XKV8R

thanx for the help, toto.

if you look at these two images i just slapped together, you can see that one most avoid both political and geographical complications. the route towards the region of sidon was the old path to banias/paneas/caesarea philippi, and from there one could cross at the head of the jordan to the eastern side of the jordan.

jesus is said to have spent time in caesarea philippi, and the old roman road took one south past omrit and down through the lower golan ultimately into the kineret region.

the route makes sense.

spin

Umm, why? What in that section of Mark would ever make you think that Herod Antipas was a problem?

And how do you imagine Jesus is supposed to have traveled from Galilee to Tyre?? And why not return the same way?

There is a well-know road from Tyre to Damascus passing through northern Galilee that was still in use at the time of the Peutinger map. You'd like to think that it was reasonable to go first to Sidon to avoid some angst about Herod Antipas. Amusing but doesn't win the teddy bear.

While I can show evidence that Mark was written in a Latin speaking context with even a few Latin idioms translated word for word, what evidence can you muster for Caesarea Philippi that would counteract the linguistic evidence?


spin

maryhelena

Caesarea Philippi - my eyes did a double take....interesting, very interesting.................:wave:

Jayrok

This is silly. Not a good explanation in light of what the gospel says in Luke.

Luke 13:31 states that the Pharisees warned Jesus about Herod Antipas and how he wanted to kill him. But Jesus showed no signs of worry. He basically said to tell that dude to stick it, I've got a job to do. Besides, according to Jesus, no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem (Luke 13:33).

Also, when Pilate sent Jesus before Antipas because he was a Galilean, Antipas was happy to see Jesus because he wanted to see him perform a miracle. Even when Jesus didn't show him a miracle Herod only scoffed at him. He didn't kill him, but sent him back to Pilate.

There was no reason for him to avoid Antipas.

rhutchin

The claim is that the Greek text is telling us that Jesus traveled directly from Tyre to Decapolis and that one would naturally travel through Sidon on the way there. Thus, the error by Mark who must have been ignorant of geography and falsely thought that Sidon was on the way from Tyre to Decapolis.

rhutchin

OK. In this case, trajectory mean not mean a straight line but more a horseshoe path. I can accept your reasoning so long as we both allow that Mark is providing the info about Sidon because the reader would not have suspected that Jesus went north through Sidon on His way to Decapolis. I don't see anything in your comment that requires the trajectory to be, more or less, a straight line.

I am going with your somewhat imaginative extrapolation of the LS definition (the first meaning relating to space) that is available at the Perseus site. LS has the word meaning, through, in the sense of going from one side to the other. I will take your point about a destination being in view but not the final destination but only an intermediate destination when applied to Sidon. While you may judge it irrational to pass through Sidon, the Greek text does not care. It merely tells us that Jesus went through Sidon in traveling from Tyre to Decapolis. You may call this the trajectory but even that word does not exclude a horseshoe shaped route going through Sidon.

Yes, the destination was the Sea of Galilee. This does not preclude Jesus going north through Sidon on His way to the Sea of Galilee. The text does not prevent this.

But you are the one with the creative application of LS to prove an imaginative point.

spin

You are really making heavy going of this issue. What you are proposing is a little like someone going from Silver Spring to Frederick via, say, Annapolis. You can do it, but it makes no sense as is and the writer in our case shows no knowledge of the geographical problem, because he gives no further explanation.

I'm working from my copy of L&S.

There is nothing particularly imaginative here. The first section of the entry reads "1. of motion in a line from one side to the other, right through,...", which is clearly the definition relevant here (not "2. of motion through a space..." -- a destination is provided; and not 3. "in the midst of" -- this is not about motion.)

You're manipulating again. You were talking about "ultimate"destinations and now final destinations. The text doesn't deal with "intermediate" destinations, but merely trajectories. You would like to convert the trajectory into an intermediate destination in order to justify Jesus going through it, but the writer doesn't support you.

Except on the grounds of logic. Providing the extra information (the trajectory) needs to make coherent sense, which, as is, this doesn't.

There is no creative application of anything. This is strictly logical. But you have an impediment stopping you from going there. The only way you can make sense of the text is to add to it and therefore change it. Now that, I guess, is creative, for what it's worth.


spin

rhutchin

So, the rule is "the writer in our case shows no knowledge of the geographical problem, because he gives no further explanation." If a person does not explain himself, then you conclude he must be ignorant. Maybe, the writer saw no need for further explanation because of the clarity of that which he wrote.

Yes, "in a line" through Sidon, from one side of Sidon to another, so Mark writes, "he came through Sidon.". The clause is self-contained and the construction, verb διὰ noun, points only to Sidon and not to a line from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. For your explanation, Mark, at the least, should have written, "he came out of Tyre διὰ Sidon to the Sea of Galilee." Only then might you then argue a line from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Nonetheless, you offer and imaginative and creative explanation for the way people should understand the Greek text.

JoeWallack

JW:
You do not even understand what the primary issue is here so I guess we need to keep repeating it:

http://biblos.com/mark/7-31.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
Καὶ	kai	2532	CONJ	and
πάλιν	palin	3825	ADV	again
ἐξελθὼν	exelthōn	1831	V-2AAP-NSM	having departed
ἐκ	ek	1537	PREP	from
τῶν	tōn	3588	T-GPN	the
ὁρίων	oriōn	3725	N-GPN	region
Τύρου	turou	5184	N-GSF	of tyre
ἦλθεν	ēlthen	2064	V-2AAI-3S	he came
διὰ	dia	1223	PREP	through
Σιδῶνος	sidōnos	4605	N-GSF	Sidon
εἰς	eis	1519	PREP	against
τὴν	tēn	3588	T-ASF	the
θάλασσαν	thalassan	2281	N-ASF	sea
τῆς	tēs	3588	T-GSF	of
Γαλιλαίας	galilaias	1056	N-GSF	Galilee
ἀνὰ	ana	303	PREP	within
μέσον	meson	3319	A-ASN	midst
τῶν	tōn	3588	T-GPN	of the
ὁρίων	oriōn	3725	N-GPN	region
Δεκαπόλεως	dekapoleōs	1179	N-GSF	of decapolis

JW:
The issue is what does the word διὰ mean here? The starting point is the range of meanings. The primary meaning of the word is "through". This would include the English "via" which some translations are alternatively translating as "by way of". "Via" is from the Latin "via" and has similar meaning to the Greek "dia" (as in diameter).

Note the verbs in the offending phrase. The last verb is διὰ indicating that the arrival at the Sea of Galilee is tied to going through Sidon. The Apologist wants to add another verb to communicate a change in direction and avoid the meaning of "via".

We've indicated that authority accepts the meaning of "via" here. Most commentators confirm this, the Lexicons classify the "by way of" meaning and some translations have it.

More important than authority though is an examination of the usage of διὰ primarily in similar context. Every example shown here demonstrates the "via" meaning. No counter-examples have been shown.

This is primarily a language issue Toto and not a route issue. "Mark's" Jesus would be sore amazed that based on the distance this Thread has traveled you still don't get it.

Of course RH wants to avoid making a probable/possible distinction and merely have a position of no error. It's been made clear though that error here is probable. Until RH can show an example of διὰ not meaning "via" in a reasonably similar context, than his defense is not even possible.

For Christ's sake Skeptics, if you want to argue that based on language there may not be an error here, base your argument on language (Greek).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin

You're avoiding the issue still. You'd have no problem if someone intended to go from Silver Spring to Frederick, but if they'd said "via Annapolis" then you'd expect either more information or they'd screwed up.

You seem to have ignored what I wrote earlier, ie

You are still not dealing with the grammar. The verb ερχομαι requires a complement. When a destination is given, as in the case of εις την θαλασσαν γαλιλαιας, that requirement is fulfilled. The phrase δια σιδωνος is, then, additional information which supplies the trajectory. That's its obvious purpose in the sentence. You seem to be railing against this fact trying to concoct meaning that isn't there.

Saying this: "he came through Sidon." The clause is self-contained misrepresents the text and is grammatically incorrect. Read: you do not understand the grammatical issues, as is underlined with this: the construction, verb διὰ noun,. You cannot circumvent the destination in the clause. You are confusing phrase level with clause level in the sentence.

Rubbish. ηλθεν δια σιδωνις εις την θαλασσαν γαλιλαιας implies a point of origin nonetheless. You know the issue now, you are trying to convert the trajectory into an intermediate destination, which the text doesn't allow. We know why you are doing so, because you are less interested in what the text says and more interested in it being literally correct. You can only be at this point through arbitrary thought and an unwillingness to actually read the text.

I offer an explanation of the Greek text based on the interplay between the grammatical and semantic issues. You offer an explanation based on your desire to cover up those issues. You have absolutely no issue with someone going from Silver Spring via Annapolis to Frederick.


spin