WishboneDawn

Thanks John.

WishboneDawn

It's also nomadic behaviour which means Jesus may have been living something of a nomadic life.:huh:

Amaleq13

Isn't it also just common sense behavior given an itinerant lifestyle?

That is where their homes/families were and they could not afford to move them all even if only temporarily.

To state what I would think is the obvious, I contend this to be a false dichotomy.

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad

Jesus as a nomad is probably a new one - maybe an older Robin Hood and his Merry men? Itinerants is a possibility - that carpenter thing, but where did the education come from? is the Jesus of the Gospels educated or not?

And if Mark was written in Rome from senior Roman travellers tales I would expect to see upper class evidence of moving up into the hills.

WishboneDawn

The upper class argument just seems strained to me. Anyone who was out walking would simply need a bit of common sense and no blue blood to follow the good weather. Hobos do that. Maybe Jesus was a hobo?

yalla

I would endorse the comments about the need to know what is accurate.
For example take the alleged travels of JC, marked in red, on the map in the link.
It does not have JC travelling to Gerasa [it's about 50 miles SSE of the Sea of Galilee].
Yet the author of g"Mark" has JC going there, meeting a whole legion of demons who he puts into the bodies of 2000 swine who proceed to jump off the cliffs into the Sea.
Not bad going, 50 miles in no time flat.
The later editors of g"Mark' realized this was a bit of a problem so various changes occured, ''...the country of the Gerasenes..'' g"Mark" 5.1, was transformed to Gergesenes or Gadarenes [2 towns in the general vicinity] in an attempt to keep some credibility.
The drawer of the map in the link went with the Gadara option.
But you wouldn't know about the problems associated with this map from the map itself.
And that is not the only example.
Look at Emmaus and have a bit of a wonder why there is a question mark next to it.
Or Bethany in the green area similarly.
Or Magdala or Nazareth or Bethsaida Julias or Capernaum or Cana [the site of Cana has, allegedly, been "discovered'' recently---- in 2 different places by 2 rival archeological groups!].
I suggest that nothing should be accepted at face value, after all this is a sceptic site.
cheers
yalla

yalla

Oops sorry.
I had a second look at the map and it looks like the drawer of the map went with the Gergesa option, not Gadara.
Either way s/he did NOT go with Gerasa, usually regarded as the original authentic version.
Just shows that you can't trust what is typed here.
cheers
yalla

RAFH

To give some scale of the travels, the distance from Jerusalem to the Sea of Galilee is about 75 miles. A good walker, and just about anybody then was a good walker, they had to be, and relatively good roads, it was a Roman territory, could cover that in about 5 days without too much trouble. A determined walker could do it in 3 days.

There's no question the travels mentioned could be done. Its really not that great of a distance, all told maybe several hundred miles in some three or four years.

yalla

I doubt it.
Not certain but I doubt it.
For starters I don't believe the roads were that good in fact I seem to recall reading they were generally pretty terrible.
I also reckon I read that banditry was rife and that travel tended to occur in groups for safety so that the slowest persons dictated the pace.
Also travel without daylight was hazardous and so, particularly in winter, there were restrictions on the hours available to travel as people left a stopover in light and arrived at the next stopover in light.
And travellers woud be laden with their personal goods.
There is a vast difference between travelling for a day, perhaps 2, unladen but keeping that up or for more, carrying food, water whatever, over a period of time is a different kettle of fish.
Were they good walkers?
Did people travel long distances by foot or did they tend to stay in their home territories?
Again I seem to recall that a distance of 15kms was close to the limit that most people moved from their birthplaces in a lifetime.In Britain in the middle ages that distance was a unit of administration [ a 'riding'? or a 'parish'?] for that reason.
But it's worth a bit of research.
I'll check it out.

yalla

http://www.philipharland.com/Travel%...lem%20CSBS.pdf


This link is to an article about travel by foot in Judea in the 1C.

Some points:

24-32 kms per day on normal terrain .

Slower on 'toilsome slopes''.
Southernmost tip of Galilee to Jerusalem took 3 days, via Samaria, according to Josephus.
Normally pilgrims went via the Jordan, taking a week or more.
Most travelled in large groups. Bandits.
Not until the Jewish War that the constuction of paved roads began in Judea [ie post 66CE, ie after the alleged time of JC].
"Travel along these ancient roads difficult and dangerous."

Lots more.

And Wiki says a riding is from a Viking word and is not related to distance able to be travelled, thats a 'misconception".