rhutchin

From another thread:

Mark says that they came to the Mount of Olives rather than entering either Bethphage or Bethany. This follows because Jesus then directs two of his disciples to go to the village to get the colt. The vantage point for the description of the area is from the Mount of Olives. Thus Mark describes the villages from north to south as a person located on the Mount of Olives could be expected to have done.

I don't see the problem here or why it necessarily indicates that Mark lacks a first-hand knowledge of the area. That seems a stretch to me.

Does anyone know the argument for Randel Helms' position (presumably with more detail than the summary position given above)?

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I figure it seems more like a mistake made by someone who doesn't have a mind for geography rather than someone who does not know the geography, though I am perfectly willing to accept that the author of Mark was not geographically literate of Palestine.

rhutchin

Why do you say this? Do you mean that a person who doesn't have a mind for geography would list cities from north to south while a person with a mind for geography would list them south to north? Your comment is confusing.

yalla

From Tammuz' quote re Helms [my emphasis]:
"This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine"

That is the key.

ApostateAbe

A person with a mind for geography would tend to list the cities in the order that they were visited, that's all.

Diogenes the Cynic

Bethany/Bethpage is one of the least egregious examples of Mark's geographical ignorance. More significant examples are his Gerasa boner, his goofy route to the Decapolis via Tyre and Sidon (which would seem to involve some sort of diagonal, Pacman wraparound from one side of the map to the other), and his story about Jesus walking on the water, in which Mark has Jesus and his entourage cross the lake to end up in a town which is actually on the same side of the lake they started on.

yalla

There are other bits of "Mark" which are thought to be geographic 'errors' suggestive of an author who was not familiar with the geography of the region of Palestine.

For example:

1.
"Mark" 7.31
Where the author has JC travelling from Tyre etc through the Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee, a trip compared by one scholar as 'travelling from Cornwall to London via Manchester' [or, for the Americans who may not know UK geography, from Washington to NY via Miami].
The commentator Nineham referred to above suggests "he ['Mark'] and his readers were probably not familiar' with the'actual geography'."
Interestingly "Matthew" at 15.21 and 15.29 'corrects' "Mark" by changing the text and removing the wanderings.

2.
"Mark" 6.1 says JC "..came to his own country [Capernaum ?]" and then at 6.45 says the disciples got into a boat and went 'to the other side, to Bethsaida...'
But that is usually believed to be on the same side of the Sea of Galilee.
So "Matthew" at 14.22 omits 'Bethsaida' and so does "John" at 6.15.
Similarly at 6.53 "Mark' writes "...when they had crossed over they came to Gennesaret" and of this Nineham says 'could scarcely be called 'crossing' the lake".

3.
"Mark" 8.10
" ..and went to the district of Dalmanutha.." which Wiki describes as an 'unknown destination", Nineham says 'no such place is known' and "Matthew" and other versions of "Mark" call it Magadan or Magdala.
Confusing ain't it?

4.
"Mark" 10.1
"And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan"
Not without going through Samaria and/or the Decapolis he didn't.
Nineham again;
"The variety of forms in which the MSS give the phrase show thatit was felt to be difficult and in need of correction from early times. [My emphasis].

So there are a few of "Mark's" geographic difficulties which coupled with similar 'difficulties regarding Jewish customs suggest that the author was poorly acquainted with the setting for his alleged story.

rhutchin

But there is no indication that Jesus and his disciples actually visited either or both of these cities (actually villages). Was it necessary that they actually pass through these villages in order to reach the Mount of Olives? Do you know?

From the text, it appears that they went straight to the Mount of Olives, and from there, Jesus sent two of the disciples to one village to get the colt.

Matthew says--

21
1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you,...

This says that they were outside Bethphage and at the Mount of Olives. They did not have to enter the city to reach the Mount of Olives. From there, Jesus sends the two disciples into Bethphage.

Still, the issue seems to be whether Mark has incorrectly ordered the villages in his account. Those who say that Mark erred in some fashion do not explain what order is required and why. Only after assuming that they had to pass through the villages to get to the Mount of Olives and further assuming that Mark should have listed the villages in the order visited rather than distance from Jerusalem (or some other method), does it seem that a complaint can be manufactured. I don't see that these assumptions, even if true, really support maligning Mark's account on this point.

rhutchin

Least egregious!!!!

People, including you, cannot even explain how it is an example of geographical ignorance much less a least egregious example.

Seems like you are assuming a lot.

rhutchin

It doesn't even rise to the level of being included in that group.