Toto

OK, I don't understand. If I go from A to C via B, must B lie on a straight line between A and C? If I start in Los Angeles and take a flight to Washington DC to lobby my Senator and then backtrack to Chicago to visit my cousin, could I not say that I went to Chicago via Washington DC?

I.e., is the issue that what Mark describes is impossible (based on the Greek grammar) or is it just evidence that Mark probably did not know the geography because the route does not make sense?

spin

Probably not without the explanation.

From LA he flew through Washington to Chicago.

He what?

The latter. The grammar doesn't allow you to consider -- as the sentence is -- a stop in Sidon, so Sidon is merely a route indication. The route just doesn't make sense. If the author knew the geography, he would have needed to explain his narrative.


spin

maryhelena

Perhaps, before we charge Mark's itinerary with being in error it might be worth while considering a little further ahead in the storyline...

Mark ch.8 has Jesus preaching in Bethsaida and around the villages of Caesarea Phillipi. If we take Mark 7.31 for what it says..." Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decaplolis" - taking into account that Jesus headed north instead of south after leaving Tyre - then, whatever route he did eventually take to go South, to the Sea of Galilee and the Decapolis - he straightaway does the journey back up north again - Bethsaida to Caesarea Philiipi...

Perhaps its the later itinerary - Bethsaida to Caesarea Phillipi that is out of sequence and hence adding a bit of confusion re Mark 7.31. If the Mark 8 itinerary is viewed as filling in some details re Mark 7.31 - its apparent back-tracking of the itinerary could well be understood in that light.

So, Jesus leaves Tyre, goes north through the vicinity of Sidon - heads for the villages of Caesarea Phillipi, visits Bethsaida - then to the Sea of Galilee and the Decapolis...Thus, Mark 7.31 is probably a condensed version of the itinerary - leaving Mark 8 to fill in more details - re the back-tracking to the stopovers in the villages of Caesarea Phillipi and Bethsaida.

Anyway, since Caesarea Phillipi is a big deal re the gospel storyline - that it was in this area that Jesus asked his disciples who do people say he is - and Peter answers with - you are the christ - this area is pretty central to the wanderings of the gospel Jesus...(Mark 8. 22-30)

Just another way to think about the Sidon reference to going north after leaving Tyre.

Jayrok

I agree with Toto. I don't see what the big deal is with this passage. So what if they traveled to the Sea of Galilee from Tyre via Sidon? Maybe there was some business up in Sidon before returning to Galilee?

I understand the argument from JW, but is there precedent where the Greek word for "via" always meant a direct route? Why can't you go from LA to Chicago via Washington DC? If you did take this route, why would it be such a big deal, other than inconvenience?

Who knows what the original manuscript said? Maybe there is a leg missing. That said, it is certainly plausible (and maybe likely) that the author of Mark wasn't familiar with the geography. That is only a problem for those who hold the Bible as divinely inspired. But there are lots of other passages better than this one to show the Bible isn't perfect.

JoeWallack

JW:
I'm pretty sure they did not have airplanes than. Your path above could only work in the context of air travel. That's why you only look at examples in language contemporary to the offending use. The other problem, which we've already mentioned, is you have to split up the trips and use two verbs to try and make it work (like RH). So to make your example comparable it would be:

We drove from LA and went through DC to get to Chicago.

While I fear this is the path the Democrats would have to take to pass Health Care Reform, I just don't see you using it in normal conversation. The hearer, like the editors of "Mark" and "Matthew", would assume something needed to be changed.

Looking at the entire verse yet again:

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:
Note the middle part, "he came through Sidon against the Sea of Galilee". This is saying more than just Sidon was on the way to the Sea of Galilee. It's saying the Sea of Galilee was on the other side of Sidon from Tyre. Remember all the "through" uses spin gave?

So the language is saying more than just Jesus was in Tyre, Sidon and the Sea of Galilee. This is just the where. The language says how Jesus got from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. By going through Sidon to get to the other side (just like "Mark's" Jesus keeps going to the other side of the Sea of Galilee). We know though, like his contemporary "Matthew", that you would not go through Sidon to get to the Sea of Galilee and the Sea of Galilee was not on the other side of Sidon from Tyre.

Of course the true test would be going back in time and telling people in Tyre that they could get to the Sea of Galilee by going through Sidon and it would be on the other side of Sidon from Tyre and than seeing what their reaction would be. Short of that the best you can do is look at the contemporary uses of the offending word/phrase in similar context. No one seems to be aware of similar language use for similar geography. That projects to "Mark" using the wrong language to describe going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee.

My guess is "Mark" was being figurative so it's only an error anyway if you are using a standard of an intended literal description (like RH).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin

The term, εἰς, a common term (used about 1500 times in the NT) and merely means "to." It is translated, "towards" (NRSV), and "down to" (NIV). Your explanation is creative but does nothing for our understanding of the text.

Again, we do not know why Jesus went to Sidon. We do know that Jesus traveled to Sidon before then going to the Decapolis region and then to the Sae of Galilee. It is no more complicated than that.

Mark is simply giving a straightforward description of the route that Jesus took. It can be taken literally. Nothing figurative about it.

Walrus

Another thing that is being ignored is that it clearly says the region, or vicinity of Tyre. In fact, in the verse earlier that says he goes there, a footnote says early manuscripts have region of Tyre and Sidon. If you were on the northern edge of the region of Tyre, it might be faster to go north to Sidon before heading east and south. We would need a map of the roads, plus a definite fix on exactly where in the region of Tyre he was in order to make this determination, but the point is that there have been multiple reasons expounded on that explain the language as being reasonable. The only reason to continue the charade that this is a "geographical error" is pure stubbornness.

show_no_mercy

And again having departed from the region of New York City he came through Interstate 80 to the Potomic Rivier within the region of Washington, DC

D'oh!

spin

The manuscript evidence is clear. The weight of evidence says that "the region of Tyre" (= "borders of Tyre" = των οριων Τυρου) is the most likely form of the text. (Check NA27 which provides the manuscript support for each.)

Check the Peutinger map which I included early in this thread. In ancient times there was a Roman road from Tyre to Damascus through Caesarea Paneas (Caesarea Philippi) which is due east from Tyre in the north of Galilee. That would be the normal northern route to take, not going further north away from the main road. Going south to Acco then east would also be significantly shorter than going north.

You're welcome to point to those multiple reasons.

At best the language is insufficient. When one presents seemingly paradoxical information, one, thinking of the audience, explains the logic, otherwise there is none. It seems as if the writer simply didn't know what he was talking about when he has his character go north when the destination was south east.


spin

Walrus

The point about it being region of Tyre is that he probably wasn't in the city itself, which means he could have been anywhere in the vicinity, up to halfway to Sidon.

I checked on this Peutinger map you posted, and it is a Middle Ages copy of a map allegedly found that was supposedly made in the fourth century from various sources dating back 400+ years. Biblical texts have a better pedigree than that and most people on this forum don't accept them, why should this map be accepted? The other problem with it is that it is clearly a Roman-centric map, so only Roman roads would be shown on it. Being as how Jesus and his followers were not Romans, they might be more inclined to use local roads (state/county highways rather than Interstates). In the article I found about it, the only thing experts say it shows with any reliability is distances, which is not what is at issue here.