Fetellus, again (1130 A.D.), places Cana five miles from Nazareth, Sepphoris two, and Tabor four. In the “Citez de Jherusalem” (1187 A.D.), it is made to be three leagues from Nazareth, with a well a bowshot off; Sepphoris being one league, and Tabor three. John Poloner in 1422 A.D. makes it four leagues east of Acre, and two leagues north of Sepphoris. Marino Sanuto describes it most carefully, and draws it on his map as north of a plain reaching south to Sepphoris, with a mountain behind it on the north; he gives the distance as four miles, Tabor also as four, and Sepphoris as two. Brocardus agrees with this description, and Quaresmius in 1620 A.D. notices the same site as an old traditional position for Cana.
These accounts, though the distances seem only approximative, agree in placing Cana at a distance from Nazareth equal to or greater than that of Tabor, and north of Sepphoris and of Roma. They can only therefore apply to Khŭrbet Kânah, situate with a plain to the south, a mountain to the north, and a cave like the crypt described by John Poloner, to the west. They cannot be applied to Kefr Kenna south of Roma (now Rûmeh), almost equidistant with Sepphoris from Nazareth and nearer than Tabor, with a mountain to the south and plain to the north.
The true distances are as follows:
| Nazareth to Kefr Kenna | 3¾ | English miles. |
| Nazareth to Kânah | 8 | English miles. |
| Nazareth to Rûmeh | 6 | English miles. |
| Nazareth to Seffûrieh | 3½ | English miles. |
| Nazareth to Tabor | 5½ | English miles. |
These measurements, as a glance at the map will show, serve to place Crusading Cana from the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries at the northern site of Khŭrbet Kânah. John of Wirtzburg, indeed (1100 A.D.), might be thought to mean Kefr Kenna, because he makes Cana east instead of north-east of Sepphoris; but he gives its distance as double that of the latter town from Nazareth (four miles, whilst Sepphoris is two according to him), the long mile used by most of his contemporaries being evidently intended. The distances thus serve to point in this case also to Khŭrbet Kânah.
Unfortunately the Crusading locality is not of necessity the true one. Writers who could believe that Shiloh was south of Bethel, who could place Tyre south of Carmel and Capernaum on the shore of the Mediterranean, cannot well be received as authorities on such a difficult question. Their identification is thus merely a matter of curiosity. The early pilgrims, before the Crusades, are generally more correct in their views, but even they cannot be received as certainly informed, so many and so curiously perverse are their errors in other points; in this case, moreover, they scarcely mention the place. St. Willibald (722 A.D.) gives a hint of its whereabouts in noticing Cana as on his road from Nazareth to Tabor—a position which seems to suit neither Kânah nor Kefr Kenna. St. Paula (383 A.D.) also passed it on her way from Nazareth to Sea of Galilee; and Theodorus (530 A.D.) makes it equidistant with Nazareth from Sepphoris (both five Roman miles), but does not mention the direction.
The comparative claims of the two places may thus be summed up: Khŭrbet Kânah approaches nearest in name, Kefr Kenna is in the most suitable position.
As regards the name, the word Cana, as spelt in the Greek, seems undoubtedly to represent Kanah as spelt in Hebrew with the “Koph,” a name occurring in the Book of Joshua as that of a town near Sidon (now Kânah) and that of a valley south of Shechem. Kenna spelt with the “Caf” is quite a different word; the root of Kanah has the meaning “reedy,” and this applies well to Khŭrbet Kânah, situate above a large marsh; the root of Kenna signifies “roofed,” and would be spelt properly in Greek with the X, not the K.
As regards position, it seems far more probable that Kenna, on the road to Tiberias, would be the place twice visited by Christ, than the remote Kânah, which is on no main line of travel. The objections also that the word Kefr has to be accounted for, and that no signs of antiquity are found at Kefr Kenna, were removed by the Survey, for we found an old ruin called Kenna near the beautiful spring west of the village of Kefr Kenna.
There is, however, another place which has never, I believe, been noticed, and which fits better than either with the early Christian site noticed by Willibald. 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 Kânah, 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.