jackal5096

The problem becomes very apparent if you use an edition of the New Testament that uses a more critical Greek New Testament, such as the Nestle Alland. These state, for example in the New International version:

Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

Older editions which use the Wescott/Hort or, god forbid, the textus receptus or majority text, just say from the area of Tyre or of Tyre and Sidon. The latter manuscripts upon which these older Greek New Testaments are based apparently recognized the geographical problem and altered the text.

But, to go from Tyre through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee is like going from New York to Philadelphia through Albany. Anyone familiar with the area would say nonsense.

If one examines a map of the old Roman roads, such as the medieval Peutinger Map, it is apparent one would travel from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by first travelling north from Tyre for 4 miles, then turning east into the Litani River valley. One follows this until the river turns north. There, to the southeast, is a mountain pass which leads one to Tell Dan at the northern end of the Jordan River Valley. The road continues on to Banias (Caesarea Philippi), in the norther Golan Heights. From either Tell Dan or Banias one could travel south to the Sea of Galilee and the Decapolis.

Going from Tyre to Sidon would be about 20 miles each way out of the way

spin

Fascinating, but what value has this description? One doesn't know the source and there is no way to evaluate it. You are expected to fully cite new material.


spin

spin

Reading the text which talks of Jesus going from Tyre through Sidon into the Galilee, the Greek word for "through" is δια, which can be found in the following verses:

Mt 7:13 through the straight gate (Mk 10:25)
Mt 19:24 through the eye of a needle
Mk 2:4 through the crowd (Lk 5:19 + through the tiles)
Mk 9:30 through Galilee
Lk 4:30 through their midst

They each give the understanding that we have a trajectory. The only reason why the needle is mentioned is the passage through it (with its constriction). Passing through their midst indicates merely the passage and implies no stopping in itself. When Lk 5:19 tells of the man on his pallet being let down through (δια) the tiles into (εις) the midst (of the crowd) before Jesus, the tiles were just the trajectory with the purpose being the arrival in the midst of the crowd before Jesus. We should see the language of Mk 7:31 in the same light, through (δια) Sidon into (εις) the Galilee. The major problem with such a trajectory is that not only is it a large increase in distance, it requires a climb through the southern edge of Mt Lebanon. As previously mentioned by jackal5096, the Peutinger Map is helpful to understand the available routes:

The route along the coast takes one from Caesarea (written here Cesaria) through Ptolema/ide, Tyro and on to Sydone and from there, nowhere useful.


spin

rhutchin

Nonetheless, Mark clearly states that Jesus actually traveled to Sidon before continuing on His way to the Sea of Galilee (or the Decopolis Region depending on how one reads the text). Your argument from the above seems to be that Jesus did not actually travel to Sidon but this would be contrary to what the verse tells us.

You have not described a problem. You are trying to invent a problem that does not exist.

rhutchin

This was a personal communication and I only used it to illustrate that there are various views on the actual route that Jesus could have taken.

The issue, though, is whether Jesus actually traveled to Sidon, as I maintain the verse tells us or whether Jesus did not travel to Sidon as is argued by others in order to create a problem with the reference to Sidon.

spin

And you should say that it was a personal communication. And maybe I'll post the opinion of my cat, Shitbags (really), because she's slept on the issue and I'm sure she's got something furry to say about it.

As I showed in a subsequent post linguistically Sidon was given as a means through which Jesus went to Galilee. One doesn't expect from the text that Sidon was a destination or stop, but the needed direction to get somewhere else.


spin

rhutchin

Sure. Why not. You haven't been to the region so you wouldn't know one way or the other anyway.

The Greek is clear. Jesus actually traveled to Sidon.

spin

The ancient ways are clear. Besides, you are free to look at the terrain on Google maps to see the problem of going from Tyre to Galilee via Sidon. The Peutinger Map should help you understand the ancient routes. See the route from Tyro to Cesariapaneas? Following that route and deviating south well before Caesarea Panias is the way to Galilee.

No, the Greek is clear. Jesus traveled through Sidon in order to get to Galilee.

Before you try to say that you have to go to Sidon anyway (which I would agree with logically), the text doesn't supply Sidon as a destination at all (if you considered the examples I gave in the earlier post with the Map, it would be clearer to you), so you are manipulating the text to get more than it says.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Getting back to the reaction of the Church Fathers, we see at e-catena that Origen is the only Father here to comment on Mark 7:24/31:

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XI)

JW:
Note that Origen, the first textual critic of the Church, was relatively honest by Church Father standards. He is reading Mark 7:24 before it has been forged to Tyre and Sidon so presumably he sees the geographical error of 7:31. Its likely that "Mark" here was avoided by the Fathers in general as confusing and embarrassing. Also note that Origen is looking here for a figurative explanation of why Jesus goes to Tyre and Sidon here. So the earlier, smarter and honester Father sees the figurative intent. Just like me.

Origen's general position was that the Greek copies contained numerous errors as to names, especially place names:

Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book VI)

JW:
Admittedly, saying that the Gospels in general have many wrong names of places, is a different error than saying the Gospels contain errors in directions. But you can get there from here.

As always, think of how useful Mark 7:24-31 would have been to Paul/Fake Paul. There would appear than to have been no tradition of Jesus going to the Gentiles in the 1st century. Q for "Mark". Entrance = "right" side"



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

avi

What do we do, when confronted with a simple disagreement based upon the Greek text? We examine the Greek text!!!

haha. This is kind of fun.

rhutchin, of course, is looking at the KJV, or comparable English text, based upon the Byzantine majority, while, spin, Joe, and many others on this forum, are instead looking at, and regarding as the more faithful to the original version of Mark, Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, i.e. Hort/Westcott.

Here is this problem identified very simply, so that we can then understand why rhutchin has such a clear disagreement about the interpretation of the Greek text-->he's looking at the wrong version!!! As Joe already explained, earlier in this thread, the scribes/senior administrators understood the problem~1500 years ago, and ordered the text changed!! Tada... today we have inherited this discrepancy between the "original" copy of the gospel of Mark, and the forged version, running around in English, as KJV.

Byzantine Majority Mark 7: 31
Hort & Westcott same passage
Here are my English translations (n.b. to take with a grain of salt, or pepper, as the situation warrants.)

1. Byzantine: "and again, having departed from the region of Tyre and Sidon, he came toward the Lake of Galilee within the middle of the region of Decapolis."

2. Hort & Westcott: "and again, having departed from the region of Tyre, he came through Sidon, against the Lake of Galilee, within the middle of the region of Decapolis."



avi