JoeWallack

JW:
For those who are interested I Am in the process of improving the claim of error at ErrancyWiki Mark 7:31. The starting point is an analysis of the language:

http://biblos.com/mark/7-31.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
Καὶ	kai	2532	CONJ	and
πάλιν	palin	3825	ADV	again
ἐξελθὼν	exelthōn	1831	V-2AAP-NSM	having departed
ἐκ	ek	1537	PREP	from
τῶν	tōn	3588	T-GPN	the
ὁρίων	oriōn	3725	N-GPN	region
Τύρου	turou	5184	N-GSF	of tyre
ἦλθεν	ēlthen	2064	V-2AAI-3S	he came
διὰ	dia	1223	PREP	through
Σιδῶνος	sidōnos	4605	N-GSF	Sidon
εἰς	eis	1519	PREP	against
τὴν	tēn	3588	T-ASF	the
θάλασσαν	thalassan	2281	N-ASF	sea
τῆς	tēs	3588	T-GSF	of
Γαλιλαίας	galilaias	1056	N-GSF	Galilee
ἀνὰ	ana	303	PREP	within
μέσον	meson	3319	A-ASN	midst
τῶν	tōn	3588	T-GPN	of the
ὁρίων	oriōn	3725	N-GPN	region
Δεκαπόλεως	dekapoleōs	1179	N-GSF	of decapolis

The above table is KJV, which I think is easily the worst translation available. The best translation is NRSV:

http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm

The NRSV makes it clear that the use of Sidon is primarily DIRECTIONAL and not sequential. The meaning is that Sidon is between the departure of Tyre and the arrival of the Sea of Galilee. This is the way most Christian commentaries read it. The problem is that Sidon is north of Tyre while the Sea of Galilee is Southeast. So we not only have the language supporting error but also authority. But this is just the first problem with the verse.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

avi

Thank you Joe. Well done.

avi

rhutchin

That still does not create a problem. Mark simply says that Jesus traveled from the region of Tyre through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. Nothing from the text argues that this was not the path that Jesus took. Even those who see a problem do not even argue that this was not the route taken. Rather than a geographical problem, one might quibble only that the route taken was not a direct path to the Sea of Galilee.

There is still the issue of describing the problem that some see here. As nothing prohibits the text being accurate, so that Jesus actually did travel from the region of Tyre up to Sidon and then back down to the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee, what is the problem?

The alleged problem is that Mark is mistaken in the actual route that Jesus took as it must not have been possible that Jesus actually traveled to Sidon. This is based in assumption as nothing from the text supports it. So, the alleged problem is created by creating an assumption whose design is only to generate the alleged problem. What does that prove?

rhutchin

While this is true, it is irrelevant. The question is whether Mark accurately records the travels of Jesus. Did Jesus actually travel from the region of Tyre up through Sidon before heading south to the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee? Mark says that this is the route that Jesus took. Can you dispute that? If not, then your comment adds nothing.

This is a separate issue from the problem seen in in (a).

Is the information provided by Iskander incorrect as you maintain? If yes, can you sort out the maps on this. I used the map you cited and I don't see that it helps resolve the issue. Can we sort out what the true situation is here?

avi

Thanks for asking rhutchin. In my opinion, I was wrong, and Iskander is correct.

I did not appreciate before Iskander's contribution, that there were mountains of appreciable size on the EASTERN border of Lake Galilee. (It is fresh water, not salt water, and the original Greek word may be translated, according to William Mounce, as either Lake or Sea.)

So, I agree with you, rhutchin, that the text, as Mark wrote it, could be correct, i.e. Jesus whether real or mythical, could have traveled north to Sidon, then southeast to Decapolis and the eastern border of Lake Galilee. It is a bit counterintuitive, if for no other reason, because Capernaum lies to the North of the lake, and one would have anticipated that a voyage originating in Tyre, destined for a mountain top near the lake, would have focused on the north western region, i.e. near Jesus' "hometown", Capernaum, and in much closer proximity to Tyre than the eastern part of the lake.

So, yes, I stand corrected, because I have no evidence that Jesus, whether real or mythical, did not travel, exactly as Mark has written it. It remains, however, disconcerting that the account given by Matthew is different from the account given by Mark, and different in a way which supports my original notion, i.e. with my presumption that Mark erred in his account. However, I agree, that Matthew's terseness on the subject could as well reflect agreement with Mark's account, as dispute with it.

For me, the simplest explanation is the best, but, in this case, I agree that absent any evidence to the contrary, one must accept Mark's version, implausible as it seems, as the legitimate route. Maybe the road from Tyre to Capernaum was blocked, or otherwise impassible. Though there is not, in Mark's text, a suggestion of this problem, one can imagine that there were bona fide reasons to travel in such a circuitous fashion, as opposed to the more facile belief, that Mark, living in Rome, had no idea about the Geography of Palestine.

Happy New Year

avi

JoeWallack

JW:
I've added to the claimed geographical error at ErrancyWiki Mark 7:31. The starting point is an analysis of the language:

http://biblos.com/mark/7-31.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
Καὶ	kai	2532	CONJ	and
πάλιν	palin	3825	ADV	again
ἐξελθὼν	exelthōn	1831	V-2AAP-NSM	having departed
ἐκ	ek	1537	PREP	from
τῶν	tōn	3588	T-GPN	the
ὁρίων	oriōn	3725	N-GPN	region
Τύρου	turou	5184	N-GSF	of tyre
ἦλθεν	ēlthen	2064	V-2AAI-3S	he came
διὰ	dia	1223	PREP	through
Σιδῶνος	sidōnos	4605	N-GSF	Sidon
εἰς	eis	1519	PREP	against
τὴν	tēn	3588	T-ASF	the
θάλασσαν	thalassan	2281	N-ASF	sea
τῆς	tēs	3588	T-GSF	of
Γαλιλαίας	galilaias	1056	N-GSF	Galilee
ἀνὰ	ana	303	PREP	within
μέσον	meson	3319	A-ASN	midst
τῶν	tōn	3588	T-GPN	of the
ὁρίων	oriōn	3725	N-GPN	region
Δεκαπόλεως	dekapoleōs	1179	N-GSF	of decapolis

The above table is KJV, which I think is easily the worst translation available. The best translation is NRSV:

http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm

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.

In addition to the language indicating a geography problem we also have authority supporting that there is a geography problem here.

Christian critical commentaries generally acknowledge this. R.T. France, in The New International Greek Testament Commentary writes:

p. 299

p. 301

We have the following geographical problems here based on the language:

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.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Iskander

<edited>

avi

An "obsession"? I interpret Joe's contributions to this thread in particular, and to this forum in general, as:

1. compatible with scholarly demeanor and achievement;
2. detailed in a manner consistent with Aristotelian devotion to thorough scrutiny of even the tiniest issues;
3. harmonious with the methods employed by the greatest scientists of ancient Greece: Archimedes, Aristarchus, and Eratosthenes.

If anyone takes the time and trouble to read those authors' works, it will be clear that they labored, sometimes for DECADES, on singular problems, without encouragement, without funding, without approval by colleagues. Indeed, Aristarchus' fantastic discovery of Heliocentrism 2300 years ago, flew in the face of the most ardently held beliefs by the most respected Greek scholars of all time: Plato and Aristotle, both of whom had investigated, performed experiments upon, and argued in favor of, contrarily, the false doctrine of geocentrism.

Can you imagine the chilly reception which Aristarchus faced, when discussing his conclusions with other scholars? How does it sound? "I am correct, Plato and Aristotle are wrong???"

Joe's pursuit of the truth is commendable, not something worthy of lament. Far from being trivial or banal, his research aims at elucidating the truth behind the allegation that Mark erred.

Personally, as one who often errs, himself, I don't find it criminal to discover that Mark contains one or more errors. Eratosthenes calculations of the circumference of the earth were remarkable, but they are far from perfect. His calculation is wrong by about 20%, due to an imperfect metric, the "stadia", which he employed as a measuring tool.

If a genius like Eratosthenes, perhaps the greatest mathematician ever, could labor with such an error, why shouldn't we anticipate finding a few mistakes in Mark's gospel? Joe's effort, may or may not yield a definitive conclusion regarding Mark's supposed faux pas, but, at least Joe tries. To me, that is the proper spirit for this forum: investigate, read, learn, criticize, anticipate rebuff, and try again.

Incremental advancement is the method of science. Rarely do we make gigantic, earthshaking discoveries. One man's due diligence is another man's boring tedium. Keep up the good work, Joe.


avi

rhutchin

The basic issue is still whether Mark has accurately described the route that Jesus took.

Did Jesus, from the starting point in the region of Tyre, travel north to Sidon and then east going around the north of Sea of Galilee before heading south to the Decopolis Region before turning west to the Sea of Galilee?

If Mark has accurately described the path Jesus took, then we don't have a geographical problem, do we? The problem seems to be that neither Mark nor the other gospel writers explain why Jesus took this route, thus we have no reason for going to Sidon which Mark is required to give us because that is what Mark almost always does.

The geographical problems are not based on the language but on the presumption, perhaps, that Jesus could not have taken this route and that Mark has provided a false account of what happened. If that is the case, then say so.

rhutchin

Ditto.