Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, CX,

In such cases, of course, the main question is not whether or not some argument is "reversible", but how easy it is to reverse. So it's the balance of probabilities that matters -- what is more probable? And so far, you haven't given us any good reason to accept the view that the original authors of Mark were ignorant about Galilean geography.

I have now posted the second part of my article (Did Jesus cross the border?), so this should clarify still further my thinking about these geographical indicators. Basically, my argument is that, in the source of Mt/Mk, Jesus never crossed that border into the Gentile territory. So if this is accepted, then the whole question of whether or not he also might have made that detour to Sidon becomes irrelevant -- in the source of Mt/Mk, he never even made it into Tyre, let alone Sidon!

But now, let's come back to Mk 7:31. If we consider this passage in isolation from all the other related matters, the textual problem here becomes very tricky indeed. Because this is not just the question of Western vs. Alexandrian text. In actual fact, this passage happens to cut right across these convenient classifications. What we see textually is that both the Western and the Alexandrian families are seriously divided for this passage. And what this indicates to me is that both of these versions, /kai Sidwnos/, as well as /dia Sidwnos/ are very early indeed.

Still and all, /kai Sidwnos/ clearly has the better textual support, but /dia Sidwnos/ is not far behind.

So then, to a large extent, this become the question of intrinsic probability. Which of these two versions is likely to be earlier than the other? And, from my point of view, /kai Sidwnos/ is clearly more likely to have been the earlier version (but still, probably not the earliest, for the reasons already given).

This is so because, if /kai Sidwnos/ was the earlier version, then it's very easy to see why later Gentile editors would have replaced it with /dia Sidwnos/. This is because they wanted Jesus to be more open to Gentiles. They wanted him to go deep into the Gentile territory.

But if /dia Sidwnos/ was the earlier version, why would it have been changed to /kai Sidwnos/? This is not so clear to me at all...

And, in such a case, if the concern of these editors would have simply been the geographical accuracy, then why would have such a correction been made (independently and coincidentally?) in places like Europe (for the Old Latin q MS), or Armenia?

But perhaps the biggest question of all here will be, Where was earliest version of Mark written? Was it written somewhere in Syria or Palestine? Or was it produced some place far away, such as Rome?

So, as you can see, these are our basic operating assumptions re gospels composition that are being tested here. And if one assumes, with great many biblical critics, that Mark was produced in some place reasonably close to Galilee (for example, Caesarea Philippi in Syria), then some of these geographical gaffes in Mark's gospel would be entirely incomprehensible...

Also, keep in mind that if Mark was really produced originally in Syria/Palestine, then /kai Sidwnos/ in the Old Syriac Mark will become the crucial piece of evidence for the priority of this reading.

So, as I say, it's quite reasonable to suppose that Mark was originally written in Syria or Palestine, but then re-edited later by some Gentile editors far away from this general area, possibly in Rome or in Egypt.

All the best,

Yuri.

Sojourner553

I appreciate the info and comments, Yuri!

Sojourner

Bobby

I'll have you know that the author of Mark and every other book of the bible was THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! He doesn't have a problem with geography, so obviously, you're the one with the problem.

Geoff Hudson

Sojourner,

There must surely be a real explanation why the father was "struck" dumb.

Were wax tablets used in the temple?

Geoff