|
John mentions neither Bethsaida nor Gennesaret in connection with the feeding or the sailing afterwards, but he concurs in the general location of the miracle-site: somewhere across7 the sea from these west-coast towns. The west-coast town he refers to is Capernaum. They sail away from the miracle site "toward Capernaum" (6:17), and reach their destination (6:21), which, again, from 6:24, appears to be Capernaum. John reiterates that the feeding was across from the lake from Capernaum (6:24-25).
Kuhn makes a muddle of the Biblical text. In dealing with Mark, he writes, "In 6:45 the original goal of the journey in the direction of Bethsaida (in the Gaulanitis) could be traditional, since in 6:52 the evangelist puts the boat not around Bethsaida but rather at the site or in the area of Gennesaret in Galilee" (Kuhn and Arav, 78). This sentence gives the impression that 6:45 refers to the journey to the feeding-site, when it actually places it after the feeding. Kuhn uses some very peculiar reasoning: the fact that Luke omits the interval between Mark 6:45 and 8:22--the only two verses where Mark mentions Bethsaida-- "proves that Luke was aware of the section Mark 6:45--8:26" (79, footnote 4).
Kuhn awkwardly paints over the problem attributing the awkwardness to Luke "Not adhering to Markan tradition, Luke somewhat awkwardly transfers the feeding site of the five thousand in 9:10 to Bethsaida" (Kuhn and Arav, 78). Yet, this should strengthen Kuhn's case, since the other three Gospels assert that the feeding took place somewhere other than the west shore of the sea. Kuhn has evidently failed to see the geographic convergence of Mark, Matthew, and John.
Luke's Evidence
The locations of Gennesaret and Capernaum (west shore) are virtually undisputed. Three of the Gospels make it clear that the feeding took place across from these towns. Luke's geographical clues here are weak, but his political and situational clues are highly suggestive. After a pericope that takes place in Capernaum, he tells us that "Jesus went aside privately into a deserted place belonging to the city called Bethsaida" (9:10). By itself, this tells us nothing about Bethsaida's location. But Luke had just told us that Herod had become "perplexed" (9:7) with Jesus: it was being worded that he was a prophet, maybe even John (the Baptist) returned from the dead. Immediately after telling us of Herod's sudden interest in Jesus, we are told of Jesus' withdrawal to the Bethsaida region. Bethsaida-Julias was just outside Herod Antipas' territory, in the domain of his brother Philip Herod, who never showed any hostility to Jesus. Withdrawal into Gaulanitis may have been necessary to avoid arrest or other hostile attention from Herod Antipas. "It seemed advisable therefore to take refuge... the tetrarchy of his tolerant brother, Herod Philip."8
We must admit that this is unproved; as evidence for the feeding taking place to the east of the Jordan, it require surmise, and surmise can be faulty. Luke is the only one who does not clearly state that the feeding was east of the Jordan, yet he gives us the strongest reason for a withdrawal to the east side.
Still, if we use our evidence conservatively, we must state that Luke is vague about which side of the lake the feeding took place on, although definite about the name of the nearest town. The other three evangelists are noncommittal about the name of the feeding-site, but are definite about its being across from the west shore.
On balance, we are left with the distinct possibility that there is no fundamental disagreement among the evangelists about any point except which village or city is meant by "Bethsaida." If Luke's Bethsaida is Julias in Gaulanitis, and the Bethsaida of the others is a fishing-village "of Galilee," as John pointedly says (in 12:21, in a different connection), then there is no contradiction, only an unfortunate failure to clarify.
There is evidence of attempted geographic clarification by early copyists. Besides the variants in Luke mentioned above, there is an important variant in Mark. The phrase "to the other side" found in most Mark manuscripts, is probably9 omitted in one third-century papyrus. If this is an attempted harmonization with Luke, it fails, since we still have the disciples sailing from Luke's Bethsaida to Mark's Bethsaida. But it shows us that by the third century, there was already confusion among Christians about the location(s) of Bethsaida(s). Some Latin copyists boldly (my characterization) changed "to Bethsaida" to "from Bethsaida."'10
One of the problems is that each individual evangelist only refers to a single Bethsaida. Christian scholars alike have tried to settle on one location for that name, but have been unable to harmonize the two sets of geographic clues from the first century authors.
The Synoptic evangelists show no awareness of a problem; only John, with his "Bethsaida of Galilee," makes any effort to spell out the location of his Bethsaida (although Mark's Bethsaida seems to be close to Gennesaret).
John is the last of the four Gospels, and on several points (for instance, on the resurrection) he seems to intend to correct his predecessors. The specification "of Galilee" seems to be a very pointed identification of which Bethsaida was the home of Philip, Andrew, and Peter. Mark has Peter and Andrew living in Capernaum (1:29). However, if Bethsaida was merely the seaside district of Capernaum, the two terms could be interchangeable.
|
|
