Amaleq13

It has been pointed out to me by spin that Poriya is located too far away from Gadara and too close to Tiberias to make it likely that it belonged to the region controlled by Gadara. In addition, the book/article(?) to be presented by Nun will apparently argue that Gadara had a harbor on the southeastern coast of the Sea of Galilee.

praxeus's claim that Poriya matches Mark's story with "pinpoint precision" is completely at odds with his reliance upon Nun's future support.

Amaleq13

In the course of a tangent about this thread in another thread, the following exchange took place:

I addressed the "other book quotes referenced" when I mentioned "several similarly faith-based speculations". Providing examples of people who agree with you is not evidence, praxeus. The basis for that agreement, which was not provided or explained, is what constitutes evidence.

With regard to the map, praxeus refers to this one:


This is another example of praxeus apparently not understanding what actually constitutes evidence. This may come as a shock but a hand-colored map is not actually evidence that the region belonging to Gadara had those borders. What would constitute evidence would be the basis for Luz to draw the map as he did. Is it because of some archaeological evidence that hasn't been mentioned in this thread or is it the result of speculation based on the account we are critically examining? As it stands with no information about the basis for the decision, the choice to color the triangular region yellow and give it to Gadara rather than orange and give it to Hippos seems arbitrary. If orange, it is quite easy to interpret Josephus' passage in exactly the way I have done. It is unfortunate that Luz does not include the territory belonging to Tiberias because the tiny amount given to Hippos seems to require, according to praxeus' interpretation of Josephus, that it extend all the way around the north shore to the east side in order to obtain the necessary villages controlled by Hippos on the border of Tiberias. IOW, if Luz' map is correct, I don't see how Josephus could possibly be accurate in his description.

Even if, as Nun will apparently argue, Gadara had a harbor on the southeastern shore, I'm not sure that requires them to directly control the land between the city and the harbor. As I mentioned before, it isn't like they were at war with Hippos or something. It is my understanding that 16 harbors belonging to different regions have been found. That suggests a scenario more like modern embassies than the notion that everyone's territory extended to their harbor since it would appear that some of those 16 were away from the Sea just like Gadara.

I will take you at your word that your confusion is "honest" but I honestly don't understand how you could be confused when I have repeatedly acknowledged that the region belonging to Gadara might have been called "the country of the Gadarenes". I have just as repeatedly observed that there has been no actual evidence presented supporting a coast as part of this region. This is not a "beef" but an observation that no supporting evidence has been offered for the claim.

To summarize and avoid any future confusion:

1) The region associated with Gadara could very well have been called "the country of the Gadarenes".

2) There is no current evidence that this region included shoreline but Nun will apparently argue for a harbor on the southeast shore.

3) IIUC here, we both agree that the "city" in Mark's story cannot be Gadara because the story describes it existing much closer to the coast.

4) The hills of Poriya are not a reasonable, let alone accurate with "pinpoint precision", location for the story.

If and when you wish to identify a location that is truly accurate with "pinpoint precision", it will have to involve a city, with hills that might be called mountains, and tombs near to the southeastern coast of the Sea of Galilee.

Let me know what you find.

JoeWallack

JW:
There's a lot of evidence that "Gerasa" is original to "Mark" but the following is mentioned only in relation to the OP location of "Gadara".

The next best category of evidence regarding what "Mark" wrote in 5:1 after the manuscript evidence is the Early Church Father evidence. The only early Church Father who comments in detail is Origen who was the outstanding Church Father scholar before Christianity gained control of the Roman empire. Origen indicated that no manuscripts of his time, which would have been well before the earliest extant manuscripts, had "Gergesenes" and almost all had "Gerasa". Origen also indicates in general that the manuscripts available in his time were riddled with errors as to names and places:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...gen-john6.html


JW:
Note that Origen was forced to move to Caesarea so he was probably more familiar with where exactly Gadara was than Praxeus. Specifically, Origen says:


JW:
So according to Origen the country of Gadara was specifically not on the Lake, didn't have cliffs, and wasn't even by any body of water. Sounds just like what Amaleq has been saying.

Additionally, Jerome used "Gerasa" for the Vulgate presumably because in his time, like Origen's, he recognized that there was little textual support for "Gergesenes". On the other side we have no early Church Father testimony that there was any manuscript evidence in their time for "Gergesenes".

Perhaps even more amazing than Jewish demons being reluctant to participate in a Section 1031 tax free exchange of swine infested property for lake front property is that Praxeus can so easily dismiss the same Patristic witness that he needs to tell him what the Christian Bible was.



Joseph

PIG, n.
An animal (Porcus omnivorus) closely allied to the human race by the splendor and vivacity of its appetite, which, however, is inferior in scope, for it sticks at pig.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Vorkosigan

How did Origen know what the name meant? Dwelling of the casters-out....?

andrewcriddle

The (dubious) meaning is based on the original Hebrew.

Origen had access to various lists of the meaning of Hebrew place names. They were sometimes wrong but Origen's Hebrew was not good enough to properly evaluate them.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

Amen, Origen is a combination of helpful and unreliable :-)

All in all, I do look forward to reviewing all the issues in this thread, some are funny, some are fascinating, some are informative, and I've had some additional correspondence with an Israeli Gadara scholar. All in all, this became perhaps my favorite research issue of recent times, as it combines a number of very different yet complementary aspects (inerrancy, text, synoptics, geography, history, harmonization, strengths and weaknesses in accepted scholarship) -- as well as interesting stuff in our own tudes ... and I look forward to a fairly full review post.

However, as I lost a dear Finnish friend (auto accident took her and her parents), it seems to be something not yet for this time. (A bit more info is on home forum).

Since I was actively involved in this thread, and a couple of others, (including ending of Mark, Lennart Moller/Wyatt archaelogy, Pericope) I just wanted to share with folks here that I do hope to return in time, in at least a mild contributory manner. Meanwhile I appreciate Andrew, as above, and other posters.

Shabbat Shalom,
Steven in newyawk (Praxeus)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/