rhutchin

Here is another description of the route Jesus may have taken.

"As for the itinerary, he clearly starts near Tyre and goes north towards Sidon, probably following the main road near the coast line. Thereafter he heads back towards his home turf of the Sea of Galilee. He probably does that by going Southeast on the main road to Hatzor. South of Hatzor he would take the left fork in the road going towards the Eastern side of the lake and continue close to the lake deep inside the territory of Decapolis."

JoeWallack

JW:
There are 3 Marks of an Apologist:

1) Shift the focus from the text to the argument for error.

2) Broaden what the text supposedly means.

3) Avoid having a detailed argument of your own

Where we are at now is typical of when I argue with apologists. Your current general position is wherever "Mark" said Jesus went, that's where Jesus went. Being omnipotent (regarding apologies) I've seen your next post (and its source).

So what exactly was Jesus' route per the text? If you are guessing than why are you guessing? So you are not sure of the route based on the text but you are sure that Jesus could have taken that route?

What is your evidence that there was a road from Sidon to Hatzor other than an Apologist created map?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin

I noted what one person had said only to add to your collection of possible routes. The exact route is not provided in the verse but speculation seems to abound concerning it.

However, my position has not changed from the basic apologist position that takes the Scriptures as accurate in their reporting of Jesus' activities. The verse says:

"Then [Jesus] returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis." NRSV

Very simply, this verse says that Jesus departed from the region of Tyre, traveled north through Sidon and from there made His way to the Sea of Galilee that lies within the region of the Decopolis. This does not shift the focus of the verse, does not broaden what the verse says and requires no detailed argument to substantiate.

You have offered nothing that shows that Mark meant anything other than this. Instead, you first presume that Mark has deceived the reader and then conceived scenarios in an attempt to prove your presumption. Instead of complaining about me (or apologists in general) how about offering a legitimate argument.

Notsri

It might be worth mentioning the book The Galilee in Late Antiquity (or via: amazon.co.uk) in this connection, in which contributor Douglas Edwards suggests in his article "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the First Century" that the travels described in Mark 7:31 are "in fact quite plausible". He says:

Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the [Jesus] movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos (pp. 59-60).

(A footnote then directs the reader to vol. 3 of The Jewish People in the First Century (or via: amazon.co.uk) for maps of the ancient road system.)

avi

Thank you Notsri.

War and rebellion serve as triggers for political change.

Pliny's writings date from the period following the Jewish revolt of 70 CE. While Pliny the Elder served with the military in Germany, and worked for the government of Rome in Spain, North Africa, France, and Belgium, there is no evidence, that I have found, that he ever visited Jerusalem, Damascus, or any of the towns which comprise the Decapolis. In short, I doubt the veracity of Pliny's assertion that Damascus was a city of the Decapolis, at the time of Herod's son's rule, i.e. at the presumptive time of the life of Jesus.
Mark obviously was writing about the travels and roads during Jesus' presumed life, not the situation fifty years later, correct?

Here is a different map.
The son of Herod, Philip, in 04 BCE, inherited the lands shown on this map, SOUTH of Damascus, which is shown to be a city of the province of Syria, and NOT a city of the Decapolis, nor for that matter, to be included in the Tetrarchy of Philip. Note, please, that the Decapolis is a region of sparseness, desert, and a few small towns, with at most a tiny border on the extreme southeastern shore of Lake Galilee. There is no reasonable or logical or rational excuse for describing a journey from Tyre to a mountain top in the Northwest of Lake Galilee, as proceeding via Sidon, then to the extreme southeastern shore of the Lake, thence back to the northwest on the other side of the lake to a mountain top near his "hometown" of Capernaum.

I do not know how many of the Forum members have ever attempted to construct a road. I have. It is not easy work. In general, one follows the river bed, rather than traveling up and down mountain trails. Where is the nearest river, headed East, from Tyre?

Well, it is visible, on both maps, between Tyre and Sidon, and I will bet a wooden nickel, that this river served as the foundation for a road connecting Tyre/Sidon, with Damascus. Was there another road, headed South, upon reaching the Jordan river. You bet. For sure. No question about it.

Did that road, following the Jordan River, branch to include both banks of Lake Galilee? Probably. Would such a road then, have gone South, all the way to Decapolis? I would presume the answer is yes. So, in short, could Jesus have gone to Decapolis from Sidon. Yes. He could have, but that's not how I would have described such a journey, originating in Tyre, and terminating near Capernaum. The easiest, and perhaps the most reasonable explanation, is simply to invoke an error, certainly by Mark, and probably by Pliny, as well, for I see no reason to include Damascus in Decapolis, instead of in Syria, where Damascus was situated both before and after Pliny's authorship.

I take Josephus with the same grains of salt as Eusebius. (Forgery, until proven to the contrary.)

avi

rhutchin

Unless Jesus actually traveled that route. No purpose would have been served either to describe a route not taken by Jesus or to describe in some detail a journey Mark thought a person might take going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee.

Only on the presumption that Mark had no knowledge of the relative locations of the cities. However, we read in Acts 15:39, "And the contention was so sharp between [Paul and Barnabas], that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;" From v35, they were in Antioch.

Later, we read in 2 Timothy 4:11 where Paul writes, "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry." Paul is supposedly in Rome at this time and Timothy in Ephesus.

From this, we see that Mark traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch (which could take him through both Tyre and Sidon) and then to Cyprus and later ending up in Ephesus. In his travels, it is altogether possible for him to become familiar with Tyre and Sidon and their relative locations. Given the travel experiences that we know about, there seems no basis to think that Mark would have erred in describing how one might travel from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee and no reason for Mark to just want to throw in that information without a reason. The reasonable conclusion is that Mark is describing the exact route that Jesus took.

avi

Here's a contemporary map
And, what it shows me, is a large, modern road connecting the region just a few miles south of Sidon, at Ez Zahrani, heading East, towards the Litani River, to the town of Marjayoun (just East of the River), where another road heads South, towards Zefat, on the West side of Lake Galilee.

East of the lake, there is a road from Tiberias, which curves south around the lake to the Southeastern shore.

I cannot argue the point of Jesus' presumed journey to the Southeastern shore of Lake Galilee, if that is what Mark meant. I can only argue that Mark's description is not only counterintuitive, it is at variance with Matthew, and with current day logic.

avi

avi

You then do not find it telling that Mark appears to have traveled to Turkey by way of the sea, not overland. What then, in this narrative suggests Mark's presumed familiarity with the region around Lake Galilee, the province of Syria, far to the North, or the Decapolis, lying Southeast of the Lake?

If anything, Mark's presumed voyage by sea to Turkey, is compelling evidence that Mark did not have familiarity with the region inland, several days' journey distant from Tyre and Sidon, both seaports, and thus, Mark could have easily confounded the two ends of Lake Galilee.

Since Philip died about the same time as Jesus, why would Mark necessarily recall the "Gaulanitis" on Joe's map, or the "Tetrarchy of Philip", descriptions which could well have fallen out of favor, in essence, obsolete descriptors half a century later, when "Mark" was written, even though, those are the regions which more closely approximate Jesus' supposed ascent to some mountain top, than Decapolis.

How many Judas' are there? How many John's? Why should there be only one Mark?, only one Peter? only one Luke? In my opinion, it is quite foolish to employ the New Testament to authenticate the New Testament. Ask yourself whether your Mormon colleagues, (99% of whom are devout, sincere, honest, hardworking, kindhearted folks you would (apart from their belief in the Biblical rationale for polygamy) enjoy having as your neighbor,) whose belief in the validity of the Gold tablets (as profound as your own, and their own, faith in the four gospels,) is justified on the basis that Gold is a rare and precious metal? Are we obliged to restrict our assessment of the Mormon tablets, to the tablets themselves, in repudiating the message contained thereupon?

Fraud and forgery are as common with all religions, as snow in the winter.

avi

JoeWallack

JW:
For those who are suspicious about how this is playing out, let me say, just for the record, that I do not know RH and have never worked with him before.

Thank you for confirming that you are an Apologist and no matter what evidence I present for error, you will not accept that there is an error. An excellent start here.

Let's look at your quote:

JW:
Well thanks for using the NRSV, the best of the Christian translations. We have the natural meaning of the Greek here:

1) Sidon was the route ("went by way of Sidon") Jesus took to get from Tyre to SoG. It should be clear to everyone by now that Sidon is in the opposite direction so it would not take you from Tyre to SoG.

2) The "towards" indicates that Sidon is in between. It's not.

So NRSV has properly captured the underlying Greek. The Greek indicates that Sidon was the means of getting to SoG. It was between and a convenient way. I've presented Christian commentators, sympathetic to the CB, who are fluent in Greek and confess to us this meaning. To dispute this meaning you need to find examples of the underlying Greek use where the context disputes the meaning I claim. Good luck. So you are avoiding the meaning of the Greek text:

But now you've exorcised what the text says about the relationship of Tyre to SoG. Sidon was the direction Jesus took to get from Tyre to SoG. You've contracted the meaning to the where Jesus went, and left out the how:

The starting point for the claim of error is the underlying language which is clear that Sidon is the relationship here for getting from Tyre to SoG. You have not offered any argument which supports your translation above from the underlying Greek or anything which disputes the NRSV/Greek experts/my translation =

Emphasis on detailed. For starters you could consider if "Mark" really meant that Sidon was in between/on the way what would he have said differently? And, if he did not intend a directional relationship between Tyre and SoG, what could he have written differently?

I've shown everything:

1) Language = What we would expect if "Mark" meant that Sidon was in between/on the way. The context also supports the language. "Mark" always provides a reason for Jesus to go somewhere. He goes to Tyre to get away from Galilee. The only reason given to go to Sidon is that it enabled Jesus to get to SoG. The general context is that Jesus would not go to a Gentile area to Minister. Jesus goes to SoG to minister.

2) Authority = Christian clergy critical commentators who confess 1)

3) Editing = Scribes who understood the original as 1)

4) Rewriting = Subsequent Gospels who understood "Mark" as 1)

5) Other geographical errors

6) Physical problem = The tallest mountain range in the area is inland to Sidon. For the greatest historical naval power in the area this is probably not a coincidence. They strategically located to minimize the threat of land attacks. No evidence of any roads at the time going through this mountain range.

7) Figurative intent = Tyre/Sidon and Decapolis would be the well known Gentile areas around Galilee.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin

An apologist (of the Bible) merely defends that which the Bible tells us. His job is to explain that which the Bible says so that all can understand it. This would include defending against allegations that the Bible somehow does not mean what it says.

Regardless, Mark is telling the reader that Jesus traveled north to Sidon before continuing on to the Sea of Galilee.

If anything, it indicates that it was from Sidon that Jesus then headed toward the Sea of Galilee that part specifically bordering the Decopolis. It does not say that Sidon was geographically between Tyre and the Sea of Galilee. A false premise does not make for a good argument.

The Greek clearly states that Jesus went to Sidon and from there He then traveled to the Sea of Galilee.

Other than a quote from R. T. French, I don't remember (and did not look back through the previous msgs) any citations from other commentators. French's comments do not confess to the meaning you advocate. The Greek text is clear, perhaps too clear.

The NRSV does not even support your claim. NRSV says that Jesus went "...went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee..." which is true. Jesus did go by way of Sidon meaning that He traveled to Sidon on His way to the Sea of Galilee.

He did not. Mark meant what he wrote. Jesus traveled to Sidon.

The following premises are false.
1. Mark always provides a reason for Jesus to go somewhere.
- One example was shown to disprove this.

2. The general context is that Jesus would not go to a Gentile area to Minister. Jesus goes to SoG to minister.
- The general context is that Jesus would go to both Jewish and gentile areas.

So, who are these Christian clergy who support your labored translation?