JoeWallack

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

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...Matthew+8%3A28

JW:
I disagree with Authority here that Gadarenen is original to "Matthew" because:

1) The best evidence is still Origen's, probably the outstanding textual critic of the early church, textual criticism that by Implication most manuscripts of "Matthew" that he was familiar with had Gerasenen.

2) Confirmation of Origen by Eusebius and Jerome (probably the next best textual critic after Origen).

3) Zhubert confesses to us that the holy Sinaiticus reading is actually Gazarenen and not Gadarenen. As Steven would say, "oops". This means that the best Manuscript evidence here, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is split.

Note that Metzger simply gives Gadarenen for Sinaiticus. Ironically than, Nazaroo and Steven are correct in that Metzger and UBS were Biased, just in the opposite direction (surprise).

4) And if I may borrow Peter's razor, "Matthew's" source said "Gerasenen".



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

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

RED DAVE

I'll hate myself in the more for this, but:

Has anyone considered the text variation "Gerasic Park"?

RED DAVE

JoeWallack

JW:
Now the offending word from "Luke". First, the Metz:

JW:
Thus we have the following reasons to favor "Gerasenes" as original to "Luke":

1) Patristic evidence of Origen, Eusebius and Jerome.

2) Manuscript evidence including P75 (3rd century) and B (Vaticanus 4th century).

3) Authority.

4) Peter's Razor (source of "Gerasenes").

And if we remove 4) we have evidence going the other way that "Gerasenes" was original to "Mark" because that is what "Luke" copied. We are also consistent with the observation that the "Matthean" community, being more Jewish than the Lukan one, would have been more likely to correct the geographical error of Gerasenes.



Joseph

COPYIST, Noun.
One who's job it is to copy only exactly what his source is. Unless he doesn't like it, or thinks it wrong or considers commentary as part of the text or has a license to kill a translation from His Majesty's eternal Government.

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

JoeWallack

JW:
More Textual evidence for "Luke's" copying of "Mark's" Jewrassic Pork story (emphasis mine):

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ef=Luke+8%3A26

JW:
Note, I have not seen where Tertullian refers to Gerasenen. This may be assumed above due to the Old Latin having Gerasenen. I also have not seen Titus-Bostra comment on the Text and my guess is this may be a guess above based on a marginal comment in a Manuscript.

In any case, after the Textual analysis here it looks probable that Gerasenen was the original location in the original Gospel, "Mark" because:

1) Patristic evidence of Origen, Eusebius and Jerome.

2) Manuscript evidence including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th century).

3) Authority.

4) Synoptic Copying by "Matthew" and "Luke".



Joseph

COPYIST, Noun.
One who's job it is to copy only exactly what his source is. Unless he doesn't like it, or thinks it wrong or considers commentary as part of the text or has a license to kill a translation from His Majesty's eternal Government.

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

JoeWallack

JW:
In perhaps the greatest compilation since Mishnah Torah we have now demonstrated that "Gerasenes" was likely original to Mark 5.1 based on:

1) Patristic evidence of Origen, Eusebius and Jerome.

2) Manuscript evidence including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th century).

3) Authority.

4) Synoptic Copying by "Matthew" and "Luke" (including P75 - 3rd century).

We have also demonstrated that the "Gerasenes" or the area around the city of Gerasa does not fit the geographical requirements of the Jewrassic Pork story as Gerasa is about 35 miles from the Sea of Galilee. In addition, the story seems to be completely based on the Impossible and therefore has no Historical core. This opens up the Possibility that the author had a Literary reason for selecting Gerasenes and did not intend to narrate a historical event but rather intended to make a Theological point.

"Mark" is commonly thought to have been written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem c. 70 CE. Looking through significant events leading to the destruction as documented by Josephus we see possible Parallel references between:

1) Rome's Historical conquest of Jerusalem

and

2) Jesus' Fictional conguest of Jerusalem

http://members.aol.com/FlJosephus2/w...nology5Pg3.htm



1) Start of Mission to Conquer Jerusalem:

---The Historical Roman campaign starts from Caesarea.

---Jesus Fictional campaign starts from Caesarea:

-----Mark 8:

"27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"

28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."

29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[b]"

30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him."

2) Historical Roman capture of Roman built Gerasa temporarily taken over by Jewish Rebels

Mark 5:
"1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[a] 2When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil[b] spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him any more, not even with a chain. 4For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me!" 8For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!"

9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"

"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." 10And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.

11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

14 Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. 15When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 16Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. 17Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.

18 As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. 19Jesus did not let him, but said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." 20So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis[c]how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed."


JW:
Note the following reMarkable common words/ideas with the Historical Roman campaign:

1) Gerasa - An especially noteworthy town as it was built by Rome, was populated mainly by Gentiles, was temporarily controlled by the Jewish rebels and was an important conquest on the way to Jerusalem. Also, a major rebel leader, Simon, was from Gerasa.

2) Legion - This name for the Demon is especially telling as it is also the primary name for units of Roman soldiers.

3) Pigs - Using pigs is telling as this would be the primary animal Jews associated with Gentiles. Also, one of the conquering Legions had a Boar as it's standard.

4) Two thousand - This is close to a casualty figure from the Historical Gadara conquest (twenty-two hundred).

5) Drowned - In the Historical Gadara campaign the most horrific method of suffering and execution was drowning.

Thus with a Narrative that can not be Historical it's quite Possible that "Mark" intended a Figurative comparison of Jesus' Peaceful conquest of Jerusalem with Rome's violent conquest of Jerusalem. And, in an Irony that I think "Mark" would really appreciate, "Jesus" did eventually conquer Rome peacefully which is probably the best evidence for Christianity.



Joseph

COPYIST, Noun.
One who's job it is to copy only exactly what his source is. Unless he doesn't like it, or thinks it wrong or considers commentary as part of the text or has a license to kill a translation from His Majesty's eternal Government.

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

DCHindley

John P. Meier noted that, in regards to Mark 5:1-20, that "[t]he many problems, tensions, and even contradictions within the story no doubt reflect a complicated, decades-long evolution of a simpler narrative into the baroque account that lies before us …" [_A Marginal Jew_ Vol 2, pg 650]

In his view, form criticism would make the swine story a secondary addition to the exorcism of the demoniac (Vol 2 pg 665n18). Also, on pg 651, he notes that in all three synoptic Gospels variant readings place this story in - all - of the following towns: Gerasa (33 miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee in the Decapolis), Gadera (about 5 or 6 miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee in the Decapolis) and Gergasa (on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee, but with the weakest mss support). Using two basic arguments from text criticism (that the reading that can explain the rise of the other variants is to be
preferred, and that the more difficult reading is the better reading), he believes that Gerasa is the correct reading and thus the pig incident just could not have happened as there is no sea to rush into and drown in!

A look at a parallel edition of the synpotic Gospels will confirm his statement that the variations between all three versions (Mk 5:1-20; Mt 8:28-34; and Lk 8:26-39) of the story are "baroque!" These differences make the decision as to which account is primary and which are redactions very difficult to make (although most scholars still adhere to the hypothesis that Mk is primary and Mt & Lk are redacted versions of Mk).

I will point out a couple of characteristics of this story that are interesting, though. The phrase "the God (the) Most High" (TOU QEOU TOU hUYISTOU in Mk & Lk) is not unknown in inscriptions ranging from 1st-2nd Century BCE to the 4th century CE, where it often appears to be the way that some Jews (?) identified their God when the majority of readers would be Greek speaking Pagans.

For instance, a Phrygian inscription containing a grave curse, derived from Zech 5:3-4 LXX, equated QEON TON hUYISTON with KURIOS PANTOKRATWR. The model was likely that of the guild of Zeus Hypsistos. It should be noted that these guilds often used words that were also used in conjunction with Gentiles who associated with Jewish synagogues.

The word "Legion" is also loaded with meaning. Technically, a Legion is a military unit of the Roman regular army. At full strength, it consisted of nine Cohorts of six Centuries each, each Century having 80 foot soldiers, and a tenth "1st cohort" consisting of five, or sometimes six, Double Centuries of 160 foot soldiers. To this add a 120 man cavalry unit and an Artillery unit of about 60 men. Staff officers averaged about 55 per standard Cohort. Total strength would then be 5,120 to 5,280 foot soldiers + 120 + 60 + (11*55) = 5,905 to 6,065 fighting soldiers. However, not all Legions were at full strength!

The 2,000 unclean spirits, if referring to soldiers, would mean about four fully manned Cohorts of men, including staff.

Interestingly enough, there is an account in Josephus that may support the hypothesis that the pig incident is secondary. In Jewish War, Book II, Ch XVIII, Sect 9 (vs 499ff) it says of the early days of the revolt:

" … so Cestius [Gallus] took part of his forces [the total was a full Legion, plus 2,000 each from the other three Legions stationed in Syria, plus something like 14,000 Auxiliaries] and marched hastily to Zebulon, a strong city of Galilee, which was called the City of Men [Williamson renders this "a frontier town"], and divides the country of Ptolemais from our nation; this he found deserted by its men, the multitude having fled to the mountains, but full of all sorts of good things; those he gave leave to the soldiers to plunder, and set fire to the city, although it was of admirable beauty, and had its houses built
like those in Tyre, and Sidon, and Berytus. After this he overran all the country, and seized upon whatsoever came in his way, and set fire to the villages that were round about them, and then returned to Ptolemais. But when the Syrians, and especially those of Berytus, were busy in plundering, the Jews pulled up their courage again, for they knew that Cestius was retired, and fell upon those that were left behind unexpectedly, and destroyed about two thousand of them." [Whiston]

The town in question was probably Asochis, situated about 10 miles from the Mediterranean Sea and not too far from Jotapata. The synoptic account of the pigs could then be seen as related to this route of the "Syrian" forces who were lagging behind Cestius while in pursuit of loot, and thus be a secondary element that must have entered the text after 66 CE.

DCH

John Kesler

Another interesting tidbit about this pericope is Matthew's addition in 8:29:

The meaning of the bolded portion cannot be ascertained from the OT, but the book of Enoch informs:

The "evil spirits" were thought to be the disembodied spirits of the human-angel-hybrid Nephilim--who drowned in the Great Flood--and were alllowed to torment humans until "the great judgment."

JoeWallack

JW:
What follows is a criticism of Meier and not you. I don't have this book but I think the evidence indicates the exact opposite of Meier's conclusion. The Jewrassic Pork story is an original composition of "Mark" that was written as a "baroque" account. It is the "evolution" that has tried to simplify and reduce/remove errors.

My guess is Meier wants to argue or maybe even assumes that there is a historical core. Can you tell me based on the book what exactly Meier's position is as to a historical core? Thanks.

I'm in the process of chronicling Mark 5:1 as a clear geographical error at ErrancyWiki. I think the author intended the entire story as Figurative and not Historical. The reason I still claim error is because the Implication from the Christian Bible as a whole is that Gerasenes was the Historical location.



Joseph

"At least a hog doesn't stay up all night buying drinks for everyone just so he can gamo some fat pig." -Graffiti on the wall of Gerasenes cave

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

DCHindley

I'm not necessarily endorsing Maier here, just citing him as support for the idea that there has been accretion to some story.

It was the citation of a similar story in JW that was more important to me. In the 1970's, Yassir Arafat was constantly making assertions that he would "drive those pigs into the sea" (i.e., drive the Jews out of Palestine). He had massed a considerable force, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, etc, in Lebanon.

Had Arafat's forces been able to inflict similar damage to Israeli expeditionary forces in S. Lebanon, Arafat would have been proudly proclaiming that he had "driven those pigs into the sea."

To me, the evidence indicates that any historical Jesus must be connected with messianic claims, and this would almost certainly have included militaristic assertions about cleaning the land of invaders.

I believe that Mark was writing an apology for Jesus to absolve him of seditious charges. One of these could easily have been that he would, with God's help, drive the unclean Roman army (the "pigs") back into the Mediterranean Sea where they came from. This charge may have been raised (again) against Jesus followers by Gentile critics in memory of what the Jews had been successful at doing during the rebellion if 66-70 CE.

By this time (maybe late 90's CE) the Jesus movement to which Mark belonged had evolved into a mystery religion. Mark has to be circumspect. So he portrays the confrontational language as figurative and relating to demons. "Oh, it was just a misunderstanding!"

Yeah, I'll say.

DH

Solo

Meier does not state out flat out that there is a historical core to the story. He argues instead that Mark 5:1-20 was built on a simpler exorcism narrative and that the materialization of pigs appears "easily" added later. He sees the attempts to manipulate the original Gerasa locale as a later attempt to accomodate the stampede and drowning of the swine.

Meier thinks that apart from the swine, the story had a powerful theological content in the "demoniac's alienation from self, neighbor, and God". Mark, acc. to Meier saw the designation of Jesus as "Son of the Most High God" as proceeding from the demoniac character as a natural confirmation of his theory of "messianic secret" which no man could know before Jesus' death on the cross. Consequently, he finds it "difficult to say how much the story may be pressed for historical facts".

It was when I was reading A Marginal Jew, I realized there was probably a harder core in the Markan story than the one Meier separated. In the most primitive narrative Jesus was accosted by the demoniac coming out from among the graves, not in theophany, but pleading with Jesus to relieve the suffering he had previously imposed through initiation into the mystery of the coming Son of man. Jesus calmed him down but refused to have him join his company. The neighbours asked Jesus to leave their locale fearing his magic.

Jiri