© 2006 Jan Herca (license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0)
Bethsaida is one of the most frequently mentioned towns in the Gospels. However, even today experts argue about its correct location. Surprising hypotheses are being considered, such as that there was not actually one town called Bethsaida, but two. In this article I will summarize all the evidence and arguments that have been found regarding the possible locations, compare them with the mentions of Bethsaida in The Urantia Book, and draw a conclusion that I will use for the writing of Jesus of Nazareth[1]. The final result, as the reader will see, has been unexpected and interesting.
I will examine three types of evidence: the ancient texts that have come down to us with mentions of Bethsaida, the geological studies of the Sea of Galilee, and the archaeological finds found so far. I will then examine the conclusions reached by different experts over the last two hundred years of research.
¶ Literary evidence
First of all, Bethsaida is mentioned 7 times in the gospels:
— Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles performed in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, clothed in sackcloth and sitting in ashes. [Mt 11:21. The passages before and after allude to the fact that Bethsaida, along with Capernaum and Chorazin, were the places of greatest activity of Jesus. This leads us to suppose that these places must have been very close to each other.]
Then he told his disciples to get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, toward Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowds. [Mc 6:45. The passages before and after allude to Jesus and his disciples having sailed from a “deserted place” (here we are not given its name) and that although they were heading toward Bethsaida, contrary winds drove them ashore at Gennesaret.]
They came to Bethsaida and brought to Jesus a blind man, asking him to touch him. [Mc 8:22. The above passages allude to Jesus and his disciples sailing from “the region of Dalmanutha” to the other side, where Bethsaida was.]
On their way back, the apostles reported to Jesus all that they had done. He took them with him and withdrew to a solitary place, to a town called Bethsaida. [Lk 9:10. The mention does not clarify their location.]
— Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles performed in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, clothed in sackcloth and sitting in ashes. [Lk 10:13. Identical to Mt 11:21.]
Philip was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter. [Jn 1:44. It does not say anything about his location.]
These came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.” [Jn 12:21. Here Bethsaida is clearly identified with a town in the kingdom of Galilee, that is, in the territory of Herod Antipas.]
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentioned it on several occasions:
He also raised the village of Bethsaida, situated on Lake Gennesaret, to the status of a city, adding inhabitants and securing fortifications, and called it Julias, the same name as Caesar’s daughter. [AJ 18:2.1]
It seems that the name change of the town took place around the year 30, the year of Jesus’ death, but we do not get its location from there.
…when [the Jordan River] has traveled another one hundred and twenty stadia, it first passes the city of Julias, then flows through the middle of Lake Gennesaret; then it flows a long way through a desert, and ends at Lake Asphaltitus. [BJ 3:5.1]
From the description it seems to be saying that Julias, the ancient Bethsaida, was located before the mouth of the Jordan in the Sea of Galilee.
Rabbinic literature also mentions it. It is often referred to as “Saydan,” but these references are often unclear. At that time, the city of Sidon had the same Semitic root (saidan or saidon means fisherman). But a couple of references do seem to hint at a location:
Rabbi Yehoshua brought to Emperor Hadrian “pheasants from Saydan” as one of three proofs that the land of Israel was not without any luxury. Introduced from Asia, pheasants became part of local agriculture. [Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 2:8]
Patriarch Shimon Ben Gamaliel recalls how one day in Saydan, he was given a basket containing three hundred kinds of fish. [Jerusalem Talmud, written in Tiberias, Shekalim 50a, ch. 6, halakah 2]
Bethsaida was a city of Talmudic sagas, including Abba Yudan (Gurion) of Saydan, and Rabbi Yose of Saydan (4th century), a fisherman by profession. He was known as Yose Hahorem, that is, Yose the Dredger, because he skillfully used the herem or dredge net, a type of net widely used in the Sea of Galilee.
Bethsaida is also mentioned, either as such or as Julias, in non-Jewish sources. In the first century the Roman historian Pliny the Elder refers to Julias and Hippos as “lovely towns on the eastern shore of the lake.” The second-century geographer Ptolemy places Bethsaida among the cities of Galilee, although he does not specify where.
The ancient pilgrims of the Holy Land have also left us references in their writings to the mysterious city.
Theodosius (6th century) describes the route of the holy places on the western coast: “Two miles from Tiberias is Magdala; two miles farther are the Seven Springs [Tabgha]; two miles farther is Capernaum; six miles from Capernaum is Bethsaida.” Furthermore, the pilgrim Theodosius comments in his diary that Bethsaida was not only the birthplace of Simon Peter and Andrew, but also of James and John. Where did he get this information, which is not in the gospels?
Around 725, Willibald, an Englishman who became a bishop in Germany and was later canonized, also visited the holy sites on the lake. Fifty years after his visit, he dictated his memoirs to a nun, who wrote them down. Willibald spent a night in Bethsaida, and claimed to have seen a church in Bethsaida on the site of the house of James and John. We know that there was a church in Capernaum, the ruins of which have been found, and that pilgrims refer to this church as standing on the site of the house of the “prince of the apostles,” that is, of Peter. What is this church then? No archaeological remains of any church have been found at the supposed sites of the experts.
The pilgrim Theodoric wrote in 1172 that the Jordan River flowed between Bethsaida and Capernaum, and a 12th-century map shows Bethsaida on the eastern shore of the lake.
Some 13th-century travellers speak of a “Bethsaida of Galilee” on the west coast of the lake near Tabgha. In 1564 a Portuguese traveller, Pantaleon of Aveiro, wrote that he went from Tiberias to Bethsaida and there found a small settlement of Jewish fishermen. A Jewish immigrant from Portugal was his host, and gave him fish to eat. Did D’Aveiro visit Tabgha, an excellent fishing spot, according to Mendel Nun, an expert fisherman of the Sea of Galilee?
On the Palestine Exploration Fund map drawn by Major Claude Reignier Condor about a hundred years ago, two Bethsaidas are shown, one to the east of the lake and the other, marked with a question mark, to the southwest of Tabgha, at the site of Khan Minya, where today is the pumping station of Israel’s National Water Carrier. The Bible Atlas published by George Philip & Son (London), also shows these double indications (see fragment in the image above).
¶ Analysis of the passage of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes
As we have seen, none of the literary evidence clearly and unmistakably places Bethsaida in one location. The references are too diffuse and open to multiple interpretations. While the evangelist John speaks of a Bethsaida in Galilee, which should therefore be on the western shore of the lake, Josephus clearly places it east of the Jordan.
Perhaps the most complete Gospel account that helps us to investigate the location is the supposed miraculous feeding of the multitude with a few loaves and fish. The passage is one of the very few fragments that has an equivalent in all four Gospels (Mk 6:30-56, Mt 14:13-34, Lk 9:10-17, and Jn 6:1-21).
If we base ourselves on the assumption, which may be erroneous, that the four evangelists are well informed about what happened and tell the story without making mistakes, we can try to unite all the variants in a single account, which would follow the following scheme:
- The disciples arrive and tell Jesus about their progress (Mc and Lc).
- Jesus asks them to go away alone and they go by boat to a deserted place (Mc and Mt), towards Bethsaida (Lc), on the other side of Tiberias (Jn).
- The people see them leaving and follow them (Mc, Mt, Lc and Jn), going on foot along the coast and arriving even before Jesus and his disciples (Mc and Mt).
- Jesus teaches the crowd and then feeds them through a miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes (Mc, Mt, Lc and Jn).
- The crowd tries to proclaim Jesus king (Jn).
- He asks the disciples to leave (Mc and Mt) while he withdraws to a mountain to pray (Mc, Mt and Jn).
- The disciples travel by boat towards Bethsaida (Mc), to the other shore (Mt), towards Capernaum (Jn).
- The headwind prevents them from moving forward (Mc, Mt and Jn).
- Jesus walks on water (Mc, Mt and Jn), invites Peter to do so (Mt), and gets into the boat (Mc and Mt).
- They arrive at their destination (Jn), but it is finally Genesaret (Mc and Mt).
- Jn is the only one who comments in a later passage that the crowd follows them in boats, finding Jesus again in Capernaum.
Many commentators have seen a great contradiction between the boat journeys described in Luke and Mark. Luke says that Jesus and his disciples went to Bethsaida, but Mark says that they went to a deserted place and from there they returned to Bethsaida. How is this possible? Did they set out and arrive at the same place?
The exegetes who did not see a contradiction in these passages developed the theory of the “two Bethsaidas”, that is, that there were two cities called Bethsaida. One on the west coast, probably a simple fishing village, and another on the east coast, of greater importance, which was elevated to the category of city by Philip establishing his residence there, renaming it Julias. And it is a theory that, as we will see, explains many things very well.
¶ Geological evidence
Geological studies of the Sea of Galilee carried out by experts differ so markedly in their conclusions that it is clear that something is wrong with one of their approaches.
According to archaeologist Mendel Nun, a former fisherman on the lake and one of the most knowledgeable experts on ancient fishing habits on the Sea of Galilee, in Jesus’ time the level of the Sea of Galilee was lower than it is today, so the northern shoreline was further away than it is today. The justification he offers is the formation, a thousand years ago, of a second estuary in the south.
This new estuary, located a kilometre and a half further south, competed to channel the waters for several hundred years. During this time, the old channel became clogged, while the new channel, which was narrower, was unable to drain the annual floods of the lake, so the sea level gradually rose, until it was one metre above the previous maximum level.
The rising water began to flood the less protected fishing villages, such as the port of Hippos, now Kefar Akavya, or the port of Gadara. In the area of el-Araj, where Mendel Nun proposes the location of Bethsaida, the erosion and destruction was the greatest, since the plain of Beteiha, where el-Araj is located, was the most unprotected area of the lake.
According to geologist John F. Schoder and geographer Moshe Inbar, both members of the team that claims to have discovered evidence that et-Tell is the correct site, a succession of events occurred in Jesus’ time that pushed the shoreline of the Sea of Galilee from the vicinity of et-Tell to as much as 2 km! beyond. To do this, they use the conjunction of three theories: an elevation of the surrounding land caused by tectonic movements (the “shore-up” model), an extraordinary deposit of materials eroded by the surrounding streams (the “shore-out” model) and finally, although not as significant, a lowering of the waters of the Sea of Galilee. In other words, in Jesus’ time the water level was higher than today.
Although archaeological evidence, as we will see below, indicates that many ancient ports, dating back to the Roman era, lie beneath the water, these experts only speak of “fluctuations” in the physiognomy of the coast, as if it were the surrounding terrain that was moving and not the water that was rising or falling.
How can such a disparity of opinion be possible among experts? According to Mendel Nun, the water level has risen over the last two thousand years, and has done so equally along the entire coast, and there has been no major sedimentation in the el-Araj area. According to Schoder and Inbar, the water level has fallen, and the different sedimentation in various areas of the lake would explain, together with elevations of the terrain, why in some areas the ports are under water, and in others, such as at et-Tell, they are too high.
Clearly, some of these views are incorrect. But why is the shape of the coast at the time of Jesus so important? This interest is because conclusive evidence of what the coast looked like could rule out a site. In the case of el-Araj, if it were shown that the water level was higher, that would imply that it could not have been the site of Bethsaida, leaving only et-Tell as the only possibility.
¶ Archaeological evidence
So far, the only site that has been thoroughly excavated is the hill of et-Tell, a mound about two kilometers northeast of the mouth of the Jordan River into the Sea of Galilee. Here a team led by archaeologist Rami Arav has unearthed remains from the Early Bronze Age, the Iron Age, and the Greco-Roman period. The archaeological remains found from the latter period are incontestable: a population existed on this hill during the time of Jesus. The pottery and coins found confirm this. Remains of fishing tools have also been found, but as Mendel Nun rightly points out, they are not even close to being significant. Hundreds of weights for nets and many other objects would have been typical for a coastal town.
As for buildings, it must be said that the dimensions of et-Tell are ridiculous for the great city that Josephus tells us Bethsaida became when it was renamed Julias. Josephus mentions that the city was enlarged, and that its defensive walls were reinforced. However, according to the maps that accompany Rami Arav’s second volume on the discoveries at et-Tell on a CD, the dimensions of the city could not have been more than 210 m by 90 m. Even the dimensions of the ruins of the small village of Capernaum are larger! Moreover, there is no trace of the defensive walls. How then can the et-Tell team claim that this was Josephus’ Julias?
A Roman-period dwelling has been unearthed with a large courtyard and only two large side rooms. This home-like appearance is not at all like the typical houses huddled around a simple courtyard in the ruins of Capernaum. Moreover, I doubt that 20 such houses could fit on the site. But even so, the optimistic archaeologists at et-Tell still make room for a Roman temple and a possible palace.
They claim to have discovered evidence of an ancient dock to the southwest of the hill, but that is nothing more than a wall next to a natural pool formed by a fountain. A wall has nothing to do with a jetty, they are two completely different types of construction, so I do not see it as clear that this wall was part of the port of ancient Bethsaida.
As for other sites, the only one that has been proposed as an alternative is el-Araj. However, excavations there have been shallow and have been quickly abandoned. El-Araj is a narrow, flat strip of land along the coast, east of the mouth of the Jordan, easily flooded and marshy, forming part of what is known as the Beteiha plain.
The first survey of the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, conducted after the Six-Day War of 1967 and the exodus of the Syrian army, was carried out in July-August 1973 by Dan Urman, the secretary of the Israel Association of Archaeological Expeditions. Urman then reported that at el-Araj several Arab buildings remained in ruins and structures dating from the Greek and Roman periods. “On the site one can distinguish the tops of walls, architectural elements, and also a public building. A superb Corinthian capital was also discovered on the site.”
In 1987, the et-Tell team carried out a survey at el-Araj. The survey was conducted during March and April, when many marshy areas are flooded, so there was little ground to choose from. A 4 x 4 metre square was taken as a test, and only remains from the Byzantine period and later were found. With this cursory and biased survey, the team led by Rami Arav decided that el-Araj should be ruled out as a site for Bethsaida, and they focused exclusively on et-Tell. Despite numerous surveys conducted at et-Tell, no new surveys have been carried out at el-Araj by this team to date.
A more recent survey of the site at el-Araj, under the Israel Antiquities Authority, was carried out in the fall of 1990 by a team led by Yosef Stepansky. According to an appendix by team member Mendel Nun, Stepansky wrote in his report:
There are ancient ruins on the mound in the centre of the site (from the Greek to Crusader periods), which have been investigated and described many times. The present investigation recorded architectural elements that had not been reported before, including a piece of a basalt frieze. Remains of ancient buildings were recorded to the north and north-west of the mound and debris from the early Roman period (Herodian lamps and terra sigillata bowls) and the late Roman period were collected. These finds indicate that the identification of the site with Bethsaida cannot be excluded.
Mendel Nun goes on to say that remains of round buildings, some 5 m in diameter, were found, perhaps watchtowers. Also remains of a heart-shaped column, typical of Jewish synagogues, as other sites have attested. It should be noted that at et-Tell not a single architectural remnant was found that would lead one to suspect the existence of a synagogue.
Mendel Nun claims that el-Araj, which is just a thin strip off the coast, hides the ruins of ancient Bethsaida beneath it, and that even more remains are still hidden beneath the waters, which were submerged. Because the area has become swampy, excavation is complicated and laborious. Perhaps this is the reason why no systematic archaeological excavation has yet been carried out in this area, which may be hiding ruins of invaluable interest.
On the left is Tabgha (Bethsaida), the home of several apostles. On the right, et-Tell and el-Araj, the two sites disputed for identification with Bethsaida-Julias.
¶ Expert theories
The sites of et-Tell and el-Araj have been well known since the heyday of biblical archaeology in the early 19th century. What did the most famous archaeologists say about this dubious affair of Bethsaida?
Edward Robinson, considered one of the fathers of biblical archaeology, identified et-Tell as Bethsaida Julias in 1838, but he also firmly maintained the existence of a second Galilean Bethsaida at Tabgha! Where could he have come up with the idea of Tabgha? Robinson most likely believed all four Gospel accounts were true, and so supported the theory of the two Bethsaidas.
The Frenchman Victor Guérin, in 1875, agreed with Robinson in identifying et-Tell with Bethsaida Julias, but added that el-Araj must have been a port suburb of the city.
In 1884, Laurence Oliphant, an English Christian Zionist settled in the area, saw significant remains at both el-Araj and et-Tell, but did not choose either.
Some years later, Gottlieb Schumacher again confirmed that there were some very significant remains at el-Araj. He even saw foundations of considerable size and the roadbed of a Roman road that seemed to lead to et-Tell, which made him think that et-Tell could have been the site of Philip’s mansion, and ruled out et-Tell as a fishing village, although he established a possible link by means of lagoons between the two sites.
Around 1912, Gustav Dalman, after visiting the area, concluded that et-Tell must have been a kind of acropolis of Bethsaida and the site of Herod Philip’s palace, and that there must have been a Roman road linking et-Tell and el-Araj.
In 1929, Rudolf de Haas visited the site and described how an Arab resident in the area had discovered a very beautiful Roman mosaic, which he did not hesitate to show him, but which he soon had to cover up again so as not to endanger his own home. De Haas considered only the possibility that Bethsaida was el-Araj, but also claimed that et-Tell could be connected by water to the coast.
In 1946, Karl-Erich Wilken visited the site and discovered the existence of numerous Roman remains from the time of Jesus at a shallow depth. He also stated that et-Tell must have been the residence of Philip, but that the city itself was el-Araj.
Only in recent years has the et-Tell hypothesis gained momentum, thanks to the numerous finds discovered there by the consortium led by Rami Arav, and the absence of serious research in other areas.
However, archaeologist Mendel Nun, who discovered the ancient harbour docks in the 1980s during a prolonged drought, has spoken out against this exclusionary stance, stating in several articles that the ruins of Bethsaida still await beneath the waters of el-Araj.
As we can see, these two centuries of research never ruled out any site as valid. There was irrefutable evidence placing both sites in the time of Jesus.
¶ My conclusion
It has not been easy for me to come to a conclusion because the more one reads about this fascinating subject, the more doubts arise about the choice. However, I have reached a certain level of satisfaction with a possible solution.
First of all, I do not support the idea that Bethsaida was just one town. In Jesus’ time it was very common to have nearby towns with the same name. For example, in those times there were two towns called Julias, two Caesareas, two Bethlehems, two Bethanias, etc. In my opinion, and following some of the ancient archaeologists who started the idea, there were two Bethsaidas.
It is only through the existence of two towns called Bethsaida that the gospels make sense. One evangelist could be wrong, but not all four at once. To describe one of the Bethsaidas, Mark and Matthew speak of a “deserted place” (Mc 6:32, Mt 14:15), but Luke expressly says that it was Bethsaida (Lc 9:10), and John places it on the east coast, saying that it was on the other side of Tiberias (Jn 6:1). This Bethsaida to which they go first would be Julias. To describe the other Bethsaida, Mark expresses it clearly by saying “Bethsaida, on the other side”, that is, the west (Mc 6:45), Matthew only says “on the other side”, but John is emphatic and affirms that it is “towards Capernaum” (Jn 6:16). This second Bethsaida must therefore be near Capernaum, where according to John the crowd meets them the next day. Nor should it be far from Gennesaret, where according to Matthew and Mark they ended up docking, no doubt due to the strong winds, which must have deviated the boat.
In my opinion, Bethsaida, located on the west coast, was called “Bethsaida of Galilee”, as the evangelist John says in Jn 12:21, or simply “Saydan”, as in the rabbinical treatises. It was located in present-day Tabgha, where very clear remains of an ancient dock from the time of Jesus have been found. Tabgha turns out to be located between Gennesaret (present-day Guinosar) and Capernaum, coinciding very well with the Gospel account. It was from this Bethsaida that the family of the apostles Andrew and Peter, the family of Philip, and also the family of Zebedee came, as the first pilgrims attested. One more reason to understand Jesus, who chose as his first followers a group of acquaintances (since Capernaum was so close to Bethsaida, they would undoubtedly have known each other). Furthermore, due to its proximity to Capernaum, it is very likely that Jesus made frequent visits to this village to preach.
I imagine this western Bethsaida to be a modest village similar to Capernaum or even smaller, with some 700 to 800 inhabitants, and very dependent on Capernaum. Only three kilometres separate the two, which is about a forty-minute or one-hour walk. Perhaps Bethsaida did not have its own synagogue and the inhabitants went to the one in Capernaum. It was like a kind of suburb of Capernaum, but because it was located on a particularly fruitful coastal strip for fishing, it remained a population centre for some time.
As for the eastern Bethsaida, I think it was located at el-Araj, as Mendel Nun claims. But this Bethsaida was practically irrelevant to Jesus. He hardly preached there, did no miracles, and at most was in the surrounding area, but in a “deserted place.” This location fits el-Araj very well. South of el-Araj there are only remains of quays for a few kilometers, which indicates that apart from the city of Bethsaida there were no other important settlements nearby.
This eastern Bethsaida was the great city called “Julias” that Herod Philip expanded during the lifetime of Jesus, until it became the capital of his tetrarchy and his habitual residence.
The city, situated on the plain opposite el-Araj, was to be grandiose, in the style of Tiberias, the city of his half-brother, Antipas. A great defensive wall was to protect all sides of the city, enclosed between circular defensive towers as described by some archaeologists. Philip probably had a large mansion, his residence, within the city walls.
So what is there at et-Tell? Well, in my opinion, the least important part of the whole story. Simply a temple to Caesar in the style of the one at Caesarea Philippi, with some adjoining buildings, and the mausoleum of Herod Philip, where he was buried in 34 AD. It must be remembered that this son of Herod was a king who often showed himself to be very grateful to the Roman rulers. Temples to Roman gods or to the rulers themselves were very typical. This reminds me of an inscription above the city of Pella, on the Jordan, which shows the drawing of a temple on a nearby hill. Promontories or high hills were ideal places to locate a religious center. Probably a road would link up with the “acropolis,” as some archaeologists have so aptly described.
How then can we explain all the finds at et-Tell? Well, the few fishing gear found clearly speak of offerings or objects carried by the locals, but not of continued use in-situ. Curiously, one of the most significant finds has been a small ritual shovel for incense, a very common object in temples for making offerings. The large number of coins also confirms that there were quite a few transactions there, probably the result of the business of the existing temple. But nothing more. This place must not have had any special significance for Jesus, and much less for his apostles. That is why the team of archaeologists working there have not found any trace of a church in the area, as the ancient pilgrims said. However, there are “three” important churches near Tabgha, some with really old mosaics. Most likely, beneath the foundations of one of these churches are the remains of the church-house supposedly the home of “James and John Zebedee,” according to ancient pilgrims.
¶ The Urantia Book
What about The Urantia Book? Many passages in The Urantia Book, although one must be careful and carefully locate them, offer insight into the location of Bethsaida. And they completely coincide with my conclusions.
According to UB 129:1.4 “Zebedee was a moderately well-to-do man; his boatbuilding shops were on the lake to the south of Capernaum, and his home was situated down the lake shore near the fishing headquarters of Bethsaida.” In UB 139:1.1 Andrew’s father, “now dead, had been a partner of Zebedee in the fish-drying business at Bethsaida, the fishing harbor of Capernaum.” In UB 139:3.1 James “was married, had four children, and lived near his parents in the outskirts of Capernaum, Bethsaida.” Furthermore, when The Urantia Book mentions one Bethsaida and the other there is no doubt because it uses Bethsaida to designate the one located to the west (UB 129:1.2, UB 129:1.4, UB 129:3.3, UB 129:3.4, UB 137:2.3, UB 137:5.1, UB 137:5.2, and others) and Bethsaida-Julias to designate the one located to the east (UB 138:9.3, UB 149:0.1, UB 152:2.1, UB 152:2.4 and others). The proximity of Bethsaida to Capernaum further explains the continued use throughout The Urantia Book of the terms Capernaum and Bethsaida interchangeably, something which we have already seen the evangelists also seemed to do.
¶ Future discoveries
In short, as I see it, the two Bethsaidas, and not one, that surely existed, are still waiting for the shovels and brushes of archaeologists. In my opinion, the team working at et-Tell is mistaken in its efforts to portray these ruins as the city of Bethsaida-Julias, and I think they should pay the same attention to el-Araj. Also, why has no one excavated at Tabgha, where remains of an ancient dock have been found?
Interestingly, I draw from my conclusions the fact that the Bethsaida of Jesus, the one he visited most frequently, is not even a concern of archaeologists today. All the current discussion is focused on determining whether the correct site is et-Tell or el-Araj. But the theory of the two Bethsaidas, which was widely accepted by the early researchers, now seems to be forgotten without all possible sites having been thoroughly excavated. Although there are ruins of a quay in front of Tabgha, no one seems to have bothered to survey the surrounding ruins for buildings. All archaeological excavations at Tabgha are confined to the foundations of existing churches, from what I have been able to read.
But I am sure that one day, new discoveries will finally determine who was right in this whole controversy…
¶ Addendum: el-Araj Excavation Project
When this article was first published in 2006, I had no doubt that further archaeological campaigns would eventually confirm my assumptions. In 2017, a recent discovery was reported in the media around the world. At el-Araj, the suspected site of the ruins of Bethsaida-Julias, remains from the Roman period were found in a stratum below the Byzantine period remains. The team of archaeologists led by Dr. Mordechai Aviam has uncovered mosaics from a bathhouse and a rare silver coin. Subsequent campaigns by this team, the el-Araj Excatation Project, have produced many more finds that provide evidence of the existence of a city in the area.
How many things we still have to discover in this fascinating puzzle that is the life of Jesus and his times!
¶ References
-
Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund, Bethsaida, a city by the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, Truman State University Press, two volumes and one CD, 1999.
-
Mendel Nun, Articles, available at Jerusalmen Perspective.
-
Mendel Nun, Has Bethsaida finally been found?, Ein Gev kibbutz.
-
Mendel Nun, The desert of Bethsaida, Ein Gev kibbutz.
-
Mendel Nun, Let down your nets, Ein Gev kibbutz.
-
Mendel Nun, Sea of Galilee, newly discovered harbors from New Testament days, map of the Sea of Galilee included in the book.
-
Betsaida and The Urantia Book, Ken Glasziou, The Brotherhood of Man Library, Vol. 3. No. 3, 1996.
-
Betsaida-Julias and Bethsaida of Galilee, Stephen Finlan, The Brotherhood of Man Library, Vol. 3. No. 3, 1996.
-
Tabgha and Bethsaida, pages of the Near East tourist agency . (Broken links, use Internet Archive - tabgha and Internat Archive - bethsaida)
-
Where is Biblical Bethsaida, extracted from [Bible Archeology Report] (https://biblearchaeologyreport.com)
¶ Notes
This book is the novel «Jesus of Nazareth», a biography about the Master based on The Urantia Book that is in preparation by the author. ↩︎