Steven Avery

I'm really not sure your objection here. Josephus is imprecise, and we cannot superimpose one super-precision interpretation as a necessity. Even doing that, you never addressed Hippos bordering Tiberias on the north.
I agree. However, let's be clear. We have agreement on some basics, that the argument for Gadara being a region (polis, city-state) is now established (despite other posters) AND that it would likely extend at least close to the Kinneret. Those are concessions that already deep-six the majority of objections (Gerash.. 30 miles away.. Gadara, only a village, and 6 miles away). Now we are just trying to see if it is logical that Gadara would have land either on the Kinneret or on slopes close to Kinneret, so that the story is consistent. And the fact that Gadara borders the Bet She'an region, which is all west of Kinneret, is a very strong indication of some coastal area.
True-- here are three possibilities, none of which contradict Josephus.
a) Hippos has a northern or water border with Tiberias
b) The multiple *borders* are all Gadara,
though the cities are Gadara and Hippos.
c) There is some overlap of regions, ill defined
It is a good interpretative possiblity, as in (a) above.
You are overlooking both Hippos and Gadara bordering Tiberias, Gadara from the south, Hippos from the north, or in the lake (if they think that way, the way we do today)
Since I already mentioned a possible north of the lake border between Hippos and Tiberias, I am somewhat surpised that you simply ignore that in your analysis.
"The actual city" ?? What actual city ? Or do you mean "A village".
That is very silly, Amaleq. You basically agree that Gadera , to be contiguous to Bet She'an would go almost to the sea, we are really now quibbling about the last 1/4 kilometer. The fact that you don't know the area and roads is a problem for you, too. Today, the main road to Bet She'an goes directly from the area by Poriya, on the southwest corner area of Kinneret, and from the geography it is very likely the same then (natural valley). A bordering polis would be expected to be bordering on the main road. And that is on the sea, and "against the Galilee". Hmmmmmm
Share that with Diogenes, or maybe he is listening :-)

Keep in mind that from a burden of proof perspective, the onus would now be on you. I've shown a lot of good evidence for the Poriya area as matching the evidences from the NT and from history.

To make a case against that you first have to
a) show that Hippos can't have another border with Tiberias, especially
the northern border.
b) insist upon the accuracy of a specific super-literal logical interpretation
of Josephus, combined with his accuracy.

That is a real tuff road to hoe. The only other disproof would be

a) other good evidence that the country (polis) of Gadara would not extend
to the Poriya region. That would put a burden on me.

Honestly, I don't think any such evidence exists, and I believe that Gadara did in fact extend to the Bet She'an road/Poriya area, south of Tiberias.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

My objection is to your selective interpretation of Josephus. When he refers to the villages bordering Tiberias, you read it as referring to villages belonging to both Hippos and Gadara but the villages bordering Scythopolis only belong to Gadara. There is no basis for this interpretation.

That is simply a strawman. There is nothing "super-precise" about interpreting Josephus more reasonably than you have suggested.

It makes no sense in the context of Justus' destruction of villages on the outskirts of Tiberias' territory. Where you have Justus burning villages far to the north and far to the south, the more reasonable interpretation has him burning villages only south of the "Sea" (possibly following the Jordan down toward Scythopolis).

Not quite. We have reason to believe Gadara had responsibility for lands beyond the city proper but we have nothing to suggest that this area was named for the city and evidence that it actually had a different name (Peraea). That said, there is nothing obviously problematic with it being called "the land of the Gadarenes". We just have no extra-biblical confirmation of such a reference to the place.

Nope. We have seen nothing to suggest that the land for which Gadara was responsible included anthing toward the Kinneret. Josephus, as explained, only supports a territory extending south toward Scythopolis and seems to suggest that Hippos' region followed the southern coast to border with Tiberias'.

Where was it established that it was "only a village"? Your own sources described it as more a city than a village:

"At the period under consideration, Gadara appears to have been a good-sized fortified town, about two miles in circumference."

If you check, I think you will find your other sources explicitly describe it as a "city".

No, you need to find mountains and tombs close to the "Sea" and the city to find a location consistent with the story.

Unless your "water border" is the Jordan or the villages were floating in the "Sea", this makes no sense with Josephus. As I mentioned above, a northern border does not appear to be compatible with Justus' fire-setting rampage in the south.

Then there would be no need to mention Hippos at all.

Wishful thinking with no reason for existence except to preserve your faith-based assumptions.

No, I mean the city of Gadara. Your sources describe it as such as does your Bible.

I have no idea where you obtained the notion that I thought any region controlled by Gadara extended to the "Sea". I clearly suggested that Hippos and Tiberias shared a border at the Jordan and, thus, controlled the entire southern coast.

Nice try at shifting it but the burden remains on your shoulders. The story clearly describes a city (presumably Gadara) with mountains, tombs, and a large body of water nearby. The evidence you've provided so far only establishes that there may very well have been a region called "the country of the Gadarenes". You've got a lot more work ahead of you.

Good luck. :thumbs:

Steven Avery

Hi Amaleq,

First, an important article, that may finalize the whole Gadara issue, when we get the fuller source, perhaps by email or from the Jerusalem Perspective article or from the book, or maybe a bit of web searching.

The writer here, Mendel Nun, has the normal limitation of looking for only one spot, (since he does not accept the Historic Bible), and he starts with the corrupt texts like Vaticanus (although he knows they are wrong here).

Ultimately he focuses on Gergesa, (Kursi), which is the Matthew story location, and he apparently did exhaustive research and study ..

================================================== ===

The "Land of the Gadarenes": New Light on an Old Sea of Galilee Puzzle).
http://articles.jerusalemperspective...ArticleID=1674
Site of the Demoniac's Healing - Mendel Nun"

"There is a certain geographic basis for the name Gadara, since the city’s domain extended to the southeastern shore of the lake"

(see my forthcoming The "Land of the Gadarenes": New Light on an Old Sea of Galilee Puzzle).

.. excerpted and abridged from Mendel Nun’s Gergesa (Kursi): Site of a Miracle Church & Fishing Village (Kibbutz Ein Gev: Kinnereth Sailing Co., 1989), and his forthcoming The "Land of the Gadarenes": New Light on an Old Sea of Galilee Puzzle.

Also interesting
http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/...ArticleID=1631
Gergesa, Gerasa, or Gadara? Where Did Jesus' Miracle Occur? by Ze'ev Safrai

Note that simply from a historic basis, Mendel's studies haveconcluded...

"the city’s domain extended to the southeastern shore of the lake"

even though Mendel is arguing for Gergasa on the other side for the (one) healing !

This Mendel research find seems to override our ongoing discussion of northern and southern borders :-) Let's research his basis in the days ahead.

And ironically, Mendel (only looking for one site) does raise two objections to Gadara, even while acknowledging its locale matching what I have shared on the thread.

Mendel is concerned about the phrasing from Capernaum
"let us pass over to the other side " - Mark 4:35
"he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake" Luke 8:22

Look at the map :-)
http://www.netours.com/2003/Kursi.htm
Capernaum on the north, Poriya is the other side !
(southwest corner of Kinneret)

Mendel is concerned
-- that Gadara is "at the other end", not "the other side"

"the district of Gadara is not "across to the other side" (Mk. 4:35; Lk. 8:22), rather it is at the other, or southern, end of the lake, a distance of over sixteen kilometers from Capernaum. Fishermen, cautious by nature, were not in the habit of sailing such distances, particularly in the dangerous winter season."

Sheesh :-) Even in English we would say that Buffalo is on the other side of Lake Erie as Detroit and nobody would bat an eyelash :-) That objection probably doesn't work in either koine Greek, 1611 English or today's English.

Mendel's other concern is the distance and time and weather ..
" a distance of over sixteen kilometers from Capernaum. Fishermen, cautious by nature, were not in the habit of sailing such distances, particularly in the dangerous winter season."

This distance concern is ironic, since Jesus announced the trip..
" Let us go over unto the other side of the lake"

And then they DID run into treacherous weather, which is when Jesus
"rebuked the wind and the raging of the water - Luke 8:24
"And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still."
Mark 4:39

Well, He had the 16 kilometer trip well in hand :-)

===============================================

AND also interesting is the discussion of Gadara by John Gill, as south of Nazareth, and he also shows the usage of "Gadarene". Even if Gill is unsure or confused about Gergesenes :-) Chammath would be south of Tiberias.

However, there is a good possibility however, that "Chammath of Gadara" is the current Hamat Gadar, if the word refers only to "hot baths" and not a city named Chammath near Tiberias, which would make this section mostly neutral to our discussion. He is voluminous in his referencing :-)

Chammath was a mile from F5 Tiberias, and this Chammath was so near to the country of Gadara, that it is often called, (rdgd tmx) , "Chammath of Gadara" F6; unless it should be rather rendered, "the hot baths of Gadara": for so it is F7 said, that at Gadara are the hot baths of Syria; which may be the same with the hot baths of Tiberias, so often mentioned in the Jewish writings F8; hence the town of Chammath had its name, which was so near to Tiberias, that it is sometimes reckoned the same with it {i}: Pliny F11 places this Gadara in Decapolis, and Ptolemy F12 in Coelo Syria; and Meleager, the collector of epigrams, who is called a Syrian, is said F13 to be a Gadarene, a native of this Gadara. Mention is made of the whirlpool of Gadara F14, which remained ever since the flood. It appears to be an Heathen country, both from its situation, and the manners of the people.

F5 T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 2. 2.
F6 T. Hieros. Erubin, fol. 23. 3. & Trumot, fol. 41. 3. & Sabbat, fol. 5. 4.
F7 Eunapius in Vita Iamblici, p. 26.
F8 T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 108. 1. T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 6. 1.
F9 T. Bab. Megilia, fol. 6. 1.
F11 L. 5. c. 18.
F12 L. 5. c. 15.
F13 Fabricii Bibliotheca Grace. T. 2. p. 683.
F14 T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 108. 1.

===============================================
The next few answers were from BEFORE I saw the Mendel reference above, which now, imho, overrides the whole discussion.

No, you are missing the basics. I don't offer both bordering Tiberias as either necessary for Josephus or not. It is simply good geography, and it incidentally resolves YOUR problem about the wording of Josephus. If Hippos borders Tiberias on the north, and Gadara borders both Scythopolis and Tiberias, everything makes perfect sense, just like it makes sense in your scenario of Hippos bordering Tiberias and Gadera bordering Scythopolis. Neither scenario is at all counter-indicated and there is no "selective interpretation" involved.
Apparently this is your argument against Hippos bordering Tiberias on the north (or northeast). I don't follow it, and if you want me to take it seriously, you have to give the Josephus quote and explain why Hippos can't be contiguous to Tiberias on the north.
The Beit She'an region would extend at most to the Jordan. Toward the Jordan is toward the Kinneret from Gadara. However, the big issue is how far Scythopolis went by the Kinnaret, and why you extend Hippos all the way around the lake, but not Gadara. Rather arbitrary, with basically zilch evidence, since Hippos itself is farther away.[/QUOTE]
That is your very weak and arbitrary suggestion based on your parsing of his words, acceptance of a super-literal interp, and so far unknown arguments against a northern border.
Ok, but not consequential to my point, the errancy point was that it would have to be six miles away. That argument is now gone with the Kinneret wind.
:-) And I pinpointed the mountains. Dunno about tombs, if they are graveyards, then they are probably in many places, not sure if I can pinpoint them 2000 years later. A pretty flimsy basis for making an errancy case :-) lol
That sounds like a very weak argument on face, and your whole structure is dependent on it :-)

AND the Mendel Nun research above may deep-six your whole view.

If he set their villages on fire, either going by the north, or cutting through a swath of Gadara, he would mention Hippos.

No. Nope.

Please understand this, it is very important..
The city of Gadara is NEVER mentioned in the accounts

The man came out of "the city" within "the country of the Gadarenes" where the event took place. "Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes" ound about besought him to depart from them;"

Your presumption is wrong :-) The rest of what you say is right.

Actually, if Mendel is right, or at least sensible and consistent in his understanding of the border of Gadara, (and he appears to have researched this more than anybody, and his personal reconstruction does not utilize the info at all)... my work is finito :-)

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

That will be interesting to read but, as I already pointed out, all that really gives you is a shore. You still need mountains, tombs, and the city nearby but Gadara is six miles away.

I don't agree because it makes more sense to me to suggest that Justus burned villages to the south of the "Sea" on the borders of his territory than to say he went on a village-burning rampage way to the north of the "Sea" and then turned around and went all the way to the south of the "Sea" to burn some more (or vice versa).

The quote is in this thread in a couple places and I didn't say Hippos couldn't have shared a border to the north. I said it makes more sense to understand Josephus to be talking about Justus' village-burning activities in the same general location (ie south of the "Sea").

I've explained the reasoning several times already and it clearly isn't "arbitrary" but based on the locations of the cities on the map and given Josephus' description.

I'm starting to wonder if you are even reading my posts because you continue to get them wrong. There is nothing arbitrary in my reading of Josephus, it is not "super-literal" (though compared to yours it might seem that way), and I have not denied a northern border but argued that only a southern Tiberias-Hippos border makes sense in the context of Justus' activities. Please reread my previous posts because you clearly have not been following them closely enough.

In which post? You've only mentioned hills as far as I recall.

Sorry but finding those tombs is important to your burden of establishing correspondence between the story and reality. I have no burden to argue "errancy" for a fairy tale about possessed pigs.

It may establish a Gadaran shore but that's about it. The city, tombs and mountains still appear to be six miles away.

Josephus mentions no cutting through Gadara. He speaks of Justus burning villages on the borders of Tiberias.

I didn't say it was but the implication that "the city" is Gadara is clear and you apparently agree with that:

So what, exactly, is your point here?

Is "the city" mentioned in the story Gadara or not? I say it is but the distance between the mountains, tombs, city and lake implied by the story seem considerably less than six miles.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,
I am skipping non-productive stuff that will all be mute if it is confirmed that the region of the Gadarenes extends to the southwest end of Kinneret. Obviously that will trump parsing of the words of Josephus, in terms of boundries, etc.

You mean I have to show you the exact gravesite from 2000 years ago ? Else you won't accept the story. Perhaps, Thomas was much easier to work with.

(The rest of your request would be covered because we have mountains in the country of the Gadarenes, by Kinneret.)

> Praxeus
> And I pinpointed the mountains.

I can really tell you don't know the geography of the area.
In Israel big steep hills are mountains :-)

Ahhh.. now you are being a hypocrite, taking a real adverserial role, you were doing ok before this.
First, you know that the tombs don't make a difference to you, even if you had a guided tour, you would still rant against the Scripture text. That is your own rebellion, but it would be better to attempt to supress your anger and confusion. And you also should know that finding them is a silly request from an archaelogical standpoint because lots of such sites are buried, or hidden away, or could have been destroyed under foreign occupation. And if they are there, and found, it wouldn't matter to you, you make that perfectly clear.

No way ! Have never said, implied or agreed same, apparently or really.
The CITY of Gadara is NEVER mentioned in the scripture text, not here, not in any account.

>The story clearly describes a city (presumably Gadara)
>with mountains, tombs, and a large body of water nearby.

I said your presumption is wrong, there is no reason to place Gadara as the city. The story describes a large body of water (Kinneret), mountains (now placed as the steep hills below Poriya) and tombs. I agreed with you on the story description :-)

I realize you might be a little stung that you have had to backtrack so far in your original attempt to claim error in the New Testament location of what is wrong in the modern versions (Gerash) and accurate in the King James Bible (the country of the Gadarenes). Nonetheless you should clear your head and remember that YOU were trying to claim error in the story, not that I would find every nook and cranny of the story.

Apparently rather than simply concede that establishing the country of the Gadarenes on the southwest end of Kinneret by the steep hills going down to the water really ends the errancy issue -- you have decided to take the whining and name-calling and nit-picking and parsing and harassing route instead.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

No, just what I said: mountains, tombs, city, near lake. That is if you wish to expand your claim to state that the entirety of the story's location can be found in reality.

Unless you just want to stick to the specific original claim you made, please be as specific as you possibly can be in identifying the actual area in which you believe this story took place.

Ahhh... now you resort to name-calling and you were doing so much better at presenting a rational argument before this.

False. The tombs are an important part of the story so any claim that the story's location entirely corresponds with reality will necessarily involve locating tombs.

That would certainly make your task more difficult but that is not my problem. The tombs near Gadara seem to have been easy to find so maybe you shouldn't be so pessimistic.

You continue to fail to accurately understand what I have written. If a city in the "country of the Gadarenes", near mountains, tombs, and lake can be found, I will quite readily admit that the setting of the story could very well be an actual place.

So where is the city mentioned in the story?

I don't consider accepting that there was a region associated with Gadara to constitute backtracking "so far". It is actually a rather minor concession that doesn't establish your original claim. You may have some future evidence that this region included some shoreline but then you've still got to locate a city with mountains and tombs nearby to establish a possible actual setting for the story. I'm not saying you have to do so here and now. I'm just mentioning that because I started to get the impression you thought you were confirming the whole story when all you've really done is establish a region belonging to Gadara.

I think you need to read back through the thread, amigo. I have made no such claim. What I have done is question your assertion:

"Gadara is the region going right to the southern shore of Galilee, as well as the city. And this is confirmed by Josephus and archaelogy as well."

We have since learned that "confirmed" was quite an exaggeration of what the evidence mentioned actually supports. As I mentioned, the best you've actually established is that there was a region belonging to the city of Gadara. You have not established that this region was called by the same name as the city but that isn't what your Bible says so it isn't really relevant. I'm entirely willing to accept that the region associated with Gadara could have been called "the country of the Gadarenes". More central, however, you have also not established that the region extended "right to the southern shore of Galilee". You may find support from this claim in the future article you referenced but you clearly do not have it "confirmed" by the sources upon which you currently base the claim.

You seem to be troubled by the recent shift to the total story from this specific aspect but it appeared clear to me that you were broadening your claims when you started talking about "hills" down which the alleged swine might plummet and more general concerns of "errancy". If you are simply restricting your claim to the quote above, then we've already seen how far short it falls from being true. Comments like the one below, however, make me think you are striving to claim more.

First, you haven't established that yet. Second, our "issue" has never been about "errancy" but about the accuracy of your assertion. We have since learned that it wasn't very accurate at all. The only thing "confirmed" is the notion that the city of Gadara was responsible for a region similar to the other cities of the decopolis. If and when you attempt to stretch to a claim complete inerrancy (ie total historicity), though, you're going to have to find that city with the mountains and tombs nearby.

It is disappointing to me that you are unable to maintain a rational discussion without resorting to this sort of nonsense. I can understand how you might secretly consider arguments against your deeply held beliefs to be "whining", "nit-picking", "parsing" or "harassing", though saying it in public only makes you look bad, but when have I called you names?

Steven Avery

Apparently in your concern in having a favorite geographical refutation of the NT refuted, you lost all sense of the discussion, which began as an attempt by errantists to find confirmed error in Mark geography. The location of the swine/demoniac reports quickly gained #1 billing, and I contested it as being any sort of error at all.

Now, in this thread, the original claims against the accounts of Mark, Luke and Mathew were disassembled, step by step, answering a number of arguments and concerns, and demonstrating that there is good evidence for Mark's geography (the original issue), and the NT accounts in general.

In review, this is the basics of the errancy attack, and the truth of the
Word of God.

a) the principle claim against the NT had been shown to be based on the alexandrian text (which true, full inerrantists do not use) usage of Gerash.

b) the claim was also based on an incorrect understanding of "the country of the Gadarenes" as being limited to the area right around the city of Gadara. (which is six miles from Kinneret). In addition it was shown that the city of Gadara itself is never mentioned in any account.

c) the claim then switched to the idea that "the country of the Gadarenes" would not be adjacent to the Kinneret, and that was (with a smidgen of ongoing research) shown to be a claim that will not wash.

d) In addition it was shown that various aspects of the account, such as "against the Galilee" and the "other side of the sea", and steep hills near the lake, all work fine with the location of the event by the hills under Poriya.

This study and analysis simply refuted the errancy claim, so Amaleq, you quickly switched to a different tact, almost like those shell game folks in the city, an emphasis on lesser and essentially irrelevant objections. Pretending that such things as finding the tombs were equivalent to your original claims of errancy. And in taking that tact, you also struggled to put claims in my mouth that I simply never made, a classic straw man technique. Quite tacky, quite transparent.

A fraud upon the thread's dynamic, compounded when you assailed the scripture text as a "fairy tale" -- AFTER, ironically, its geography had been shown to be unfairly and falsely assailed by so many. (And you never attacked me personally, that attack on the scripture text however demonstrated that you had simply lost the thread).

Overall, as to the Gedarenes, Gergesenes and Gerash discussion, It seems you have nothing more to offer of substance. So I thank you for your contributions.

Despite being somewhat surprised at how difficult it was for you to grasp the nature of the thread, and to simply acknowledge the basics, I am very grateful that we had the opportunity to hash this out.

And I will plan to return to the thread discussion when I find out more about the Mendel Nun material.

And the thread will be bookmarked and recommended for review for those who want to learn about the nature of discussions on the errancy of the Bible. I truly believe that it stands as a good piece to be analyzed.

Granted, I am sure that I could have represented and defended the Book 100 times better, however, despite our weaknesses, the Word of God stands true :-)

Halleluyah !

Shalom and Grace in Messiah Yeshua,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

Apparently, you have not bothered to review the thread because you are still laboring under a mistaken conception of our (between you and I) discussion. You appear to be confusing our discussion with the one between you and Diogenes. Our discussion began here with me questioning the specific assertion you made. If you review our exchanges from that point, you will find that assertion was the focus of our discussion. I realize it is difficult to keep track when you are engaged in multiple discussions and would normally be more than willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt as simply being confused except that I just explained this in the previous post! It is hard to understand how you could still be confused after such an explicit clarification. I'm really starting to question how closely you are reading my posts or even if you are at all.

The only "errancy claim" I have made has been against your specific assertion. Against that claim I initially questioned the evidence for a region and was eventually satisfied one existed though not by the name "Gadara" as you claimed. I then questioned the evidence for the region including shoreline on the Sea of Galilee and that evidence has been found wanting. You hold out hope, however, that an upcoming article will provide the evidence you need.

There was no "switching" of claims but a progression of critically evaluating the individual claims comprising your assertion. The same assertion was being examined throughout but it involved multiple individual claims. It is absurd to consider a methodical examination of those individual claims as some sort of trickery or slight-of-hand.

With regard to our specific discussion, that is clearly not true. Josephus offers evidence of a region belonging to Gadara. Period. You hope that the future article will provide support for some of that region to have existed on the coast of the Sea of Galilee but you don't have that support yet.

It was claimed but not "shown" with any supportive evidence. You claim that "hills" should be understood to be the "mountains" of the story but that seems dubious to me. They had a word for "hills" didn't they? There is a difference between the hills you describe on the coast and the mountains our sources describe around Gadara, isn't there? It seems to me that, if the KJV is inerrant as you say, and the text of Mark says "mountains" (repeatedly), then it makes no sense to interpret it to mean "hills". Or are you claiming that the terrain by the shore is identical to the terrain by Gadara?

First, I made no "original claims of errancy". I questioned your assertion. Second, I clearly indicated in the previous post that locating the tombs would be part of a larger effort on your part and not necessary for your assertion.

Congratulations! You just broke my irony meter!

Speaking of false accusations, I'm somewhat surprised you don't feel obligated to apologize for falsely accusing me of calling you names.

That's what I would call any story involving demonically possessed pigs. I understand that it is easier to talk about such content under more general terms like "inerrant" because it just sounds so silly to say one firmly believes in the literal truth of stories about talking snakes and donkeys.

I don't "assail" the Bible when I observe that it contains such silly stories. I'm simply treating it like any other text.

Now I know you haven't been paying attention because I haven't been involved in any discussion of those variants! I've been sticking with your preferred text so as to specifically avoid that discussion.

That would be swell but I would appreciate it even more if you actually read my posts here so you might manage to attribute the correct arguments to the correct individual.

Actually, tomorrow I plan to split out our discussion of "the country of the Gadarenes" into its own thread since it isn't really relevant to the OP. I think I'll name it Josephus and Gadara to aid in future searches.

Given how completely confused you've become with regard to who is arguing what and what, exactly, the evidence considered actually supports, you might want to rethink that plan. I don't think others are going to share your impression of how this thread went.

At least not our discussion. :wave:

Steven Avery

And I have given a variety of evidence to support my assertion. (notice that there was no reference to pinpointing the tombs or what city) , so much so that you had to distance yourself from your original views.

Praxeus --
"Gadara is the region going right to the southern shore of Galilee, as well as the city. And this is confirmed by Josephus and archaelogy as well."

Josephus clearly shows it as a region, and I tried to explain to you why Gadara as a region bordering the Bet She'an region and the Hippos region and the Tiberias region, would extend to or very near the Kinneret. You were hampered because apparently you are simply unfamiliar with the region and came up with the type of alternative geographical speculations one would expect if they had never spent time in the area.

The archaelogy issue has revolved around a number of quotes, (you generally seem to simply discount an archaelogical discussion if it comes from a Christian source) the Mendel Nun discussion, and the coin issue, for which you offered an alternative understanding. Also involved was the historical/geographical aspect of the Decapolis, the discussions of them as polis city-states.

Overall, the result was that even you ended up conceding that the Gadarene region was more than the city, and that it would be a regional area.

While your original view was that the references to other villages

"does not support the claim that a reference to visiting Gadara meant a region by that name."

Eventually, with full review of evidences, you now agree that the
"country of the Gadarenes"
will refer to a whole polis city-state region. You conceded your original point, and switched to whether that region will include the Kinneret.

Nonsense. You have gone on about issues like the tombs that have nothing to do with the original assertion. You have tried to place the onus on me to corroborate each small detail of the Bible accounts. Those are your "errancy" views, they have nothing to do with our original discussion.

Have you ever heard of Mount Moriah, and Mount Zion around Jerusalem? They are less substantial than the hills, or mountains, rising from Galilee in the Tiberias area. You simply are not familiar with the terminology of the region.

As an example here is the "elongated stretch of land" , Mount Moriah
http://jeru.huji.ac.il/eb22s.htm

The Poriya hills are about as large and steep as they come in the area.
Here is Jesus coming from Kinneret up to a "mountain".
Matthew 15:29
And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.

For reference here was my original quote.
"And the much steeper place would be around Poriyya...Those hills are steep, I have driven up the road there to the youth hostel and it is a humdinger sharp turn and curving road up the hill."

You can check the lexicion. Oros is translated as mountain and hill dozens of time, and includes many "mountains" that we might consider hills. Have you ever toured Israel ? Bounos is used twice for hill or mound twice in Luke, apparently not a native Greek word.

Poriya is actually a lot steeper, in my experience. An American would more likely call the Hamat Gadar region as hills, there are not really any mountain peaks by our standards, the elevation is not much, but the hot springs are fantastic.

In the rest you don't add anything new.
You repeatedly raise extraneous supposed inerrancy issues that I never raise, and that are barely relevant to ANY conversation, and then you claim that you never were concerned with the errancy issues. You are playing both ends of the conversation.

You fall back on the tawdry accusation of "fairy tale", and I consider you a hypocrite for taking that tact after the thread refuted your original view. That was my big heavy-duty accusation, and it is affirmed by your continually playing both ends of the conversation, and raising extraneous supposed "errancy" issues that simply have nothing to do with the "country of the Gadarenes" discussion. The moderator/spectator of course rah-rah's your attempt to obfuscate the refutation of his geography errancy accusastion in that manner, he understands your methodology better than you do.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

I would question the true "variety" of it but I am certainly assuming you have offered the best available evidence to support your claim. And it is clear that the only part of your assertion that is actually supported is the notion of a region under control of the city of Gadara.

You've got zero evidence of a region called "Gadara".

You've got zero evidence that the region controlled by the city of Gadara included shoreline.

Notice that I never made the claim that this was part of your original assertion and have made it quite clear that locating the tombs and city would be required only for an argument that the entire story corresponds to reality.

Why do you keep making claims that are demonstrably untrue? The only original view I have revised is that Gadara had no control over a region. It seems absurd to criticize me for being willing to change my mind given sufficient evidence but I think that simply reflects a fundamental difference in our approaches. You operate primarily on faith which allows no possibility of a false conclusion while I consider all my conclusions to be provisional (ie subject to change given sufficient evidence).

I think this has been pretty well established and acknowledged. Repeatedly.

You offered speculation and the hope of future confirming evidence. I am entirely willing to accept coastal territory but only if there is evidence to warrant it!

You haven't demonstrated that personal familiarity with the area is even relevant, let alone conclusive.

I'm not terribly compelled by unsubstantiated speculation when it appears to derive from a desire to confirm the faith of the one speculating, no.

Objective archaeological evidence is another matter entirely but you haven't offered an awful lot of that and what you have does not "confirm" your assertion (eg the coins).

It is entirely disingenuous and utterly ridiculous to interpret what I have written about this future article as "dismissing" it.

I offered additional evidence that clearly undermined your assumption of a seafaring Gadara based on the image of a ship on some Gadara coins. When it is known that other Gadara coins feature Tyche, a popular goddess of many Greek cities often depicted on a ship because of her relationship to Oceanus rather than a literal connection to shipping, that assumption clearly cannot be relied upon.

I conceded that Gadara controlled a region but you have offered no evidence supporting any specific name. I subsequently considered the specific name irrelevant since, contrary to your assertion, your Bible doesn't name it "Gadara" but the "country of the Gadarenes". I am willing to accept the assumption, absent any specifically confirming evidence, that the region controlled by Gadara may have been called "country of the Gadarenes". BTW, I've stated this several times in the thread so I'm not sure why you feel compelled to restate it here as though it was some sort of new revelation or facts I've denied.

As I already clearly pointed out, this is all part of the same argument against your original assertion. Please note that, in that single assertion, you make more than one claim. Again, it is absurd to criticize a methodical approach to your assertion by examining the individual parts.

1) You claim that Gadara is a region and a city

2) You claim that this region goes right to the southern shore of Galilee

3) You claim that both of these claims are "confirmed" by Josephus and archaeology.

I started by examining 1 & 3 and concluded that Gadara had a region but there is no evidence it was called "Gadara". IOW a completely accurate restatement of 1 would be:

Gadara was a city that controlled a region.

I then proceded to the second part of your assertion (2&3) and found that Josephus does not "confirm" this second claim but that you can interpret Josephus so that his statement appears consistent with the assertion. You subsequently appeared to acknowledge that alternate interpretation are possible which would seem to be a tacit admission that Josephus does not actually "confirm" this claim. We also found that your interpretation of the coin evidence was based on limited information and also does not actually "confirm" this claim.

An accurate restatement of your original assertion would read:

"Gadara was a city that controlled a region. This is confirmed by Josephus."

The rest should have been qualified as belief statements:

I believe that this region extended all the way to the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee and believe that Josephus can be interpreted as consistent with that belief. You could now add that an upcoming article may contain actual evidence confirming shoreline property belonging to Gadara. Whether you want to add a belief about the coins is up to you.

These are fair and accurate statements of the actual state of the evidence that would obtain no argument from me.

I have already acknowledged that locating the tombs is not necessary to your original assertion. I also indicated that I only brought them up because it appeared you were extending your claim to assert a consistency with the entire story. In fact, I prefaced my intial reference to the tombs with a qualifying phrase clearly stating that condition. Why do you pretend otherwise when the truth is plain to see? The post is above but this will save you some time.

And I have stated explicitly that they are only relevant if you wish to expand your claim from the original assertion to incorporate the entire story. I don't understand how you can recognize that this is not related to the original discussion of your initial assertion yet complain that I've been arguing errancy all along.

So you are claiming that the author's use of "mountains" in his story is the same as calling prominent hills "Mount"? That doesn't appear to be very credible. Do you have any support for this claim?

I think I'll PM spin and see if he is interested in offering some input. I've found him to be an excellent resource on linguistic matters.

That's fascinating but it doesn't establish that anybody has ever called them mountains. Any such reference would help support your contention.

That's also fascinating but it doesn't establish that the Poriya hills were called mountains by anybody.

I'm not questioning your knowledge of the geography. I'm questioning your claim that the author of the story meant "hills" when he wrote "mountains".

Could you provide a specific example from Mark? If and when you do, keep in mind that you still need to show that the Poriya hills were considered mountains to establish that this variant interpretation holds true for this particular story. Otherwise, we might have to wonder if Mark 5 includes a repeated mistranslation of what was actually intended.

That's interesting but we are discussing Mark.

We need to focus on how 1st century folks in area considered the region. Specifically, is there any evidence that they referred to or considered the hills around Poriya to be mountains?

Your "tawdry" is my "accurate". I question, however, whether you truly understand what "hypocrite" means.

hypocrite: "a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold"

There is no support for this accusation to be found in this thread. Every opinion I have expressed, I genuinely held to be true.

Methodically examining the individual claims that comprise an assertion does not make one a hypocrite.

Changing an opinion or conclusion in the face of sufficient evidence does not make one a hypocrite.

Indicating the nature of one's argument if one's opponent chooses to expand their own does not make one a hypocrite.

That's two false accusations and zero apologies. Did you lose your What Would Jesus Do bracelet?