Глава 15

1–20. Disputes and teaching regarding the “tradition of the elders.” – 21–28. Healing of the Canaanite daughter. – 29–39. Feeding four thousand with seven loaves. Matthew 15:1. Then the Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees come to Jesus and say: This entire chapter coincides in presentation with Mark 7:1–37, 8:1–10. The fact that this happened in Gennesaret is clear from Matthew 14:34, and this is indirectly confirmed by the evangelist John, who, having outlined the conversation in Capernaum, says that “after this Jesus walked through Galilee” (John 7:1). It is very likely that this was some time after the Passover, close to the events of the feeding of the five thousand. The scribes and Pharisees came from Jerusalem, as Matthew and Mark unanimously testify. These were people who were more honorable than the provincials, and were distinguished by a stronger hatred of Christ than the latter. These Pharisees and scribes were probably sent by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. Matthew 15:2. Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. In the following story, Matthew departs from Mark, who provides detailed information about what exactly the traditions of the Jewish elders were about washing their hands and why the scribes and Pharisees accused the Savior and His disciples. Mark's testimony is very well confirmed by the Talmudic information we have about these Jewish rites. The Pharisees had many washings, and their observance reached the extreme pettiness. There were, for example, different types of water that had different cleansing powers, up to six in number, and it was precisely determined which water was suitable for certain ablutions. The definitions regarding hand washing were especially detailed. Speaking about hand washing, the evangelists, and especially Mark, reveal a very close acquaintance with the then customs of the Jews, set out mainly in the small Talmudic treatise on hand washing, “Yadaim”. Hand washing, as Edersheim (1901, II, 9 et seq.) shows, mainly on the basis of this treatise, was not a legal institution, but a “tradition of the elders.” The Jews so strictly observed the ritual of washing their hands that Rabbi Akiba, being imprisoned and having barely enough water to support life, preferred to die of thirst than to eat with unwashed hands. Failure to observe ablution before dinner, which was considered an institution of Solomon, was punishable by minor excommunication (“niddah”). The Pharisees and scribes blame the disciples, and not the Savior Himself, just as they did when plucking the ears of grain. Matthew 15:3. He answered and said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? The Pharisees and scribes accuse the disciples of violating the tradition of the elders, and they themselves are guilty of violating the commandment of God. This latter is violated by “your tradition,” which relates not to ablutions, but to a completely different subject. According to Chrysostom, the Savior proposed this question, “showing that he who sins in great deeds should not so carefully notice in others unimportant actions. You should be accused, He says, but you yourself accuse others.” The Savior reveals the error of the Pharisees in that they paid attention to little things and lost sight of the most important things in human relationships. Washing hands and honoring father and mother are opposite poles in human moral relations. Both John Chrysostom and Theophylact and Euthymius Zigavinus say that the Savior here does not justify the disciples in non-compliance with petty Pharisaic institutions and admits that there was some kind of violation of human institutions on the part of His disciples. But at the same time he asserts that there was also a violation on the part of the scribes and Pharisees in a much higher sense, and, what is much more important, their tradition was to blame for this violation. The Lord here puts clavum clavo retundit. Matthew 15:4. For God commanded: honor your father and mother; and: He who curses his father or mother shall die by death. (Cf. Mark 7:10). (Quotes from Ex.20:12, 21:17; Deut.5:16; Lev.20:9). According to St. John Chrysostom, the Savior “does not immediately turn to the offense committed and does not say that it means nothing, otherwise He would increase the insolence of the accusers, but first he defeats their insolence, presenting a crime that is much more important and laying it on their head. He does not say that those who violate the decree do well, so as not to give them an opportunity to accuse Himself, but He also does not condemn the action of the disciples, so as not to confirm the decree. He also does not accuse the elders as lawbreaking and vicious people, but, abandoning all this, chooses another path and, apparently condemning those who approached Him, meanwhile concerns those who made the decisions themselves.” Matthew 15:5. And you say: if someone says to father or mother: “Whatever you use from me is a gift to God,” Matthew 15:6. he may not honor his father or his mother; Thus you have made void the commandment of God by your tradition. Matthew is almost identical with Mark, but with the omission of the word “corban” and with the replacement of Mark’s words: “you already allow him to do nothing for his father or his mother,” with other expressions set out in the first half of verse 6. The construction of the verse in Matthew is less clear than in Mark. The word "corban" is a literal translation of a frequently used Jewish votive formula that has been subject to much abuse. The basis for votive practice was given in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament (see Gen. 28:20–22; Lev. 27:2–4, 27:9–12, 26–29; Num. 6:2–3, 6:13–15, 21, 21:2–3, 30:2–17; Deut. 23:21–23; Judges 11:30–31; 1 Samuel 1:11). Subsequently, vows became the subject of Jewish casuistry. The word "korvan" was changed into "konam" "out of piety." They began to say not only “this thing is for the horses,” but also “for the horses, my eyes, if they sleep,” “for the horses, my hands, if they work,” and even simply “for the horses, that I will not sleep,” and so on (see Talmud. Trans. Pereferkovich, III, 183). The gift to God in Hebrew was called “corban” (as in Mark 7:11), and it is often mentioned in Lev. 1–3, where lambs, goats, calves brought to God as a burnt offering, peace offering or sin offering are called “corban”, i.e. "sacrifice". Gasophilakia (treasury) in the church, where offerings from the people were deposited, is metonymically called “korvan” or “korvana” Matthew 27:6. Vows could and often had to be canceled, the main reason for this being that they were repented of (harata), in which case the lawyers had to cancel them. The custom that the Savior condemns was that the scribes allowed a person with this formula to dedicate his property to the church and thus evade the obligation to help his parents. The legalistic formula was thus more sacred than the divine commandment set forth in Scripture. Matthew 15:7. Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied well about you, saying: Matthew 15:8. These people draw near to Me with their lips, and honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me; Matthew 15:9. but in vain they worship Me, teaching doctrines the commandments of men. In Mark, these words of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 29:13) were spoken by Christ before the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees. The meaning of this quotation when applied to the present case is quite clear. By observing the traditions of their elders, the Pharisees and scribes wanted to please God, because all these traditions, like all Jewish legislation in general, were of a religious nature. The scribes and Pharisees thought that by washing their hands before eating food, they were fulfilling religious requirements that were obligatory for everyone, and even more so for such religious teachers as Christ and His disciples. Failure to observe the traditions of the elders could serve both in the eyes of the enemies of Christ and in the eyes of the people as a sign of deviation from true religious teachings. But the enemies of Christ did not notice that, while observing these little things that had nothing to do with religion, they did not pay attention to more important things and violated not the traditions of the elders, but the commandments of God. From this it was clear that it was not the religion of Christ, but their own religion, that was false. They approached God only with their lips and with their tongues they honored Him. Matthew 15:10. And calling the people, he said to them: listen and understand! Having placed His enemies in a hopeless situation by the extraordinary force of His argumentation, the Savior leaves them and addresses the whole people. This is indicated by προσκαλεσάμενος - “calling” or “calling” the people who stood right there, perhaps only making way for their teachers and leaders who were talking with Christ. Matthew 15:11. It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth defiles a person. (Cf. (Mark 7:15) - with a slight difference in expressions). When the Pharisees accused the disciples of eating with unwashed hands, the Savior says that no food defiles a person. But if food does not defile, then much less eating it with unwashed hands. Here a completely new principle was set forth, which, no matter how simple it is in itself, is still not properly understood by many. It expresses the opposite idea that any food can be the cause of spiritual or religious defilement. Here Jesus Christ is obviously thinking not about legal, but about moral defilement, which has to do not with what goes into the mouth (cf. 1 Tim. 4:4), but with what comes out of the mouth (immoral speech). Judging by the context, the Savior does not speak against the Mosaic institutions, but the application of His speech to them is inevitable, so that as a result the law and its dominion are subject to material abolition. In the appropriate place in Mark they correctly find some ambiguity. Matthew substitutes the explanatory “out of mouth” instead of “out of man.” Matthew 15:12. Then His disciples came and said to Him: Do you know that when the Pharisees heard this word, they were offended? Mark and the other evangelists do not have verses corresponding to verses 12–14. But in Mark (Mark 7:17) one can find an explanatory note that is not in Matthew, and on the basis of it one can conclude that the disciples approached the Savior not in front of the people, but when He entered the house with them. However, this can also be guessed from Matthew’s testimony in verses 12 and 15 in comparison with Matthew 13:36, where almost identical expressions are used. “This word” is referred to by many as stated in verses 3–9. But it is better to understand the 11th verse here with Evfimy Zigavin. Because this “word,” if addressed to the people, could seem especially tempting to the Pharisees. The Pharisees were greatly tempted by these very words of Christ, because they saw in them the destruction and open violation of not only their traditions, but also the entire Mosaic ritual. Matthew 15:13. He answered and said: Every plant that My Heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted; According to John Chrysostom, the Savior says this about the Pharisees themselves and their traditions. The plant here serves as an image of the Pharisees as a party or sect. The thought expressed here by Christ is similar to the thought of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38). Matthew 15:14. leave them alone: ​​they are blind leaders of the blind; and if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit. According to John Chrysostom, if the Savior had said this about the law, he would have called it a blind leader of the blind. Wed. Matthew 23:16, 24. Luke (Luke 6:39) inserts a similar saying into the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 15:15. Peter answered and said to Him, Explain this parable to us. The speech coincides in meaning with the second half of the indicated verse in Mark. Meyer calls the difference from Mark 7:17 “important.” The best reading is simply “the parable”, without adding “this”. If we accept the word “this,” then Peter’s request will, of course, refer to the 14th verse. But here the question is fully explained by Mark, in whom the words of Peter undoubtedly refer to Mark 7:15, and in Matthew, therefore, to the 11th verse. The Savior's further speech confirms this interpretation. Matthew 15:16. Jesus said: Do you also not yet understand? The meaning is that even “you” - the word on which there is a special emphasis - who have been with Me for so long and studied with Me, don’t you even understand yet? Matthew 15:17. Do you not yet understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the belly and is thrown out? Mark is much more detailed: “Are you really that slow-witted? Don't you understand that nothing that enters a person from outside can defile him? Because it does not enter his heart, but into his belly, and comes out.” For the passage in question there is a parallel in Philo (De opificio mundi, I, 29), who says: “Through the mouth, according to Plato, the mortal enters, and the immortal comes out. Through the mouth food and drink enter, the perishable sustenance of the perishable body. And words, the immortal laws of the immortal soul, which govern rational life, come out of the mouth.” Matthew 15:18. but what comes from the mouth - comes from the heart - this defiles a person, What enters a person (food) does not defile him. And what comes out of his heart can defile him. A further precise explanation is given in the next verse Matthew 15:19. for from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy - Matthew 15:20. it defiles a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person. Christ did not abolish the law of Moses and did not say that every kind of food or drink is beneficial to man. He only said that no food and no methods of taking it defile a person. Matthew 15:21. And leaving there, Jesus withdrew into the countries of Tire and Sidon. In both Matthew and Mark the word “from there” is completely unclear. Origen believed that from Gennesaret, through which the Savior traveled (Matthew 14:34; Mark 6:53); but he withdrew, perhaps due to the fact that the Pharisees who listened to Him were offended by the speech about objects that defile a person. Having departed from Israel, Jesus Christ comes to the borders of Tire and Sidon. John Chrysostom, Theophylact and others, when interpreting this passage, have a lot of reasoning about why the Savior told the disciples not to follow the path of the pagans, when He Himself was coming to them. The answer is given in the sense that the Savior went to the borders of Tire and Sidon not to preach, but to “hide,” although he could not do this. From these interpretations it is clear that the Savior, contrary to popular belief, “transgressed the borders of Palestine” and, albeit a little, was in a pagan country. If we agree with this, then further history will seem somewhat clearer to us. Tire (in Hebrew “tzor” - rock) was a famous Phoenician trading city. Around the time of the conquest of the kingdom of Israel by Shalmaneser (721 BC), the Assyrians besieged it, but could not take it after a five-year siege and only imposed tribute on it (Is. 23). Around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (588 BC), Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tire and took it, but did not destroy it. In 332 BC, after a seven-month siege, Tire was taken by Alexander the Great, who crucified 2,000 Tyrians for their resistance. Tire is now called Es-Sur. From 126 BC. Tire was an independent city with a Hellenistic structure. Sidon (fishing city, fishing, fishery - the same root as [Beth]saida) was older than Tire. Sidon is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. It currently has up to 15,000 inhabitants, but its commercial importance is inferior to Beirut. Sidon is now called Saida. Matthew 15:22. And so, a Canaanite woman, coming out of those places, shouted to Him: have mercy on me, O Lord, son of David, my daughter is cruelly raging. The story given in verse 22 and further in verses 23-24 is not found in Mark or the other evangelists. Mark's expressions (Mark 7:25) are completely different from those of Matthew. Matthew and Mark call this woman by different names: Matthew - a Canaanite, Mark - a Greek (ἑλληνίς) and a Syrophoenician. The first name - Canaanite - is consistent with the fact that the Phoenicians themselves called themselves Canaanites, and their country - Canaan. Genesis 10:15–18 lists the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, with Sidon listed first. From Mark's testimony that the woman was Greek, we can conclude that she was called that only by the language that, in all likelihood, she spoke. In the Vulgate this word is translated, however, through gentilis - pagan. If this translation is correct, then the word refers to the woman's religious beliefs, not her dialect. As for the name “Syro-Phoenician,” this was the name given to the Phoenicians who lived in the region of Tire and Sidon or Phenicia, in contrast to the Phoenicians who lived in Africa (Libya) on its northern shore (Carthage), who were called Λιβοφοίνικες, Carthaginians (lat. poeni). How this woman learned about Christ and that He was the Son of David is unknown, but it is very likely that it was from rumors, because in the Gospel of Matthew there is a direct note that the rumor about Christ spread “throughout all Syria” (Matthew 4:24), which was near Phenicia. The latter is not mentioned in the Gospels. The woman calls Christ first Lord (κύριε) and then Son of David. The title of Christ as Lord is common in the New Testament. This is what the centurion calls Christ (Matthew 8:6, 8; Luke 7:6) and the Samaritan woman (John 4:15, 19). Verse 26 (Mark 7:26) speaks against the opinion that the woman was a proselyte of the gate. But the expression "Son of David" may indicate her familiarity with Jewish history. In legend, she is known as Justa, and her daughter is Veronica. The woman says: have mercy not on my daughter, but on me. Because the daughter's illness was the mother's illness. She does not say: come and heal, but - have mercy. Matthew 15:23. But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came up and asked Him: let her go, because she is screaming after us. Comparing the stories of Matthew and Mark, we must present the matter like this. The Savior arrived in pagan territory with His disciples and went into the house to “hide” or hide (λαθεῖν – Mark). The reasons that the Savior “did not want anyone to know” about His stay in Phenicia are unknown to us. But there was nothing unnatural or inconsistent with His other actions, because He did the same on other occasions, moving away from the crowd and for prayer (Matthew 14:23; Mark 1:35, 6:46; Luke 5:16, etc.). It can be assumed that in the present case, the removal of Christ from Israeli society occurred in view of the great events that required solitude, which are described in Matthew 16; Matthew 17 (Peter's confession and transfiguration). The woman’s cry, as it seemed to the disciples, did not correspond to Christ’s intention to remain alone, and they ask Him to let her go (cf. Matt. 19:13). The word “let go” (ἀπόλυσον) does not express that the disciples asked Christ to grant the woman’s request. According to Mark, the woman entered the house where the Savior was, and there she screamed for help (Mark 7:25 – εἰσελθοῦσα), and according to Matthew, this was when the Savior was on the way. There is no contradiction, because both were possible. Further explanation in the comments to the next verse. Matthew 15:24. He answered and said: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The key to explaining all this is given by John Chrysostom, Theophylact and Euthymius Zigavinus, who believe that the purpose of Christ's refusal was not a test, but a discovery of the faith of this woman. This must be accurately noted in order to understand further. Although Chrysostom says that the woman heard the words of Christ: “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” it is more likely that she did not hear, because it is said: “He did not answer her a word.” The answer to the disciples was both practically and theoretically correct, because Christ had to limit and limited His activity only to the house of Israel, and in this individualization of His activity lay its universal character. The Gospel expression cannot be explained in the sense that it refers to spiritual Israel. If Christ had directly let the woman go, as His disciples asked, then we would not have had a wonderful example that explains how “the kingdom of heaven is taken by force” (Matthew 11:12). It is taken despite all the obstacles and even humiliations to which the pagans are or may be subjected. Matthew 15:25. And she, coming up, bowed to Him and said: Lord! help me. Mark reports in more detail that the woman fell at the feet of the Savior and asked Him to cast out the demon from her daughter. On προσεκύνει, see comments on Matthew 2:2. The woman now does not call Christ the Son of David, but only Lord and worships Him as God. Matthew 15:26. He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” (Compare (Mark 7:27) with the addition: “first let the children be satisfied”). Literally: “one cannot (should not) take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (in Mark it is “not good”). They think that the Savior speaks here “ex publico judaeorum affectu” (Erasmus), or, what is the same, in the ordinary speech of the Jews, who called the pagans dogs; the Israelites, like the children of Abraham, are “sons of the kingdom” (Matthew 8:12) and have the first right to the bread of grace and truth. The Jews called the pagans dogs because of idolatry and unclean living. Matthew 15:27. She said: yes, Lord! but the dogs also eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. Matthew 15:28. Then Jesus answered and said to her: O woman! great is your faith; let it be done to you as you wish. And her daughter was healed at that hour. Matthew 15:29. Having crossed over from there, Jesus came to the Sea of ​​Galilee and, going up to a mountain, sat down there. According to Mark, Christ, “having left the borders of Tire” (so according to some readings), “went again” through Sidon (this is not in the Russian translation) “to the Sea of Galilee”, to the middle part (ἀνὰ μέσον – cf. 1 Cor. 6:5; Rev. 7:17) of the borders of the Decapolis (in the Russian translation - “through the borders Decapolis"). By mountain we mean some high area on the shore of a lake, and not any individual mountain. It is not clear from Matthew's account which side of the Lake of Galilee this was on, but Mark says clearly that it was on the eastern side. Matthew 15:30. And a great multitude came to Him, having with them the lame, the blind, the dumb, the maimed, and many others, and they cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and He healed them; Matthew 15:31. so that the people marveled, seeing the dumb speaking, the maimed healthy, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and glorified the God of Israel. In Mark there is only the first sentence of verse 31 of Matthew, expressed completely differently. Matthew then adds words that are not found in the other gospels. The expressions “glorify, glorify God” are found many times in the New Testament (Matt. 9:8; Mark 2:12; Luke 5:25–26, 7:16; 1 Pet. 2:12, 4:11; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 6:20; 2 Cor. 9:13, etc.). But nowhere is there an increase in “Israel” as here. On this basis, they think that Christ was now among the pagans who glorified a God alien to them - “the God of Israel” (cf. Mark 8:3) - “some of them came from afar”). Matthew 15:32. Jesus, calling His disciples, said to them: I feel sorry for the people, because they have been with Me for three days now, and they have nothing to eat; I don’t want to let them go dumb, lest they become weak on the road. Matthew 15:33. And His disciples said to Him: where can we get so much bread in the desert to feed so many people? (Compare (Mark 8:1–4) with a significant difference in expression). If all four evangelists told about the feeding of five thousand people, then the real story belongs only to Matthew and Mark. In general content, it is so similar to the story of the feeding of five thousand with five loaves that many took it for a variant of the same event. If so, then this could, on the one hand, influence the interpretation of the first story, and on the other, it would give reason to consider both stories legendary. But others have different opinions. Even in ancient times, they paid attention to the differences between both stories and, on this basis, argued that they depict two actual events. Thus, Origen wrote among other things: “Now, after the healing of the dumb and others, (the Lord) has mercy on the people who had been around Him for three days and had no food. There the disciples ask for five thousand, but here He Himself speaks of four thousand. Those who are satisfied in the evening, having spent the day with Him, it is said about these that they stayed with Him for three days, and they receive bread so that they will not weaken on the way. There the disciples talk about the five loaves and two fishes that they had, although the Lord did not ask about this, but here they answer the question that they had seven loaves and a few fishes. There He commands the people to lie down on the grass, but here He does not command, but announces to the people to lie down... These are fed on the mountain, and those in a deserted place. These remained with Jesus three days, and those one day, on which they were satisfied in the evening.” Hilary and Jerome also made a distinction between the two saturations. That these were really two events is strongly confirmed by the Savior Himself, Who indicates this in Matthew 16:9. The assumption that both events are identical is based on the imaginary difficulty of the disciples’ question: “Where can we get so much bread in the desert?” , - so quickly forgot the previous miracle, but similar slowness in faith is found among people in other cases, and examples of it are reported in Scripture itself (cf. Exodus 16:13 with Numbers 11:21-22; see Exodus 17:1-7; Alford). This whole story apparently has a connection with the previous story about the healing of the Canaanite daughter and the crumbs that fall from the master’s table to the dogs. The miracle was performed in Decapolis, i.e. where the population consisted, if not exclusively, then predominantly of pagans. The ratio of the numbers of the first and second saturation is: 5000:4000; 5:7; 2:x; 12:7 (number of people, loaves, fishes and boxes filled with loaves). Matthew 15:34. Jesus said to them: How many loaves do you have? They said: seven, and a few fish. Matthew adds “and a few fishes.” The word “fish” (ἰχθύδια) is diminutive here, instead of the former “fish” (ἰχθύες) in the weather forecasters and ὀψάρια in John (John 6:9). Matthew 15:35. Then he ordered the people to lie down on the ground. “In everything else he does the same thing as before: he seats the people on the ground and makes sure that the bread in the hands of the disciples does not decrease” (St. John Chrysostom). Externally, the event now differs from the previous one only in numbers. Matthew 15:36. And taking the seven loaves and fishes, he gave thanks, broke them, and gave them to his disciples, and the disciples to the people. Matthew 15:37. And they all ate and were filled; and they took up the remaining pieces, seven baskets full, The addition to the story “having blessed, He ordered them to be distributed also” (i.e., the loaves) is found only in Mark. The parallel of verse 37 is Mark 8:8, with some difference in expression. Matthew adds: ("seven baskets") full, which Mark does not have. Instead of the “boxes” into which the pieces were collected after the feeding of the five thousand, now we speak of “baskets” (σπυρίδες). This word, besides the Gospels, is used only once more in the New Testament (Acts 9:25), where it is said that the Apostle Paul was lowered in a basket along the wall in Damascus. On this basis it is assumed that these were large baskets. Where they were taken from is completely unknown. Perhaps they were brought by people who followed Christ and were initially filled with provisions. The number of baskets filled with pieces from the remaining loaves now corresponds to the number of loaves broken and distributed to the people. Matthew 15:38. and those who ate were four thousand people, besides women and children. Matthew here also adds “except women and children,” which is not in Mark (see comments on Matthew 14:21). Matthew 15:39. And, having dismissed the people, He entered the boat and arrived in the region of Magdalene. Instead of “to the borders (τὰ μέρη) of Magdalene” (according to the Russian translation), Mark has “to the borders (τὰ μέρη) of Dalmanutha.” Augustine has no doubt that this is the same place, only with a different name. Because in numerous codices and in Mark it is also written “Magedan”. But in this case, why is the same place designated by different names? First of all, let us note that the correct reading in Matthew is not Magdala, but Magadan. So in Sinaitic, BD, ancient Latin, Syro-Sinaitic. The word Magadan or Magedan is considered identical with Magdala (modern Medjdel). Magdala means "tower". This was the name of a place on the western shore of Lake Galilee, perhaps mentioned in the book of Joshua (Joshua 19:38). It was the birthplace of Mary Magdalene. Why it was also called Magadan is unknown. Nothing is known about Magadan itself, if it was not identical with Magdala. Most travelers believed that Magdala was located about five miles north of Tiberias, where the village of Medjdel is now. Currently it is a small village. It contains up to half a dozen houses, without windows, with flat roofs. Laziness and poverty reign here now. Children run through the streets half naked. Dalmanutha, mentioned in Mark, was apparently located somewhere in the vicinity of Magdala. If so, then there is no contradiction in the testimony of the evangelists. One calls the place where Christ arrived with His disciples on a boat Magadan (Magdala), the other points to a place nearby. You might be interested in: