted for a den of robbers, and was, according to Josephus, for a long time the haunt of banditti, who kept the country in trouble, and defied every attempt to suppress them, till they were rooted out by the energy of Herod (Wars, i. 16, 2-4). This, at least, is clear from the Scriptures, that the scene of the miracle was ‘nigh to Tiberias,' at some distance up from the lake, and in a place belonging to Bethsaida;' and these particulars, taken in connection, show decidedly that Bethsaida could not have been far from Irbid.

After the miracle our Lord directed the disciples to go before him by water to the other side, while he dismissed the multitudes, not unto, but gos, towards Bethsaida, or as near to it as they could go by water (Mark vi. 45). This shows that he meant, as it were, to meet them by land, and that Bethsaida was on his way. The disciples must have understood him in this light. They required to be constrained to comply with his directions; which shows that they wished to accompany their Master, and leave the owners of the boat to take it round. It has been already stated that the land recedes between the sites of the ancient and the modern Tiberias, near the latter of which the boat must have been lying, where there is another headland, beyond which the mountain recedes again, leaving the beautiful plain of Gennesareth between its foot and the shore. Now, as the disciples landed in the plain of Gennesareth (Mark vi. 53), the other side' can only mean that of the promontory. The shortest and most direct way from the

a

These appear from their mode of speaking, Matt. xiv. 33, 'Thou art certainly the son of a God,' to have been Gentiles or heathens, probably Gadarenes from the other side, who Josephus says were Greeks; and who seem, from the device on their civil medals, namely, a Trireme fully equipped, to have been much engaged in the traffic on the lake,

reputed scene of the miracle passes by Irbid, and comes down to the lake at Mejdel, at the foot of the plain; and it can hardly be doubted that the disciples expected their Master to take it, and that they wished to accompany him rather than to go round by

water.

Bethsaida is again mentioned (Mark vii. 22), and that in a connection which points us to the very same place.. Our Lord had come from the north to the lake, 'through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis,' which were chiefly on the east of the lake and the Jordan, and he must therefore have arrived on its eastern shore, from which he came over by water from Magdala, in the plain of Gennesareth (Matt. xvi. 39), and from Magdala he came to Bethsaida in its neighbourhood. Dr. Robinson thinks that this must have been Bethsaida of Gaulonitis, because he went from it to Cæsarea Philippi. But that is no reason at all, especially as the main road from the plain of Esdraelon, &c., toward Cæsarea Philippi passed by Bethsaida of Galilee, and he might have gone from the latter as readily as from the former. Mark represents our Lord as coming to Bethsaida, and as going from it to Cæsarea Philippi, from which it may be inferred that the courses were opposite, which was the case provided Bethsaida of Galilee be meant, but not otherwise.

The disciples had scarcely set sail when they were met by a strong head wind, which retarded their progress so much that they had only made about 3 miles by six o'clock in the morning, when they came to the land in the plain of Gennesareth, whither they went (John vi. 19, 21; Mark vi. 48, 53). This corresponds exactly with the distance between the modern Tiberias and the lower end of the plain of Gennesareth, and their course towards Capernaum, which lay nearer to the head of the lake (John vi. 17).

was

Though the scene of the miracle is spoken of as a desert place, it appears to have been near to a pretty densely inhabited neighbourhood, as the disciples recommended the people to be sent to the towns and villages round about for the purpose of getting such refreshments as they required, which 5000 people could not have got on a short notice from a few thinly scattered houses. Josephus tells us that in this very place he had on a certain occasion 10,000 armed men concealed among the villages, for the purpose of suppressing a disturbance which he expected to take place in Tiberias when he had the command in it, and such a force could not have been concealed in a few houses.

Taking all these particulars together, they show decidedly that the scene of the miracle was near Bethsaida of Galilee, and that it was at or near Irbid, as Dr. Pococke believed.

This point determined will assist us in identifying the site of Capernaum, with respect to which Dr. Robinson is also mistaken. Assuming the scene of the miracle to have been at Bethsaida of Gaulonitis, and reasoning from that groundless assumption in connection with the fact that the disciples landed in the plain of Gennesareth, he concludes that Capernaum must have been there. 'After the miraculous feeding of the 5000,' says he, on the eastern shore of the lake, three of the Evangelists relate that the disciples took ship to return to the other side; according to Matthew and Mark, when they were thus gone over they came into the land of Gennesareth. But John relates more definitely that the disciples, on setting off from the eastern shore, went over the sea towards Capernaum.' From what has been already shown the attentive reader will see at once that this is a false gloss upon the text. None of the disciples relate that the scene of the miracle was on the eastern shore, and John does not say, either, that they set off from the eastern shore, or went over the sea, but only towards Capernaum, which they did, calling at the plain of Gennesareth in passing it. As the Doctor appears to lay some stress on Aegάsavтes, being gone over, in Matt. xiv. 34, Mark vi. 53, it is proper to observe that it may mean no more than they passed along coastwise. It is used in this way Acts xxi. 2; for a voyage from Miletus in Asia Minor to Phenicia in Syria, on the same continent, must be coastwise; and Josephus used it in speaking of one from Tiberias to Tarichea, on the same side of the lake, and only about three miles distant. (Life, 58.)

go

The disciples would have preferred accompanying their Master, whom they evidently expected to go by land, as his orders to before him towards Bethsaida, on the other side, intimated his intention to meet them there; which shows that they anticipated no serious difficulty by the way. Yet the Tiberians, on finding our Lord at Capernaum, and knowing that he did not go with the disciples, and that no other boat had passed along, were at a loss to know how he had got along, and asked him by what conveyance he had come, which warrants the supposition that there must have been difficulties on the way which did not exist between the scene of the miracle and the plain of Gennesareth, and consequently that Capernaum must have been beyond Gennesareth, leaving space between them for these difficulties (John vi. 22, 25). Tell Hum, which is nearer to the head of the lake, is believed by many to be the remains of Capernaum, and there are difficulties between the plain of Gennesareth and it which will account for the curiosity of the Tiberians on the occasion. There are two roads from the plain to the Jordan-one being a rough and