back from distant isles and continents, to illuminate anew the darkened land where it first sprung up.”— ROBINSON'S Researches, vol. iii. pp. 189—191.

"Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?' ... It has occurred to me as no unlikely conjecture, that the very position of this town might, in some measure, account for its ill character. It was a kind of frontier-town. It was frontier in three directions: toward Samaria, to the south,—a region notorious for iniquity, and frequent revolts; toward the land of the Philistines, on the south-west; and, on the west, toward the maritime city, peopled by heathens, Acre. Between these three regions and Nazareth there is little more than the broad sweep of the plains of Esdraelon and Acre. These plains lie more or less at the feet of the mountains of Nazareth; although the plain of Acre does not so nearly approach them as the plain of Esdraelon. In the rear of Nazareth, northward and eastward, are the peaceful towns and plains of Galilee. Now, in addition to the bad character of the Samaritans, the inhabitants of all the sea-coast were notoriously flagitious. They were left, as we are expressly told,' to prove the Israelites, and that the generations of the children of Israel might learn war. An evil neighbourhood this for Nazareth. The men of Nazareth might, in such a vicinity, easily be ensnared into heathenish affinity.2 Their worst characters, fleeing from justice or revenge, would easily find the nearest asylum, at a distance of from twenty to thirty miles, in Nazareth. In every

quarrel or war, between Galilee on the one side, and on the other side either Samaria or the Philistines, and the inhabitants of the coast, Nazareth would stand the foremost. In commerce with the maritime towns, Nazareth would lie constantly exposed to the temptations to break the Sabbath, mentioned in Nehemiah xiii. 16. Thus, by degrees, might this frontier-town become a nest of the very worst characters, and addicted to the worst sins; 1 Judges iii. 1-6. 2 Judges iii. 6.

and its condition would probably be the more notorious, from the contrast which it would form to the better protected and more peaceful inhabitants of the interior of Galilee.'-JOWETT's Researches, pp. 167-270.

CANA OF GALILEE, (KÂNA EL-JELÎL.)

SCRIPTURE NOTICES.

"AND the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants which drew the water knew ;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."—John ii. 1-11.

"... Nathanael of Cana in Galilee."-John xxi. 2.

[John iv. 46.]

Ꮓ

Cana of Galilee is not mentioned in the Old Testa ment. In the New Testament it is celebrated as being the scene of our Lord's first miracle-and the disciple Nathanael was a native of Cana. The Old Testament has only Kanah in Asher, south-east of Tyre.-(Josh. xix. 28.)

The monks of the present day, and all recent travellers, find the Cana of the New Testament, where Jesus converted the water into wine, at Kefr Kenna, a small village an hour and a half N.E. from Nazareth, on one of the roads to Tiberias.

It lies on an eminence connected with the hills of Nazareth, on the south side of a branch of the plain, el-Buttauf, which runs up towards the village el-Lûbieh. Here are shown the remains of a Greek church, and of a house reputed to have been that of St. Bartholomew. So fixed indeed has the impression now become, that this was the true Cana, that most travellers probably are not aware of there ever having been a question as to the identity.

"From the Wely above Nazareth, (we had) pointed out to us a ruin called Kâna el-Jelîl, on the northern side of the plain, el-Bŭttauf, about N.E. from Nazareth, and not far from three hours distant. It lay at the foot of the northern hills beyond the plain, apparently on the slope of an eminence. . . In the days of Quaresmius it contained a few houses. This spot (we were told) was known both among Christians and Muslems only by this name, Kâna el-Jelîl... Now as far as the prevalence of an ancient name among the common people is any evidence for the identity of an ancient site,—and I hold it to be the strongest of all testimony, when, as here, not subject to extraneous influences, but rather in opposition to them, so far is the weight of evidence in favour of this northern Kâna el-Jelîl, as the true site of the ancient Cana of Galilee. The name is identical, and stands the same in the Arabic version of the New Testament; while the form Kefr Kenna can only be

twisted by force into a like shape. On this single ground, therefore, we should be authorized to reject the present monastic position of Cana, and fix the site at Kâna el-Jelîl; which, likewise, is sufficiently near to Nazareth, to accord with all the circumstances of the history.

"This view is further confirmed, and indeed the question entirely set at rest, when we trace back the matter in history. We thus find that an earlier tradition actually regarded the present Kâna el-Jelîl as the ancient Cana; and that it is only since the sixteenth century, that monastic convenience has definitely assigned Kefr Kenna as the site. Quaresmius relates, that, in his day, two Canas were spoken of among the inhabitants of Nazareth and the vicinity; one called simply Cana of Galilee, (Kâna el-Jelîl,) and the other Sepher Cana (Kefr Kenna); and he describes their position as above... Near the close of the sixteenth century, we find Cana placed three miles north of Sepphoris, and described as having a mountain on the north, and a broad, fertile, and beautiful plain towards the south; all which corresponds to the position of Kâna el-Jelîl, and not to Kefr Kenna. Several other notices might be brought forward, which, together with the strong evidence of the name, show conclusively that Kâna elJelîl is the Cana of the New Testament."-See ROBINSON's Researches, vol. iii. pp. 204-208.

TIBERIAS. (TŮBARÎYEH.)

SCRIPTURE NOTICE.

"HOWBEIT there came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks."- John vi. 23.

"The earliest notice we have of the city of Tiberias is in the New Testament; and then in Josephus. The latter relates, that the city was founded by Herod Antipas on the lake of Gennesareth, near the warm baths called Ammaus; and was so named in honour of his friend and patron, the Emperor Tiberius.

"Herod collected inhabitants from all quarters for his new city, and granted them many privileges; he built here a royal palace, which was afterwards de

stroyed in a popular tumult; and favoured the city so far, that Tiberias became the capital of Galilee, and was not improbably Herod's chief residence . . . In the Jewish war which ended in the destruction of Jerusalém, Tiberias bore a conspicuous part, especially during the