Part 16 (1/2)

44 Geographical notes _Capernaum_ The site is not clearly identified, two ruins on the NW of Sea of Galilee are rival claimants,--Tell Hum and Khan Minyeh Tell Hum is advocated by Thomson, _Land and Book, Central Pal and Phnicia_ (1882), 416-420; Khan Minyeh, by SmithHGHL 456, EnBib I 696 ff Latter is probably correct See AndLOL 224-237

_Bethsaida_ The full name is Bethsaida Julias, located at entrance of Jordan into the Sea of Galilee SmithEnBib I 565f, SmithHGHL 457f, shows that there is no need of the hypothesis of a second Bethsaida to meet the statement in Mk vi 45, or that in Jn i 44 See also AndLOL 230-236 Ewing HastBD I 282f renews the argument for two Bethsaidas

_Chorazin_ was probably the modern Kerazeh, about one mile N of Tell Hum, and back from the lake See SmithEnBib I 751; SmithHGHL 456; AndLOL 237f

45 _The mountain of the sermon on the mount_ (Mt v 1; Lk vi 12) probably refers to the Galilean highlands as distinct from the shore of the lake More definite location is not possible See AndLOL 268f; EdersLJM I 524 The traditional site, the Horns of Hattin, is a hill lying about seven miles SW from Khan Minyeh, which has near the top a level place (Lk vi 17) flanked by t peaks or ”horns”

46 _The country of the Gerasenes, Gadarenes, or Gergesenes_ Gadarenes is the best attested reading in Mt viii 28, Gerasenes in Mk v 1 and Lk

viii 26; Gergesenes has only secondary attestation Gadara is identified with Um Keis on the Yarmuk, some six miles SE of the Sea of Galilee This cannot have been the site of the h it is possible that Gadarathe shores of the sea Gerasa is the nahlands of Gilead, twenty miles E of Jordan, and thirty-five SE of the Sea of Galilee, and it clearly cannot have been the scene of the miracle Near the E shore of the sea Thoe which now bears the nahborhood closely suits the narrative of the gospels This is now accepted as the true identification

See Thomson _Land and Book, Central Palestine_, 353-355; SBD2 1097-1100; HastBD II 159f; AndLOL 296-300 The name ”Gadarenes” ion of Khersa; the naesenes” may be derived directly and independently from Khersa, or may be corruptions due to the obscurity of Khersa

47 _The feeding of the five thousand_ took place on the E of the sea, in a desert region, abundant in grass, and hborhood of a place named Bethsaida Near the ruins of Bethsaida Julias is a plain called now Butaiha, ”a srassy place near the sea and the mountains,” which meets the requirements of the narrative See AndLOL 322f

48 _The return of Jesus froh Sidon”_ (Mk

vii 31) avoided Galilee, crossing N of Galilee to the territory of Philip and ”_the Decapolis_” This latter naroup of free Greek cities, situated for the roup were farther S than the Sea of Galilee; some, however, were E and NE of that sea, hence Jesus' approach froh Decapolis” See SmithHGHL 593-608; En Bib I 1051 ff; SchurerJPTX II i 94-121

49 Of _Magadan_ (Mt xv 39) or _Dalmanutha_ (Mk viii 10) all that is known is that they must have been on the W coast of the Sea of Galilee

They have never been identified, though there are many conjectures See SBD2, HastBD, and En Bib

50 _Caesarea Philippi_ was situated at the easternmost and most important of the sources of the Jordan, it is called Panias by Jos Ant xv 103, now Banias Probably a sanctuary of the God Pan Here Herod the Great built a teed the town and called it Caesarea Philippi See SBD2; HastBD; EnBib

51 _The uration_ The traditional site, since the fourth century, is Tabor in Galilee Most recent opinion has favored one of the shoulders of Her to the supposed connection of the event with the sojourn near Caesarea Philippi WeissLX III 98 points out that there is no evidence that Jesus lingered for ”six days” (Mk ix 2) near that town, and that therefore the effort to locate the transfiguration is futile GilbertLJ 274 thinks that Mk ix 30 is decisive in favor of a place outside Galilee; he therefore holds to the common view that Hermon is the true locality See AndLOL 357f

52 General questions _Was Jesus twice rejected at Nazareth?_ (comp Lk

iv 16-30 with Mk vi 1-6a; Mt xiii 54-58) Here are two accounts that read like independent traditions of the sa in the synagogue on the Sabbath, the astonishment of the Nazarenes, their scornful question, and Jesus' rejoinder Luke makes no reference to the disciples (Mk vi 1) nor to the working of miracles (Mk vi 5); Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, say nothing of an attempt at violence These differences are no more serious, however, than appear in the two accounts of the appeal of the centurion to Jesus (Mt viii 5-8; Lk vii 3-7) Moreover, Lk iv 23 indicates a tirees with the place given the rejection in Mark The general stateiven at the beginning as an instance of ”preaching in their synagogues” The three accounts probably refer to one event reported independently For identification see WeissLX III 34; Plummer on Luke iv 30; GilbertLJ 254f For two rejections see Godet's supplementary note on Lk iv 16-30; Meyer on Mt xiii 53-58; EdersLJM I

457, note 1; Wieseler, _Synopsis_, 278 BeysLJ I 270 identifies but prefers Luke's date

53 _Were there two hts of fish?_ Lk v 1-11 is sometimes identified with Jn xxi 3-13 So WendtLJ I 211f, WeissLX II 57f, and Meyer on Luke v 1-11 Against the identification see Alford, Godet, and Plue in Luke The two are alike in scene, the night of bootless toil, the great catch at Jesus' word They differ in personnel, antecedent relations of the fishermen with Jesus, the effect of theof Jesus, as well as in time These differences make identification difficult

54 _Where in the synoptic story should the journey to the feast in Jerusale in John's narrative to identify the feast, although it is his custom to name the festivals to which he refers (Passover, ii 13, 23; vi 4; xi 55; xii 1; Tabernacles, vii 2; Dedication, x 22) Even if John wrote ”the feast,” rather than ”a feast” (the MSS vary, A B D and seven other uncials omit the article), it would be impossible to decide between Passover and Tabernacles The oests either that the feast was of nificance for the understanding of the following discourse Since a year and four months probably elapsed between the journey into Galilee (Jn iv 35) and the next Passover mentioned in John (vi 4), v 1 may refer to any one of the feasts of the Jewish year The commonest interpretation prefers Purim, a festival of a secular and somewhat hilarious type, which occurred on the 14th and 15th of Adar, a month before the Passover It is difficult to believe that this feast would have called Jesus to Jerusaleainst this interpretation see EdersLJM II 765 Edershei on the 15th of Ab--about our August On this day all the people were permitted to offer wood for the use of the altar in the tee was reserved for special families See LJM II 765f; Westcott, _Coues for the feast of Trumpets, or the new moon of the month Tisri,--about our Septe of the civil year

Others have suggested Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover; the day of Atonement--but this was a fast, not a feast; and Tabernacles The majority of those who do not favor Puri the difficulty of thinking that John would refer to this feast simply as ”a feast of the Jews” Read AndLOL 193-198, re that the question th of Jesus'

the feast renders the adjustment of this visit to the synoptic story very uncertain It may be that there was some connection between the Sabbath controversy in Galilee (Mk ii 23-28) and the criticism Jesus aroused in Jerusale feasts, Passover or Pentecost, would best suit the circuement is quite uncertain

55 _Do the five conflicts of Mk ii 1 to iii 6 belong at the early place in the ns theument for a two-year ministry rests on this assumption (see SandayHastBD II 613) Holtzmann, _Hand-commentar_ I 9f, remarks that at least for the cure of the paralytic and for the call and feast of Levi (Mk ii 1, 13, 15) the evangelist was confident that he was following the actual order of events; note the call of the fifth disciple, Mk ii 13, between the call of the four, Mk i 16-20, and that of the twelve, iii 16-19 The question about fasting may owe its place (Mk ii 18-22) to association with the criticis with publicans (Mk ii 16) In like manner the second Sabbath conflict (Mk iii 1-6) may be attached to the first (ii 23-28) as a result of the identity of subject, for it is noteworthy that Mark records only these two Sabbath conflicts; moreover, the plot of Herodians and Pharisees to kill Jesus strongly suggests a later time for the actual occurrence of this criticis early, as Mark has placed it Weiss, Markusevangelium, 76, LX II 232 ff, places these conflicts late Edersheim, LJM II 51 ff, discusses the Sabbath controversies after the feeding of the multitudes RevilleJN II 229 places the first of them early

56 _The sermon on the mount_ Luke (vi 12-19 = Mk iii

13-19a indicates the place in the Galileanit to the beginning The identity of the two sermons (Mt v 1 to vii 27; Lk vi 20-49) is shown by the fact that each begins with beatitudes, each closes with the parables of the wise and foolish builders, each is followed by the cure of a centurian's servant in Capernaus which are found in each account are given in the same order

Matthew is iven in the ser found in later contexts in Luke Much of the serinal discourse, and was omitted by Luke, perhaps because of less interest to Gentile than to Jewish Christians The following sections are found elsewhere in Luke, and were probably associated with the serelist: Mt v

25, 26; Lk xii 58, 59; Mt vi 9-13; Lk xi 2-4; Mt vi 19-34; Lk

xii 21-34; xi 34-36; xvi 13; Mt vii 7-11; Lk xi 9-13; Mt vii 13, 14; Lk xiii 24 The first evangelist's habit of grouping s which he himself has duplicated later, thus: Mt v 29, 30 = xviii 8,9; v 32 = xix 9, comp

Mk x 11, ix 43-47, Lk xvi 18; Mt vi 14, 15 = Mk xi 25 Matthew vii 22, 23 has the character of the teachings which follow the confession at Caesarea Phillipi, and is quite unlike the other early teachings Itto the later time, for it was natural for the early Christians to associate together teachings which the Lord uttered on widely separated occasions The seriven es of the heirs of the kingdom of God, Mt v 3-13; Lk vi 20-26; their responsibilities, Mt v 13-16; the relation of the new to the old, Mt v 17-19; the text of the discourse, Mt v 20; the new conception of morality, Mt v 21-48; Lk vi 27-36; the new practice of religion, Mt

vi 1-8, 16-18; warning against a censorious spirit, Mt vii 16-20; Lk

vi 43-46; the wise and foolish builders, Mt vii 24-27; Lk vi 47-49

57 _The discourse in parables_ Matthew gives seven parables at this point (xiii), Mark (iv 1-34) has three, one of theives in this connection but one,--the Sower

Many think that the Tares of Matthew (xiii 24-30, 36-43) is a doublet of Mark's Seed growing secretly (iv 26-29); so Weiss LX II 209 note, against which view see WendtLJ I 178 f, and Bruce, _Parabolic Teaching of Xt_, 119 Matthew has probably roup of parables, as in chapters v to vii he has s The interpretation of the Tares, and of the Draw-net (xiii 40-43, 49, 50), an to teach plainly concerning the end of the world (Mk viii 31 to ix 1), Luke gives the Mustard Seed and Leaven in another connection (xiii 18-21), and it may be that Matthew has taken them out of their true context to associate theroup; yet in popular teaching it nized that illustrations are most likely to be repeated in different situations On the parables see Goebel, _The Parables of Jesus_ (1890), Bruce, _The Parabolic Teaching of Christ_, 3d ed (1886), Julicher, _Die Gleichnissreden Jesu_ (2 vols 1899), and the coospels