JoeWallack

JW:
I've added to the claimed geographical error at ErrancyWiki Mark 7:31.

We now have the following categories of support for error:

1) Language

The route of Jesus here is from Tyre, north to Sidon and southeast to the Sea of Galilee. 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.

1) From Tyre, Sidon would not be on the way to the Sea of Galilee.

2) From Sidon he would be on the north-west side of the Sea instead of the south-east where the Decapolis was.

3) On the Sea Jesus is on the edge of the Decapolis and not in the middle.

2) Authority

R.T. France, in The New International Greek Testament Commentary indicates the directions are in error.

p. 299

3) Editing of the original text

Wieland Willker notes at:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf

The original text reads Τύρου (Tyre) ἦλθεν (he came) διὰ (through) Σιδῶνος (Sidon) and the edited text is Τύρου (Tyre) Καὶ (and) Σιδῶνος (Sidon) λθεν (he came) προς (unto)

Clearly scribes thought the original was a problem and changed Sidon's role from only being the supposed path taken from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee to being the joint departure point along with Tyre. Note that in order to do this the editors also had to edit 7:24 in order to add "Sidon" here as a co-arrival point with Tyre. That would be a lot of effort to go through just to improve something you did not think was an error.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Iskander

<edited>

rhutchin

1. The above has: The narrative of Chapter 7 indicates that Jesus went to Tyre for the purpose of leaving Galilee...

The last geographical marker we have is Mark 6:53 which has Jesus in the land of Gennesaret at the northern end of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus travels to the district or region of Tyre and not necessarily to the city itself. The purpose apparently was to seek privacy as we read "...and did not want anyone to know he was there..."

2. The above then has: ...and the only reason to go to Sidon was that it was on the way to the Sea of Galilee.

This reflects the bias of the writer who looks to make an issue. To say that "the reason to go to Sidon" is forced as we are not told the reason. We only know that Jesus traveled to Sidon on His way to the Sea of Galilee. If the writer wants to dispute that Jesus actually went to Sidon, then he should do so and explain it. Otherwise, it is sufficient to follow the text and just say that Jesus traveled to Sidon on His way to the sea.

3. The above then has: 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.

Does Mark really do this? Immediately prior to the trip to the region of Tyre, we read that, "Immediately [Jesus] made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd." (6:45) and Mark gives no reason for it. The language Mark uses to describe the later trip from the region of Tyre is consistent with this. Some support needs to be given for the claim that is made as it is not readily seen in the immediate text.

4. The above then has: 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.

The issue is not whether the directions are wrong but whether Jesus actually traveled this route. If Mark has accurately described the route that Jesus took, then there is no issue regardless what one may think of the route that is taken.

JoeWallack

JW:
Thank you for confirming that the purpose of going to Tyre was to leave Galilee. Still no defense against error at this point. For objective readers out there, let me say here that I am going to have the following categories of evidence favoring error here:

1) Language

2) Authority

3) Editing

4) Rewriting

5) Other geographical errors

So far in this Thread the defense against error is a default position that "Mark" would not have wrong directions combined with a standard for proving error that is higher than whatever evidence is presented for error.

Also note here the sliding standard of the Apologists. The standard is very broad for how "Mark" could avoid error and very narrow for how someone could prove error.

JW:
This is the consequence of ignoring/denying the language. Again, the language indicates that the only purpose of Sidon is that it was the direction Jesus took from Tyre to get to the Sea of Galilee:

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1223.htm

Note that the most common meaning is "through". Literally than, there was no stopping in Sidon.

In the context of travel it has a causal relationship. The means of getting somewhere. The context here are directions from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. "You can get there by going through Sidon."

The authority I'm citing are generally conservative Christians or worse, normally clergy, who are extremely sympathetic to the Christian Bible. If there was any reasonable way to understand "Mark" as not being in error here, they wouldn't make these objections I am pointing out.

JW:
You gave the reason yourself. "Mark's" Jesus wants to be by himself. That would be hard to do with the disciples there. "Mark" has a primary theme that the disciples are grooving on all the attention from the Teaching and Healing Ministry but Jesus isn't enjoying it. Having people believe based on miracles is not faith. Having people believe despite suffering is. So your point above fails at every consideration. The text gives reasons for Jesus to go to Tyre and to go through Sidon and for the disciples to go to Bethsaida. Actually I think "Mark" always provides a reason for Jesus' moves. Thanks for confirming my point again. Still no defense against error at this point.

JW:
Exactly backwards. "Mark's" language is in the context of directions. As I've indicated, that is the reason to mention Sidon. There is no other reason given to go to Sidon and "Mark" always gives reasons for Jesus to go somewhere. The route that Jesus took is not the issue. The only issue is would stating that the way to get from Tye to the Sea of Galilee would be to go through Sidon, be a directional error? The answer if yes and while I have 5 categories of evidence supporting error, you have not presented any evidence defending against error.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Newton's Cat

Doesn't the Greek mean something like:

'... they went to (unamed place) which is in the middle of the Decapolis coastal boundaries on the Sea of Galilee.'

Why not name the place?

Like in Mark 6,1

... which says he went to the "native place of him"

Again the place is not named ... why not?

It's like saying someone went from London to the "middle of the coast of Sussex" .... (Brighton)

Maybe the story was written for people who were familiar with the geography of Palestine ... and designed so that readers who weren't wouldn't be able to easily figure out Jesus' route?

... for what other reason might the author have left out the names of the places?

As it stand parts of Mark are only immediately intelligible to people who are familiar with the geography ... and know the significance of the places visited.

rhutchin

No error suggested at this point with Jesus heading to the region of Tyre. Thus, no defense required.

The apologist merely maintains that Mark has described the route that Jesus took in traveling from the region of Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. How does that becomes a broad standard for explaining how Mark could avoid error? For someone to prove error, they need only show that Jesus did not actually travel to, and through, Sidon. How hard can that be?

Whether Jesus stopped in Sidon is immaterial. There was travel to Sidon at which point Jesus went "through" Sidon. The Greek is clear. Perhaps Jesus did not stop there. Does it matter?

The means by which Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee was through Sidon. In other words, Mark tells us that Jesus went through Sidon on His way to the Sea of Galilee.

The allegation is that Mark, rather than describing the actual route taken by Jesus, is only providing directions from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. The text, however, is clear. Jesus actually went through Sidon. The language indicates that Jesus actually traveled through Sidon. Mark tells us exactly what happened. He tells us that Jesus actually traveled through Sidon as He went to the Sea of Galilee. There is no basis for dispute there.

So we have one example where Mark gives the reason for the trip (i.e., to Tyre) and one example where he does not (i.e., to Bethsaida). The conclusion is that sometimes Mark provides a reason for a trip and sometimes he does not. However, we still have Jesus going "through" Sidon. As no support is given for the claim that "Mark always provides the reason for a road trip" and it is not readily seen in what Mark writes, we can reject the premise as false.

Again, we read, "'Mark' always gives reasons for Jesus to go somewhere," which we have shown is not true. Mark is not required to give a reason for Jesus to travel through Sidon.

We also read, "'Mark's' language is in the context of directions." This has not been shown. Earlier we read, "In the context of travel it has a causal relationship. The means of getting somewhere. The context here are directions from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. 'You can get there by going through Sidon.'" This is not correct. The context is, "Jesus traveled to the Sea of Galilee by going through Sidon."

So what is the alleged evidence for error? False premises.

rhutchin

Rather than "native place" it could be translated as "his hometown." Mark seems to do this to set up the reader to compare the reaction of the "hometown" crowd to Jesus with the way other people treated Him.

Where Mark says midst, the meaning is not the exact middle of the Decopolis region but that Jesus was inside the boundaries of the region (and thus in the midst of the gentile population). Mark does not identify any specific town and we night conclude that it does not matter.

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding Jesus' Mission, his initial mission is all the towns of Galilee:

Mark 1

Note that this is the first anachronism (synagogues throughout all Galilee).

"Mark" is written as a prequel to Paul. How could the Jesus movement have gotten to the point it was when Paul arrived? Before Paul the Jesus' movement is to Israel. Paul has the revelation to move it to the Gentiles.

Note that Jesus becomes so popular in Galilee, word of him (so to speak) spreads to the surrounding areas such as Tyre and Sidon:

Mark 3

Tyre and Sidon are the Gentiles who are coming to Jesus because they have heard of him. Right now Jesus' Mission is not to them. They do not have any evidence but believe based on Faith (think Paul).

Mark 7

Here "Mark" gives the purpose of going to Tyre (I previously indicated that "and Sidon" is forged to try and fix the wrong directions of 7:31) which is to get away from the popularity and attention Jesus is getting in Galilee.
How's that for an unexpected Messiah?

"Mark" is kind enough to make clear that the woman is Greek (think Paul) and his Jesus makes explicit that at "this time" (think Paul) his Mission is only to the Jews. The gentile has heard of Jesus though and has Faith which Jesus recognizes so Jesus does an unplanned (for him) ministering. Note the clever Irony of the author here. It is Jesus popularity at the time in Israel which forces him to go to the Gentiles to get away from his popularity in Israel. A negative reaction. Is "Mark" making fun of Paul here (literature) or just giving the reason Jesus went to the Gentiles (theology)? Either way it supports Paul that the plan in Jesus' time was to go to Israel and the subsequent revelation was to take Jesus to the Gentiles. The story here also makes clear that "Mark's" Jesus is far from perfect:

Was Jesus perfect according to “Mark" and “Matthew"?

Here we have the offending verse:

1) We have been given the reason to go to Tyre = to get away from Galilee.

2) We have been told that Jesus is not trying to Minister to the Gentiles at this point so that would not be the reason to go to Sidon. Jesus has already gone to Tyre to get away from Galilee o he does not need to go to Sidon to get away from Galilee.

3) The text gives us the reason Jesus goes to Sidon. Because it was the route needed to get from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. This is a geographical error. This is followed by a complimentary geographical error, going through the Decapolis borders to get to the Sea of Galilee.

4) The text than gives the reason to go back to Galilee:

Jesus is back in Galilee to resume his Ministry. If RH and Icklander (when are you going to pay back that 5 billion you owe us?) want to speculate about what Jesus did in Tyre and Sidon, well God knows. The Talmud advises that when one feels sin is inevitable it is best to go where no one knows you.

Actually RH, I have faith that "Mark" was quite familiar with the geography of Israel and that the literal geographical errors above are all intentional. "Mark" is just describing Jesus cruising through Gentile territory, Tyre, Sidon and Decapolis, without a formal Ministry (leaving that to Paul).

The great irony is that because you believe "Mark" is literally true, you will never understand what he meant and that's sad. You set a standard for demonstrating error that is simply greater than whatever evidence is presented for error so you can believe that there are no errors. The irony though is that instead of this allowing you to understand what they meant, it prevents you from understanding what they meant. Word.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Building on the geographical error of 7:31:

Mark 7:31

In addition to the previously identified reasons for error:

1) Language

2) Authority

3) Editing

4) Rewriting

5) Other geographical errors

We have another:

Physical Route Problem

As far as we know there was no road at the time between Sidon and the Sea of Galilee. As the following map shows there is a mountain range to the east of Sidon so in order to get to the Sea of Galilee from Sidon you would probably have to go back South to the Tyre area.

http://www.bible-history.com/geograp...el/sigoph.html

Our own Diogenes the Cynic has already walked these unholy grounds for error:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/S...els.htm#errors

I have seen a few Apologists on the Internet claim that there was a "lesser" road from Sidon to Galilee and even show it on a map (they made) but not give any more support than Mark (Sanford) gave for his Appalingachia route.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin

On the contrary, Mark is explicit in telling us that Jesus traveled through gentile territory and in this case apparently did so on purpose. That provides rich material for theological investigation. To presume error is to fail to investigate what is happening and thereby never come to understand what Mark meant and that truly is sad.

Regardless, you have provided no real argument for error in this verse building only a house of cards built on false presumptions. The conclusion we come to from this verse is that Jesus physically traveled this route.