Cana of Galilee - Facts

The toponym found in the Old Testament refers to a locality belonging to the tribe of Aser located near the 

city of Sidon (Js 19,28) which locality is generally identified with the village of the same name 10km to 

the Southeast of Tyre.


The Gospel of John places the first of the signs performed by Jesus in the locality of Cana of 

Galilee where he changed the water into wine during a marriage celebration:

On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 

Jesus and his disciples had likewise been invited to the celebration. At a certain point in time 

the wine ran out, and Jesus' mother told him, "They have no more wine." Jesus replied,

 "Woman, how does this concern of yours involve me? My hour has not yet come." His mother 

instructed those waiting on table, "Do whatever he tells you." As prescribed for Jewish 

ceremonial washings, there were at hand six stone jars, each one holding fifteen to twenty 

gallons. "Fill those jars with water, "Jesus ordered, at which they filled them to the brim. 

"Now," he said, "draw some out and take it to the waiter in charge." They did as he instructed

 them. The waiter in charge tasted the water made wine, without knowing where it had come 

from; only the waiters knew, since they had drawn the water. Then the waiter in charge called 

the groom over and remarked to him, "People usually serve the choice wine first; then when

 the guests have been drinking awhile, a lesser vintage. What you have done is keep the choice 

wine until now." Jesus performed the first of his signs at Cana in Galilee. Thus did he reveal 

his glory, and the disciples believed in him. (Jn 2, 1.11)

In the same village Jesus performs his second miracle, from a distance, when he cures the 

servant of the roman centurion:

So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine. And there was a 

certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus had come out 

of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and implored Him to come down and heal his son, for he 

was at the point of death. Then Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, 

you will by no means believe." The nobleman said to Him, "Sir, come down before my child

 dies!" Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your son lives." So the man believed the word that

 Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way. And as he was now going down, his servants met him 

and told him, saying, "Your son lives!" Then he inquired of them the hour when he got better. 

And they said to him, "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him." So the father knew 

that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, "Your son lives." And he himself 

believed, and his whole household.This again is the second sign Jesus did when He had come 

out of Judea into Galilee (Jn 4,46-54). Nathaniel, one of the disciples of Jesus, was from Cana 

of Galilee (Jn 21, 2).

The historian Josephus Flavius recounts how he, during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome 

(66-70 AD) stayed for some time "in a village of Galilee named Cana" (Life 16, 86).

We find also that in this village there lived the members of the family of Eliashib, one of the 24 

priestly families (mishmarot).

St. Jerome distinguished Cana of Js 19,28 from the Cana of Galilee of John,

Cana of Galilee lies on the way which passes from Nazareth to Sephoris. St. Jerome writes 

about this. He tells how his disciple, St. Paula, visited Cana when she went from Nazareth to

 Capharnaum. She, together with her daughter, wrote to Marcella and stated that not far from

 Nazareth they visited Cana where Jesus changed water into wine and from there they 

continued by Tabor. (Epist. XXXI)

The pilgrims, including St. Jerome, commemorated the first miracle of Jesus and the 

beginning of his public ministry, in a locality of Galilee quite near the town of Nazareth. 

Initially they (Anonymous Pilgrim of Piacenza, Willibaldus) mention a church and later on 

(medieval period) the ruins of the same. The Anonymous pilgrim of Piacenza wrote in 570: 

"after walking three miles (from Diocesarea-Seforis), we arrived at Cana, where the Lord was

 present for the marriage, and we sat at the same place, there I, the unworthy, wrote the names 

of my parents. There are still two vases, I filled one of them with water and out of it I poured 

wine; full as it was I placed it on my shoulder and placed it on the altar; then we washed at the 

spring for the blessing" (Itinerarium 4, 4-5).

St. Louis, King of France, during the second half of the 13th century, traveled from St. JohnÕs 

in Acre and went through Sephoris. He reached Cana of Galilee and from there Mount Tabor 

and then reached Nazareth. He did all this in one single day.

A Franciscan, Niccolo` da Poggibonsi, in 1347, wrote that "the village of Cana of Galilee is not 

large . . . within it there is a church where Christ changed water into wine". The Poggibonsi 

friar also spoke about a spring from which water was drawn which was used to fill the water 

jars in which Jesus changed the water into wine. (Baldi Ench. N. 258).


In 1551-64 Farther Boniface da Ragusa found the church in ruins and the Moslems were 

showing pilgrims the place where the miracle took place.

Today we have two localities which maintain the name of the Gospel village: the ruins of 

Khirbet Qana and the village of Kefer Kenna. Khirbet Qana, lies on an isolated hilltop at al-

Battuf to the North of Seforis, on the road which joins Acre with the Lake of Galilee. Here the 

explorers had noted the remains of a small village with tombs and a columbarium. A multi-

plastered grotto reveals traces of a medieval cult. and there is no spring nearby.

The village of Kefer Kenna lies 6km to the North of Nazareth on the road which goes down to

 Tiberais on the Lake of Galilee. At the centre of the village, where today rises the Church built 

by the Franciscans in 1881, archaeological remains have come to light in different 

archaeological soundings . Just outside the village there is a spring while roman tombs were 

found at the peak of Karm el-Ras to the west of the village. Other monumental remains at the 

centre of a roman enclave were found on the peak of Khirbet Kenna which the locals call el-

Dayr - the monastery.

In 1641 the Franciscans tried to acquire some remains at Kefar Kenna, an intricate deal 

carried out with patience and sacrifice which went on for almost two hundred years and was 

concluded only in 1879 thanks to the support of the governor of Damascus, Midath Pascia. 

During these years the friars were using an Arab house close to the ancient ruins, which house 

was enlarged in 1881 by Fr Aegidius Geissler, which was later on renewed with a new façade in 

1901. The main altar of the Church was consecrated on 30th September 1906 by the

 Archbishop of Bergamo, Mons. Giacomo M. Radini Tedeschi who was accompanied by his

 secretary, Angelo Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII who on this particular day wrote: "I 

am leaving Cana, but not without leaving a greeting, a cordial vote: (...) May the Lord make 

that this new altar which today was consecrated and dedicated to the 'mysterium initii 

Signorum Jesu' calls around it all the dispersed souls and gathers them in the unity of the 

catholic faith, in the favoured and constant practice of the Christian life".

The Custody of the Holy Land undertook important reconstruction at the shrine of Cana. The 

project was completed for the Great Jubilee of 2000: a building for divine worship with two 

levels - the lower one for the use of the shrine and its activities, there can be found the 

architectural remains of past ages. Pilgrims and visitors can view and ponder them there. The 

upper level is reserved for the parish functions and activities.

Before beginning the restructuring project, it was decided to have a thorough exploration of 

what lay underground. This has likewise been done in other undertakings of this type. The 

responsibility was given to Father Eugene Alliata, a professor of Archaeology at the Studium 

Biblicum Franciscanum of the Flagellation at Jerusalem. 

 making it clear that during this period (IV century) Cana of Galilee was identified with a particular village (Onomasticon 117, 3: "est hodie oppidum in Galilaea gentium").

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/san/TScana001.html

Cana , en Phenicie selon Eusebe, st Jerome

Textes grec et latin à l'appui
Selon Martiniano Roncalia

“The Identification of Cana of Galilee”

“The Identification of Cana of Galilee” from Selective Geographical Problems in the Life of Christ, a doctoral dissertation
by J. Carl Laney (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977). 

Cana of Galilee is an important place in the life of Christ. There at a wedding He began to authenticate His message to His disciples by turning water into wedding wine. Through the miracle He manifested His glory and His disciples believed (Jn. 2:1,11). Later Jesus performed His first “long distance” miracle at Cana, the home town of Nathanael (Jn. 21:2), when He healed the nobleman’s son who was sick at Capernaum (Jn. 4:46,54). 
The exact location of Cana in Galilee is still disputed with at least four sites vying to be acknowledged as the Cana of John's gospel, including Kanah, 'Ain Kanah, Kefr Kenna, and Khirbet Kana. 
Each of these sites must be critically examined with a view to identifying the Cana of Galilee where Jesus began His miraculous ministry.
 Kanah Joshua 19:28 refers to a “Kanah” on the northern boundary of the tribal territory of Asher. The name also appears in Egyptian sources dating from the time of Ramses II (1290-1224 B.C.).1 This site (modern Qana), situated eight miles southeast of Tyre, has sometimes been confused with Cana of Galilee. Eusebius and Jerome make no distinction between this Kanah and the one further south in the Hill Country of Galilee, describing this as “the Kana adjacent to greater Sidon in the tribe of 1 Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, p. 169. 91 Asher where our Lord made the water into wine.”1 Eusebius knew of only the Phoenician Kanah near Tyre and simply identified it with the Cana of John’s gospel. Jerome in his Latin translation of the Onomasticon adds that the Kanah of Joshua 19:28 is called “the greater” to distinguish it from another smaller city by the same name. It is quite improbable that the “Kanah” in the tribal territory of Asher is the Cana of John’s gospel. Though Jesus later ministered in the district of Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 15:21), His early ministry was directed to Jews, not Gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6). Also, Kanah would be too great a distance from Bethany beyond the Jordan for Jesus to have traveled there in the space of three days (Jn. 1:43, 2:1). He would have had to travel approximately 33 miles per day, a rate of travel quite unlikely in ancient times under normal conditions. In addition, it would be unlikely for Nathanael, a native of Cana (Jn. 21:2), to have been a close associate of Philip, of Bethsaida-Julias (Jn. 1:44), had the two cities been as far apart as et-Tell and Kanah. Finally, Kanah was in Phoenicia not Galilee during Roman times.2 The descriptive phrase “of Galilee” would not have been appropriate for Kanah, a city in the vicinity of Tyre. There is clearly no evidence to support the identification of Kanah as Cana of Galilee. ’Ain Kanah Another rather unlikely site for Cana of Galilee is ’Ain Kanah (Kanna), a village about 1½ mile northeast of Nazareth on the road to 1 Eusebius Onomastica Sacra 110, 3-6; 271, 50-53. 2 Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 43-45. 92 Tiberias. Having examined the sites of Kefr Kenna and Khirbet Kana, Conder sets forth this third site which had never before been noticed. He writes: The little village of Reineh is on the road north-east of Nazareth, and only a mile and a half away; from it a main road leads to Tabor, and by this road is a fine spring called 'Ain Kanah, spelt as the Greek leads us to suppose the Hebrew form of Cana must have been. In the absence of more definite indications, it seems to me that this third site may well rank with either of the others before mentioned.1 Conder describes 'Ain Kanah as a site with a good perennial water supply, a flowing stream in the valley. It seems quite improbable that 'Ain Kanah is to be identified with Cana of Galilee. Conder makes the suggestion only because he is not convinced by the evidence in favor of the other sites. He offers nothing positive in support of the identification from the standpoint of ruins, topography, or tradition. The site would certainly not fit with the data of Josephus which places Cana in the Plain of Asochis, known presently as Sahl el-Battauf or the Bet Netufa Valley.2 There is no evidence from tradition that 'Ain Kanah is the site of biblical Cana, and no report of ancient ruins there. Cana of Galilee must surely be found elsewhere. Kefr Kenna Kefr Kenna (“the village of Kenna”), just four miles northeast of Nazareth, makes a fairly convincing claim to be Cana of Galilee. There a Greek Orthodox church has preserved ancient storage vats reputed to have been used by Jesus when He turned the water into wine. The Franciscan 1 C. R. Conder, Tent Work in Palestine: A Record of Discovery and Adventure, 2 vols. (London: R. Bentley, 1878), 1:153. 2 Josephus Life 86, 207. 93 church in the heart of the village makes the same claim for an old jar it possesses. The Franciscans believe their church to be built on the actual remains of the house in which the miracle took place. Since Kefr Kenna is the site tourists are shown as the place of Christ’s first miracle, this claim must be examined in detail. Of the two main sites vying to be acknowledged as the Cana of John's gospel, Zeller believes that the geographical situation of Kefr Kenna is most suitable.1 The village lies on a hill gradually sloping towards the west so that the houses, built in terraces up the slope, receive the cool west wind which blows from the Mediterranean inland through the Bet Netufa Valley and Tur'an Basin. At the south of the village is a copious spring yielding a plentiful supply of water. At the time of Zeller’s article the village contained only about 200 houses, but he found sufficient evidence that in former times the village was at least three times as large. Comparing the geographical situation of Khirbet Kana with the traditional site, Zeller concludes that Kefr Kenna is the more suitable situation for a nice village. The pleasant situation of Kefr Kenna, however, is not convincing evidence that the village must be identified with the Cana of Galilee of ancient times. Zeller is simply saying, “Kefr Kenna has the nicer setting, so it is the probable site.” Another argument for Kefr Kenna based on its geographical situation is that the village in ancient times was at the crossing of a country road used by Hebrew herdsmen and peasants, and an imperial road used by Romans. Dixon explains: 1 D. Zeller, “Kefr Kenna,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement l (1869): 71-72. 94 The country road led from Nazareth, and other open towns and villages, through Cana, to Magdala, Capernaum, Bethsaida, and other water-places on the lake. The Roman road ran from Acre (then Ptolemais) to Sephoris, the old Greek capital of Upper Galilee, and thence through Cana to Tiberias, the new Roman capital of Lower Galilee. Thus, Cana was a station on the road between Sephoris and Tiberias, very much as Rochester is a station on the road from London to Dover.1 Dixon then seeks to demonstrate from John 2:12 and 4:49 that Cana stood on the road from Nazareth to Capernaum, and that Kefr Kenna would best fit this situation. However, no biblical text indicates that Jesus ever traveled from Nazareth to Cana, and on to Capernaum. The establishment of His home in Capernaum after His rejection at Nazareth (Lk. 4:16-31, Matt. 4:13-16) followed His second miracle at Cana (Jn. 4:46-54) in the winter or early spring of A.D. 31. While Jesus may have traveled this route at some time, no gospel text ever indicates that He actually did journey from Nazareth to Capernaum via Cana. The mere fact that Kefr Kenna was an important crossing for Romans indicates that this village, like Sepphoris and Tiberias, would be an unlikely place for Jesus to frequent. Dixon argues as well that Josephus’ geographical references to Cana point to the village of Kefr Kenna.2 In order to keep an effective watch over the rebellious cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias Josephus fixed his camp at Cana. When John of Gischala induced the Jews of Tiberias to rise against Silas, Josephus says he left Cana with 200 men and made a night march down the hills and came to Tiberias at dawn.3 Dixon argues that such a night march from Kefr Kenna to Tiberias, approximately twelve miles, is quite possible, but would be impossible from the site of Khirbet Kana. However, Khirbet Kana is only two or three miles further from 1 W. Hepworth Dixon, “Itineraries of Our Lord--Cana of Galilee,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 10 (1878): 70. 2 Ibid., p. 71. 3 Josephus Life 86-91. 95 Tiberias if the route through the Bet Netufa Valley to the Sea of Galilee is followed. There would have been no need, as Dixon argues, for Josephus to have taken his men through Sepphoris to reach Tiberias, for a more direct route was available. Josephus could have followed the Bet Netufa Valley to Hattin, and then followed the Wadi Abu el'Ames to the shore of the Sea of Galilee just north of Tiberias. This fifteen mile night march would have been no problem for seasoned soldiers, and Josephus specifically states that they marched “all night long.”1 Dixon's arguments for Kefr Kenna on the basis of its geographical position are questionable. He has offered no positive basis for the identification of Cana with Kefr Kenna. Another argument set forth in favor of Kefr Kenna is based on archaeological remains. Zeller reports that traces of ruins at Kefr Kenna are very distinct and of considerable extent.2 At the foot of the hill are the ruins of a “church” with a foundation of very large, well-cut stones. West of this ruin is the remains of the house of Samaan (the traditional father of the bridegroom), which Zeller believes are of the same period as the church. However, under the ruins which Zeller identified as a church, a mosaic floor of a Jewish synagogue dating from A.D. 500 was later discovered. Obviously Jews would not choose as a site for their synagogue a place sacred to Christians on account of the first miracle of Jesus. Zeller also reports ruins about half a mile west of Kefr Kenna where he discovered the foundations of walls built with large well-dressed stones. This he identifies as the monastery called “Architriclinium” mentioned by Saewulf (A.D. 1103). However, Saewulf describes Cana as 1 Josephus Life 90. 2 Zeller, “Kefr Kenna,” p. 73. 96 situated north of Nazareth and Roma (modern Rummana), and thus could not be referring to ruins near Kefr Kenna.1 Zeller describes other ruins about a mile west of Kefr Kenna as further evidence for the antiquity of the site.2 There is no evidence, however, that these sites were in any way connected, or that the ruins there date to the Roman period. While Kefr Kenna may look old, appearance can be deceptive. The dilapidated Arab houses to the southeast of Jerusalem on the Mount of Offense appear quite ancient, but it is well known that this village was established only in recent times. There is at present no archaeological evidence to demonstrate the antiquity of Kefr Kenna. The third argument used to support the identification of Kefr Kenna with Cana of Galilee is the place-name. Dixon argues that “Cana” is a proper name and “Cana of Galilee” a descriptive phrase.3 Robinson, who heard the name “Cana of Galilee” (Kana el-Jelil) applied to Khirbet Kana, is then accused of treating “Cana of Galilee” as a proper name and incorrectly identifying the two names with one place—Khirbet Kana. Dixon affirms that if “Cana of Galilee” is not a proper name, then Robinson's inference is unsound. He goes on to show, quite correctly, that Josephus and John use “of Galilee” as a descriptive phrase, not a proper name. However, Robinson, it seems, has been misrepresented. He simply observed that native Arabs in Galilee referred to Khirbet Kana as Kana el-Jelil; a name uniformly found in the Arabic New Testament wherever “Cana of Galilee” 1 E. W. G. Masterman, “Cana of Galilee,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 46 (1914): 182. 2 Zeller, “Kefr Kenna,” p. 73. 3 Dixon, “Itineraries of Our Lord—Cana of Galilee,” p. 69. 97 occurs (Jn. 2:1,11, 4:46, 21:2).1 He has not argued that the name given him was a proper name, but simply observed the connection between the name of the site in the Arabic New Testament and the name given him by an Arab at Khirbet Kana. While W. T. Pilter, a former missionary in Palestine, also questions Robinson's identification, he admits: …if Kana el-Jelil were the original native name of the now ruined northern village, it would need very cogent evidence indeed to prevent us from identifying it with the Cana of Galilee of John’s Gospel.2 A fourth argument enlisted to support the identification of Kefr Kenna with Cana of Galilee is tradition. Dixon boldly declares, “The evidence of history, as regards Cana of the marriage feast, is a chain in which there is no missing link.”3 This is an overstatement to say the least. The tradition which supports the identification of Kefr Kenna with Cana of Galilee is quite late, beginning long after the Crusades. After a long break in Christian tradition, Quaresmius, guardian of the Holy Sepulchre from 1627 to 1629, investigated the two sites and decided in favor of Kefr Kenna.4 The publication of his comprehensive topographical work led many later pilgrims to this site. From that time onward the pilgrims only describe a Cana lying to the northeast of Nazareth, clearly Kefr Kenna. Undoubtedly the real turning point in tradition was in 1620 when the Franciscans came to Nazareth and acquired the shrine of the Annunciation. Later in 1641 they purchased a house in Kefr Kenna near 1 Robinson, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, p. 108, n. 4. 2 W. T. Pilter, “Where is Cana of Galilee,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement 15 (1883): 143. 3 Dixon, “Itineraries of Our Lord—Cana of Galilee,” p. 72. 4 Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 152. 98 the city mosque. Only in 1879 were they able to purchase the mosque itself, where they erected the Franciscan church with its red dome. This is now believed to be the place of Christ’s first miracle. The evidence of tradition, however, offers only meager support for identifying Cana of Galilee with Kefr Kenna. The tradition dates from the seventeenth century. Until then, all the evidence of tradition points to Khirbet Kana as the correct site for Cana of Galilee. Khirbet Kana The uninhabited mound of ruins known as Khirbet Kana (“ruin of Cana”) which lies 8½ miles north of Nazareth makes the strongest claim to be John’s Cana of Galilee. This ancient site lies along the north edge of the long depression known as the Plain of Battauf or Bet Netufa Valley. It is strategically located on the ancient road from Ptolemais to Magdala (Tarichaea) on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, and was also near the road leading from Nazareth north through ancient Sepphoris to Jotapata, the chief fortress of the Jews in northern Galilee and where Josephus was taken prisoner by the Romans.1 While early pilgrim itineraries favor this northern site, it was long forgotten until Khirbet Kana was pointed out to Robinson by his Arab friend Abu Nasir as “Kana el-Jelil,” the precise rendering of Cana of Galilee in the Arabic New Testament.2 Robinson also traces the early tradition regarding the site of Cana of Galilee and argues rather convincingly that the Cana of the New Testament must be found at Khirbet Kana. Other geographers, including Thomson, Albright, and Baly, 1 Josephus War iii. 141-339; Life 188, 414. 2 Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, 2:346-47. 99 have confirmed Robinson’s identification of Khirbet Kana as Cana of Galilee.1 There appears to be abundant evidence from the name, position, remains, and tradition, that Cana of Galilee is to be found at the ruined site of Khirbet Kana. The Greek name “Kana” transliterates the Hebrew ķānāh which means “place of reeds.” The name is entirely appropriate, for nearby in the Bet Netufa Valley there are marshy stretches where reeds still abound. Masterman also points out that the Arabic name “Kana” clearly represents the Hebrew “Ķānāh” (corresponding to the Greek “Kana”), while the doubling of the middle letter in "Kenna" makes it much less like the place-name “Cana” of Galilee.2 Evidence from the name, then, would point to the site of Khirbet Kana as the Cana of John’s gospel. There is also evidence from the geographical position of Khirbet Kana that it should be identified with the place of Christ’s first miracle. Masterman surveyed the site and notes its very strategic situation—isolated on all sides, though connected by a low neck with the mountains to the north. The steep slope meant it could be easily defended, an essential characteristic of an ancient fortress. Masterman judges that Khirbet Kana is one of the strongest natural sites in the area.3 Its strategic position would favor it as the Cana in Galilee where Josephus had his headquarters.4 1 Thomson, The Land and the Book, 2:303-04; W. F. Albright, “A Tour on Foot Through Samaria and Galilee,” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 4 (1921): 8; Baly, The Geography of the Bible (1974): 163. 2 Masterman, “Cana of Galilee,” p. 180. 3 Ibid., pp. 180-81 4 Josephus Life 86. 100 Josephus’ further statement concerning his place of residence in “the great plain, called the plain of Asochis”1 also helps us identify the site. The Plain of Asochis has been identified as the Sahl el-Battauf or Bet Netufa Valley where Khirbet Kana is situated. Josephus writes that his quarters were in a “village of Galilee called Cana,” and later locates this site in the Plain of Asochis. These references clearly link Cana of Galilee with Khirbet Kana in the Bet Netufa Valley. A third argument for Khirbet Kana based on its geographical position is that it lay in the center of the most thoroughly Jewish population of Galilee, situated on the road from Capernaum to Jotapata and Chabulon (Kabul).2 Codex Medicero-Laurentianus and Codex Vaticanus readings of Josephus’ Life actually mention this road between Cana and the eastern Galilee fortress of Gamala.3 All indications point to this as a characteristically Jewish road as contrasted with the Roman highway from Sepphoris to Tiberias. Because Khirbet Kana was on a characteristically Jewish road while Kefr Kenna lay on a Roman road, it is more probable that Jesus performed His first miracle and ministered at the former rather than the latter site. The preponderance of evidence from the geographical position of Khirbet Kana would link it with Cana of Galilee. Archaeological evidence also supports the identification of Khirbet Kana as the Cana of the gospels. Archaeological survey has determined that a village stood at Khirbet Kana during the Israelite, Roman, and Arab periods.4 Masterman visited Khirbet Kana and discovered a number of ancient 1 Josephus Life 207. 2 Masterman, “Cana of Galilee,” p. 182. 3 Josephus Life 398. 4 Aapeli Aaarisalo, “Topographical Researches in Galilee,” The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 9 (1929): 39-40. 101 tombs, cisterns, and wall foundations. He reports: The whole surface is covered with small fragments of Roman pottery. There can be no question that this site was occupied by a very considerable population in Roman, and probably too in earlier times.1 G. Ernest Wright also reports the ruins of an ancient town and considerable Roman and Byzantine pottery at Khirbet Kana.2 Though excavation, which could further illuminate the history of the site, has not been carried out, surface exploration at Khirbet Kana has revealed extensive ruins and certain occupation during the Roman period. The remains from antiquity at Kefr Kenna, on the other hand, have been very meager. The Franciscans have picked up coins there from the time of the Maccabees, and from the Roman and Byzantine periods as well, but no substantial evidence of occupation during the Roman period—such as that a Khirbet Kana—has been uncovered. While the evidence of Roman remains at Khirbet Kana cannot prove its identification as Cana of Galilee, the archaeological evidence does tend to support the identification. The evidence of tradition is also on the side of Khirbet Kana. While tradition can actually be used to support either site, it is quite clear that the earliest pilgrim tradition favors the northern site of Khirbet Kana. Theodosius (A.D. 530) reports that “It is five miles from Diocaesarea to Cana of Galilee. From Diocaesarea to Nazareth is five miles.”3 Diocaesarea is to be identified with Sepphoris which, in the time of Hadrian, changed its name. Khirbet Kana alone fits the description being situated 1 Masterman, “Cana of Galilee,” p. 181. 2 G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology, 2nd ed. (London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., Ltd., 1962): 239. 3 Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 150. 102 approximately five miles to the north of Sepphoris with Nazareth lying about four miles to the south of Sepphoris. Anonymous of Piacenza (A.D. 570) traveled from Acre (Ptolemais) to Diocaesarea (Sepphoris) and reports, “Three miles further on we reached Cana where the Lord attended a wedding….Then we arrived at Nazareth.”1 This points to the northern site since Khirbet Kana lies on the Acre, Cana, Sepphoris, Nazareth road. The monk Epiphanius (A.D. 750-800) notes that the distance from Tiberias to Mount Tabor is a day's journey, and from Tabor to Cana in Galilee it is another day’s travel. The distance from Tiberias to Tabor is about twelve miles, and that is also the distance from Mount Tabor to Khirbet Kana. Saewulf (A.D. 1103) also supports the northern site describing Cana as north of Nazareth and Roma (modern Rummana).2 Two Florentine maps of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are witnesses to Khirbet Kana, for they set Sepphoris between Cana and Nazareth.3 While there is some evidence for tradition in favor of Kefr Kenna before Quaresmius (A.D. 1616-29), the change in tradition from Khirbet Kana to Kefr Kenna is due largely to his topographical work. He began to re-investigate the traditional sites, for many had been lost through the break in the succession of pilgrims on account of the dangerous state of the land. He discussed the two Canas and decided in favor of Kefr Kenna which was more conveniently located along the pilgrim route from Nazareth to Capernaum and had the support of the Franciscans who had acquired the 1 Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 150. 2 Masterman, “Cana of Galilee,” p. 182. 3 Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, p. 102. 103 Shrine of the Annunciation in 1620. The evidence, then, clearly favors the identification of Khirbet Kana with Cana of Galilee. Yet there are some weighty objections which have been raised regarding this identification. Can these objections be satisfactorily answered? The major objection raised against locating Cana at Khirbet Kana is that no spring is found at the site. While no spring is presently at Khirbet Kana, Masterman reports that the top of the mound “is pierced in all directions with ancient cisterns.”1 Beginning in Israelite times plastered cisterns were used to store collected rain water, and sites in the Hill Country without springs became inhabitable places. Masada had no spring, but large cisterns sustained the Jewish Zealots there for a period of at least three years during the First Revolt. The cisterns at Khirbet Kana could have easily provided the 130 gallons of water for Jesus’ first miracle. Another objection is that Cana is not located along the shortest route from Nazareth to Capernaum. The false assumption at the basis of this objection is that Jesus proceeded from Nazareth to Cana, where He did the miracle, and then journeyed on to Capernaum. The fact is, nowhere is it stated that Jesus journeyed from Nazareth to Capernaum by way of Cana. Dixon also objects to Khirbet Kana stating that Jesus could not go “down to Capernaum” (Jn. 2:12) from that site without going up to Sepphoris first.2 This is incorrect, for a road led directly east from Khirbet Kana through the Bet Netufa Valley to the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. 1 Masterman, “Cana of Galilee,” p. 181. 2 Dixon, “Itineraries of Our Lord—Cana of Galilee,” p. 71. 104 Elsewhere John speaks of Jesus going from Galilee up to Jerusalem (Jn. 7:1, 10) and this would have required going down first. Ancient travelers simply thought of Jerusalem as being “up” in the mountains, and lakeside communities as “down” in a depression. The size of Khirbet Kana is another objection raised against the site. Thomson estimated that there were never more than 50 houses at the site,1 and Pilter does not see how such a small village could have accommodated Josephus and his soldiers.2 However, Thomson observed only the ruined Arab houses on the southern slopes of the mound and was apparently unaware of the considerable remains from antiquity on the roughly level hilltop. The extent of the modern ruined village is not a sound basis for judging the size of the ancient city of Khirbet Kana. One final objection to the site is raised by Turner who questions how a site where Helena built a church could have been so easily forgotten by Christian pilgrims from that day to the present.3 Queen Helena, Constantine’s mother, did found many churches when she visited the Holy Land in the fourth century A.D., but only two medieval sources attribute to her the building of a church in Cana of Galilee.4 These sources point to the existence of a church building at the site, but it is questionable as to whether it can be attributed to Helena. The sources are late, and no previous pilgrims attribute this building to Helena. 1 Thomson, The Land and the Book, 2:303. 2 Pilter, “Where is Cana of Galilee,” p. 147; Josephus Life 86. 3 George A. Turner, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (Washington D. C.: Canon Press, 1973): 91. 4 Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, pp. 151-52. 105 Steps Toward A Solution While the evidence points to Khirbet Kana as being Cana of Galilee, it would be well to check this by following Albright’s steps to site identification1 before deciding it to be conclusive. First, we most evaluate the textual evidence of the written sources in which the place-name occurs. The name “Cana of Galilee” is found in John 2:1,11, 4:46 and 21:2, and there are no textual problems in these references. Josephus also makes one certain reference to Cana, a village in Galilee.2 Two late manuscripts (14th and 15th centuries), generally considered inferior, mention a road between “Cana” and the eastern Galilee fortress of Gamala.3 The better reading is “Seleucia” (Selukiyeh), northeast of Bethsaida-Julias. Next, the approximate location of the site from the documentary sources must be determined. The descriptive phrase “of Galilee” would indicate that the city should be found in the territory of Galilee, distinguishing it from the Kanah in nearby Phoenicia. Cana must have been within three day’s walk from Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn. 2:1), and within a day’s walk of Capernaum (Jn. 4:46, 52). Josephus also indicates that Cana is within a night’s march of Tiberias.4 Both Kefr Kenna and Khirbet Kana would meet these requirements. Josephus, however, narrows the vicinity of the site further when he refers to Cana as his military quarters, and then later designates the Plain of Asochis, that is the Bet Netufa Valley, as the place of his quarters.5 These references would eliminate Kefr Kenna as a possible site for Cana of Galilee. An additional 1 Albright, “The Rediscovery of the Biblical World,” pp. 13-14. 2 Josephus Life 86. 3 Ibid., 398. 4 Ibid., 87-91. 5 Ibid., 86, 207. 106 consideration is that the Plain of Asochis was part of the royal domain of the Herodians. Tenants, supervised by royal officials, worked these royal (later imperial) estates in the Jezreel Valley and Plain of Asochis, and this would further explain the presence of the royal official (“king’s man”) at Cana (Jn. 4:46-50).1 A third consideration in determining the location of the site is toponymy, or the analysis of the place-name. “Cana” simply transliterates the Hebrew Ķānāh which means “place of reeds,” an appropriate name for a village near the marshy Bet Netufa Valley. The site of Khirbet Kana is known by native Arabs as “Kana el-Jelil,” the precise rendering of Cana of Galilee in the Arabic New Testament. While archaeology is often useful in identifying a site, this factor is of little help in determining the site of Cana, for neither of the two competing sites have been excavated. However, surface exploration has led to the discovery of ruins from the Roman period, and a number of ancient tombs, cisterns, and wall foundations at Khirbet Kana. The evidence of habitation at this site during the Roman period does lend support to its identification with Cana of Galilee. The final factor used to determine the location of a site is tradition. This must be used with caution and carefully evaluated for tradition can be used to support either Khirbet Kana or Kefr Kenna. The earliest pilgrim tradition, however, does point to the northern site of Khirbet Kana. How, then, was the tradition changed? Traditional sites in the Holy Land were sometimes changed after a break in succession of 1 Avi-Yonah, “Historical Geography,” p. 105. 107 pilgrims to a site on account of the dangers surrounding it. Place-names were frequently transferred to a younger, inhabited site after the demise of a city or village. Kopp offers this helpful explanation for the change in tradition from Khirbet Kana to Kefr Kenna: The true reason was the utter degeneration of the genuine Cana which, as Roger (1631) says, had become a “den of murderers,” where pilgrims had to pay tribute of a zechine, the equivalent of about ten gold pieces. This certainly helped the transference of tradition to the more hospitable Kefr Kenna, which was also commended by a certain similarity in the sound of the name. And moreover, the place had the advantage of lying on the road from Nazareth to Tiberias; and so pilgrims, en route for the Lake Gennesareth, could conveniently picture to themselves Jesus’ first miracle in this place.1 Not until the 17th century did Kefr Kenna, more conveniently located on the pilgrim route from Nazareth to Tiberias and favored by Quaresmius, become associated by the pilgrims with the site of Christ’s first miracle. While Kefr Kenna is regarded by most tourists as the place where Christ turned pure water into wedding wine, there is little substantial evidence to support the identification. The abundance of the geographical evidence and early pilgrim tradition points to Khirbet Kana as the most probable site of Cana of Gal

http://www.bibleplaces.com/Identification_of_Cana_of_Galilee,_by_J_Carl_Laney.pdf

“عين المسيح العجائبية” في كوكبا.. معلم للسياحة الدينية؟ – موقع هوا لبنان

http://hawalb.com/?p=10456

"عين المسيح العجائبية" في كوكبا.. معلم للسياحة الدينية؟ 

كتب زياد الشوفي

يدرك المتصفح لكتاب "حرمون من آدم الى المسيح – حقائق لم تكشف بعد" للدكتور نبيل ابو نقول، يعرف كم ظلم الجنوب انمائياً ودينياً. فلو حدث ان ما كشفه الدكتور نبيل في كتابه في منطقة ثانية من لبنان، لادرج فوراً على لائحة السياحة الدينية، ولشاهدنا عشرات السواح اللبنانين او الاجانب يستطلعون المكان ويلتقطون الصور التذكارية.

يكشف الدكتور ابو نقول (المتخصص في علوم اللغة العربية، والباحث في شؤون التاريخ والميثولوجيا والأديان القديمة) في كتابه معلومات حول مرور السيد المسيح في أرض لبنان وبالتحديد في قرية كوكبا الجنوبية التي استقبلته وأمه مريم قبل أكثر من ألفي عام. ويفيد أن معلوماته استقاها من مخطوطات قديمة قام بجمعها وتوثيقها وتحليلها، "ليكتشف 27 حقيقة جديدة لم تُعرف قبلاً عن بلدة كوكبا ومنطقة حاصبيا التي زارها السيد المسيح  امتدادا الى منطقة جبل حرمون".

وفي كتابه يسرد قصة العين "التي فجرها السيد المسيح حين كان قادما من مرجعيون شمالاً نحو كوكبا، مرّورا بتلة تعرف باسم "الهرماس" حيث جلس ليأخذ قسطًا من الراحة وليمتع بصره بمنظر الطبيعة الخلابة المشرفة على جبل حرمون فشعر بالعطش ولم يجد ماء في جعبته فغرز عصاه في الارض وللحال خرجت من باطنها مياه عذبة نقية  فروى عطشه واستراح بقربها".

يؤمن أهالي كوكبا ومنطقة حاصبيا بأن اي انسان مصاب بمرض ما او عجز الطب عن شفائه، كان أهله يحضرونه كي يشرب ويغسل مكان العلة او الالم مسحا على شكل صليب،  ويليه تنفيذ الطقوس الخاصة التي اوردها د. ابو نقول بالتفصيل في كتابه فيشفى على أثر ذلك من مرضه ويعود سالمّا.

ويروي العديد من أهالي كوكبا قصصّا كثيرة تظهر مدى ايمانهم واقتناعهم بمرور السيد المسيح على تراب قريتهم وهم يفتخرون بهذا الحدث ويعتبرونه مصدر خير وقداسة لكوكبا والمنطقة.

ويسعى الدكتور نبيل أبو نقول أخيراً، مع بلدية كوكبا وبلديات منطقة حاصبيا ونادي كوكبا والأهالي "لتحويل كوكبا الى معلم سياحي ديني، وان يكون لها مكانها المرموق على الخارطة السياحية الدينية ولا تقتصر فقط على زيارات عدد من المؤمنين".

تصوير: زياد الشوفي

  

Envoyé de mon iPhone JTK

LIBAN SAINTS, RITUELS ET LIEUX DE CULTE PARTAGÉS

Au Liban, ainsi que dans de nombreux pays orientaux, le culte des saints draine, aujourd’hui comme hier, l’essentiel des dévotions aussi bien chrétiennes que musulmanes et nourrit un dialogue interreligieux naturel.

Par Nour Farra-Haddad
anthropologue du religieux, Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth, AUST, UL

http://www.mondedelabible.com/liban-saints-rituels-et-lieux-de-culte-partages/

Qana in Bible de Jerusaleme

Vers une rencontre entre le Patriarche d’Antioche des Maronites et le Premier Ministre libanais démissionnaire lors de son voyage en Arabie Saoudite

LIBAN - Vers une rencontre entre le Patriarche d'Antioche des Maronites et le Premier Ministre libanais démissionnaire lors de son voyage en Arabie Saoudite

Bkerkè (Agence Fides) – Le Patriarche d'Antioche des Maronites, S.Em. le Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai, se rendra en Arabie Saoudite, répondant ainsi à l'invitation des autorités locales et pourra rencontrer à cette occasion le Premier Ministre libanais démissionnaire, Saad Hariri, qui a rendu publique sa décision le 4 novembre alors qu'il se trouvait à Riyad. Les sources officielles du Patriarcat maronite ont confirmé que la visite patriarcale devrait avoir lieu la semaine prochaine, probablement le 13 novembre. La confirmation de la visite est arrivée après la rencontre entre le Patriarche et le Président libanais, Michel Aoun, intervenue au Palais présidentiel dans l'après-midi du 9 novembre. Au cours de leur entretien, le Chef de l'Etat et le Patriarche d'Antioche des Maronites ont confirmé leurs intentions communes visant à garantir l'unité nationale et à empêcher que le Liban ne soit emporté par le repositionnement des axes de force régionaux qui opposent l'Arabie Saoudite à l'Iran. Selon le porte-parole du Patriarcat maronite, la visite du Patriarche se concentrera sur les thèmes du dialogue, du refus du terrorisme et de l'extrémisme et portera également sur la condition des travailleurs libanais résidant en Arabie Saoudite, qui, selon les données du Ministère des Affaires étrangères libanais, seraient au nombre de quelques 300.000. L'invitation officielle à visiter l'Arabie Saoudite et à rencontrer le Roi Salman et le Prince héritier, Mohamed bin Salman, avait été remise au Cardinal par le chargé d'affaires de l'Ambassade saoudienne à Beyrouth, Walid Bukhari, mercredi dernier, 1er novembre (voir Fides 03/11/2017). « La visite en tant que telle – avait déclaré à ce propos à l'Agence Fides S.Exc. Mgr Camillo Ballin MCCJ, Vicaire apostolique pour l'Arabie septentrionale – pourrait signer le début d'une nouvelle attitude de l'Arabie Saoudite envers les autres religions ». Par le passé, seul le Patriarche grec orthodoxe d'Antioche, Elias IV, avait visité officiellement l'Arabie Saoudite, en 1975. Le Patriarche d'Antioche des Maronites, qui est également membre du Sacré Collège, pourrait ainsi devenir le premier Cardinal à visiter officiellement l'Arabie Saoudite pour y rencontrer les autorités du pays. Entre temps, la démission du Premier Ministre libanais a accentué la valeur politique et géopolitique de la visite patriarcale. Au Liban, monte la polémique autour des hypothèses selon lesquelles Saad Hariri ne serait pas libre de quitter l'Arabie Saoudite ou se trouverait même en résidence surveillée à Riyad, accusé de connivences avec une présumée tentative de coup d'Etat attribuée aux personnalités saoudiennes incarcérées et politiquement éliminées à la demande du Prince héritier, Mohammed Bin Salman. Selon les déclarations du porte-parole patriarcal, le Patriarche d'Antioche des Maronites transmettra aux fonctionnaires saoudiens le message selon lequel « le Liban ne devrait pas devenir un terrain d'affrontement » entre puissances régionales. Officiellement, le Président Aoun n'a pas accepté la démission du Premier Ministre, Saad Hariri, rendue publique dans le cadre d'une intervention télévisée de ce dernier sur la chaîne Al Arabiya. Le Liban – a ajouté le porte-parole du Patriarcat maronite, exprimant la pensée du Patriarche – « doit se tenir en dehors des conflits et des axes régionaux et chercher à être une oasis de paix, de stabilité et de dialogue, dans laquelle différentes cultures et religions coexistent et interagissent au sein de la société civile ». (GV) (Agence Fides 10/11/2017)

- Nouvelles menaces djihadistes à l’encontre des coptes

EGYPTE - Nouvelles menaces djihadistes à l'encontre des coptes, à éliminer en tant que responsables de la construction d'églises, d'évangélisation et de non respect de la charia

Le Caire (Agence Fides) – Les coptes en Egypte n'acceptent pas la condition de soumission imposée aux chrétiens dans les sociétés islamiques. Ils continuent à construire des églises et même à promouvoir des chaînes de télévision pour diffuser le message chrétien. C'est pourquoi ils doivent être frappés en tant qu'infidèles combattants et leurs églises faites exploser. Tel est, en synthèse, le message d'instigation à la violence à l'encontre des coptes égyptiens contenu dans un dossier diffusé ces jours derniers par la Fondation Wafa Media, organe de propagande djihadiste considérée comme affiliée au réseau du prétendu « Etat islamique ». Au cours de la seule année 2017, le terrorisme djihadiste a perpétré trois massacres de chrétiens coptes outre différents assassinats. Le 9 avril, Dimanche des Rameaux, les attentats contre deux églises coptes – l'une de la région de Tanta et l'autre à Alexandrie – ont fait 45 morts et plus de 130 blessés. Le 26 mai, une attaque terroriste contre un autobus de pèlerins dans le gouvernorat de Minya a porté à la mort de 28 coptes. (GV) (Agence Fides 10/11/2017)

PATRIMOINE -La voie romaine de la cité de Tyr n’est pas une rue... mais une salle basilicale

La voie romaine est en réalité une salle basilicale, qui avait les fonctions d'un frigidarium et d'un centre de sociabilité.

 

Le ministère du Tourisme a intérêt à mettre à jour ses brochures et intégrer les nouvelles données historiques sur la cité de Tyr.

May MAKAREM | OLJ10/11/2017

 

Sur le site d'al-Madina, où s'étendent les ruines de la cité antique de Sour, la mission franco-libanaise creuse le sol depuis 2008. Les résultats accumulés complètent (ou presque) l'image de la zone des thermes antiques et font surgir les ruines d'une mosquée fatimide et d'un martyrium.

 

Les récentes découvertes dans la zone des bains ont mené à une compréhension nouvelle de son architecture. Ainsi la voie romaine à colonnade double, considérée comme une rue à portiques par l'émir Maurice Chéhab, est en réalité « une salle couverte à trois nefs, datant de l'époque byzantine », affirme le spécialiste du Moyen-Orient antique Pierre-Louis Gatier, qui pilote la mission. « Elle était revêtue de mosaïque et de dalles de marbre. Or on ne fait pas rouler des chars sur un tel dallage. D'autre part, aucune trace de trottoirs, ou de dispositifs d'évacuation des eaux de pluie n'ont été trouvés. La grande rue est en fait une salle couverte de 190 mètres de long. Dans son état actuel, elle date de la fin du IVe siècle et appartient au vaste complexe des bains protobyzantins. Elle faisait la jonction entre la partie sud des bains proprement dits et les palestres où l'on pratiquait la lutte, la gymnastique et d'autres exercices, et la partie nord des bains, où notre mission a mis au jour une piscine en plein air, des latrines et une série d'aménagements », souligne l'expert. Il ajoute que la salle avait les fonctions d'un frigidarium et d'un centre de sociabilité. C'était aussi un hall d'exposition de sculptures romaines.

(Pour mémoire : Un sanctuaire hellénistique découvert à Tyr, une première)

Selon M. Gatier, à cette époque byzantine, les Tyriens, se méfiant des chrétiens qui pourraient vouloir casser les bustes des empereurs et les statues des divinités qui décoraient la cité, les avaient rassemblés dans la salle pour les conserver en témoignage du glorieux passé de la ville. Ces mêmes statues ont été transportées au musée national par Maurice Chéhab.

 

Les excavations menées au pied de la piscine ont fait surgir les fondations et quelques murs en élévation d'un monument public, identifié comme un temple datant de l'ère phénicienne. De même, les archéologues ont retrouvé les soubassements du rempart phénicien, signalé autrefois par Maurice Chéhab.

 

Au nord des bains toujours, les opérations de fouilles ont permis d'exhumer trois quartiers d'habitations romaines et byzantines, offrant deux plans de maisons différents. Dans l'un des secteurs, elles sont construites assez serrées les unes contre les autres, et donnent directement accès sur de petites rues. Alors que dans les autres secteurs, apparemment plus luxueux, elles sont dotées d'une cour d'entrée qui les sépare de la rue.

 

Lieux « perturbés »

Les experts ont également dégagé un sanctuaire byzantin de type martyrium, c'est-à-dire à plan centré octogonal. M. Gatier fait observer que le bâtiment, bordé par quatre rues, a été « extrêmement abîmé » par les installations artisanales des Arabes et des Francs qui ont occupé tout le quartier. « Ils ont réutilisé les citernes des bains et en ont creusé d'autres un peu partout, perturbant de ce fait les lieux. » L'archéologue signale que c'est là, il y a quelques années, que ses collègues anglo-américains ont trouvé des ateliers de verriers datant du Moyen Âge.

 

La dernière découverte n'est pas des moindres : sous la cathédrale construite par les Francs, sont apparues « les traces du plan général d'une mosquée fatimide. « Le bâtiment des ablutions est toutefois très bien préservé, ainsi que les éléments décoratifs d'un portail, du même style que ceux des mosquées fatimides du Caire. »

 

Une chose est sûre, Tyr n'a pas fini de révéler ses secrets. Les fouilles interrompues pour l'hiver reprendront l'été prochain. En attendant, le ministère du Tourisme a intérêt à mettre à jour ses brochures et intégrer les nouvelles données historiques sur la cité de Tyr.

 

جدول أعمال بطريرك الموارنة في أرض الحرَمَين

بعد اعلان الرئيس الحريري استقالته من ارض  السعودية ، ما هو مصير  زيارة البطريرك الماروني المرتقبة الى ارض الحرمين ؟

جدول أعمال بطريرك الموارنة في أرض الحرَمَين

 ألان سركيس – الجمهورية  

الخميس , ٠٢ تشرين الثاني ٢٠١٧

ليس غريباً أن تُوجَّه دعوةٌ الى المسؤولين السياسيين والروحيّين لزيارة السعودية، خصوصاً أنّ مسبحة الزيارات بدأت تكرّ، لكن ما برز في الأمس هو الدعوة التي تسلّمها البطريرك الماروني الكاردينال مار بشارة بطرس الراعي من القائم بأعمال السفارة السعودية في لبنان الوزير المفوّض وليد البخاري لزيارة الرياض قريباً.

دعوة البخاري لم تقتصر على الزيارة، بل تم تحديدُ برنامج اللقاءات الذي بلغ أعلى مستوى، حيث سيلتقي الراعي الملك السعودي سلمان بن عبد العزيز، ووليّ العهد الأمير محمد بن سلمان، في حين أنّ معظم القيادات التي زارت الرياض أخيراً لم تلتقِ الملك سلمان.

وتؤكّد مصادرُ البطريركية المارونية أنّ اللقاء بين الراعي والبخاري كان ممتازاً، والدعوة السعودية تُمثّل تحوّلاً جديداً في سياسة المملكة، ويكفي الوصف الذي إستعمله البخاري للدلالة على أهميّتها، إذ قال من بكركي: «تُعتبر من أهم الزيارات الرسمية، وهي تاريخية».

وتنظر بكركي بعين الإرتياح الى هذا التحوّل السعودي، وتكشف مصادرها لـ«الجمهورية» أنه «كان يُعمل لهذه الزيارة منذ نحو سنتين، وحصلت إتصالات بين البطريركية والسفارة السعودية، الى أنّ تمّ تحديد الموعد، وباتت امراً واقعاً».

وتشدّد بكركي على الفصل بين زيارة الراعي والزيارات السياسية التي حصلت أخيراً، وتقول: البطريرك لن يذهب الى المملكة للدخول في التفاصيل السياسية والزواريب الداخلية، فبكركي ليست طرفاً بل هي الأمينة على الكيان اللبناني، وهذه الزيارة هي الأولى لبطريرك ماروني الى المملكة في تاريخنا الحديث، وستقتصر اللقاءاتُ الرسمية على الملك سلمان، والأمير محمّد بن سلمان، فيما الزياراتُ السياسية لم تصل الى حدّ لقاء الملك».

أما عن الموضوعات التي سيعرضها الراعي مع الملك سلمان، فهي عدّة، إذ تؤكّد مصادر بكركي أنّ «لقاءَ رأس الكنيسة المارونية بالملك السعودي لن يكون عادياً، فهذه المرة الأولى التي يحصل حوارٌ مباشر بين الجهتين، وقد حضّر البطريرك الموضوعات التي سيطرحها وهي ستتركّز على ملفّاتٍ كثيرة أبرزها:

- أولاً دعم مطلب لبنان لأن يكون مركزاً لحوار الحضارات والأديان، وهذا الأمر طرحه رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال عون في الأمم المتحدة، وبكركي تريده أن يتحقّق وتطلب مساعدة السعودية فيه.

- ثانياً، الحوارُ بين الأديان، خصوصاً بين الإسلام والمسيحية، إنطلاقاً من رفض العنف والإرهاب، والعمل المشترَك للحفاظ على التنوّع الطائفي والمذهبي في الشرق.

- ثالثاً، وضع الجالية اللبنانية عموماً والمسيحية خصوصاً، إذ تأمل بكركي أن تستمرّ المملكة في سياسة الإنفتاح ما يساعد الجالية في البقاء والإستمرار.

- رابعاً، العلاقات المارونية السعودية، واللبنانية- السعودية، إذ إنّ لبنان يعتبر السعودية بلداً صديقاً، ويجب العمل على تعزيز هذا الأمر، وأيُّ انْحدارٍ في العلاقة بين الطرفين سيلحق الضرر بالجميع، خصوصاً أنّ لبنان متمسّكٌ بأفضل العلاقات مع أشقائه العرب.

- خامساً، الوضع العام في لبنان والمنطقة، من دون الدخول في التفاصيل والزواريب السياسية، فلبنان يطلب مساعدة المملكة في ملفات عدّة منها إقتصادية، ومنها وجودية، حيث يمكن للرياض أن تلعب دوراً أساساً في معالجة أزمة النزوح وتداعياتها وإيجاد حلول لأزمات المنطقة ما ينعكس إيجاباً على لبنان ويساهم في إرساء السلام والأمان لجميع شعوب المنطقة، أقليات وأكثريات.

وتراهن بكركي على الحوار الذي سيجري بين البطريرك والملك، خصوصاً أنها الفرصة الأولى لطرح هكذا موضوعات، وترى بكركي في الخطوة السعودية تحوّلاً في اتّجاه التعامل والتعاون مع الموارنة والمسيحيين، خصوصاً أنّ الرياض تنظر الى لبنان كبلد شقيق، وقد ميّزت بطريرك الموارنة بهذه الدعوة الخاصة والمتقدّمة، ما يدلّ على أنّ النيات الطيّبة موجودة وفتح صفحة جديدة مبنيّة على الإنفتاح على الجميع قائمة.

قد لا يكون هناك متسّعٌ من الوقت للقاء البطريرك بالجالية اللبنانية، لكنّ هذه الجالية ستكون حاضرةً في لقاءاته مع المسؤولين السعوديين، وهي تُعتبر مساهماً أساسياً في تطوير المملكة، كما أنّ هناك مطالب قد تُطرح لعلّ أبرزها بناء كنائس في السعودية في ظلّ النهج الجديد الذي يرسيه الأمير محمد بن سلمان، وقراراته الأخيرة بشأن المرأة أكبر دليل.

Envoyé de mon iPhone JTKhoreich