Mark's Geography-Jesus' trip to and from the Tyre-Sidon Reg.

[Guest]

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

Looking back, this thread has gotten off its original track.

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?

[Guest]

Jackal,

The problem only exists in the Alexandrian Text (which I know many scholars favor, but which I do not). In that text, Mark 7:31 uses the phrase "from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon," which presents the unusual route, which you think to be unlikely.

In the Majority Text, it simply says, "coming out from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he went to the Sea of Galilee." This does not specify a particular route.

I still have no problem with Jesus taking whatever circuitous route He may have chosen, so that the Alexandrian Text does not present the problem to me, as it does to you. However, I am not convinced (upon other grounds) that this text always carries the original reading.

[Guest]

You say -- The problem only exists in the Alexandrian Text (which I know many scholars favor, but which I do not). In that text, Mark 7:31 uses the phrase "from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon," which presents the unusual route, which you think to be unlikely

Correct; that phrase is present in the Alexandrian text, which is the primary basis of both the translated "Greek New Testament" published by the United Bible Society (UBS) and the "Novum Testamentum Graece", published by Nestle-Aland. The UBS and/or the Nestle-Aland are the Greek texts used in most all modern New Testament translations.


You say -- In the Majority Text, it simply says, "coming out from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he went to the Sea of Galilee." This does not specify a particular route.

Yes, and the majority text is based on medieval byzantine manuscripts, written much later than the alexandrian texts. And I'm sure you're aware of the various errors of which the textus receptus has been criticized. There's probably some logic to the decision of using the Nestle-Aland or UBS as the source for most all NT translations today.


You say -- I still have no problem with Jesus taking whatever circuitous route He may have chosen, so that the Alexandrian Text does not present the problem to me, as it does to you.

You may not, but arguably Matthew did when he adapted Mark's version and changed, "from 'the region of Tyre through Sidon' to the Sea of Galilee", to, simply, "from 'there' to the Sea of Galilee". Likewise, the medieval copyists may have seen the geography problem in Mark, and interpolated it similarly as had Matthew.

[Guest]

Jackal,

The comparison of the Alexandrian and the Byzantine manuscripts, and the decisions as to which carries the original reading in a given passage is more complex an issue than can be resolved simply by pointing out that "There's probably some logic to the decision" of modern translators to use the Alexandrian text. I have no doubt that there is some logic in it, but it is not necessary to assume that their logic is infallible.

More importantly, even if the Alexandrian text is on-the-whole a preferable text, it would seem strange for any knowledgable textual critic to suggest that any text can be trusted to, at every point, preserve the original wording. You may not be aware of the reasons that some scholars still favor the Byzantine Text, but it hardly matters. Textual decisions often must be made about given passages on a case-by-case basis.

As I said, I have no problems with the reading of Mark 7:31 in either of the textual traditions, so it's almost a moot point. I simply point out that the example you lean most heavily on for your rejection of Mark's authority involves a textual variant concerning which no one really knows the original reading.

I find no evidence that Matthew had any trouble with Mark's statement. The wording Matthew used may be interpreted as his avoidance of an embarrassing mistake on Mark's part, if one wishes to see it that way. However, I am not of the opinion that Matthew necessarily had familiarity with Mark's gospel, nor that Mark wrote earlier than Matthew. There is nothing about Matthew's wording that necessitates the theory that he was cleaning-up some mess that Mark had made.

Your position rests upon your blind acceptance of current theories in some sectors of the Academy, all of which are speculative. They may or may not prove to be true in the long run, since this kind of speculative scholarship tends to experience reversals of opinion with the passing of time and with the discovery of new information (an examination of the history of such scholarship does not encourage one to think that these men have settled anything from hard data that will not be overturned by the next clever PhD candidate).

Suffice it to say at this point, that the track record of this stream of scholarship has been cluttered with a past history of embarrassing denials, which have usually been shown by later discovery to have been all bluster and arrogance. This would include the former denials of the existence of Belshazzar, Sargon II, the Hittites, the politarchs of Thessalonika and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (to name only a few). The current theories of these debunkers stand on no firmer ground than did their former errors. In my opinion, to base one's faith on the pronouncements of such an agenda-driven and historically faulty scholarship is to succumb to temporal provincialism, and to risk the embarrassment that generally accrues to this camp as further discoveries are unearthed.

You may believe anything you wish, of course, about the credibility of the gospel records. That is the beauty of our religion. Our God allows people the freedom to choose truth or fantasy, and He usually does not interfere with this freedom during this lifetime. However, nothing you have written by way of criticism of the gospels, or by way of reconstructing the formation of the early Christian system of belief has anything resembling proof in its favor, nor even the kind of evidence that would impress those conducting a scientific inquiry without a preferred conclusion as its goal.

[Guest]

You may not, but arguably Matthew did when he adapted Mark's version and changed, "from 'the region of Tyre through Sidon' to the Sea of Galilee", to, simply, "from 'there' to the Sea of Galilee". Likewise, the medieval copyists may have seen the geography problem in Mark, and interpolated it similarly as had Matthew.

Jackel, Again just your opinions where you jump to the same type of conclusion over and over. I see no geographical problem because we really don't know what other things Jesus may have done on his journey.The fact is Jesus could have taken a circuitous route for many reasons which simply was'nt disclosed in the text. One reason could have been to avoid entering Galilee where Herod Antipas was in power who believed Jesus may have been John the Baptist resurrected.
As John said in John 21.25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did ,which if they were written in detail , I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."

[Guest]

You say -- The fact is Jesus could have taken a circuitous route for many reasons which simply was'nt disclosed in the text. One reason could have been to avoid entering Galilee where Herod Antipas was in power who believed Jesus may have been John the Baptist resurrected.

Assuming he wanted to avoid Antipas' jurisdiction, he could have stayed on the via maris a few miles past Dan to Caesarea Philippi, and travelled from there down the Golan Heights. Still no point in going to Sidon.

Further, any supposed motive to avoid Herod's territory is dispelled several verses later, where, after feeding the mulititudes, he hops into a boat and crosses the lake to Magdala/Dalmanutha, which is back in Galilee and Herod's jurisdiction, and debated the Pharisees.


You say -- As John said in John 21.25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did ,which if they were written in detail , I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."


But Mark does tell us what Jesus supposedly did, and what Mark does say doesn't make sense with the geography. Combine this with the fact that both Matthew reworded this part when adapting for his gospel, as apparently did medieval copyists when transcribing this section of Mark, leads to the plausible inference that even the early church thought Mark didn't know the geography of Palestine.

[Guest]

More importantly, even if the Alexandrian text is on-the-whole a preferable text, it would seem strange for any knowledgable textual critic to suggest that any text can be trusted to, at every point, preserve the original wording. You may not be aware of the reasons that some scholars still favor the Byzantine Text, but it hardly matters. Textual decisions often must be made about given passages on a case-by-case basis.

And your point is rendered moot by virtue that the Nestle-Aland and the UBS Greek New Testaments are not, unlike the earlier Westcott-Hort, near identities with the Alexandrian text. The Nestle-Aland and the UBS are both critical texts. They rely primarily, but not exclusively on the alexandrian codices. But they also consider other earlier compilations, such as Tischendorf and Weiss, as well as Wescott-Hort. They also considered other translated texts, such as Latin, syriac, Gothic, Armenian, Ethyopic and Arabic manuscripts. And, yes, they even considered byzantine miniscules in their textual criticism. Using the principles of higher criticism, (Bruce Metzger, who essentially wrote the book on higher criticism, was on the USB panel) rather than assumptions of divine inspiration, they attempted to reconstruct the original autograph as best could be done.

You may not be aware of the reasons that some scholars still favor the Byzantine Text, but it hardly matters.

That would likely be limited to Hodges & Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont. They merely assumed the Byzantine Majority text is the same as the autographs, and then try to recreate it. They do so simply by head count -- the more manuscripts with a particular variant of a verse wins. Very scholarly. lol.

[Guest]

Further, any supposed motive to avoid Herod's territory is dispelled several verses later, where, after feeding the mulititudes, he hops into a boat and crosses the lake to Magdala/Dalmanutha, which is back in Galilee and Herod's jurisdiction, and debated the Pharisees.


You say -- As John said in John 21.25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did ,which if they were written in detail , I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."


But Mark does tell us what Jesus supposedly did, and what Mark does say doesn't make sense with the geography. Combine this with the fact that both Matthew reworded this part when adapting for his gospel, as apparently did medieval copyists when transcribing this section of Mark, leads to the plausible inference that even the early church thought Mark didn't know the geography of Palestine.



Jackel, The point of why John wrote 21.25 was to inform the readers that Jesus did many more things not recorded in the gospels then were actually recorded and therefore the authors had to decide how much to include because of the reason John stated. The logical inference from this is that he had other places to go and people to see besides what Mark disclosed and what Mark included were probably highlights of his ministry but far from a detailed complete historical record.
And again you jump to conclusions without complete information of a treck that occured 2,000 years ago. Perhaps when Jesus came back to Galilee he knew Herod was'nt around and it was now safe. We simply don't know and the fact is how one views these events will be affected by what their beliefs are prior to reading this.
And lastly again you're speculation that Matthew reworded this is just rank speculation and without any foundation. If Matthew had described this exactly the same you would accuse him of plagarism but because he paraphrases you accuse him of rewording this.
Either way you would accuse him of something, correct?

[Guest]

Contrary to Butner's assertion, there is no direct route or river valley into the Beqaa Valley from Sidon. To get from the Beqaa Valley from Sidon, one would have to travel east through some of the most mountainous terrain in southern Lebanon, to again reach the Litani River, but much further north. One would have to follow the Litani River southwest about 15 miles until it again intersected the Tyre - Damascus trade route, near Dan. All told, Butner's route would be about 50 miles longer, including 15 miles of very rugged terrain, than simply taking the Tyre - Damascus road.

Once again, the description of the route in Mark shows no sense, and it is Butner that is 'blatantly wrong on all points.'

Jackal, please indulge this old man by answering a couple of questions.

Are you suggesting Jesus never went to Sidon, or that Mark was simply wrong regarding his geography? Would you please show me where in the Bible it clearly states Jesus went into Tyre? Are you certain there are no direct routes or river valleys from Sidon into the Bekka Valley?