Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 07-03-2011, 11:00 AM

JW:
This Thread is inspired by a recent post by the Holy Con/Pro Fessor of the Faith in historical Jesus, James McGrath (JM) [bold mine]:

Where Jesus May Have Walked

Quote:

We also passed through Cana. This led to a thought about mythicism: The likelihood that Christians in some other part of the world decided to turn a belief in a purely celestial figure into a narrative about a historical one, set it in this part of the world, and got so many place and people names authentic and accurate would be nothing short of a miracle. And so historical study prefers a more probable scenario, that there is some genuine reminiscence of actual events this part of the world in the origins of Christianity. Everyone gets some things wrong, and many of the stories told are at best highly mythologized developments from stories about things that happened. But this is only one part of the picture. Getting details right in a time before accessible written records or encyclopedias was far more difficult than mythicists seem to realize, and so when it happens, it often reflects access to accurate information, whether oral or written.

I read this (which I now read in place of the Sunday Comics) as I was having my customary breakfast of sour grapes and had a John Stewart moment of a reflexive spewing onto my screen (thanks Jim). The accurate geography is evidence for historicity? What you talking bout Baruch Wills us!?

For the more learned Skeptics here, "Mark", the original Gospel, has something of a reputation for bad geography. Our own Diogenes the Cynic has a, as Larry David would say, pretty good summary of "Mark's" god-awful geography here:

Shredding the Gospels: Contradictions, Errors, Mistakes, Fictions

Quote:

3. The Gospels contain factual errors

It's hard to know where to start with this one or how to categorize the errors so I guess I'll just take the Gospels one at a time starting with Mark.

Errors in Mark

Mark probably has the greatest number of factual inaccuracies. He makes mistakes of geography, custom and law. The trial before the Sanhedrin is Mark's invention and is a catalogue of errors unto itself but let's start with geography.

Geographical Errors

The Gerasene Demoniac:

In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.

If you look at the map below you can see that Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.

Matthew recognized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.

As usual I've inventoried some of the more grievous Markan geographical errors at ErrancyWiki such as Jewrassic Pork (above):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_5:1

which I think is now the best article ever written on the subject and in customary fashion, after having checked a few related references in books, some related searching on the Internet when I had nothing better to do and fruitlessly arguing with one or two Apologists, I have Faith that I Am the foremost authority the world has ever known on the subject.

The traditional question asked in Polemics regarding the relationship of "Mark" and geography is:

Did "Mark" get any geography wrong?

but after skimming (love that word) through "Mark", again, thanks to JM, I think the better question is:

Did "Mark" get any geography right?

I confess that the title of this Thread is an attention getter. I think everyone except for aa/MM would agree that "Mark" got some geography right, like say Jerusalem being in Israel. But if we raise the Bar (so to speak) for geographical competence to Geographical Relationships, did "Mark" get anything right? Let's say for the sake of argument that "Mark" was composed in Rome. It strikes me that it would be typical for Romans of the time to have heard the names of some places in Israel and the surroundings but not to be familiar with the geographical relationships. Let's say you are from New York. You know that Minneapolis and St. Paul are in Minnesota but do you know where they are in relation to each other?

The purpose of this Thread will be to count how many geographical relationships "Mark" probably got wrong and how many, if any, he got right.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 07-03-2011, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

The purpose of this Thread will be to count how many geographical relationships "Mark" probably got wrong and how many, if any, he got right.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The author of gMark did not call Nazareth a city of Galilee unlike gMatthew and gLuke.

JoeWallack · 07-22-2011, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I confess that the title of this Thread is an attention getter. I think everyone except for aa/MM would agree that "Mark" got some geography right, like say Jerusalem being in Israel. But if we raise the Bar (so to speak) for geographical competence to Geographical Relationships, did "Mark" get anything right? Let's say for the sake of argument that "Mark" was composed in Rome. It strikes me that it would be typical for Romans of the time to have heard the names of some places in Israel and the surroundings but not to be familiar with the geographical relationships. Let's say you are from New York. You know that Minneapolis and St. Paul are in Minnesota but do you know where they are in relation to each other?

The purpose of this Thread will be to count how many geographical relationships "Mark" probably got wrong and how many, if any, he got right.

JW:
So the pray prey here are geographical relationships in "Mark". Unleash the Skeptical hounds and let the hunt begin! [bones in bold]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bc_lXBc2sk

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:

1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

To aid in the hunt, here is a map of 1st century Israel:

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

yalla · 07-22-2011, 08:30 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cana

My italics: for emphasis.

"Cana of Galilee is not mentioned in any other book of the Bible, nor in any other contemporary source."

"There has been much speculation about where Cana might have been....

There are four villages in Galilee which are candidates for biblical Cana:
1.Kafr Kanna, Israel;
2.Kenet-el-Jalil, Israel;
3.Ain Kana, Israel; and
4.Qana, Lebanon."

Note the word 'candidates', apparently none so far have actually passed the test, whatever test that is.

More from Wiki:

" ....a tradition dating back to the 8th century identifies Cana with the modern ...."

"This is not a matter on which certainty is ever likely to be achieved"

Gee the historicists are getting desperate.

jgoodguy · 07-22-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cana

My italics: for emphasis.

"Cana of Galilee is not mentioned in any other book of the Bible, nor in any other contemporary source."

"There has been much speculation about where Cana might have been....

There are four villages in Galilee which are candidates for biblical Cana:
1.Kafr Kanna, Israel;
2.Kenet-el-Jalil, Israel;
3.Ain Kana, Israel; and
4.Qana, Lebanon."

Note the word 'candidates', apparently none so far have actually passed the test, whatever test that is.

More from Wiki:

" ....a tradition dating back to the 8th century identifies Cana with the modern ...."

"This is not a matter on which certainty is ever likely to be achieved"

Gee the historicists are getting desperate.

Again this is old news that HJ folks have known for a century.

What a historicist would allege is why have real geographical names for a totally mythical person. That is a person that has only a spiritual existence in a supernatural or imaginary place does not need historical places. Granted the geography is different than that of which Mark writes, never the less, the names are real and the actions are of a earthly person. In short, this account is what we would expect to see for a historical person rather than a heavenly mythical one.

A totally accurate geographical description by aMark does not prove a historical personage either.

In summary, it is old news that the HJ folks know and have approached. It is more consistent with a mythical history of a historical person than a mythical history of a totally spiritual/imaginary person, but it is also consistent with an mythical history of a mythical historical person.

aa5874 · 07-22-2011, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

.....What a historicist would allege is why have real geographical names for a totally mythical person. That is a person that has only a spiritual existence in a supernatural or imaginary place does not need historical places. Granted the geography is different than that of which Mark writes, never the less, the names are real and the actions are of a earthly person. In short, this account is what we would expect to see for a historical person rather than a heavenly mythical one.....

What you suggest is Not supported by the NT. Characters such as angels, the Devil, Demons, Unclean Spirits and the Holy Ghost were in Nazareth, Galilee, in Jerusalem and even on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple.

In gLuke, An angel called Gabriel was also in Nazareth and Jesus was with the DEVIL on top of the Jewish Temple.

Matthew 4:5 -

Quote:

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple....

Mr 3:11 -

Quote:

And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.

Luke 1:26 -

Quote:

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth...

John 14:26 -

Quote:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you....

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...In summary, it is old news that the HJ folks know and have approached. It is more consistent with a mythical history of a historical person than a mythical history of a totally spiritual/imaginary person, but it is also consistent with an mythical history of a mythical historical person.

So, are you proposing an "Historical Devil"?

Both Jesus and the Devil were TOGETHER on the Pinnacle of the Temple when the DEVIL asked Jesus to jump in gMatthew and gLuke.

Luke 4

Quote:

9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence...

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the authors of the Jesus story placed "Spiritual beings" on earth in their stories.

yalla · 07-22-2011, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cana

My italics: for emphasis.

"Cana of Galilee is not mentioned in any other book of the Bible, nor in any other contemporary source."

"There has been much speculation about where Cana might have been....

There are four villages in Galilee which are candidates for biblical Cana:
1.Kafr Kanna, Israel;
2.Kenet-el-Jalil, Israel;
3.Ain Kana, Israel; and
4.Qana, Lebanon."

Note the word 'candidates', apparently none so far have actually passed the test, whatever test that is.

More from Wiki:

" ....a tradition dating back to the 8th century identifies Cana with the modern ...."

"This is not a matter on which certainty is ever likely to be achieved"

Gee the historicists are getting desperate.

Again this is old news that HJ folks have known for a century.

What a historicist would allege is why have real geographical names for a totally mythical person. That is a person that has only a spiritual existence in a supernatural or imaginary place does not need historical places. Granted the geography is different than that of which Mark writes, never the less, the names are real and the actions are of a earthly person. In short, this account is what we would expect to see for a historical person rather than a heavenly mythical one.

A totally accurate geographical description by aMark does not prove a historical personage either.

In summary, it is old news that the HJ folks know and have approached. It is more consistent with a mythical history of a historical person than a mythical history of a totally spiritual/imaginary person, but it is also consistent with an mythical history of a mythical historical person.

There is in Australia a town named Ararat.
Is it it the original Ararat? As named in the Bible?
Or is it a place that was given that name as Christian people looked backwards in time to one of their stories?

I vote for the latter.

Similarly, sometime on or around, or maybe earlier, the 8th century [according to Wiki] the locals in a region gave a name to a place that echoes the name of a probably fictional place [ and incidentally not a person] in one of their stories.
Maybe its just a coincidental apparent similarity in the words. whatever, but it is in no way evidence that there was any such place of that name there several hundreds of years earlier.
Thats is what is important.
Any name that comes from centuries later can be totally unrelated to the alleged aunthenticity of a place name in a story from an earlier period.
Ditto for the other three known places all possibly named after a NT story.
The very number is suspicious.

jgoodguy · 07-23-2011, 01:08 AM

FWIW here is a freshman level lecture on Mark.

http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCour.../5/yd5sXfFboxA

aa5874 · 07-23-2011, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

FWIW here is a freshman level lecture on Mark.

http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCour.../5/yd5sXfFboxA

There are fundamental ERRORS about gMark in the lecture.

jgoodguy · 07-24-2011, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

FWIW here is a freshman level lecture on Mark.

http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCour.../5/yd5sXfFboxA

There are fundamental ERRORS about gMark in the lecture.

That explains why you lecture here and he lectures at Yale.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2011, 08:30 AM	#4
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cana My italics: for emphasis. "Cana of Galilee is not mentioned in any other book of the Bible, nor in any other contemporary source." "There has been much speculation about where Cana might have been.... There are four villages in Galilee which are candidates for biblical Cana: 1.Kafr Kanna, Israel; 2.Kenet-el-Jalil, Israel; 3.Ain Kana, Israel; and 4.Qana, Lebanon." Note the word 'candidates', apparently none so far have actually passed the test, whatever test that is. More from Wiki: " ....a tradition dating back to the 8th century identifies Cana with the modern ...." "This is not a matter on which certainty is ever likely to be achieved" Gee the historicists are getting desperate.

07-23-2011, 01:08 AM	#8
jgoodguy Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 400	FWIW here is a freshman level lecture on Mark. http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCour.../5/yd5sXfFboxA

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.