Lake of Tiberias. Matthew, who resided on the shore of the lake, knew there was a village on the eastern side of it called Gergesa or Gerasa; and he accordingly speaks of the Gergesenes. The other evangelists may not have been acquainted with this small place, but both they and those for whom they wrote were familiar with the name of Gadara, the capital city of that region, and therefore they mention only the Gadarenes. Future research may discover a Bethany or a Bethabara somewhere on the Jordan, answering to the place where John was baptizing; and the suggestion of Van de Velde, who supposes that Bethabara is identical with Beth-barah, the place where the Ephraimites "took the waters" and fell upon the routed Midianites, deserves careful consideration.' That place was probably at or near the ford of Dâmieh, and not too far to the north to accord with the narratives of our Lord's baptism." Lieutenant Conder finds a ford over the Jordan, called Mukhâdat el Abarah, one mile north of the mouth of Wady Jâlûd, and a day's journey farther north than the Dâmieh ford, and is inclined to adopt that as the site of Bethabara where John was baptizing. This would answer well in reference to the distance from Nazareth, but it would place the site of the baptism in Galilee. Indeed, Wady Jâlûd lies north of both Judæa and Samaria, and belongs to Galilee; and it is nearly three days' journey from this part of the Jordan valley, and could not have been the place to which "Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan," resorted to John to be baptized." But here we are at 'Ain Hajla, a beautiful fountain of sweet water, enclosed by a circular wall of masonry. It sends forth a stream in the direction of the Jordan which gives life to a green tract below. Its waters are regarded by the Arabs as amongst the best in this entire region. No ruins are seen about the fountain, but the name is the same as that of Beth-hoglah, on the boundary of Judah; and the site of that place may have been nearer Küsr Hajla, which probably derived its name from this fountain.* It will take us about half an hour from here to Kŭsr Hajla, 1 Judg. vii. 24. Van de Velde, vol. ii. p. 271, 343. 4 Josh. xv. 6. from the fifth verse of the fifteenth chapter of Joshua it appears that the starting-point of the border-line was from the entrance of the Jordan into the Dead Sea. This is one of the few notices that indicate the curious and apparently erratic course in which those boundary-lines between the tribes were originally drawn. The remains of this Kusr, castle or convent, are extensive and quite surprising, and one does not expect to come upon such a striking object here in this lonely desert. It took Lieutenant Conder two days to complete his measurements and plans of this place, and he justly styles it the ruins of a fine old religious fortress. Its vaults and the greater part of the large chapel remain almost entire, while the smaller one is nearly perfect. Even some of the frescoes and inscriptions, though much defaced, are still visible; but the faces have been purposely erased. Lieutenant Conder found the name of John Eleemon, patriarch of Jerusalem in 630, attached to a figure; but it does not necessarily follow from this that the edifice was erected at that period. It is interesting, however, to meet with evidence that at least some of these convents date from an age so early in Christian history. "Tessellated pavement is found in fragments. The kitchen is entire, with its row of little ovens. Other cells, with a subterranean chapel, are covered with crosses and religious signs. The most curious frescoes are those representing saints receiving the white resurrection-robes from attendant angels. They are fresh in color, and, no doubt, later than those of Kŭrüntül," the Quarantana. The day is now far spent, so we will not be able to visit the site of Gilgal, east of Jericho, but be obliged to return direct to 'Ain es Sultân. Our course will lead us along the boundary between Benjamin and Judah for most of the way back. Gilgal and Jericho, and the entire region over which we have ridden to-day, belonged to Benjamin. I have not realized that fact, probably because that tribe became a mere appendage of the kingdom of Judah. The attempt to follow out in detail the borders of the different tribes is in most places hopeless, and the tribes themselves became, in course of time, practically obliterated by the intermingling of the people. We will cross Wady Kelt at the low aqueduct which conducted the water to irrigate the gardens and the fields along the south bank of that wady, and make our way as best we can through the thorny thickets between us and the tents at 'Ain es Sultân, some two miles and a half distant. LOCATION OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH. April 24th. Evening. 371 No one can look upon the Dead Sea without thinking of the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other "cities of the plain" that were destroyed, and I should like to obtain more definite and satisfactory information on the subject than I at present possess. Since the exploration of this sea by Lieutenant Lynch, it has been supposed that the shallow part at its southern end, which is some fifteen miles long, was previously a plain, and that it was submerged at the time of the catastrophe. Admitting this to be true, how are we to understand what is said or implied-that the land there belonged to the valley of the Jordan, was watered by that river, and that therefore it was immensely fertile at the time when Lot chose it for his residence? "It was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar." It was the accepted opinion formerly that, previous to the destruction of Sodom, the Dead Sea was a fresh-water lake, and that its character was changed at that time by the obtrusion from below of rock-salt and other volcanic products, which have rendered it so extremely bitter and nauseous. The evidences of such action and obtrusion were found in the ridge of rock-salt called Jebel Usdum, at the south end of the sea, and in the presence of naphtha and bitumen in its waters. The lake, being originally shorter by the length of these plains of Sodom and Gomorrah, would necessarily rise, it was said, much higher during the rainy season than it does now; and the water being fresh, it would subside by evaporation, and perhaps by irrigation, much more rapidly than at present. The southern extension of the Dead Sea is thirteen feet deep in winter, but late in autumn it is only three, and is then forded not only by camels, but even by donkeys. The southern plain, on which the cities stood, it was supposed, was flooded by fresh water during the rise of the lake, just as the Nile floods the land of Egypt, and that when the water subsided the plain was sown, as Egypt was and is still. We have only to assume that this was actually the case at the south end of the Dead Sea, and that the inhabitants knew how 1 Gen. xiii. 10. to control the rising of the lake by embankments, as the Egyptians did the Nile, and the mystery about the fertility of that plain is explained. Something like this was the former explanation; but a better acquaintance with the topography and physical characteristics of this region had led many modern writers to reject this entire theory, and to locate those doomed cities at the north end of the sea instead of the south end, and the reasons for this change appear quite conclusive. To reverse a geographical theory so long and so universally entertained will require evidence and arguments very decisive indeed, and I should like to hear them. They are partly geological, and have utterly rendered impossible the supposition that, until the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Jordan passed through the Dead Sea, then a sweet-water lake, and along Wady 'Arabah to the Gulf of 'Akabah. The geological changes demanded are too great to have occurred within the period of man's residence upon the earth; and it is admitted that the Dead Sea must have been substantially what it is now from a very remote period—an inland lake, with water intensely salt and bitter. In fact, the south end of this sea belongs to Idumea, and all the fertility seen at the south-east border of it is due to brooks that come down from the mountains of Edom. The Jordan never reaches those parts, nor is there a bush or blade of grass there that owes its life to the water of that river. The south end of the Dead Sea is not "the plain of Jordan" at all, and was never so regarded or so named either in ancient or modern times. Turning now to the Biblical narrative, let us examine some of the statements which seem to necessitate the transfer of the site of the destroyed cities to the north or north-east end of the Dead Sea. And first, it appears to be certain, from Genesis xiii. 1-13, that at the time of the separation between Abraham and Lot they were at or near Bethel, some twelve or fifteen miles north of Jerusalem, and sixty or seventy miles from the south end of the Dead Sea. Lot, therefore, without a miracle, could not have seen that region at all, however high he "lifted up his eyes." The distance is too great, there is a haze over the sea which obscures the view, and, |