Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, friends,

How well did the author of Mark's Gospel know the geography of Israel? This is the question that scholars have been debating for a long time. And it's been often said in recent scholarship that the author of Mark was quite ignorant about Israeli geography. (Howard C. Kee, _Community of the New Age_, p.102-103, offers a good capsule discussion of this.)

But, at the same time, not all such accusations are justified, IMHO... And the following, in regard to Mark 7:31, is a case in point. I've been investigating some of the geographical indicators in the gospels recently, of course, so this is how I came across this very interesting item.

So now, I will quote from a sceptical website, that accuses the author of Mark of being ignorant about the geography of Galilee. But, in actual fact, the problem seems to be not as much with "Mark's ignorance", as with the stupidity of modern Textual Critics, who still insist on printing this verse in its very late and corrupt Alexandrian form... Because, as it turns out, neither the Western text, nor KJV have this problem!

So, yes, there's quite a problem here for the supporters of Alexandrian text, which is the basis for most English translations today, including RSV, NIV, etc. But, as I say, neither the King James Version, nor the Western texts have this problem! Here's KJV, for example,

(7:31 KJV) And again, departing from the
coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto
the sea of Galilee, through the midst of
the coasts of Decapolis.

So, as we can see, Jesus isn't making any strange detours to Sidon in the KJV/Byzantine text...

And here are the Greek texts, with their differences underlined,

Byzantine Majority
kai palin exelqwn ek
twn oriwn turou _kai
sidwnos_ hlqen _pros_
thn qalassan thV
galilaiaV ana meson
twn oriwn dekapolewV

Alexandrian
kai palin exelqwn ek
twn oriwn turou hlqen
_dia sidwnos eis_ thn
qalassan thV
galilaiaV ana meson
twn oriwn dekapolewV

As we can see, the main difference here is between kai sidwnos = Byzantine, and dia sidwnos = Alexandrian.

So it sure looks to me like the Byzantine text preserves a more original reading here. This Alexandrian version is obviously late, and was probably doctored by someone who had no idea about Israeli geography!

But how do we know that this Alexandrian version is late? Well, because this KJV/Byzantine reading is also supported by many very early Western manuscripts, including the ancient Aramaic Mark.

So here's the early support for this KJV reading,

-- The complete ancient Aramaic tradition (Old Syriac, as well as later versions),
-- the Old Latin Monacensis manuscript (q),
-- Coptic manuscripts,
-- Armenian manuscripts,
-- Georgian manuscripts,
-- as well as two Diatessaronic manuscripts (Arabic and Persian).

And most importantly, we also have,

-- P45, our earliest Papyrus of Mark (3rd century), supporting this Byzantine reading,
-- and one early Alexandrian manuscript (Alexandrinus) even supports it too!

So this is quite a long list of support... This Byzantine/Western reading is obviously more original than what we find in all of our "modern" Bibles.

Thus, the only remaining problem seems to be, Why all of our "modern" Bibles still go with this late Alexandrian Greek corruption here, thereby creating all sorts of problems for the Christian exegetes?

And there are also quite a few Christian fundamentalist Sola Scriptura folks who happen to trust in the authenticity of Alexandrian text... So, for this passage, their lot is truly unenviable, because they do have lots of trouble trying to explain away this late Alexandrian gaffe in Mark's gospel, as if this was really the "original text" of Mark... But why do they even try, when KJV already has the authentic early text?

As I say, so confused are our modern biblical Textual Critics, that they still seem completely blinded by the Alexandrian Frankenstein monster that their 19th century progenitors have created (after they rejected KJV). The problems with Alexandrian text are huge and many, and yet don't tell this to these Text Critical zombies like Aland et al, who have been put in charge of editing the modern editions of the Christian Scriptures.

It's for pointing out problems like this that I've been expelled from TC-List not so long ago.

All the best,

Yuri.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

CX

As usual Yuri, your arguments are reversible. It could just as easily be the case that the Alexandrian text preserves the earlier incorrect version and the Western and Byzantine texts correct it. On what basis do you conclude in favor of one scenario over the other?

Incidentally you would receive much more positive attention and serious consideration if you ceased with your endless and Quixotic railing against modern TC scholars.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

What I have read is that Matthew was ignorant of the area of Galilee. I've never read Mark was.

Peter Kirby

I have read the claim that the author of Mark was not familiar with Palestinian geography. For example, Nineham writes (Saint Mark, p. 40): "Certainly, as the commentary will show, the general picture in the Gospel is remarkably true to the conditions of Palestine in Jesus' day, and from time to time Aramaic expressions are quoted in the original; but it is not clear how far all this is due to the Evangelist and how far to the tradition; and numerous vaguenesses and inaccuracies are most naturally explained if the Evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine." Nineham refers to his commentaries on 5:1, 6:45, 7:2-4, 7:31, 8:22, 10:1, and 11:1. I think that we can cast doubt on 7:31 for the reason of the manuscript evidence cited by Yuri. As for the others, I don't have Nineham at hand, so I can't offer quotes on demand.

I wonder whether the description of the "Sea" of Galilee when it is properly a lake should point to the perspective of someone at a distance or perhaps instead to a local!

best,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, CX,

The reading /kai Sidwnos/ for Mk 7:31 doesn't feature any problems with geography. This reading is found in the ancient Aramaic tradition, as well as in P45, our earliest Papyrus of Mark (Greek, 3rd century). So, on the face of it, this is the earliest attested reading for Mk 7:31. Now, why do you think /kai Sidwnos/ should be seen as secondary?

<strong> Well, I apologise if my tone seems too angry. But the fact is I am angry as hell at all the stupidity, bigotry and intolerance that I observe in the NT profession. 90% of what I see published in this field is pseudo-science pure and simple. And the other 10% is also often highly doubtful. So what am I supposed to say, that this is not true? I think I'd prefer to speak my mind honestly instead.

When I was still a member of all those professional biblical forums, I had to muzzle my real opinions. But now that I've been censored in all those places, in any case, speaking out openly against these abuses is the only option that remains open to me.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Peter,

Sure this may raise questions, to say the least. But I've seen some arguments somewhere that this may be due to translation, and/or that in some ancient witnesses "Sea of Galilee" and "Lake of Galilee" may be used interchangeably.

In any case, the Old Syriac Mk 7:31 has "Lake of Galilee". So, again, there's no problem with this particular aspect of Galilean geography in the Aramaic textual tradition.

I already wrote in my previous reply to CX that I sound angry about our modern NT profession because I _am_ angry. And one of these things I'm so angry about is that the last edition of these Old Syriac Aramaic gospels was published in 1910.

Meanwhile, huge mountains of the usual garbage and claptrap have been produced year after year by NT scholars, and yet nobody saw it as worthwhile to re-examine these valuable ancient Aramaic MSS in the last century or so, or even to re-issue those very valuable older studies. So, yes, I'm angry as hell.

Regards,

Yuri.

Peter Kirby

Well, Yuri, I'm angry that I can't find George Horner's 1911-1924 Sahidic New Testament edition without shelling out over $2000, but I don't go around beating people up for it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Sojourner553

This is what I had heard on Mark: It is not that he is necessarily ignorant of local history, but that he finds it necessary to explain/convert Israel geography/measurements so a different community can understand it.

One could say the same for Luke,

Yuri, I'd be interested in what issues/errors you see in the above.

Sojourner

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

CX

I didn't say that. I said your argument was reversible (as is the traditional argument from the proponents of the Alexandrian text). Personally with all the clunky and inelegant syntax in GMk I rather find the argument that KAI SIDWNOS is a correction or "smoothing" performed by a redactor more compelling. Ultimately though as with most controversies in NT studies It is difficult to come up with any concrete conclusions.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Sojourner,

The main question here is, Where was Mark written? If this gospel was written in Syria or Palestine, some of these gaffes would be incomprehensible.

What I'm proposing is that the gospel was written in Syria or Palestine, but then it was reedited later by some Gentile editors far away from Syria/Palestine, possibly in Rome.

Many of the passages you mention are well known as indicating Gentile provenance. And the same goes for Luke.

<strong> But this is also what we find in the ancient Aramaic gospels.

Re: "Houses with tile roofs".

Yes, this may well be a detail as added by a late Gentile editor. Both Mk and Mt lack this detail. Also, the Magdalene Gospel lacks this detail.

Re: "the story of the Capernaum woman".

Actually, the Magdalene Gospel doesn't have "stood at his feet behind him". It simply has "stood behind him". So this problem vanishes for the Magdalene Gospel text.

Re: the naming of John the Baptist.

We've already discussed this recently here. It seems like naming boys after their relatives may well have been an authentic detail for that time and place.

Re: "a writing table".

This one I'm not sure about. But whether or not wax tablets would have been common in Palestinian households may be debatable.

All the best,

Yuri.