spin

My guess is that it's a locally (ie in the region somewhere) produced ordinance which reflects a Roman law, put up by the locals in order to protect the tombs and graves of the locality.


spin

Solo

Thanks, Ben.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
What's interesting here is that generally Steven would Assert that Textual Variation is relatively insignificant as far as communicating god's holy word through manuscripts. Yet Steven often uses blasphemous language to describe Aleph and B.

Per Metzger, the Textual evidence for "Gerasenes" (area of Gerasa), is:

א* [Sinaiticus original]

B [Vaticanus]

D [Bezae]

it [Old Latin]

vg [Vulgate]

copsa [Coptic Sahidic]

Per Zhubert (Zuul) (including Patristic):

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ref=Mark+5%3A1


JW:
In his critical commentary France sez Gerasenes is likely original.

We have the following reasons than to conclude that Gerasenes is likely original:

1) Generally supported by earlier Manuscripts, especially Aleph and B.

2) Patristic witness generally supports these earlier Manuscripts in general and specifically here.

3) Difficult reading principle.

4) Majority opinion of Christian Bible scholarship (Authority).

Steven is Asserting that "Gadarenes" is likely original. The reason Steven has given is that this is the reading of the Received Text. Steven, can you break it down further? Why is this the reading of the Received Text?



Joseph

SOPHISTRY, n.
The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling. This method is that of the later Sophists, a Grecian sect of philosophers who began by teaching wisdom, prudence, science, art and, in brief, whatever men ought to know, but lost themselves in a maze of quibbles and a fog of words.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Now that it's been determined that "Gerasenes" is likely original to Mark 5:1 let's look at a map of 1st century Israel:

http://www.bible-history.com/geograp...t-century.html



Note that the Sea of Galilee is around G - 5 & 6 on the grid. Meanwhile, Gerasa is around I - 9. A distance of around 35 miles. Quite a hike in those days. The language of Mark 5 indicates a position close to the Sea of Galilee (emphasis mine):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_5

"1 And they came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes.

2 And when he was come out of the boat, straightway there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

3 who had his dwelling in the tombs: and no man could any more bind him, no, not with a chain;

4 because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been rent asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: and no man had strength to tame him.

5 And always, night and day, in the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones.

6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshipped him;

7 and crying out with a loud voice, he saith, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, torment me not.

8 For he said unto him, Come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man.

9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he saith unto him, My name is Legion; for we are many.

10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.

11 Now there was there on the mountain side a great herd of swine feeding.

12 And they besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

13 And he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered into the swine: and the herd rushed down the steep into the sea, [in number] about two thousand; and they were drowned in the sea.

14 And they that fed them fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they came to see what it was that had come to pass.

15 And they come to Jesus, and behold him that was possessed with demons sitting, clothed and in his right mind, [even] him that had the legion: and they were afraid.

16 And they that saw it declared unto them how it befell him that was possessed with demons, and concerning the swine.

17 And they began to beseech him to depart from their borders.

18 And as he was entering into the boat, he that had been possessed with demons besought him that he might be with him.

19 And he suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go to thy house unto thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and [how] he had mercy on thee.

20 And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men marvelled."


Certainly English translations of the Greek indicate an understanding of a position close to the Sea of Galilee. Thank god I can count now on Jeffrey to explain, tell me, lecture me, accuse me of missing anything significant, important, relevant, useful, marginal, trivial in the Greek.

So why does "Mark's" Jesus order the hit in Nu Jewsy and than have the bodies dumped in Ft. Lauderdale? Is there any reasonable defense of Gerasenes?:

1) The area/region of Gerasa was indicated which would include a larger/much larger area than just the city?:

http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CF...&number=609128

"Word Detail
Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
χώραν (69) χώρα (238) Noun place, position; country
Parsing Accusative Singular Feminine
Related Words χωρίον ἔγκτησις τόπος ἕδρα ἀγρός τάσσω πατρίς οἰκία
Context in Mark 5:1 τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς τὴν ... τῶν Γερασηνῶν καὶ ἐξελθόντος
Strongs # 5561 room, i.e. a space of territory (more or less extensive; often including its inhabitants)"

2) Gerasa was the largest city closest to that shore or there was some other connection between that shore and Gerasa such as a road?

These possible defenses seem unlikely because of the sheer distance and no direct support.

Also imagine those poor Jews of Galilee who had to endure 1,300 years of no bacon for breakfast. Than, when "Mark's" Jesus finally tells them they can eat pork, there isn't any. Is there no end to the suffering of my people?!



Joseph

PIG, n.
An animal (Porcus omnivorus) closely allied to the human race by the splendor and vivacity of its appetite, which, however, is inferior in scope, for it sticks at pig.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Steven Avery

Really ? I have a lot of posts on IIDB.
Please quote me even once as saying that .. much less "generally".

I would really prefer if you did not falsely put words into my mouth that I have not spoken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack Yet Steven often uses blasphemous language to describe Aleph and B.

The reader should understand that Joe is misleading here. I do frequently note how these two manuscripts are abjectly corrupt. This would only be "blasphemous" only to the extent that Joe Wallack or another venerates Metzger or Aleph and B.

At any rate most readers here, and myself, do not so venerate, so the wording is (even if meant humorously, with Joe you often cannot tell) very off.

Now on to the textual matter.

Anybody who simply understands the insipid nature of the abuse of lectio difficilior can understand how that is at the heart of the mistaken idea that Gerash is somehow the original reading. This is combined with a lifting up of the two abjectly corrupt manuscripts virtually to the level of NT "proof text". These two related items leads again and again to modern version blunders since the two manuscripts have the blunders and their totally unwarranted usage as the textual kingpins leads to the blunders being claimed as original. Hand-in-hand with lectio difficilior, which abuse is a methodology of manipulation designed to create an errant text from minority manuscript blunders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack Steven is Asserting that "Gadarenes" is likely original. The reason Steven has given is that this is the reading of the Received Text. Steven, can you break it down further? Why is this the reading of the Received Text?

The Received Text in a general manner has many infallible proofs (evidences to those less enthused than myself ). We have dissected the actual manuscript evidences on the ending of Mark, the Pericope Adultera and perhaps some other verses like 1 Timothy 3:16.

It gets to the point that we both realize that since you, Joe, venerate (at least for political posturing purposes) Metzger and Aleph and B the technical discussions become a bit unfruitful and tedious. In this case there are actually three major variants and the historic Received Text is the large majority of extant Greek manuscripts (a fact often hidden in the way that textual evidence is presented). The lectio difficilior issue is really at the heart of the matter, and since you desire a corrupt NT text you take the absurd position that the local direct writers would mess up the geography rather than a distant copyist in Alexandria who would know of Gerash but is much less likely to know of Gergesenes (on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee) or Gadara (the southeast section).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack 1) The area/region of Gerasa was indicated which would include a larger/much larger area than just the city?

JPH actually does try to claim something like this. The problem is that we have solid maps of the Decapolis and there were full regions in between Gerasa and the Sea of Galilee, including the Gadara region and Pella and Scythopolis. These two maps shows the Decapolis region.
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/decapolis_cities.html
http://www.atlastours.net/jordan/decapolis.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack 2) Gerasa was the largest city closest to that shore or there was some other connection between that shore and Gerasa such as a road?

Here you are closer to reality. Gerasa was a large and well-known city. If a distant copyist (e.g. Alexandria) could not make out the copy it would be a simple substitution .. a city in the region that has some similarity in name that he knew. ergo.. Gerasa replaces Gadara.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack These possible defenses seem unlikely because of the sheer distance and no direct support.

Here we agree. There is no defense for the Gerasa reading. Fortunately it is not in the true Bible, the historic Received Texts (Greek and the English King James Bible) therefore there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a "defense" of something that is not scripture.

As a reminder, lest somebody get confused by all the verbiage (the map was nice though) this is what is written in the pure and perfect word of God.

Mark 5:1
And they came over unto the other side of the sea,
into the country of the Gadarenes.

Perfecto !

Joe, thank you for an object lesson on the corruption of the alexandrian text and the deficiencies of modern textual illogic.

And your reliance on the corrupt text for so many of your attacks on the NT. An alliance of convenience.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's call perhaps the greatest Textual Critic of the Early Church to the Witness stand now, Origen (emphasis mine):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...gen-john6.html

"24. THE NAME OF THE PLACE WHERE JOHN BAPTIZED IS NOT BETHANY, AS IN MOST COPIES, BUT BETHABARA. PROOF OF THIS. SIMILARLY "GERGESA" SHOULD BE READ FOR"GERASA," IN THE STORY OF THE SWINE. ATTENTION IS TO BE PAID TO THE PROPER NAMES IN SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE OFTEN WRITTEN INACCURATELY, AND ARE OF IMPORTANCE FOR INTERPRETATION.

...

The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes;" and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is "dwelling of the casters-out," and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places, who "besought Him to depart out of their coasts." The same inaccuracy with regard to proper names is also to be observed in many passages of the law and the prophets, as we have been at pains to learn from the Hebrews, comparing our own copies with theirs which have the confirmation of the versions, never subjected to corruption, of Aquila and Theodotion and Symmachus."


JW:
Note that Origen is writing early 3rd century, well before any extant Manuscripts and also lived in Caesarea, somewhat closer to the disputed location than Steven. Origen's important points:

1) Almost all Manuscripts that Origen was aware of had "Gerasenes". The Implication is that this includes "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke". Steven's explanation for Gerasenes in the earliest extant Manuscripts is that a Scribe mistakenly copied "Gerasenes" from an original that had "Gadarenes" or "Gergesenes". For this to happen though the Scribe would have made the same mistake 3 times.

2) A few copies had "Gadarenes" which Origen also considers a mistake.

3) By Implication Origen is not aware of any Manuscript, current or past, or any previous testimony, that "Gergesenes" was in any Manuscript copy.

4) This general type of problem with Names indicated by known Textual evidence is common.

As my famous ancestor (Joseph) Caiaphas said, "What more evidence do we need for christ's sake?!"

Of course the KJV Mistranslators were Ignorant of the existence of the Witness of the holy and blessed Sinaiticus and they didn't use Vaticanus because, because, what was the reason again Steven? Which leads to the following questions for Steven:

1) Do you think Sinaiticus and Vaticanus should be destroyed?

2) If not, should they be used as Textual Witness?

Bon appetite notapadawan.

It looks like we've caught Christianity Inflagrante Dereliction of Fiduciary Duty here:

1) The primary Christian textual Critic of the time, Origen, testifies that "Gergesenes" was textually unknown.

2) Origen testifies that the known Text of "Gerasenes" and "Gadarenes" would be errors.

3) Origen testifies that the originals could not have had such errors.

4) Origen testifies that "Gergesenes" must be original because it would not be an error.

5) By Implication subsequent Christian Scribes changed the text to "Gergesenes" based on the commentary of Origen rather than any Manuscript text.




Joseph

"You've been Wikied!" - JoeWallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

Revenge Of The [Sic]

JW:
Arise Lord Vater.

Eusebius:
Yes, my Master.

JW:
Confess to us the Origenal of Mark 5.1.

Eusebius (emphasis yours truly):

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...#G_THE_GOSPELS

"Gergesa.363 Where the Lord (Savior) heated the demoniacs (restored those vexed with demons to sanity). Now (today) a village is pointed out on the mountains near Lake Tiberias where the swine were condemned (cast down) to death. Noted also above."



Joseph

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's take a closer look at the Patristic Witness:

"A Study of the Place-Names Gergesa and Bethabara
Raymond G. Clapp
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 26, No. 1. (1907), pp. 62-83.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
Journal of Biblical Literature is currently published by The Society of Biblical Literature."


JW:
This article evaluates the Patristic evidence for Gergesenes. A summary is as follows:

Origen:
The first apparently to claim Gergesenes based on supposed knowledge of such a city that would fit the description from the Gospel story and lack of any existing Textual or Patristic support at the time. What's interesting here is that the author demonstrates through analysis of Provenance of known Texts that it was likely the Alexandrian and Caesarean texts were among the first to change to Gergesenes, such as the corrected Sianaticus, because of the influence of Origen, which would be the exact opposite conclusion from Steven, that Alexandrian and Caesarean texts were among the last to be corrected.

Eusebius:
The most confusing witness here (isn't he always?). Zhubert's Textual Criticism link sez he is for Gerasenes yet Pearse's translation of Onomastica gives Gergesenes. What's up with thaat?

Eusebius' related entry for the Gospels is:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...#G_THE_GOSPELS

"Gergesa.363 Where the Lord (Savior) heated the demoniacs (restored those vexed with demons to sanity). Now (today) a village is pointed out on the mountains near Lake Tiberias where the swine were condemned (cast down) to death. Noted also above."

But, Eusebius' related entry for the Jewish Bible is:

"Gergasei (Gergasi).304 Located on the Jordan near the city of the Galaad (City of Transjordan near tribe Mt.Galaad) which the tribe of Manasse received. It is said to be Gerash the famous city of Arabia. Some affirm it to be Gadara. But the Gospel mentions the Gerassenes (Gergessenes)."

So Eusebius looks to confirm/parrot Origen in stating that the actual Gospel location was Gergesenes even though the Gospel texts he is familiar with say Gerasenes. And each exegete spun this as he could. Speaking of spinning I'll emphasize here that Jerome went with Gerasenes in the Vulgate.

Epiphanius:
As we move on to Epiphanius we go well beyond the 3 point god line. Later Apologists can be pretty entertaining at times and Epiphanius does not disappoint:

"His remark that the place lay in the middle between the three
territories (KX+$OL) a is rightly recognized by Zahn as simply
a foolish harmonistic conjecture of a man in general unclear
in his descriptions"

Ma'ariv El-bart:
Yes!

Procopius:
(With a name like this how good could he be?)
"That Procopius of Gaza (500 A.D.) speaks of Gergesa as
now lying deserted or ruined on the shore of the sea of
Tiberias4[/B] may simply mean that this place, mentioned by
previous writers, was no longer existent as an inhabited spot.
It may have as much independent worth as that it records a
tradition that hung about some ruin on the shore. But there
is nothing to prove that Origen is not the source of t'he tradition
or of his record; and the fact that he writes this in
connection with Gen. 1521, the passage from which Origeii
probably took his clue, and adds that "the yepyecaio~( instead
of yepyecijvo~) dwelt in Gadara and Gergesa," makes it probable
that his remark is based simply on Origen's note and
his own ignorance of any corresponding place other than that
there were some ruins on the east shore."

The Jerusalem Lectionary:
"The Jerusalem Lectionary took its final form in the fifth
or sixth century under strong influence from Greek lectionaries,
5 and its uniform Gergesenes (Mt., Lk. ; B4k. lacking)
indicates a systematic change according to later Mss.
under the influence of some such critical opinion as that
of Origen rather than the exact information of a native
translator, especially in Matthew, where practically all the
evidence for Gergesenes is of this schematic, harmonistic
character, or is open to suspicion of Origenian influence."

Summary of Patristic witness regarding Textual support for Gergesenes:

1) Origen - Early 3rd century

Not aware of any textual support for Gergesenes

2) Eusebius - Early 4th century

Does not indicate awareness of any textual support for Gergesenes

3) Epiphanus - Late 4th century

Does not indicate awareness of any textual support for Gergesenes

4) Procopius - 4th/5th century

Does not indicate awareness of any textual support for Gergesenes

The above summary supports the extant Manuscript evidence that Gergesenes did not start to become Textual until the 5th century.



Joseph

MINISTER, n.
An agent of a higher power with a lower responsibility. In diplomacy and officer sent into a foreign country as the visible embodiment of his sovereign's hostility. His principal qualification is a degree of plausible inveracity next below that of an ambassador.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Now the Textual evidence for "Matthew's" copying of "Mark's" Jewrassic Pork story (emphasis mine):


JW:
Here the textual evidence, primarily Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, support "Gadarenes" as likely original. However, the Patristic evidence seems to support "Gerasenes" as original to "Matthew" as the Implication from Origen, Eusebius and Jerome is that most Texts of "Matthew" had "Gerasenes" in their time. As the Patristic evidence references an earlier time and is a broad witness it outweighs the textual evidence making "Gerasenes" more likely to be original here than "Gadarenes".

The lesser but still important consideration is possible explanation for the best textual witness having different places for "Matthew" and "Mark" even though "Matthew" copied from "Mark". The simplest explanation is that "Matthew" originally changed to "Gadarenes". This is supported by a probable authorship relatively close to Israel making improvement on a geographical problem more likely. On the other hand the farther back you go the more likely it is that Gospels were stand alone just like they all originally were. It's quite possible that "Matthew" originally wrote "Gerasenes" as direct copying is also the simplest answer, and the subsequent "Matthew" community, being close to Israel, improved on the geographical problem with "Gadarenes" in stand alone copies. Sinaiticus/Vaticanus or its predecessors at some point copied from individual Manuscripts with "Mark" still having "Gerasenes" and "Matthew" having "Gadarenes".

Whether "Matthew" originally wrote "Gerasenes" or "Gadarenes" though is still likely a geographical error/inaccuracy either way.

Here the Apologist can choose his deadly poison to drink:

1) "Matthew" originally wrote "Gerasenes" making the same geross error as "Mark".

2) "Matthew" originally wrote "Gadarenes" confirming that "Mark" was in error by writing "Gerasenes".

Steven, make your choice.



Joseph

GEOGRAPHER, n.
A chap who can tell you offhand the difference between the outside of the world and the inside.

Habeam, geographer of wide reknown,
Native of Abu-Keber's ancient town,
In passing thence along the river Zam
To the adjacent village of Xelam,
Bewildered by the multitude of roads,
Got lost, lived long on migratory toads,
Then from exposure miserably died,
And grateful travelers bewailed their guide.
Henry Haukhorn

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page