This leaves room for the natural presumption to tell in favour of Tell Hum. And the identification is. confirmed by the 'fact that the pilgrim Theo- dosius (c. 530 A.D.), coming from the West, arrived at Heptapegon before he came to Capernaum : tliis lie would have done if it were at Tell Hum, but not if it had been at Khun Minyeh (Ittn.
270
CAPEENAr:\r
CAPERNAUiM
Micros, p. 138; cf. JThSt v. 44). Other indica- tions, wliether Biblical or derived from the narra- tives of the pilgrims, are all indecisive.
Just for a time there was a certain swing of tlie
Eendulura (which may be said to have reached its eight in the last decade of the last century) in favour of KMn Mini/ch. But the balance of tlie criticism of the last fifty years is pretty clearly on the side of Tell Eiim. But absolutely decisive results can only be obtained, if at all, by thorough and systematic excavation.
4. Capernaum and Bethsaida. — The two ques- tions of Capernaum and Bethsaida are so closely connected, that a word should be added upon tlie latter. The onlj' Bethsaida in these parts known to general history is that of which Ave have just
rken as located at et-Tell to the east of the dan. It has often been thought necessary to postulate a second Bethsaida, which is most com- monly placed at the bay of et-TAbigha. The main reasons for this are two. (a) In Jn 12=', the Beth- saida of the Gospels is described as ' Bethsaida of Galilee,' whereas Bethsaida Julias was, strictly speaking, in Gaulanitis (BJn. ix. 1 ). (b) The phrase fi's t6 wepaf in Mk 6*^ seems to imply that Bethsaida was on the opposite side of the Lake to the scene of the Feeding of the Five Thousand. These reasons are, however, insufficient to warrant the invention of a second Bethsaida so near to the first, and itself so wholly hypothetical. In the bay of ct- f&biaha there are no ruins to prove its existence. On the other hand, (o) there is evidence enough to show that ' Galilee ' was often loosely used for the country east of Jordan and of the Lalce (BJ II. xx. 4, ni. iii. 1 ; Ant. XVIII. i. 1, 6) ; and the geo- grapher Ptoleniseus speaks of Bethsaida Julias as 'in Galilee,' just as St. John does (Buhl, GAP p. 242). Political boundaries were so shifting, and the adjustments of territory in these little princi- palities were so constantly changed, that a loose use of terms grew up, and the more familiar names were apt to displace the less familiar. (6) The phrase eit rb iripav cannot be pressed ; it might be used of an oblique course from any one point on the shore of the Lake to any other : Josephus ( Vita, § 59) uses iieirepauiBrfv of taking ship from Tiberias to "Tarichese, wliich are on the same side of the Lake, and very little farther from each other than Bethsaida from the scene of the miracle.
5. References in the Gospels. — So far as our Lord had any fixed headquarters during His Galilean ministry, they were in Capernaum. It is called His 'own city' [iSia ir6\i%) in Mt 9'. The same close connexion is implied by the special reproach addressed to the city in Mt 11=^ ( = Lk 10'^). The public ministry, in 'the more formal sense, was opened here by the call of the four leading Apostles (Mk l'«-2") ; and here, too, were the labours ofAvhich we have a graphic and typical description on the Sabbath that followed (Mk 1='-"||). We have re- peated mention of a particular house to which our Lord resorted, which was probably St. Peter's. During the early part of His ministry He must have spent much time here, but during the latter part His visits can have been only occasional.
Perhaps we should be right in inferring from the presence of the 'centurion' (Mt S'"-, Lk T-"") that Herod Antipas had a small garrison here. St. Luke tells us that this centurion, though a GentUe, had buUt the synagogue of the place. Is it too sanguine to believe that this was the very building the remains of which are still most con- spicuous among the ruins? There appears to be good reason for the view that they are really the remains of a synagogue. A comparison with similar buildings elsewhere in Galilee brings out the distinctive features of the ground plan, and the presence of religious emblems seems to render
this probable. The richness of the architecture (cf. pi. xvii. in the present \ATiter's Sacred Sites oj the Gospels) may seem to suggest that the ruins date from the palmy days of Galileean Judaism (A.D. 140-300), and Schiirer refers them to this period. But there is one argument that perhaps points in a different direction. There was a syna- gogue at Chorazin hardly less elaborate than that at Capernaum, though with its ornaments cut in the black basalt, and not in limestone (Wilson, Eccovery, ii. 3, 4, 7). Now, we know that when Eusebius wrote his Onomasticon, the site of Chor- azin was already 'deserted' {Onamast., ed. Kloster- mann, p. 174). This desertion is not likely to have been very recent. And it is perhaps after all more probable that elaborate building took place at a time when Galilee had a prince of its own \nt\i architectural ambitions, who must have gathered around him a number of skilled artificers at Tiberias. The Herods were all builders ; and the period of their rule was probably that in which Galilee enjoj'ed the greatest material prosperity.