The corresponding passages in the Evangelists concerning the Lord's crossing to the other side present many difficulties. The Evangelist Matthew says: "He departed from there in a boat to a desert place alone" (14:13). The Evangelist Mark: "And (the Apostles) were poisoned into a desert place, and into a boat alone" (6:32). The Evangelist Luke: "And He took them with Him, and withdrew into a desolate place near the city called Bethsaida" (9:10). The Evangelist John: "After this, Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of Tiberias (6:1).

First, did the Lord go in a boat, as Matthew and Mark report, or did He go to the vicinity of Tiberias, as John apparently reports? Undoubtedly, he went by boat. John's "went" in Greek is read "απηλθεν", and "απηλθεν" does not mean in the strict sense "went" (on foot), but in general "departed" The Evangelist Mark uses the same word: απηλθεν... τω πλοίω — "departed... in a boat"; consequently, in John, too, "απηλθεν" should be translated not by the word "went" (which, according to the property of the Russian language, indicates walking), but by the word "departed", and then in the case under consideration there will be no contradiction between the Evangelists.

The addition of the word "in the vicinity" in the Russian text is also superfluous; it is not in the Greek text, and it gives a kind of confirmation of the idea that the Lord really "went" (on foot), because Tiberias was located on this shore, and, therefore, if the Lord went to the vicinity of Tiberias, then there was nowhere to go by boat. But then there is a direct contradiction with the word "on the other side", πέραν. It is said: he went "to the other side". Either "on the other side" or "in the vicinity" of Tiberias. But since there is no "in the vicinity" in the Greek text, the choice is obvious: it is necessary to leave it "in the vicinity". This word is important, by the way, in order to assign the name of Tiberias somewhere. In Greek, it comes out: Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee – Tiberias. To explain the last addition, "in the vicinity" is inserted, but this is superfluous. "Tiberias" can be translated here in the same way as the preceding word Γαλλαιας — in the form of an adjective, and then it turns out that the Lord went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee — Tiberias. There is no ambiguity here; the latter only defines the former more clearly. This definition could have a double meaning: either it indicates a part of the Lake of Galilee, or it had in mind a completely different name for it. The Talmudists divided Galilee into lower Galilee, in which sycamores grow, into upper Galilee, in which sycamores do not grow, and Tiberias, which in religious and administrative terms stood in Galilee as special as Jerusalem in Judea (Olesnitsa 11:395).

Thus, the Evangelist John, perhaps, only more accurately determines the position of the lake through which the Lord crossed with His disciples. In another place, too, speaking of the appearance of the risen Lord, he calls the lake of Tiberias (21:1), indicating, perhaps, also that part of the lake which adjoined Tnveriada. But it could also be that the Lake of Galilee was also called the Lake of Tiberias: the locals called it the Lake of Galilee, and from an administrative point of view it could be called the Tiberias Lake.

In Ptolemy and Pauzanias, the lake is directly called Τιβεριας, Tiberias. The Evangelist John could have had in mind just such an official and Judeo-temple name.

Thus, in both cases, the addition της Τιβεριάδος must be placed in direct connection with the preceding words without the insertion "in the vicinity". And then the Evangelist John will have a direct meaning that the Lord went to the other side (and, consequently, on a boat) of the Sea of Galilee-Tiberias, i.e. the meaning is quite consistent with the other Evangelists.

Secondly, did He go on the same boat as the disciples, or especially from them? The Evangelist Matthew says that He departed alone, the Evangelist Mark says that the Apostles were poisoned in the boat alone. It turns out as if the Lord and the Apostles set out on special boats. And the Evangelist Luke says that He, having taken them with Him, departed separately; therefore, here the Lord and the Apostles depart, and only then did He depart from them. The Evangelist John in the first verse says nothing about this; but in verse 22 he directly says that there was only one boat on that shore and there was no other, therefore, it is obvious to John that the Lord went with the Apostles in the same boat.

How to reconcile these seeming contradictions? It seems that the Evangelist Luke will provide the key to their complete reconciliation. He says: "He, having taken them with Him, departed especially (ύπεχώρησε κατ' ιδίαν — departed especially) into an empty place"... Here κατ' ιδίαν does not refer to the crossing by boat, but to the way of the Lord on the shore after the crossing. At the crossing, "He took them with Him"; then on the shore he separated from them in a special empty place"... So it turns out in Luke: Do not others, i.e. the Evangelists Matthew and Mark, say so? The Evangelist Matthew says: "(The Lord) departed from there, Ode found Him with the news of the death of John the Stronger, to a desert place alone" (κατ' ιδίαν – especially). What does κατ' ιδίαν refer to here? To a boat, or to a desolate place? Does the Evangelist mean to say that He went alone on a boat? or that He withdrew into a desolate place alone? There can be no doubt that the Evangelist understood the latter. For him, because of the connection of his speech, it did not matter whether Jesus went separately on a boat or not. He says before this that the disciples of John the Baptist came and told Him about his death at the hands of Herod, "and when Jesus heard, he departed from thence... to a desolate place alone", i.e. He went into solitude, departed alone, as He did at other important moments.

The word "on a boat" was added by the Evangelist only to signify that He went "to the other side," not here He retired to the place where His important message was found, but crossed "to the other side."

Thus, according to the connection of the speech, the Evangelist had absolutely no need to emphasize His separate crossing; but there was every reason to emphasize that He withdrew to a desolate place alone...

Further, and grammatically, there is no reason to attribute κατ' ιδίαν to the word "in a boat" and not to the words "to a desolate place," which immediately precede it.

Finally, this meaning completely harmonizes the text of the Evangelist Matthew with the words of the Evangelist Luke, and, therefore, for this reason alone, deserves every preference.

In English, the text could have avoided any ambiguity in such a translation: "Jesus departed from there, having crossed by boat, to a deserted place alone." Or just put the words "on a boat" between commas, as an explanatory insertion only.

Now let us turn to Evangelist Mark (6.31-32): "And the apostles gathered together to Jesus... He said to them, "Go ye alone (κατ' ιδίαν) into a desert place, and rest a little: for there were many who came and went, so that they had no time to eat. And they went to a deserted place in a boat alone" (και απηλθον εις έρημον τόπον τω πλοίω κατ' ιδίαν).