spin

The was a reason why I followed the mention of the map with this:

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.

But not of the evidence of the Roman road I referred to, which dates back to the time of Herod Antipas.

The map is merely evidence of the persistence of the road. The fact remains there was a road from Tyre to Caesarea Paneas and on to Damascus, as attested in the archaeological record. We are left with a nice convenient road to use from Tyre and no direct road from Sidon.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Here's Strong's common definition:

You sure you don't want to use "into" here? Considering that the named destination is the Sea of Galilee but the action does not take place there, but rather near/next to it, I think "against" is probably the best translation here. Using "to" though doesn't change anything. Original "Mark's" Jesus went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. Again note the only verb is attached to the offending word "through". The consequence and common meaning of the word in general, is that Sidon was not just the means to get to the Sea of Galilee, but the Sea was on the other side of Sidon.

Here's another similar contextual use of the word for you to ignore/deny:

http://biblos.com/acts/20-3.htm

JW:
Paul is planning to return to Jerusalem from Greece and decides to return through Macedonia.

When διὰ is used in the context of geography every example we've seen has a directional context. You want to limit the meaning to sequential. Haven't found an example of that yet but if I do I'll let you know.

For the objective Reader here, the ancient hearer would need to be able to distinguish whether the use of διὰ was directional or not. It would appear based on the examples that it was used consistently in a geographical context to indicate a directional context.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Toto

Wait a minute - how does this help you? Paul is in Greece somewhere. "The Jews" expect him to sail east to Syria to get to Jerusalem, so to avoid them he goes north through Macedonia. (Neil Godfrey has a nice map o the area here. It's almost as circuitous as the Sidon route.

I guess spin would argue that there is an explanation here for the counter intuitive route, so this does not argue against an error in Mark.

:huh:

JoeWallack

JW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...a_province.png

If he returns by land this would be the way to go.



Joseph

spin

Joe was dealing with the significance of two prepositions. The specific argument you're balking at was about the significance of δια for trajectory. The story, which explains itself, isn't much help other than for its use of the preposition.


spin

Walrus

Here are my points in clear English, hopefully they'll get through to you this time.

1. The Peutinger map is a Middle Ages copy of a 4th century recreation of 1st century BCE/CE sources. Since Biblical texts are criticized for not being written closer to the actual events (ignoring whether that is true or not), it is hypocritical to assign such authority to this map.

2. Even the experts that utilize this map only do so for the distances, as it is not reliable as to scale and shape otherwise.

3. The map in question only shows Roman roads. Since the area had been inhabited for centuries before the Romans got there, it would be foolish to assume there were not other roads than the Roman ones. If you had a map of the U.S. with only Interstate highways, you would be missing the vast majority of roads in the U.S. Point being, Jesus could have taken a back road not shown on this particular map.

Another point, assuming that you are right and there was a purpose for a side trip to Sidon, is that the reader would have known that Jesus was an itinerant preacher and probably assume that is why he would go to Sidon. Mark, knowing that, would only have said something about the reason for the stop in Sidon if there was a specific incident that would have been worthy of inclusion. Since there was not, he left it for the reader to infer from Jesus' ongoing agenda why he went to Sidon.

jackal5096

The operative word (transliterated) in the Greek text is horioa, which derives from horos, meaning "boundary".

Regardless of where one was in Phoenicia, the most direct route to the Sea of Gallilee was along the Roman road. It began 4 mi north of Tyre. So, one would travel from Tyre, or its environs, a little north towards Sidon, but then turn right (east) up the Litani river valley. In addition to the medeival map posted earlier, archeologists have found mile markers of this road. Sidon would still be 16 mi. further north. If one traveled any further north and then tried to go east, one would have to climb some fairly tall mountains. If one went all the way to Sidon, the only plausible route to the Sea of Galillee is back south along the coast, then east again through the Litani river valley. Unless there is a reason to have gone to Sidon itself, which the texts do not indicate or infer, it would not be plausible or reasonable to have travelled from Tyre to the Sea of Gallilee via Sidon.

spin

Perhaps if you wrote it in crayon it would look prettier.

As the map was supplied for illustrative purposes, you seem to be aiming at the wrong target. It illustrates a road that we have less iconically presentable evidence for. Shooting at the Peutinger map is a vain enterprise.

Actually "experts" use it for a lot more, but don't let me confuse you.

I like the way you are clinging to this map as it pulls you down. We have established that there was a serious road from Tyre to Caesarea Paneas. The Peutinger map shows it. Archaeology also shows its existence, as parts of it have been uncovered as well as architectural remains along the way.

And it would be foolish to assume that people made such a claim. However we have the shortest route from Tyre to northern Galilee represented by this good road, which is nice and clear in the Peutinger map. There were others further south. Our problem here is the unexplained trajectory through the north.

Somehow this is given to say something like going via Sidon makes sense in the context of Mark 7??

If you know the geography you provide an explanation for the apparently crazy trajectory. However, no explanation was provided, showing that there was no perception of the geographic problem. Hence the geographical problem remains.


spin

Walrus

spin,

So you're rejecting the idea that Jesus, whose main goal was spreading the word of the kingdom of God, would have made a quick side trip to Sidon, a nearby large city, before returning to his main area of activity?

JoeWallack

JW:

Acts 20

JW:
Paul is just returning the way he came, through Macedonia. You are starting to remind me of "Mark's" Peter who can never remember what "Mark's" Jesus said earlier in the chapter. Now that you mention it I don't remember διὰ ever being used in a water travel context. Probably because the sense of "through" and "other side" is more applicable to land.



Joseph