|
called these fishermen from their nets. And a cosmopolitan origin for the apostolic group leaves unexplained the aversion that the group seemed to have for the major cities of Galilee; they never visited Sepphoris or Tiberias. Nor do we have any record of them being in Bethsaida of Gaulanitis, only in a piece of country belonging to a Bethsaida, in fact, near some "villages" (Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12). The only big city which the Gospels tell of the apostles and Jesus visiting, was Jerusalem, which every Jew was obligated to visit on holy days. Their attendance at Passovers in Jerusalem (spelled out most clearly by John) indicates a traditional devoutness on their part.
The Gospels give a consistent picture of the apostles as a rustic, devout, west-shore group. The cosmopolitan and religiously loose city of Bethsaida-Julias in the Gaulanitis contradicts this picture at every point. Philip Herod erected his gravestone apparently within the city,16 something not allowed by Jewish law. These stark contradictions are not addressed by the advocates of the one-Bethsaida theory.
The problem of two Bethsaidas is no greater than the problem--the fact--of two Bethlehems, two Hazors, two Beth-shemeshes, two Tripolis, two Caesareas, two Antiochs17--or, in fact, two cities in the Transjordan named Julias, one in Gaulanitis and one in Perea (Kuhn and Arav, 89) Actually, it may be less of a problem, if readers understood the frame of reference of the authors they were reading: with Mark, Matthew, and John, the focus was on the Jewish homeland: with Luke, the whole Mediterranean--particularly cities of importance in the administration of the empire--is the setting. The fairly important city in the Gaulanitis and the tiny village in the Galilee (hardly more than a sea-side suburb of Capernaum or Gennesaret) are not comparable in terms of their international connections.
One of the most feeble theories is that there were two Bethsaidas in close proximity, at et-Tell and el-Araj.18 This is really just a variation of the one-Bethsaida theory, for el-Araj would be nothing but a suburb of the first. It appears to be an attempt to "let the Bible off the hook"--which is neither necessary nor scientific. Sailing from one to the other of these "Bethsaidas" would never put one "in th middle of the lake." (Mark 6:47).
The Biblical evidence clearly speaks of a Bethsaida on the west shore (Mark and John), and of another one "across" the lake (Luke, supported by Josephus; supported also by the other three evangelists as concerns general direction, though they do not refer to the Bethsaida in Gaulanitis by name.)
Pilgrim Evidence
Eusebius, in the fourth century, is our earliest post-biblical witness. He knows of only one Bethsaida. He uses a phrase from Josephus, and seems to have et-Tell in mind (Kopp, 17). Kopp says the next two pilgrim testimonies have no geographic worth, but Theodosius in 530 places Bethsaida six miles north of Capernaum: a slight overstatement but in the neighborhood of et-Tell.
Kuhn (p.83) refers to Theodosius' account as "the oldest pilgrim itinerary," although we have seen that Kopp's more thorough investigation considers it to be the fourth testimony. Kuhn then jumps to the twelfth century, discussing errant identifications of el-Minyeh with Bethsaida. We have seen that Kopp had already dismantled these mis-identifications in his 1950 article, showing the stronger tradition that el-Minyeh is Gennesaret (20ff).
Next, "Arculf (670) describes the... course of the Jordan. It flows 'past a town called Julias' and then enters the lake of Gennesareth. Julias had ahmost certainly long since lost its artificial name. Thus it is surprising that he does not call the town Bethsaida" (Kopp,18)--unless it needed to be distinguished from another Bethsaida.
The record of the pilgrim Daniel (1106) is important, because it occurs before the Crusaders have had a chance to alter or add to local traditions. He seems to locate Bethsaida at el-Minyeh, but he also speaks of a "village of Zebedee, the father of John," which he locates on Tell el-'Oreimeh or at Tabgha hospice" (Kopp, 27).
Niccola da Poggibonsi in 1345 writes of the Galilean Lake beginning between Bethsaida and Capernaum," and he mentions no western Bethsaida, although he visited the west shore (Kopp, 19). In the 15th and 16th centuries witnesses located Bethsaida at various places along the western shore, including Tabgha (Kopp, 31).
Variant traditions persisted for a west-shore location, for a northeast location, or for two Bethsaida. Most pilgrims speak of a single site, rather than two. It is clear that the memories of the actual locations of these towns were lost soon after the New Testament period. Bethsaida-Julias may have been abandoned after the Jewish war (Kuhn and Arav, 97)19 while the Galilean Bethsaida, little more than the "fisher-town" of Capernaum or Gennesaret appears to have lost its name or to have been assimilated to its parent-town.
The two Bethsaida theory was accepted by the earliest scientific observers: "The renowned theologian and archaeologist from New York, Edward Robinson, although he himself in his diary from 1838 identified et-Tell as Julias-Bethsaida in the Gaulanitis--as the Anglican bishop Richard Pococke, who visited Palestine exactly one hundred years before him had done20--still firmly maintained a second Galilean Bethsaida, which he identified with Tagbha21" (Kuhn and Arav, 84). In 1738 Pococke was "shown the ruins of the biblical
|
|
