In the added verse of the LXX, after Jos 15», a Peor In Judah is noticed. This was also known in the 4th cent. A.D. {Onomasticon, s.v. Fogor) as near Bethlehem. It is the present ruin Faghur, north-west of Bethlehem, and, though named from
the same deity, is quite a distinct site.
LlT»RATTTRR.— 3fm». Ecust Poi. Surve;/. vol. i^ for Minyeh and El-MarciKhlt, under those names, and Hem. Wat f'al. Survei/, ToL Ui. sheet xvil. tor the Judean site. C. R. CONDER.
BETHPHAGE {Bve<f>ar^i), Mt 21i, Mk 11', Lk 19^. — A village near Bethany, which see. The site is unknown. The name means ' place of figs.' See Neubaner, G^og. Tal. s.v. for the Tal- mudio notices, which do not, however, suffice to fix the site. C. R. Condkr.
BETH-RAPHA (k?-) n'S), perhaps ' house of the giant,' 1 Ch 4'^. Perhaps not a geographical name. See Rephaim.
BETH-REHOB (n'ln-rn'S, i oIkm 'Paa^, Jg 18", 2 S 10', in V.' 'Rehob'; apparently also Rehob of Nu 13-'). — A district of Sjrria near Hamath. From its situation in the valley in which lay Uan, or Laish ( Jg IS*'- ^), Robinson was led to suggest Uunin, which commands the plain of Hflleh. If Rehob means a ' broad place or ' boulevard,' it could hardly be at Hunin. Thomson would place Beth-rehob at Banias. (See Reuob.)
A. Henderson. BETHSAIDA (BTjffiratSd, ' House of Sport,' or ' Fisher-home '). — Opinion is much divided as to whether this was the name of two places, or only of one, on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. That one B. stood to the east of the Jordan, near its entrance into the lake, in the district of Lower Gaulonitis, is beyond dispute. It was this village, ' situated at the Lake of Gennesaret,' that Phuip ' advanced to the dignity of a city, and called it by the name of Julias, the same name with Cseaar's daughter' (Jos. Ant. xvm. ii. 1; see also Ant. XVIII. iv. 6 ; BJ n. ix. 1 ; lU. x. 7 ; Life, 71, 72, 73 ; and Jerome, Com. on Matthew, 16"). This corresponds to Bethsaida of Lk 9'°, near which was the ' dessrt place' of Mt 14" and Mk 6", where the 5000 were fed. Codex K stands alone, possibly as the result of an interpolation, in describing the scene of this miracle as near ' to Tiberias.' In this neighbourhood also probably lay the ' desert place ' where the 4000 were also miraculously supplied, whence Jesus sailed with his disciples to ' the parts of Dalmanutha,' in 'the borders of Magadan' or ' Magdala,' returning thence ' to the other side,' 'toB.'(Mtl5«-»», MkS'-*').
As to the existence of a second B., west of the Jordan, on the lake shore, there is great diversity of opinion ; but where such authorities as Reland, Robmson, Stanley, and Tristram agree, there is at least a presumption in their favour. Thomson {Land and Book, ii. p. 423) suggests that the Jordan may have divided the town, the western part being ' in GalUee,' the eastern part being that 'which Philip repaired and called Julias. In Smith {DB, art. 'Bethsaida'), it is suggested that ' if there was only one B. it waa probaLTy near the mouth of the Jordan, and perhaps, like Kerak (Taricha^a), surrounded by the river, and so liable to be included at one period in Galilee, and at another in Gaulonitis.' G. A. Smith {Hist. Geog. p. 458) says : ' B. in Galilee need not mean that it lay W. of the Jordan, as the province of Galilee ran right round the lake, and included most of the level coast-land on the E.' But none of these suggestions quite satisfies the requirements of the Gospel story. The feeding of the 5000 took place on the other side of the sea from Capernaum, near B. Juliets. Thence Jesus sent His di.sciples ' to go before him unto the other side, to B.*^ (Mk 6-"). Jolm (6") describes them as going ' over the sea to- wards Capernaum.' B., whither they were sent, and Capernaum, were therefore practically in the same direction from the place where they em- barked. This could not be true of B. Julias and Capernaum, even if the latter were at Tell Fliim, wluuli is most unlikely (see CArERNAUM). If, on tlie otlier hand, Capernaum were at KhAn Minyeh, and B. say at et-J'dhgha, the direction from the E. coast woiild be practically identical, and a very slight deflection from its course by the storm would be sufficient to bring the boat to land in Gennesaret. Again, it would be difficult to prove that the ' province of Galilee ran right round the lake.' Josephus is indeed guilty of confusion in speaking of J-ndaa of Gamala, who headed a reroll
BETHSAIDA
15ETH-SHEMESH
•262
against the Romans, now as a Gaulonit« {Ant. xvm. i. I) and again as a Galilean {Ant. xvill. i. 6), but nowhere does he indicate that the district of Ganiala belonged to Galilee. It is true that subsequently, for military purposes, Ganiala, 'as the strongest city in these parts," was put under Joeephus along \nth the two Galilees {BJ II. xx. 4), but he was careful to distinguish what belonged to the dilTerent prov-inces. Thus he says that along with other cities ' in Gaulonitis ' he fortified Gamala {BJ U. ii. 6). Jesus retired to B. on hear- ing of the murder of John the Baptist, and the presumption is that he went out of the jurisdiction of Ilerod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee. If B. Julias had been in the province of Galilee, Philip would hardly have ventured to interfere with it. But Josephus explicitly says it was in 'Lower Gaulonitis' {BJ u. ix. 1). For 'B. of (ialilee' we must therefore turn to westward of the Jordan.