Any "pilgrim" to Israel is going to have to come to terms with what might be very disappointing: the places you see might bear litle resemblance to the original.
It is quite remarkable that we do not know where many very significant biblical events actually happened.
The Sermon on the Mount. But which mount?
All of those events beside the Sea of Galilee but where? Which beach?
The Transfiguration. On a high mountain but which one?
There are sites that claim to be the location for each of these events but sometimes there is more than one claimant and how can we know if any of them is correct?
Jesus turned ater into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee but where was Cana?
Jesus performed many miracles in Bethsaida and some of the disciples came from there but where was Bethsaida?
Jesus was crucified at Golgotha and buried and raised nearby. These are the most important events in Christianity but where did they happen?
Jesus' baptism. On which side of the river adn where on the river?
The exodus
Where did they cross the Red Sea or was it the Sea of Reeds?
Where is Mount Sinai where Moses received the tablets of the Ten Commandments?
Where did the Israelites wanderings take them?
Where is Kadesh Barean from where Moses sent the spies into the land?
The list could go on. There is no absolutely certainty for even some of the most significant events in the Bible.
You can go to the traditional sites and they might be the actual site but they also might not be. You could be thinking you are standing where the biblical characters stood but they might have been somewhere else.
The Sea of Galilee was much high than it is now so are the current beaches the beaches upon which Jesus talked and ministered?
Abraham and Lot parted ways because the land could not support both of them. Lot chose the fertile Jordan Valley. But the Jordan Valley now is desert.
Today's Jerusalem is not what Jesus looked at. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans. Today's Jerusalem is a completely different city. The iconic walls were built by Sultan Suleimann between 1537 and 1541.
Jerusalem's streets are much higher than the streets Jesus walked. The level of Jerusalem has risen as different civilisations have rebuilt the city on top of the previous cities. This is apparent from such things as:
The Western Wall Tunnels. The Western Wall was built by Herod The Great starting about 19 B.C. and so was there in Jesus' time. But the base of the wall is now about 12m below the current street level.
The Cardo, a Roman street from Byzantine times (i.e. about the 6th century B.C.) is about 6m below the current street level. Presumably the streets Jesus walked are even lower.
Perhaps the change that most makes the sites different has been the building of churches over them.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is a massive structure covering the probable sites of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Clearly, it did not exist at the time and Jesus was presumably crucified in the open air. It is very hard to imagine that original setting when it has been so utterly trasnformed. An attempt has been made by including glass panels showing the rock beneath the sites but it is not enough (in my opinion) to counter the huge distraction the church is. It is almost as if the sites have been desecrated by the building of the church.
On the other hand, the Garden Tomb, which is almost certainly not the correct site, is a peaceful, open-air garden with a hill that maybe looks like a skull (reflecting the name Golgotha) and an adjacent tomb. It is much easier there to imagine the original scene.
One site is probably authentic but lacks any atmosphere and feels fake. The other is probably not authentic but feels more authentic. This epitomises the difficulty Christians face when visiting these locations. How are we to think about these sites?
The same is true of many other sites related to Jesus. There is a church on each one that obviously, was not there when Jesus was.
Some of the highlights for me, included sites that almost certainly were the real thing.
The Harod Spring and the river that flows from it have not changed location. Admittedly the stream has been tidied up and the location turned into a park but it still had the feel of being the place where Gideon's men drank from that stream.
Archaeological excavations do uncover the real locations. Tel Dan was, for me, quite amazing in that I knew I was looking at things referred to in the Bible, for example, the altar that had been erected there as an alternative to Jerusalem temple worship.
There certainly are genuine sites, The problem is that so many others are unknown or are nothing like what they were.
If we believe in the inspiration and the authority of scripture, then what the Bible says must be satisfied. There might be clues in the text.
Where were these people immediately before and after this event?
What does the Bible say about the location? Does it describe the topography? Does it say it was near to other locations?
A suggested site needs to be confirmed with real data. Are there archaeological finds that confirm the proposal? If an event is said to have happeend at location X but there is no archaeological evideice in the layer that corresponds with the date, then that cast serious doubt on the suggestion.
At the same time we need to remember that the archaeology is developing all of the time. Methods are beign refined. More sites and being explored and new artifacts found. It might be that the current archaeological knowledged suggest the event did not happen but future finds will confirm it.
Some events do not ledn themselves to archaeological verification. What archaeological remains would we expect to identify the site where Jesus fed the 5000 or where He was transfigured?
Tradition does not have the authority of the Bible or the scientific rigor of archaeology. What it does have is antiquity. If a site has been recognised for hundreds of years - perhaps even going back to a few centuries of the event itself - that is an indivation of the sites authenticity. It would not eb surprising if some of the early Christians, for example, did recognise the sites where important events happened and maybe marked those sites with churches or other buildings. Depending on when the tradition started and the motives of those behind it, it might be worthless or solid historical evidence of a site's singificance.
Helen and the Holy Land
When we talk about the traditional sites, we are often referring to the sites identified by Helena the mother of Emperor Constantine. Constantine was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity. He commissioned his mother, who had been instrumental in his conversion, to go to the Holy Land to identify the holy sites and to collect relics. Between, 326 and 328, she supposedly found the real cross, the crown of thorns, the plaque on the cross that had declared Jesus to be the king dof the Jews, and various other items. There is considerable doubt about the veracity of most of those items but did she do a better job of identifying the important sites?
She supposedly identified the places where the following events happened:
the stations on the Via Dolorosa
the feeding of the 5000
the Sermon on the Mount
the angel telling Mary that she would have a son
Joseph's carpetnry shop
Jesus' birth
the angel announcing His birth to the shepherds
the inn to which the Good Samaritan took the beaten man
Jesus' crucifixion and burial
Mary entered eternal sleep
Judas betreayed Jesus with a kiss
Jesus turned water into wine
John the Baptist baptised
Many of those were already revered as holy sites having been honured by generations of Christians so there is a good posibility that they are authentic. It would not be surprising if the early Christians did show special regard for the places where these things had happened. As well as relying on existing tradition, Helena may also have made some decisions on the basis of what she saw as God's leading.
The preeminent sites was undoubtedly the location of the crucifixion. The former emperor, Hadrian, had had a pagan temple built over the site. Helean had it destroyed and was instrumental in the building of the first Church of the Holy Sepulchre, starting in 326. The Church of the nativity in Bethlehem was also built in 326 A.D.
Given the uncertainty of many sites and the amount of change, making it hard to imagine the original, it is possible that Christians might find themselves being very disappointed. Is visiting the sites worthless or is there still value?
Suppose you are standing on a beach on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and the claim is that this is where Jesus prepared breakfast for the disciples who had returned to their fishing, after the resurrection. Is it the right beach? Even if it is, has the lake changed meaning that the beach was higher at the time?
It is not possible to say that Jesus stood on this particular beach. Nevertheless, that beach is a reminder of the event even if it is not exactly the right spot. It is still possible to ponder that event and to remember:
that Jesus really was alive again
that He graciously provided for the disciples and stregnthened their faith in Him and in Hs resurrection
the miraculous catch of fish
the reinstatement of Peter
All of that remains true whether or not this is the exact spot. The spot is an invitation to again consider the story and its significance. It would be nice to think that it was the right palce but the event is more important than the location.
The Bible names hundreds of places. That reminds us that the Christian faith is deeply rooted in real places in real history. The events really happened and we know where (or roughly where). Christian faith is not a series of myths and legends divorced from the real world. It is based on things that really happened and that therefore really reveal the nature of God and His plan for our salvation.
But, surprisingly, God has not told us the location of some events - even really important events. Why would that be?
Maybe God is saying that He doesn't want is revering the place. Instead, we should remember the event or the teaching. What happened is far more important than where it happened and we need to focus on the right things.
Clearly some people do attach huge veneration to the sites. They pray there and want to touch the spot. They might place jewelery or other momentos on the sacred spot hoping, perhaps that they will pick up some of the holiness of the site. I can admire their dedication but I wonder if that is what God wants. Even if the event did happen there, does that location have special powers? We should look to God not to the place, and we can do that from anywhere in th world.
Yes the places are reminders and there is something special about thinking that Jesus or other biblical characters walked on this spot (or, at least, in this area) but Jesus is just as real and just as available anywhere, not just at this spot.
The woman at the well (in John 4:19-24) said to Jesus
'Sir, I can see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.’
‘Woman,’ Jesus replied, ‘believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.’