Looking back, this thread has gotten off its original track.livingink wrote:Jackal,
Again, I'm afraid that I may have misunderstood the first post on the thread. Or maybe I don't have the first post. I was under the impression that someone was saying that the Mark and Matthew accounts didn't agree but from your last post it appears you're saying that they do agree. Is that correct?
livingink
This discussion originated in the "Need some help this Argument" thread, in which I pointed out that Mark's account of the trip from Tyre made little sense - Mark says Jesus went from the region of Tyre, through Sidon, to the sea of Galilee. I was pointing out that in going from Tyre to the sea of Galilee, there was little sense of going through Sidon (like going from New York to Philadelphia through Boston). The most logical route was the via maris, which began just north of Tyre, went east past Dan, and from there one could go straight down to the sea of galilee. Matthew apparently noticed this nonsense, and when he adapted Mark's gospel for his Jewish audience, changed "from 'the region of Tyre through Sidon' to the sea of galilee" into "from 'there' to the sea of galilee"
Another poster, Soaring Eagle I believe it was, pasted an article from some apologist who argued it was logical to go through Sidon, that one could go from Sidon into the Beqaa valley and from there along ancient roads through Caearea Philippi into the Golan Heights, effectively bypassing the Sea of Galilee. Somehow this thread has come to focus on the last leg, whether through the Hula Valley or along the Golan Heights. But looking back, that issue wouldn't be dispositive, as Dan and Caesarea Philippi are only a few miles apart. The original issue was whether Jesus would have gone through Sidon to get to Sea of Galilee/Decapolis, or was Mark ignorant of Palestine geography?