JoeWallack

JW:
Building on the Patristic reaction to what was likely original here:

NRSV

I've shown that Origen looks to have had the text before it was forged and uses mainly "Matthew" to analyze the story. Origen's "Matthew" has already corrected the geographical problem here. In his textual criticism of "Mark" Wieland notes with surprise that forged "Mark" here has quality witness:

A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 2 Mark

JW:
Actually this makes sense as the outstanding textual critic authority of the time (c. 210), Origen, writes an analysis of the same story for "Mark" and "Matthew", emphasizing "Matthew", as well as pointing out in general numerous place errors in the Gospels. This than is the authority for scribes (Caesarean, Alexandrian) to "correct" "Mark" to "Matthew".

Note especially the extreme reaction here of "Matthew":

Matthew

After returning from Tyre and Sidon, "Matthew's" Jesus climbs a mountain. "Mark's" Jesus though returns for a healing:

"Matthew's" Jesus does not follow "Mark's" Jesus here because he is not sure exactly where the hell he went after 7:31.




Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
I'm in the process of expanding on the argument for geographical error at ErrancyWiki Mark 7:31 and now note the two geographical errors in the offending verse:

NRSV, to its discredit, leaves out the "middle" ("middle" of Decapolis) as we can see here:

http://biblos.com/mark/7-31.htm

The two geographical errors than, are:

1) You would not/could not go through Sidon to get to the Sea of Galilee from Tyre.

2) The Sea of Galilee was not in the middle of the Decapolis.

as noted in the following map:



The demonstration of each individual geographical error reduces the credibility of the author making fellow claims of geographical error more likely.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin

You have not demonstrated any error. Your premise is that Jesus did not actually go through Sidon in His travels to the Decapolis. The natural reading of the Greek text, ...ἦλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος..., translated, "...[he] went by way of Sidon..." (NRSV) is that Mark is telling us that Jesus actually traveled to Sidon on His way to the Decapolis region. Your premise is not true and you provide no argument for its truth.

The text does not say, nor imply, that the Sea of Galilee is in the middle of the Decapolis. The middle of anything is not even suggested. The text merely says that Christ traveled in the region of the Decapolis (NRSV) or through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis (KJV). While the NRSV leaves out "middle," it simply chooses not to directly translate, μέσον, but opts to say, "...in the region..." Nonetheless, Mark tells us that Jesus was within the Decapolis territorial boundaries and nothing more than that.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Please reply to spin's post #48, and to avi's post #50. In addition, please make a post in a past thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=270530l. The title is "Maybe the historical Jesus really did do miracles." My posts were posts #294, #299, #300, #331, #333, #336, #338, #339, #341, #342, #343, #344, #348, #350, and #351. It is very unlikely that Jesus performed miracles, especially to the extent that the New Testament says that he did.

rhutchin

I actually use the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament using the Nestle Greek text (which I believe in the Hort/Westcott text) with translation by Alfred Marshall. I do have the Farstad/Hodges Interlinear that follows the majority text (which I believe is basically the Byzantine text). For purposes of this discussion, I have used the Hort/Westcott text because Joe is using the NRSV. I maintain that ...ἦλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος... clearly tells us that Jesus actually travelled to Sidon before going on to the Decapolis region.

Here the issue is the meaning of the Greek text that you translate as, "[Jesus] came through Sidon." Does it actually mean that "[Jesus] came through Sidon"? I maintain that the Greek text does mean this (that Jesus physically traveled through Sidon) and that a person cannot read the text otherwise. No one has explained how this can mean anything else.

rhutchin

Spin voices his opinion; I voice mine. Neither of us is a Greek scholar. I have consulted people who know Greek (or claim to) and their personal observation is that my position is correct. I am sure that Spin has similarly consulted people he knows who have studied Greek and they tell him the opposite. In the end, we disagree.

avi

Well, if Jesus traveled "through" Sidon, then obviously he must have traveled "to" Sidon.

rhutchin: are you missing the point here?


This is not a question of whether or not the Greek text says he traveled "to" Sidon, versus "through" Sidon. The problem is that Sidon is MILES and MILES north of the road that leads to Lake Galilee, as Joe and spin have explained, many times. It is not a problem that Mark writes Jesus traveled to Sidon, or through Sidon, its a problem that Mark mentions Sidon in the same breath as the route taken to Lake Galilee. What we are arguing, is not whether Jesus went "to Sidon", versus "through Sidon". We are arguing that Jesus may or may not have gone to Sidon, but that regardless of whether or not he did or did not travel to Sidon, the fact is, the ROAD TO LAKE GALILEE passes not through Sidon, as Mark had suggested.....That is the error. You need, in my opinion, to focus less on the semantics of "to" versus "through" and more on the geography.

If we seek to travel from London to Bucharest, we are not obliged to stop in Reykjavik, in order to arrive in Bucharest. So, if I am writing a travelogue, and ask you, rhutchin, to please assist me in editing my submission, how will you react to my claim to seek to unveil the mysteries of Armenia, by traveling first to Bucharest, by way of Reykjavik? I think, rhutchin, you are going to suggest that I modify my explanation, so that the reader understands that I am NOT proposing that travelers hoping to voyage to Bucharest need to pass by Reykjavik, first.

This is the "error" we are citing, in Mark. He writes as though Jesus was obliged to travel to Sidon in order to gain access to Lake Galilee...... This is not correct. Maybe he went to Sidon, or maybe not, we don't know. The reason why we are unsure, is because Matthew does not confirm what Mark has written. What we do know, is that the road to Lake Galilee does not pass through Sidon, as Mark has suggested, an error so obvious, that Matthew corrected it, (and so did the editors of the Byzantine Greek version, by writing "Tyre and Sidon").

Is Bucharest in Armenia??? No. Neither is Lake Galilee in the middle of Decapolis.

Hello? rhutchin?

Johnny Skeptic

You seem to have appointed yourself as a bona fide interpreter of the Bible, but why is that? Christians have disagreed regarding all kinds of important issues for the last 2,000 years. What makes your interpretions of the Bible more valid than other Christians who disagree with you? There is little doubt that if you had lived centuries ago, many of your opinions would be different than they are now, including your opinions about colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women.

You argued for a global flood for years, but recently you said that maybe it was localized. You once argued extensively against homosexuality, only to eventually end up saying that more research needs to be done. You argued that skeptics should ask God for mercy, but Calvinism teaches that God chooses who he will save apart from any choices that humans make, including by implication asking God for mercy. If God chose who he will save before the foundations of the world, obviously, human chioces and actions do not have anything to do with who God already chose to save before any humans existed. How can you be reasonably certain that the Roman Catholic Bible is closer to what God inspired than Protestant Bibles are?

It is quite suspicious that God predictably saves much higher percentages of people who live in predominantly Christian countries than he does in, for example, predominantly Muslim and Hindu countries, which is exactly what would be expected if the God of the Bible does not exist. Similarly, much higher percentages of people become Muslims and Hindus who live in countries that are predominantly Muslim or Hindu, which is to be expected if none of those Gods exist.

Women predictably tend to accept Christianity more than men do, and older people predictably give up religion less frequently than younger people do. I think that the same is true regarding all other religions. Genetics and social factors easily explain those issues.

Since you have appointed yourself as a bona fide interpreter of the Bible, consider the following Scriptures:

James 2:15-17

"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

In your opinion, why did God inspire James to tell Christians that they should give food to need people?

rhutchin

Joe Wallack has expended considerable time arguing that Jesus did not actually travel to or through Sidon claiming that Mark is actually giving the reader the "directions" from Tyre to Decapolis and not the actual route traveled by Jesus.

The issue is whether Jesus actually traveled to and through Sidon. I claim that Mark is telling the reader that Jesus actually traveled to Sidon before proceeding on to Decapolis and this is what the Greek text says (despite Joe's efforts to make to say something else). If Jesus did travel to Sidon as the text says, then there is no error.

This has nothing to do with anything here. Mark tells us that Jesus traveled to the Decapolis region sufficient for Mark to say that Jesus was in the midst of the region (i.e., within its borders). Mark says nothing about the Sea of Galilee being in the middle of Decapolis what what I have read. What are you looking at?

rhutchin

Start some new threads. There is no need to clutter this thread with your rabbit trails.