they did, if nothing farther was said; therefore, to fix the point of their destination, we are told, in answer to the query, "To what part of the western shore were they directed to go?" "To that part which was near or opposite to Bethsaida." The objection which may arise, that a place on the western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on the east, is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the western shore, not by the whole breadth of the lake, but simply by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than twenty yards wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very near the city. And this is what shows the topographical justness of the term, "over against," given by Scott, and the French commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite, but down the western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as Capernaum was, would not be very near Bethsaida, nor much less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual illustration of the literal and the liberal translations of the word.
Macknight ably answers another argument, which has been offered to defend the location of Bethsaida on the western shore, founded on John vi. 23. "There came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread," as if Tiberias had been near the desert of Bethsaida, and consequently near Bethsaida itself. "But," as Macknight remarks, "the original, rightly pointed, imports only, that boats from Tiberias came into some creek or bay, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread." Besides, it should be remembered that the object of those who came in the boats, was to find Jesus, whom they expected to find "nigh the place where they ate bread," as the context shows; so that these words refer to their destination, and not to the place from which they came. Tiberias was down the lake, at the south-western corner of it, and I know of no geographer who has put Bethsaida more than half way down, even on the western shore. The difference, therefore, between the distance to Bethsaida on the west and to Bethsaida on the east, could not be at most above a mile or two, a matter not to be appreciated in a voyage of sixteen miles, from Tiberias, which cannot be said to be near Bethsaida, in any position of the latter that has ever been thought of. This objection, of course, is not offered at all, by those who suppose two Bethsaidas mentioned in the gospels, and grant that the passage in Luke ix. 10, refers to the eastern one, where they suppose the place of eating bread to have been; but others, who have imagined only one Bethsaida, and that on the western side, have proposed this argument; and to such the reply is directed.
For all these reasons, topographical, historical and grammatical, the conclusion
of the whole matter is—that there was but one Bethsaida, the same place being meant
by that name in all passages in the gospels and in Josephus—that this place stood
within the verge of Lower Gaulanitis, on the bank of the Jordan, just where it passes
into the lake—that it was in the dominions of Philip the tetrarch, at the time when it
is mentioned in the gospels, and afterwards was included in the kingdom of Agrippa—that
its original Hebrew name, (from (
Hebrew characters) beth, "house," and (Hebrew characters), tsedah, "hunting, or fishing," "a house of fishing," no doubt so called from the common pursuit of its
inhabitants,) was changed by Philip into Julias, by which name it was known to
Greeks and Romans.
By this view, we avoid the undesirable notion, that there are two totally different places mentioned in two succeeding chapters of the same gospel, without a word of explanation to inform us of the difference, as is usual in cases of local synonyms in the New Testament; and that Josephus describes a place of this name, without the slightest hint of the remarkable fact, that there was another place of the same name, not half a mile off, directly across the Jordan, in full view of it.
The discussion of the point has been necessarily protracted to a somewhat tedious length; but if fewer words would have expressed the truth and the reasons for it, it should have been briefer; and probably there is no reader who has endeavored to satisfy himself on the position of Bethsaida, in his own biblical studies, that will not feel some gratitude for what light this note may give, on a point where all common aids and authorities are in such monstrous confusion.
For the various opinions and statements on this difficult point, see Schleusner's, Bretschneider's and Wahl's Lexicons, Lightfoot's Chorographic century and decade, Wetstein's New Testament commentary on Matt. iv. 12, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Fritzsche, Macknight, &c. On the passages where the name occurs, also the French Commentary above quoted,—more especially in Vol. III. Remarques sur le carte geog. sect. 7, p. 357. Paulus's "commentar ueber das neue Testament," 2d edition, Vol. II. pp. 336-342. Topographische Erlaeuterungen.
Lake Gennesaret.—This body of water, bearing in the gospels the various names
