From two separate passages in the gospels, we learn that the name
of the father of Simon Peter was Jonah, but beyond this we have no
direct information as to his family. From the terms in which Peter is
frequently mentioned along with the other apostles, we infer, however,
that he must have been from the lowest order of society, which also
appears from the business to which he devoted his life, before he
received the summons that sent him forth to the world, on a far higher
errand. Of such a humble family, he was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee,
on or near the shore of the sea of Galilee, otherwise called lake
Tiberias, or Gennesaret. Upon this lake he seems to have followed his
laborious and dangerous livelihood, which very probably, in accordance
with the hereditary succession of trades, common among the Jews, was
the occupation of his father and ancestors before him. Of the time of
his birth no certain information can be had, as those who were able
to inform us, were not disposed to set so high a value upon ages and
dates, as the writers and readers of later times. The most reasonable
conjecture as to his age, is, that he was about the same age with
Jesus Christ; which rests on the circumstances of his being married
at the period when he was first called by Christ,――his being made the
object of such high confidence and honor by his Master, and the eminent
standing which he seems to have maintained, from the first, among the
apostles. Still there is nothing in all these circumstances, that is
irreconcilable with the supposition that he was younger than Christ;
and if any reader prefers to suppose the period of his birth so much
later, there is no important point in his history or character that
will be affected by such a change of dates.
_Bethsaida._――The name of this place occurs in several passages
of gospel history, as connected with the scenes of the life of
Jesus. (Matthew xi. 21; Mark vi. 45, viii. 22‒26; Luke ix. 10,
x. 13; John i. 45, xii. 21.) The name likewise occurs in the
writings of Josephus, who describes Bethsaida, and mentions some
circumstances of its history. The common impression among the
New Testament commentators has been, that the Bethsaida which is
so often mentioned in the gospels, was on the western shore of
lake Gennesaret, near the other cities which were the scenes of
important events in the life of Jesus. Yet Josephus distinctly
implies that Bethsaida was situated on the eastern shore of the
lake, as he says that it was built by Philip the tetrarch, in
Lower Gaulonitis, (Jewish war, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,)
which was on the eastern side of the Jordan and the lake,
though not in _Peraea_, as Lightfoot rather hastily assumes; for
Peraea, though by its derivation (from περαν, _peran_, “beyond,”)
meaning simply “what was beyond” the river, yet was, in the
geography of Palestine, applied to only that portion of the
country east of Jordan, which extends from Moab on the south,
northward, to Pella, on the Jabbok. (Josephus, Jewish war, book
iii. chapter 3, section 3.) Another point in which the account
given by Josephus differs from that in the gospels, is, that
while Josephus places Bethsaida in Gaulonitis, John (xii. 21,)
speaks of it distinctly as a city of Galilee, and Peter, as well
as others born in Bethsaida, is called a Galilean. These two
apparent disagreements have led many eminent writers to conclude
that there were on and near the lake, two wholly different
places bearing the name of Bethsaida. Schleusner, Bretschneider,
Fischer, Pococke, Reland, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, and
others, have maintained this opinion with many arguments. But
Lightfoot, Cave, Calmet, Baillet, Macknight, Wells, and others,
have decided that these differences can be perfectly reconciled,
and all the circumstances related in the gospels, made to agree
with Josephus’s account of the situation of Bethsaida.
Illustration: TIBERIAS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE.
Mark i. 16. John vi. 1.
The first passage in which Josephus mentions this place, is in
his Jewish Antiquities, book xviii. chapter 2, section 1. “And
he, (Philip) having granted to the village of Bethsaida, near
the lake of Gennesaret, the rank of a city, by increasing its
population, and giving it importance in other ways, called it
by the name of Julia, the daughter of Caesar,” (Augustus.) In
his History of the Jewish War, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,
he also alludes to it in a similar connection. Speaking, as in
the former passage, of the cities built by Herod and Philip in
their tetrarchies, he says, “The latter built Julias, in Lower
Gaulanitis.” In the same history, book iii. chapter 9, section 7,
describing the course of the Jordan, he alludes to this city.
“Passing on (from lake Semechonitis,) one hundred and twenty
furlongs farther, _to_ the city Julias, it flows through the
middle of lake Gennesar.” In this passage I translate the
preposition μετα (_meta_,) by the English “_to_,” though Hudson
expresses it in Latin by “_post_,” and Macknight by the English
“_behind_.” Lightfoot very freely renders it “_ante_,” but with
all these great authorities against me, I have the consolation
of finding my translation supported by the antique English
version of the quaint Thomas Lodge, who distinctly expresses
the preposition in this passage by “_unto_.” This translation of
the word is in strict accordance with the rule that this Greek
preposition, when it comes before the accusative after a verb
of motion, has the force of “_to_,” or “_against_.” (See Jones’s
Lexicon, sub voc. μετα; also Hederici Lexicon.) But in reference
to _places_, it never has the meaning of “_behind_,” given
to it by Macknight, nor of “_post_,” in Latin, as in Hudson’s
translation, still less of “_ante_,” as Lightfoot very queerly
expresses it. The passage, then, simply means that the Jordan,
after passing out of lake Semechonitis, flows one hundred and
twenty furlongs _to_ the city of Julias or Bethsaida, (not
_behind_ it, nor _before_ it,) and there enters lake Gennesar,
the whole expressing as clearly as may be, that Julias stood on
the river just where it widens into the lake. That Julias stood
on the Jordan, and not on the lake, though near it, is made
further manifest, by a remark made by Josephus, in his memoirs
of his own life. He, when holding a military command in the
region around the lake, during the war against the Romans, on
one occasion, sent against the enemy a detachment of soldiers,
who “encamped near the river Jordan, about a furlong from Julias.”
(Life of Josephus, section 72.)
It should be remarked, moreover, that, at the same time when
Philip enlarged Bethsaida, in this manner, and gave it the name
of Julia, the daughter of Augustus Caesar, his brother Herod
Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, with a similar ambition
to exalt his own glory, and secure the favor of the imperial
family, rebuilt a city in his dominions, named Betharamphtha,
to which he gave the name _Julias_ also; but in honor, not
of the daughter, but of the wife of Augustus, who bore the
family name, Julia, which passed from her to her daughter.
This multiplication of namesake towns, has only created new
confusion for us; for the learned Lightfoot, in his Chorographic
century on Matthew, has unfortunately taken this for the Julias
which stood on the Jordan, at its entrance into the lake,
and accordingly applies to Julias-Betharamphtha, the last two
quotations from Josephus, given above, which I have applied to
Julias-Bethsaida. But it would seem as if this most profound
Biblical scholar was certainly in the wrong here; since
Julias-Betharamphtha must have been built by Herod Antipas
within his own dominions, that is, in Galilee proper, or Peraea
proper, as already bounded; and Josephus expressly says that
this Julias was in Peraea; yet Lightfoot, in his rude little
wood-cut map, (Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Marci, Decas
Chorographica chapter v.) has put this in Gaulanitis, far north
of its true place, at the influx of the Jordan into the lake,
(“ad ipsissimum influxum Jordanis in lacum Gennesariticum,”)
and Julias-Bethsaida, also in Gaulanitis, some miles lower down,
at the south-east corner of the lake, a position adopted by no
other writer that I know of. This peculiarity in Lightfoot’s
views, I have thus stated at length, that those who may
refer to his _Horae_ for more light, might not suppose a
confusion in my statement, which does not exist; for since the
Julias-Betharamphtha of Herod could not have been in Gaulanitis,
but in Peraea, the Julias at the influx of the Jordan into
the lake, must have been the Bethsaida embellished by Philip,
tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, (Luke iii. 1,) which
included Gaulanitis, Batanea, &c. east of Jordan and the
lake, and north of Peraea proper. The substance of Josephus’s
information on this point, is, therefore, that Bethsaida stood
on the eastern side of the Jordan, just where it enters lake
Gennesar, or Gennesaret, (otherwise called lake Tiberias and the
sea of Galilee,)――that it stood in the province of Gaulanitis,
within the dominions of Philip, son of Herod the Great, and
tetrarch of all that portion of Palestine which lies north
of Peraea, on the east of Jordan, and the lake, as well as of
the region north of Galilee, his tetrarchy forming a sort of
crescent,――that this prince, having enlarged and embellished
Bethsaida, raised it from a village to the rank of a city, by
the name of Julias, in honor of Julia, daughter of Augustus
Caesar. This was done during the reign of Augustus, (Josephus,
in Jewish Antiquities book i. chapter 2, section 1,) and of
course long before Jesus Christ began his labors, though after
his birth, because it was after the death of Herod the Great.
The question now is, whether the Bethsaida mentioned by
the evangelists is by them so described as to be in any way
inconsistent with the account given by Josephus, of the place
to which he gives that name. The first difficulty which has
presented itself to the critical commentators, on this point, is
the fact, that the Bethsaida of the gospels is declared in them
to have been a city of Galilee, (John xii. 21,) and those who
were born and brought up in it are called Galileans, (Mark xiv.
70, Luke xxii. 59, Acts i. 7, ii. 7.) Yet Josephus expressly
tells us, that Bethsaida was in Gaulanitis, which was not in
Galilee, as he bounds it, but was beyond its eastern boundary,
on the eastern side of the river and lake. (Jewish war, book
xviii. chapter 2, section 1.) This is therefore considered by
many, as a diversity between the two accounts, which must make
it impossible to apply them both to the same place. But there
is no necessity for such a conclusion. The different application
of the term Galilee, in the two books, must be noticed, in
order to avoid confusion. Josephus is very exact in the use of
names of places and regions, defining geographical positions
and boundaries with a particularity truly admirable. Thus, in
mentioning the political divisions of Palestine, he gives the
precise limits of each, and uses their names, not in the loose,
popular way, but only in his own accurate sense. But the gospel
writers are characterized by no such minute particularity, in
the use of names, which they generally apply in the popular,
rather than the exact sense. Thus, in this case, they use the
term Galilee, in what seems to have been its common meaning in
Judea, as a name for all the region north of Samaria and Peraea,
on both sides of the Jordan, including, of course, Gaulanitis
and all the dominions of Philip. The difference between them and
Josephus, on this point, is very satisfactorily shown in another
passage. In Acts v. 37, Gamaliel, speaking of several persons
who had at different times disturbed the peace of the nation,
mentions one Judas, the _Galilean_, as a famous rebel. Now this
same person is very particularly described by Josephus, (Jewis
Antiquities book xv. chapter 1, section 1,) in such a manner
that there can be no doubt of his identity with the previous
description. Yet Josephus calls him distinctly, Judas the
_Gaulanite_, and only once Judas the _Galilean_; showing him
to have been from the city of Gamala, in the country east of
Jordan and the lake; so that the conclusion is unavoidable,
that the term Galilee is used in a much wider sense in the New
Testament than in Josephus, being applied indiscriminately to
the region on both sides of the lake. The people of southern
Palestine called the whole northern section Galilee, and all its
inhabitants, Galileans, without attending to the nicer political
and geographical distinctions; just as the inhabitants of the
southern section of the United States, high and low, call every
stranger a Yankee, who is from any part of the country north of
Mason and Dixon’s line, though well-informed people perfectly
well know, that the classic and not despicable name of Yankee
belongs fairly and truly to the ingenious sons of New England
alone, who have made their long-established sectional title
so synonymous with acuteness and energy, that whenever an
enterprising northerner pushes his way southward, he shares in
the honors of this gentile appellative. Just in the same vague
and careless way, did the Jews apply the name Galilean to all
the energetic, active northerners, who made themselves known
in Jerusalem, either by their presence or their fame; and thus
both Judas of Gaulanitis, and those apostles who were from the
eastern side of the river, were called Galileans, as well as
those on the west, in Galilee proper. Besides, in the case of
Bethsaida, which was immediately on the line between Galilee and
Gaulanitis, it was still more natural to refer it to the larger
section on the west, with many of whose cities it was closely
connected.
Besides, that the Jews considered Galilee as extending beyond
Jordan, is most undeniably clear from Isaiah ix. 1, where the
prophet plainly speaks of “Galilee of the nations, as being
by the side of the sea, beyond Jordan.” This was the ancient
Jewish idea of the country designated by this name, and the
idea of limiting it to the west of Jordan, was a mere late
term introduced by the Romans, and apparently never used by the
Jews of the gospel times, except when speaking of the political
divisions of Palestine. The name Gaulanitis, which is the proper
term for the province in which Bethsaida was, never occurs in
the bible. Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, &c. give a different view,
however, of “beyond Jordan,” on Matthew iv. 15.
But a still more important difficulty has been suggested, in
reference to the identity of the place described by Josephus,
with that mentioned in the gospels. This is, the fact that in
the gospels it is spoken of in such a connection, as would seem
to require its location on the western side. A common, but very
idle argument, in favor of this supposition, is, that Bethsaida
is mentioned frequently along with Capernaum and other cities
of Galilee proper, in such immediate connection as to make it
probable that it was on the same side of the river and lake
with them. But places separated merely by a river, or at most
by a narrow lake, whose greatest breadth was only five miles,
could not be considered distant from each other, and would
very naturally be spoken of as near neighbors. The most weighty
argument, however, rests on a passage in Mark vi. 45, where
it is said that Jesus constrained his disciples to “get into a
vessel, to go before him to the other side _unto_ Bethsaida,”
after the five thousand had been fed. Now the parallel passage
in John vi. 17, says that they, following this direction, “went
over the sea towards Capernaum,” and that when they reached the
shore, “they came into the land of Gennesaret,” both which are
understood to be on the western side. But on the other hand, we
are distinctly told, by Luke, (ix. 10,) that the five thousand
were fed in “a desert place, belonging to (or near) the city
which is called Bethsaida.” On connecting these two passages,
therefore, (in John and Mark,) according to the common version,
the disciples sailed from Bethsaida on one side, to Bethsaida
on the other, a construction which has been actually adopted
by those who maintain the existence of two cities of the same
name on different sides of the lake. But what common reader is
willing to believe, that in this passage Luke refers to a place
totally different from the one meant in all other passages where
the name occurs, and more particularly in the very next chapter,
( x. 13,) where he speaks of the Bethsaida which had been
frequented before by Jesus, without a word of explanation to
show that it was a different place? But in the expression,
“to go before him to the other side, TO Bethsaida,” the word
“TO” may be shown, by a reference to the Greek, to convey an
erroneous idea of the situation of the places. The preposition
προς, (_pros_,) may have, not merely the sense of _to_, with
the idea of motion towards a place, but in some passages even
of Mark’s gospel, may be most justly translated “_near_,” or
“_before_,” (as in ii. 2, “not even _about_” or “_before_” the
door, and in xi. 4, “tied _by_” or _before_ “the door.”) This is
the meaning which seems to be justified by the collocation here,
and the meaning in which I am happy to find myself supported by
the acute and accurate Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti under
προς, which he translates in this passage by the Latin _juxta_,
_prope ad_; and the German _bey_, that is, “by,” “near to,”
a meaning supported by the passage in Herodotus, to which he
refers, as well as by those from Mark himself, which are given
above, from Schleusner’s references under this word, (definition
7.) Scott, in order to reconcile the difficulties which he
saw in the common version, has, in his marginal references,
suggested the meaning of “over against,” a rendering, which
undoubtedly expresses correctly the relations of objects in
this place, and one, perhaps, not wholly inconsistent with
Schleusner’s 7th definition, which is in Latin _ante_, or
“before;” since what was _before_ Bethsaida, as one looked from
that place across the river, was certainly _opposite to_ that
city. I had thought of this meaning as a desirable one in this
passage, but had rejected it, before I saw it in Scott, for the
reason, that I could not find this exact meaning in any lexicon,
nor was there any other passage in Greek, in which this could
be distinctly recognized as the proper one. The propriety of
the term, however, is also noticed, in the note on this passage
in the great French Bible, with commentaries, harmonies, &c.
(Sainte Bible en Latin et Francois avec des notes, &c. Vol. xiv.
p. 263, note,) where it is expressed by “l’autre cote du lac,
_vis-a-vis_ Bethsaide: c. a. d. sur le bord occidental _opposé_
a la ville Bethsaide que etait sur le bord oriental,” a meaning
undoubtedly geographically correct, but not grammatically exact,
and I therefore prefer to take “_near_,” as the sense which both
reconciles the geographical difficulties, and accords with the
established principles of lexicography.
After all, the sense “_to_” is not needed in this passage, to
direct the action of the verb of motion (προαγειν, _proagein_,
“go before,”) to its proper object, since that is previously
done by the former preposition and substantive, εις το περαν,
(_eis to peran_.) That is, when we read “Jesus constrained his
disciples to go before him,” and the question arises in regard
to the object towards which the action is directed, “Whither
did he constrain them to go before him?” the answer is in the
words immediately succeeding, εις το περαν, “to the other side,”
and in these words the action is complete; but the mere general
direction, “to the other side,” was too vague of itself, and
required some limitation to avoid error; for the place to which
they commonly directed their course westward, over the lake,
was Capernaum, the home of Jesus, and thither they might on
this occasion be naturally expected to go, as we should have
concluded they did, if nothing farther was said; therefore,
to fix the point of their destination, we are told, in answer
to the query, “To what part of the western shore were they
directed to go?” “To that part which was _near_ or _opposite to_
Bethsaida.” The objection which may arise, that a place on the
western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on the east,
is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the
western shore, not by the whole breadth of the lake, but simply
by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than twenty yards
wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very
near the city. And this is what shows the topographical justness
of the term, “_over against_,” given by Scott, and the French
commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite,
but down the western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as
Capernaum was, would not be _very near_ Bethsaida, nor much
less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual
illustration of the literal and the liberal translations of the
word.
Macknight ably answers another argument, which has been offered
to defend the location of Bethsaida on the western shore,
founded on John vi. 23. “There came other boats from Tiberias,
nigh unto the place where they did eat bread,” as if Tiberias
had been near the desert of Bethsaida, and consequently near
Bethsaida itself. “But,” as Macknight remarks, “the original,
rightly pointed, imports only, that boats from Tiberias came
into some creek or bay, nigh unto the place where they did
eat bread.” Besides, it should be remembered that the object
of those who came in the boats, was to find Jesus, whom they
expected to find “nigh the place where they ate bread,” as the
context shows; so that these words refer to their destination,
and not to the place from which they came. Tiberias was down
the lake, at the south-western corner of it, and I know of no
geographer who has put Bethsaida more than half way down, even
on the western shore. The difference, therefore, between the
distance to Bethsaida on the west and to Bethsaida on the east,
could not be at most above a mile or two, a matter not to be
appreciated in a voyage of sixteen miles, from Tiberias, which
cannot be said to be near Bethsaida, in any position of the
latter that has ever been thought of. This objection, of course,
is not offered at all, by those who suppose two Bethsaidas
mentioned in the gospels, and grant that the passage in Luke ix.
10, refers to the eastern one, where they suppose the place of
eating bread to have been; but others, who have imagined only
one Bethsaida, and that on the western side, have proposed this
argument; and to such the reply is directed.
For all these reasons, topographical, historical and grammatical,
the conclusion of the whole matter is――that there was but
_one_ Bethsaida, the same place being meant by that name in all
passages in the gospels and in Josephus――that this place stood
within the verge of Lower Gaulanitis, on the bank of the Jordan,
just where it passes into the lake――that it was in the dominions
of Philip the tetrarch, at the time when it is mentioned
in the gospels, and afterwards was included in the kingdom
of Agrippa――that its original Hebrew name, (from בית _beth_,
“_house_,” and צדה, _tsedah_, “_hunting, or fishing_,” “a house
of fishing,” no doubt so called from the common pursuit of its
inhabitants,) was changed by Philip into JULIAS, by which name
it was known to Greeks and Romans.
By this view, we avoid the undesirable notion, that there
are two totally different places mentioned in two succeeding
chapters of the same gospel, without a word of explanation
to inform us of the difference, as is usual in cases of local
synonyms in the New Testament; and that Josephus describes a
place of this name, without the slightest hint of the remarkable
fact, that there was another place of the same name, not half a
mile off, directly across the Jordan, in full view of it.
The discussion of the point has been necessarily protracted to a
somewhat tedious length; but if fewer words would have expressed
the truth and the reasons for it, it should have been briefer;
and probably there is no reader who has endeavored to satisfy
himself on the position of Bethsaida, in his own biblical
studies, that will not feel some gratitude for what light this
note may give, on a point where all common aids and authorities
are in such monstrous confusion.
For the various opinions and statements on this difficult
point, see Schleusner’s, Bretschneider’s and Wahl’s Lexicons,
Lightfoot’s Chorographic century and decade, Wetstein’s New
Testament commentary on Matthew iv. 12, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller,
Fritzsche, Macknight, &c. On the passages where the name occurs,
also the French Commentary above quoted,――more especially in
Vol. III. Remarques sur le carte geographique section 7, p. 357.
Paulus’s “commentar ueber das neue Testament,” 2d edition, Vol.
II. pp. 336‒342. Topographische Erlaeuterungen.
_Lake Gennesaret._――This body of water, bearing in the gospels
the various names of “the sea of Tiberias,” and “the sea of
Galilee,” as well as “the lake of Gennesaret,” is formed like
one or two other smaller ones north of it, by a widening of the
Jordan, which flows in at the northern end, and passing through
the middle, goes out at the southern end. On the western side,
it was bounded by Galilee proper, and on the east was the lower
division of that portion of Iturea, which was called Gaulanitis
by the Greeks and Romans, from the ancient city of Golan,
(Deuteronomy iv. 43; Joshua xx. 8, &c.) which stood within its
limits. Pliny (book I. chapter 15,) well describes the situation
and character of the lake. “Where the shape of the valley first
allows it, the Jordan pours itself into a lake which is most
commonly called Genesara, sixteen (Roman) miles long, and six
broad. It is surrounded by pleasant towns; on the east, it
has Julias (Bethsaida) and Hippus; on the south, Tarichea, by
which name some call the lake also; on the west, Tiberias with
its warm springs.” Josephus also gives a very clear and ample
description. (Jewish War, book 3, chapter 9, section 7.) “Lake
Gennesar takes its name from the country adjoining it. It is
forty furlongs (about five or six miles) in width, and one
hundred and forty (seventeen or eighteen miles) in length; yet
the water is sweet, and very desirable to drink; for it has its
fountain clear from swampy thickness, and is therefore quite
pure, being bounded on all sides by a beach, and a sandy shore.
It is moreover of a pleasant temperature to drink, being warmer
than that of a river or a spring, on the one hand, but colder
than that which stands always expanded over a lake. In coldness,
indeed, it is not inferior to snow, when it has been exposed
to the air all night, as is the custom with the people of that
region. In it there are some kinds of fish, different both in
appearance and taste from those in other places. The Jordan
cuts through the middle of it.” He then gives a description
of the course of the Jordan, ending with the remark quoted in
the former note, that it enters the lake at the city of Julias.
He then describes, in glowing terms, the richness and beauty
of the country around, from which the lake takes its name,――a
description too long to be given here; but the studious reader
may find it in section eighth of the book and chapter above
referred to. The Rabbinical writers too, often refer to the
pre-eminent beauty and fertility of this delightful region, as
is shown in several passages quoted by Lightfoot in his Centuria
Chorographica, chapter 79. The derivation of the name there
given from the Rabbins, is גני סרים, _ginne sarim_, “the gardens of
the princes.” Thence the name genne-sar. They say it was within
the lands of the tribe of Naphtali; it must therefore have
been on the western side of the lake, which appears also from
the fact that it was near Tiberias, as we are told on the
same authority. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament under
this name, but the Rabbins assure us that the place called
_Cinnereth_, in Joshua xx. 35; Chinneroth in xi. 2, is the same;
and this lake is mentioned in xiii. 27, under the name of “the
sea of Chinnereth,”――“the sea of Chinneroth,” in xii. 3, &c.
The best description of the scenery, and present aspect of the
lake, which I can find, is the following from Conder’s Modern
Traveler, Vol. 1. (Palestine) a work made up with great care
from the observations of a great number of intelligent travelers.
“The mountains on the east of Lake Tiberias, come close to its
shore, and the country on that side has not a very agreeable
aspect; on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the
high ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of
Gennesaret, and the foot of those hills by which you ascend
to the high mountain of Saphet. To the north and south it has
a plain country, or valley. There is a current throughout the
whole breadth of the lake, even to the shore; and the passage
of the Jordan through it, is discernible by the smoothness of
the surface in that part. Various travelers have given a very
different account of its general aspect. According to Captain
Mangles, the land about it has no striking features, and the
scenery is altogether devoid of character. ‘It appeared,’ he
says, ‘to particular disadvantage to us, after those beautiful
lakes we had seen in Switzerland; but it becomes a very
interesting object, when you consider the frequent allusions to
it in the gospel narrative.’ Dr. Clarke, on the contrary, speaks
of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery. ‘The lake of
Gennesaret,’ he says, ‘is surrounded by objects well calculated
to highten the solemn impression,’ made by such recollections,
and ‘affords one of the most striking prospects in the Holy Land.
Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer
and finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes,
although perhaps inferior to Loch Lomond. It does not possess
the vastness of the Lake of Geneva, although it much resembles
it in certain points of view. In picturesque beauty, it comes
nearest to the Lake of Locarno, in Italy, although it is
destitute of any thing similar to the islands by which that
majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in magnitude,
and in the hight of its surrounding mountains, to the Lake
Asphaltites.’ Mr. Buckingham may perhaps be considered as having
given the most accurate account, and one which reconciles,
in some degree, the different statements above cited, when,
speaking of the lake as seen from Tel Hoom, he says, ‘that its
appearance is grand, but that the barren aspect of the mountains
on each side, and the total absence of wood, give a cast of
dulness to the picture; this is increased to melancholy, by the
dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns throughout
its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is to
be found.’
“Among the pebbles on the shore, Dr. Clarke found pieces of a
porous rock, resembling _toad-stone_, its cavities filled with
zeolite. Native gold is said to have been found here formerly.
‘We noticed,’ he says, ‘an appearance of this kind; but, on
account of its trivial nature, neglected to pay proper attention
to it. The water was as clear as the purest crystal; sweet,
cool, and most refreshing. Swimming to a considerable distance
from the shore, we found it so limpid that we could discern the
bottom covered with shining pebbles. Among these stones was a
beautiful, but very diminutive, kind of shell; a nondescript
species of _Buccinum_, which we have called _Buccinum Galilæum_.
We amused ourselves by diving for specimens; and the very
circumstance of discerning such small objects beneath the
surface, may prove the high transparency of the water.’ The
situation of the lake, lying as it were in a deep basin between
the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only the
narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan, at either end,
protects its waters from long-continued tempests. Its surface
is in general as smooth as that of the Dead Sea; but the same
local features render it occasionally subject to whirlwinds,
squalls, and sudden gusts from the mountains, of short duration,
especially when the strong current formed by the Jordan, is
opposed by a wind of this description, from the south-east;
sweeping from the mountains with the force of a hurricane, it
may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea must be instantly
raised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable
to resist. A storm of this description is plainly denoted by
the language of the evangelist, in recounting one of our Lord’s
miracles. ‘There _came down_ a storm of wind on the lake, and
they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.... Then he
arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and
they ceased, and there was a calm.’ (Luke viii. 23, 24.)”
The question of Peter’s being the oldest son of his father has been
already alluded to, and decided by the most ancient authority, in
favor of the opinion, that he was younger than Andrew. There surely
is nothing unparalleled or remarkable in the fact, that the younger
brother should so transcend the elder in ability and eminence; since
Scripture history furnishes us with similar instances in Jacob, Judah
and Joseph, Moses, David, and many others throughout the history
of the Jews, although that nation generally regarded the rights of
primogeniture with high reverence and respect.