avi

rather calm
note the wind speed, ~15km/hr...

I have not yet nailed down the information about lakes and storms, but, intuitively, wouldn't the more shallow lakes require less wind to churn the surface, than deeper lakes? The sea of Galilee is about 8 x 13 miles, with a surface area of about 64 square miles, and a volume of water approximately equal to 1 cubic mile, but shrinking daily, due to loss of flow of the Jordan River....The maximum depth is 140 feet, and the average depth is 80 feet, so this is not a little pond.

I imagine, but no data to support it, that it would be not that uncommon (once every thirty years, for example) for a large storm to form over the Mediterranean ocean, fifty miles west of Tiberias, and then push ashore, (something like a hurricane, or typhoon), with remnants of such a storm causing some fairly good sized waves, (circa 3 feet, e.g.) capable of capsizing a small boat on the Sea of Galilee.
avi

aa5874

The historical Jesus is fatally flawed. It cannot be known if Jesus was fabricated from a single character or multiple characters.

Mark Twain's fictional character Tom Sawyer was derived from multiple characters but such information must come from the author, not from guesswork and speculation.

Now, the authors of the Jesus stories did not ever reveal how they constructed Jesus.

The case is closed on the historical Jesus. His construction is unknown.

All we have is what the authors presented in the NT. Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God who created the earth.

The Church presented a myth to the world and called him Jesus our Lord and Saviour Messiah Son of God.

Toto

My comments about the Sea of Galilee were based on Dennis MacDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk), who pointed out the disconnect of calling the Lake a Sea.

DCHindley

I grew up by the south shore of Lake Erie, one of the USA's "great lakes." Like the "Sea" of Galilee, Erie is shallow (the shallowest of the Great Lakes), with an average depth of 62 feet (19 m) and a maximum depth of 210 feet (64 m), so we have some comparatives.

On a web site I just pulled up, there is this account by a fisheries officer:

"Lake Erie sometimes experiences the most drastic changes in wave height. There are several reasons why this is true.

Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes. Because of this, not only will waves kick up faster, but they also have a shorter wave period. Wave period is the distance between the crest of one wave and the crest of the next. In Lake Superior or the ocean, the waves may get very large, but they are often spaced far apart. In this respect, it would be more like riding a roller coaster. In Lake Erie, your stern may be on the crest of one wave, while the next one is washing over your bow.

In storms and wind events, there are also rogue waves. This happens when two waves cross each other and add up to form a bigger wave. This is probably what you were experiencing when you mentioned that every so often, there would be a much larger wave."

This Google Book result indicates that the Sea of Galilee gets wave of 6' - 9', although theoretically 1.4 meters (about 4') is supposed to be the maximum based on water density etc.

I can attest that Lake Erie gets some kick ass waves (5+ feet) and that storms kick them up fast. Strangely, we have no surfer culture here. Well, not so strange if i were to add that the water temp doesn't get much above 70 degrees Farenheit even in August.

DCH

Tom Sawyer

It doesn't help with shit. If Jesus were as interesting as the other deified people of the era, like Julius Caesar, I might care, but I really don't see the question being worth more than a shrug either way.

Petergdi

It looks like the LXX does so too. I can only assume that the LXX translators and the NT writers made the distinction at a smaller size than you would. I know neither Hebrew nor Aramaic, but I wonder if those languages make the distinction between large and small bodies of water at a smaller size threshold. If they do, then calling a lake a sea would have the opposite significance to what you suggest.

Peter.

mountainman

Constantine did not entwine his empire with the existing Church.
Constantine destroyed the Old Church.
He physically destroyed the Hellenistic temples.
He prohibited any further practice of the Old Churches.
He created a New Church using the New Testament.
He constructed new churches, which we know as "basilicas".

Monotheistic religion is a very useful tool for "binding together the populace".
The Army marches better to the "One Song". Constantine had seen the history
of how strong the Persians had become under Ardashir and Shapur as soon
as political reforms had been made to bring Sassanid Persia under a centralised
state monotheistic religion, by getting rid of the tradition of the greeks, and
burning the literature of the Parthian civilisation.

The plain and simple monotheistic religion of christianity was embraced by the
easterm greeks under the point of the sword - they had no choice. The laws
enacted at that time recognised only the religious priviledges of christians.

Petergdi

i checked Strong's corcordance and it looks like the word tranlated sea in "the sea of Chinnereth" in both Numbers 34:11 and Joshua 13:27 is the usual word for sea. So it looks like calling it a "sea" is normal translation-Greek and if anything indicates the writers knew what the natives called it.

Peter.

DrZoidberg

No, I'm not. I have no opinion either way. I'll admit that I think it's interesting. If I had to bet on a horse I'd go with Bart Ehrman's theory, but this is really out of my league. Even though this is a big interest I have and I've read plenty of books on it, I leave having an opinion to the academics in the field. I try to refrain from having strong opinions on things I'm not qualified for.

ph2ter

Probably they were never really interested. I understand that atheists whose parents are also atheists are not so interested in question. They usually lean towards HJ, because they unwittingly try to become closer to the theists and to become more acceptable to them. They do not know what indoctrination mean. HJ or MJ does not affect them at all.

But atheists whose parents are theists know what indoctrination mean. It is not easy in theistic environment to become atheist, so they are minority among atheist. HJ or MJ is very important to them and change a lot in their lives. That does not mean that their stance toward HJ or MJ is necessarily affected by their conviction.
For example, I become atheist after discovering that Jesus probably never existed (at least the one presented in the Gospels). In that, I was not initially motivated to find out anything in that direction. I was actually a deep believer and probably too sure in HJ. That arrogance enabled me to search too much deep and the final result came to me as a complete surprise and inconvenience. Despite my strong will to find out something which still would give me a reason to believe in a real Jesus of history, in time I was more and more assured that Jesus never existed, especially because of heavy mythology put around his character. Actually, it looks that he is built with no real kernel behind at all. Reading more and more about mythology and religious rituals, I am more and more convinced that this is the key to understanding the Jesus' character, its development and origin.
I am convinced that what most HJ-ers think is the most probable real thing in Jesus' life, the crucifixion, is completely inspired by the Jewish Scripture and mythology which lies behind it. Possibly, Jesus could be based on some itinerant preacher, but sole that could not ignite a divinization of him, so I am convinced that the character of him is a complete construct.