Assuming this as a possibility, the place must always have been a considerable distance from the mouth of the Jordan. It is not unlikely, how-
BETHSAIDA
BETHSAIDA
199
ever, as Merrill suggests, that the landing-place of Julias was the original site of the town, and that among the local hsliermen it retained the old name for some time after tlie building of the city of Philip, wliich would naturally he laid out on higher ground. In the only NT references which can with certainty be attributed to this place, the Evangelists make use of the older name (Lk 9'°, Mk 8^-). In the first, the scene of the miracle of the five loaves, it is described as 'a desert,' or vacant place, ' belonging to the city called Beth- saida.' All the Evan"elists concur in the state- ment that it was a place apart from the town, but evidently near it, where the native grass thickly covered the fallow ground and made a comfortable resting-place for the weary multitude. The location which fulKls all the conditions of the narrative is on the eastern ridge of the Batiha plain, in the immediate vicinity of the Lake.
In the second reference it appears that Jesus, after crossing to the other side from Dalmanutha on the west coast, came to Bethsaida en route to the towns of Cresarea Philippi. While in the city a blind man was brought to Him. It is a significant fact, in keeping with His uniform atti- tude towards the Gentile cities of this region, that He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the town, before He restored his sight. In this, says Farrar, ' all that we can dimly see is Christ's dislike and avoidance of these heathenish Herodian towns, with their borrowed Hellenic architecture, their careless customs, and even their very names commemorating, as was the case with Bethsaida-Julias, some of the most contemptible of the human race ' (Life of Christ, ch. xxxv. ).
2. Bethsaida of Galilee. — It has been alleged by some writers that the existence of a western Bethsaida was invented to meet a supposed diffi- culty in the narrative of the Evangelists. This is not a fair statement of the case. A Bethsaida belonging to the province of Galilee is designated by name as well as implied hj incidental reference. Its claims are advocated mainly, if not solely, on the ground that it is in the Gospel record. The objection sometimes urged, that the existence of two towns of the same name in such close proximity is improbable, has little weight in view of the fact that these towns were in diflerent provinces, under different rulers, and in many respects had little in common. "The name itself suggests a place favourably situated for fishermen, and might be appropriately applied to more places than one by the Lake side. But see art. Capeknaum.
The main points of tlie argument in favour of a western Bethsaida are as follows :—
(1) The direct testijnaiiy given in John's Gospel. — In one passage it is affirmed that Philip, one of the Apostolic band, was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter (1«) ; in another (1221), that Philip was of Bethsaida of Galilee. This is the testimony of one who is noted for his accuracy in ^eo- grajphical details, who knew every foot of this lake-side region, and who, in common with the other Evangelists, speaks of this trio of disciples as partners in a common industry, and as • men of Galilee.' ' Cana of Galilee ' is a similar expression in the same Gospel, and the fact that the writer mentions the province at all, in this connexion, is a strong presumptive proof that he wished to distinguish it from the other Bethsaida on the eastern side. The mention of Galilee in John's Gospel determines this place on the west of the Jordan as decidedly as that of Gaulanitis does the other Bethsaida on the east. The assertion of G. A. Smith, that the province of Galilee included most of the level coastland east of the Lake,— if it applies to Galilee in the time of Christ,— is apparently in conflict with all the evidence which the history of that time has given us. It conflicts also with the positive testimony of Josephus, who places Julias— the city which Dr. Smith associates with Bethsaida— in Gaulanitis, and under the jurisdiction of Herod Philip.
(2) The weU-attested fact that all of the Apostles, except Judas Iscanot,weremen of Galilee (Ac I'l), furnishes another corrobo- rative proof that the place of residence of the three above mentioned could not have been in the city of Philip (see also Mk 14™). They were typical Jews, and their place of employ, ment and all their associations were with their bretliren of the same faith on or near the plain of Gennesaret.
(3) In the narrative of the return journey from the place of
the feeding of the multitude, it is distinctly mentioned that the disciples embarked in a ship to go before to the * other side ' unto Bethsaida (Mk 6<5). If the word 'unto' stood alone, there might be some ground for the supposition that the disciples aimed at sailing along the shore towards Julias, but in the de- scription which follows, the Evangelist makes it plain that the ' otlier side,' as he uses the expression, meant the west shore of the Lake. 'And when they had passed over, they came into the land of Gennesaret.' The parallel accounts convey the same impression and are equally decisive on this point (Mt 1422-34, JnClii). It is true that John adds that 'they went over the sea towards Capernaum,' but there is no discrepancy between the several statements if Robinson is right in identifying Beth- saida with 'Aiji et-Tdbigha. The general direction would be the same, and the distance between the two points does not exceed three-quarters of a mile. In keeping with these state- ments is the mention of the fact that the multitude on the east side, noting the direction taken by the vessel in which the disciples sailed, took shipping the next day and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus (Jn622"i4). These passages, in- terpreted in their natural and ordinary sense, show that the disciples aimed at going to the western side of the Lake in obedi- ence to the command of Jesus. The contrary wind retarded their progress, but it did not take them far out of their course. The mention of Bethsaida, in this connexion, with Capernaum makes it highly probable also that its site was somewhere in the same neighbourhood.