As we walked through the ruins of Bethsaida, we paused near the palace.
Use your imagination. I know it looks nothing like a palace. The footprint of the remains are larger than this photo. Plus, palace by today standards and palace by “then” standards aren’t necessarily the same.
Anyway, right next to these remains is a much smaller foundation of remains labeled “Fisherman’s House.” I have to admit I would never have thought about this without our guide pointing it out: Was it feasible that this was actually the fisherman’s house? Why would the fisherman, someone who wouldn’t have had a high position in the community, live next to the palace? Do we just want there to be a fisherman’s house at Bethsaida, since the disciples Andrew and Simon Peter were fisherman from Bethsaida (John 1:44)?
I looked online (as if finding information online proves the truth) and found a possible answer. The remains are from different periods of time. The Fisherman’s House is from the Roman period, and the palace is from the Iron Age.
Well, that makes sense.
But is it correct?
It’s funny how gullible we can be to believe something and then become adamant about its absolute truth because we read it on a sign, heard it from a “reliable” source, or saw it (in our Facebook feed?). We think we know it all, but we haven’t stopped to really think through it. We haven’t gathered any perspectives except what supports our own. We refuse to explore additional possibilities. Our know-it-all claims make us vulnerable to pass up important information and absorb distorted truths.
I don’t know whether or not those stacks of stones are a fisherman’s house, palace, or something completely different. I could get my degree in archeology and research it with a lot more insight, but that’s not going to happen. Instead, I think I’ll just admit I’m not sure and take away the lesson that I need to ask good questions, pay attention to my sources, and be humble in what I think I know.
I don’t need to know it all. But I always need to be willing to learn.