spin

You are not dealing with the issue, but manipulating the implications of English translation while not considering the Greek. That's why much of your comment above has little significance. The main constituents of the principal clause of the sentence in Mk 7:31 read "he came to the sea of Galilee" and that's what Mt 15:29 reflects, "Jesus departed from there and he came near (παρα) the sea of Galilee". The Marcan version provides extra information, ie the way he came "through Sidon". There is no indication in the story that Sidon was relevant to the journey other than as a trajectory.

The text establishes the significance of δια by the grammatical indication of providing the destination for the journey. This is the first use indicated in Liddell and Scott. Your attempt to use Mk 2:23 and passing "through the grainfields" (δια των στροπιμων) fails to be relevant because it provides no destination, whereas "through the roof" is a clear analogy as the destination is the midst of the crowd. (Through the eye of the needle and through the straight door are automatically the first L&S usage given their virtual two dimensional nature, ie from one side of it to the other.)

The context indicates that it is rational to pass through Sidon going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Unfortunately we know that it isn't a rational trajectory.

The destination given is the Sea of Galilee. And that's how Mt 15:29 understood it.

The text says Jesus went from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, giving the trajectory as via Sidon. You are deliberately trying to ignore the problem in such a trajectory, sweeping it under the carpet. It's no problem to you that someone would go from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by making the journey back rather more complicated and difficult. You just assume that this Roman located writer is merely recording what happened, because you believe that the text is somehow historical in content.

The rest of us take it as problematical that Mark should indicate a crazy trajectory.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Here's another use of διὰ in the context of directions used by "Mark":

http://biblos.com/mark/9-30.htm

"And they departed thence and passed through Galilee and he would not that any man should know it"

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
Κακεῖθεν	kakeithen	2547	ADV-C	there
ἐξελθόντες	exelthontes	1831	V-2AAP-NPM	having departed
ἐπορεύοντο	eporeuonto	3899	V-IMI-3P	they passed
διὰ	dia	1223	PREP	through
τῆς	tēs	3588	T-GSF	the
Γαλιλαίας	galilaias	1056	N-GSF	Galilee
καὶ	kai	2532	CONJ	and
οὐκ	ouk	3756	PRT-N	not
ἤθελεν	ēthelen	2309	V-IAI-3S	he wanted
ἵνα	ina	2443	CONJ	that
τις	tis	5100	X-NSM	anyone
γνοῖ	gnoi	1097	V-2AAS-3S	would know

Note that at 8:27 Mark 8

Jesus is at Caesarea Philippi. He departs and goes through Galilee. At 9:33 he arrives at Capernaum:

Mark 9

Still waiting for one use of διὰ in between a departure and arrival that does not indicate something in between.

I hope you appreciate the effort here RH. Technically I'm breaking the rules by being on the same side of the issue here with spin. If you don't have an existing example of the use of διὰ in the same context as "Mark" which gives the meaning you want, than you are just making things up.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

rhutchin

Yep.

rhutchin

I don't see the need for finding "one use of διὰ in between a departure and arrival that does not indicate something in between."

We both agree that Jesus traveled to Sidon and we both agree that His travel to Sidon was between His departure location (Tyre) and His arrival location (Decapolis).

You seem to be requiring that Sidon be in a direct line between Tyre and Decapolis when the text only requires that it be an intermediate stop between the starting and ending points.

You claim the following:

"The narrative of Chapter 7 indicates that Jesus went to Tyre for the purpose of leaving Galilee and the only reason to go to Sidon was that it was on the way to the Sea of Galilee. Note that in general "Mark" always provides the reason for a road trip and the only reason for Sidon here is the claim that it was on the way to the Sea of Galilee. Since Sidon was in the wrong direction to get to the Sea of Galilee, a literal reading of the text indicates the directions are in error."

Your statement, "...the only reason to go to Sidon was that it was on the way to the Sea of Galilee," is false. We are not told why Jesus went to Sidon, only that he did.

Your statement, "...in general "Mark" always provides the reason for a road trip..." is true because sometimes Mark does provide a reason for a road trip and sometimes he does not but, IN GENERAL, he does. Mark is not required to provide a reason for a road trip and does not do so for the trip to Sidon.

Your statement, "...and the only reason for Sidon here is the claim that it was on the way to the Sea of Galilee," is false. The only reason is that Jesus actually traveled to Sidon and it has nothing to do with whether Sidon was on the way to the Sea of Galilee. Nothing in the text points to your conclusion.

rhutchin

Certainly, Mark does not explain why Jesus went to Sidon. Mark merely maintains that Jesus did go to Sidon. The relevance of the information given by Mark is not as a trajectory but only as an intermediate stop in a journey.

You are not reading what the Greek says. We have "verb δια noun." Following LS, Sidon was a destination (and I guess this is what show_no_mercy meant earlier) but within the larger context of the verse, we see that it was an intermediate stop in a longer journey.

Absolutely not. The context says nothing about the rationality of passing through Sidon to go from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Nothing about trajectory is implied in the verse. Mark merely identifies an intermediate stop which he seems to do precisely because it is out of the way and one would not have thought that Jesus went to Sidon otherwise.

OK. Ultimately, the destination is the Sea of Galilee where it borders the Decapolis region. Mark tells us that Jesus went to the Southeast end of the Sea.

Fine, but that is not a problem with the text.

Johnny Skeptic

Good, then you agree that there are many reasonably provable errors in the Bible.

I have many issues that I would like to discuss with you when you are finished with this thread, some of which would be better suited for the Abrahamic Religions forum.

JoeWallack

JW:
Here's another use of διὰ

http://biblos.com/john/4-4.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
Ἔδει	edei	1163	V-IAI-3S	it was necessary for
δὲ	de	1161	CONJ	And
αὐτὸν	auton	846	P-ASM	him
διέρχεσθαι	dierchesthai	1330	V-PMN	to pass
διὰ	dia	1223	PREP	through
τῆς	tēs	3588	T-GSF	the
Σαμαρείας	samareias	4540	N-GSF	Samaria

Same context:

John 4

1) Departure from Judea

2) Through Samaria

3) Arrives Galilee

Another use of διὰ where what it is attached to is physically between the departure and arrival.

JW:
Translation = "I can not find one use of διὰ in between a departure and arrival that does not indicate something in between."

The obvious need is that it would provide a defense for your position. It would not make your position likely, just possible. This is the best part of being a counter-missionary, when you can see that the Apologist is starting to realize that they have no rational defense. The resources they were asking who at first assured a clear defense, gradually have nothing.

JW:
Not a direct line, only in between or on the way in a direction context. The text has used διὰ which always means between in a directional context when placed between a departure and arrival.

JW:
I've already indicated why the text shows no other reason to go to Sidon:

1) No other reason is given.

2) "Mark's" Jesus always/almost always has a reason to go somewhere.

3) "Mark" gives a reason to go on the trip in general, to get away from Galilee.

4) Jesus overall purpose in the text here is to minister and "Mark" normally gives some description of it by location

So my statement is true and supported by most commentators.

You keep whining that Sidon is in between the departure and arrival here. It is, but only in a sequential sense. You've been shown Ad Nazorean now that when διὰ is attached to a location that is in between a departure and arrival in a directions/geographical context, it always has a meaning of "between" in a directions/geographical context. So this is how it would have been understood by "Mark's" audience. Only someone familiar with the actual geography (like scribes, "Matthew", "Luke", commentators, me, spin, Bob Dole and the American public) would know that you could not go through Sidon to get from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin

This is a good example. John plainly tells the reader what he means. He says, "he must needs pass through Samaria." The reader knows from this that Jesus not only traveled through Samaria but that he Had to do so. Even here, the requirement that Jesus pass through Samaria might refer to a geographical requirement or to a desire by Jesus to do so. It fits geographically, but also to bring about the meeting with the women at Jacob's well.

Contrast this with the manner in which Mark phrases Mark 7:31, "he came through Sidon." Neither geographical necessity nor personal desire in attached to this in the surrounding context. Marks' purpose in saying that Jesus "came through Sidon" is to tell the reader something that the surrounding context does not say. If Mark had not told the reader that Jesus came through Sidon, the reader would have no way of knowing. In John's passage, the reader could logically surmise that Jesus traveled through Samaria to get from Judah to Galilee.

My defense agrees that διὰ is used in the pattern you note. We agree that Mark 7:31 fits the pattern in that it is used between a departure and arrival. The phrase, "he came διὰ Sidon" tells us that Jesus' route took Him through Sidon.

Mark 2:23 has, "...he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day;..." with His departure being one side of the cornfield and His arrival being another side of the cornfield.

Mark 9:30 has, "...they departed thence, and passed through Galilee;..." with the departure point being a location near the mountain where the transfiguration occurred and the arrival point is Capernaum.

Mark also refers to the camel going through the eye of the needle and a person carrying a vessel through the temple where the meaning is to go from one side to the other.

In Mark 7:31, Mark writes that Jesus travels from Tyre to Decapolis and the route He takes goes through Sidon.

My position agrees that διὰ appears in Mark 7:31 between a departure point and an arrival point. It is not an exception.

Your argument seems to be that the use of διὰ in Mark 7:31 demands some geographical necessity when it does not and you have not shown this to be the case.

There is no directional context implied or required in the text. All that the text requires is that the reader understand that Jesus plotted a route that went through Sidon in going from Tyre to Decapolis.

Hardly. Here is your argument.

Premise: Mark gives no reason for Jesus to go through Sidon.
Premise: Mark often tells why Jesus goes somewhere.
Premise: Mark originally told us why Jesus went to Tyre.
Premise: Jesus sough to minister and Mark normally tells how Jesus ministers in any location He visits.
Conclusion: Jesus could not have gone to Sidon unless He wanted to minister and since Mark does not tells us what Jesus did in Sidon, Jesus could not have gone to Sidon to minister so Mark had to mean that Sidon was on the way (directionally) between Tyre and Decapolis so Mark doesn't know what he is talking about. All this you get from premises that say nothing about the direction in which one travels. Why should anyone buy what you are selling?

The truth of your conclusion is not supported by your argument despite the great number of commentators who appear to support your position.

Unfortunately, this is not true and you have not shown it to be true. You make observations that are sometimes but not always true (Mark tells us the reason for a trip) and these observations don't even have anything to do with any conclusion about a "directional" context (that Sidon is directionally between Tyre and Decapolis) and then you erroneously, but imaginatively, conclude that Mark surely thinks that Sidon is between Tyre and Decapolis.

Even Mark knew this, as far as we know. His audience understands that Jesus went from Tyre to Decapolis and His route included going to Sidon. You, like Spin, think that this is a crazy way to go, but that is an opinion and nothing more.

rhutchin

No. Just to your statement referring to the fact that Mark 7:31 is not a good example of a Bible error.

Toto

This thread appears to be going nowhere, so I would like to throw out a related question that came up when I looked at James Tabor's Jesus Dynasty (or via: amazon.co.uk) in connection with another thread.

The book can be previewed on google books. If you search for "Sidon" you will find that Tabor comments on this passage. He asserts that a certain Adbes Panthera, the Roman soldier whose grave was found in Germany, who he assumes was the actual father of Jesus, was from Sidon.

Tabor also expounds on this on his website

Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera

Footnote 4 cites Tabor's Jesus Dynasty