xl. [1897], p. 148) betw.Tii tin. .in logy of the
name Bethphage and the story cf the barren fig- tree. But it may be noted that the latter is associ- ated in the Gospels (Mt 21"-^-, Mk 1 1""- ="-26) with Bethany, not Bethphage. Formerly Nestle {SK, 1896, p. 323 ft'., and in his Philologica Sacra, 1896, p. 16 f.) had pointed to the possibility of con- necting, from the point of view of popular ety- mology, Bethphage (=i<y^5 n'3 'place of meeting"') and the ifupoBov of Mk 11^. Finally, another e.\- planation of Bethphage, viewed as a dwelling- place of priests (?), is furnished by Origen, and rests upon a curious combination of the Aramaic word K3S 'jaw,' with Dt 18^, whieh assigns to the priests the jaws of sacrificial victims as part of their portion.
In tne Middle Ages, Bethphage was shown to the north of Bethany, higher up the slope of the Mt. of Olives. The site of this mediicval Bethphage (which proves nothing for the Bethphage of Scrip- ture) was recovered nearly tliirty years ago, tlianks to the discovery made by the Franciscan Fathers, controlled and described by Guillemot and Clermont- Ganneau, of a stone (the fragment of an altar?) bearing inscriptions and pictures relating to Christ's entry into Jenisalera.
LmakTimE.—PBFSt. 1874, p. 173; 1878, pp. 51-61, 146-149; PEP, 'Jerusalem,' pp. 331-340; BemteArchMogique, Bee. 1S77, p. 366fl.; Reviu: Bihhqxu, 1892, p. 105 f. See also the discussion m Andrews, Life of our Lord", 429-432.
LUCIEN G.\UTIER. BETHSAIDA ('house of fishing').— The supposi- tion that there were two places on the shore of the Sea of GalUee to which this name appropriately applies has been disputed or rejected by. many writers (Buhl, G. A. Smith, Sandaj^, et al.) ; but the evidence in its favour, direct and indirect, has the support of a long list of authorities on Palestinian geography from the days of Reland to tlie present time. There are differences of opinion with respect to the precise location of both places, but there is a general agreement that one was on the east and the other on the west side; of the Jordan or its expanse into tlie Galiloean Lake. Prominent on the list of tliose who advocate two Betlisaidas are the names of Ritter, Robinson, Caspari, Stanley, Edersheim, Wieseler, Weiss, Tristram, Thomson, van de Velde, Porter, Merrill, Macgregor, and E\ving. The facts and suggestions which bear
ujion the supposition itself may be summed up as follows : —
1. Bethsaida of Gaulanitis. — The historic evi- dence for the existence and general location of this city is not disputed. Josephus describes it as a village 'situates at the Lake of Gennesaret which Philip the tetrarch advanced unto the dignity of a city, both by the number of inhabi- tants it contained, and its otlier grandeur, and called it by the name "Julias," the same name with Cwsar's daughter ' (Ant. XVIII. ii. 1). In other passages he indicates its position as in ' Lower Gaulanitis' (Jaulan), 'in Pera'a,' and as near the Jordan, which 'first passes by the city and then passes through the middle of the Lake' (BJ II. IX. 1, xiii. 2, also BJ III. x. 7, and Life, 72). In every instance, except the one above quoted, whicli gives a reason for the change of designation, Josephus drops the old name and calls it 'Julias.' Pliny and Jerome give it the same appellation, and locate it on the eastern side of the Jordan (Plin. HN V. 16 ; Jer. Com. on Mt 16^'). The modem designation, ' Bethsaida-Julias,' is not to be found in ancient history, sacred or secular. The site of the city which thus became the suc- cessor, under another name, of Betli.saida of Gaulanitis, has not been identified with certainty. After careful research. Dr. Robinson came to the conclusion that a mound of ruins, known as ct-TeU, was the most probable location of the long-lost city.
"The tell extends from the foot of the northern mountains southwards, near the point where the Jordan issues from them. The ruins cover a large portion of it, and are quite e.\tensive ; but so far as could be observed, consist entirely of unhewn stones, without any distinct trace of ancient architecture' (BiJP^ii. p. 413).
The site is over against one of the fording-places of the Jordan, and about 2 miles above its mouth. This tentative identification has been accepted by many recent explorers, but mainly for the reason that the location seems to be the most favour- able, because of its commanding position, for such a city as Josephus describes. The objections to it are its distance from the Lake, and the absence of anything which would suggest its original name — ' the house (or place) of fishing.'
Another site, to which these objections do not apply, has been suggested by Dr. Thomson at el-Mas'adiyeh, not far from the eastern bank of the rii'er, and near the Lake, ' distinguished by a few palm trees, foundations of old walls, and fragments of basaltic columns' (Land and Book, ii. 422). This -wiiter advocates the existence of a double city, lying on both sides of the Jordan, as the true solution of the Bethsaida problem, and indicates a site over against el-Mas aaiyeh, where a few ruins have been found, as the probable location of the Galilsean portion of the city. The apparent objec- tions to this site are the boggy and treacherous ground in the vicinity, and the absence of anything that would suggest the existence in former times of a fording-place or a connexion by means of bridges. AA^lson accepts Thomson's views ; and Schumacher, the noted explorer of the Jaulan region, agrees with him in locating the eastern city at el-Masadiyeh. He suggests also that the royal residence of Philip may have been on the hill at et-'feU, and the fishing village at cl-Araj, near the mouth of the Jordan, where are ruins, and that both were connected by a good road still visible (see Jaidan Quarterly Statement, April 1888). Conder, who favours et-Tcll, makes the plea on its behalf that local changes in the river delta may have increased the distance materially between this site and the head of the Lake.