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

[Guest]

You are correct, I have assumed you are atheist, if this is incorrect then I have mischaracterized you.

Jackal , you have more then once told me you believe the universe is eternal. I can't fathom how one could believe that and not be an atheist. After all with a Creator there would be a time of creation or a beginning. But whether you're an atheist or not if you have any valid points bring it on.

Albert Einstein believed in an eternal universe, at least up until very late in his life, and then only reluctantly conceding to the evidence then of the Big Bang, and he was not an atheist.

[Guest]

The following information from Bargil Pixner's 1992 book "With Jesus through Galilee according to the fifth Gospel" may be pertinent to your conversation. Re: Mark 7:31--"At that time a road led from the region of Tyre and Sidon through Caesarea Philippi onto the Golan Heights. It was the road over which grain was brought from Bosra to both these coastal towns(cf. Acts 12:20). This is probably the way Jesus and his followers took to reach the Hippene, the upland northern corner of the Decapolis. From here another route (still traceable today) led down to the lake situated 200m. below sea level. They would have reached the shore near Tel Hadar. page 80

One possible reason for this route would be the ability to travel within the Tetrarchy of Philip.

I believe you mean Matthew 8:31, Jackal, rather than Mark 8:31. In Mark chapter 5:1 the people identified are Gerasenes, Gadarenes or Gergesenes depending upon manuscript. According to Pixner, pp. 44-45, an old Jewish tradition "says that this region was inhabited by the Girgashites who had been driven away from Eretz Israel by Joshua's conquest. They had belonged to the seven indigenous peoples of the country, of whom we read in Joshua 3:10...

Perhaps the original text of Mark, which has caused so much confusion, namely, 'They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes,' should have read simply 'They went across the lake to the country of expelled people'(Hebrew: Gerushim or Gerashim)."

Hope this is helpful.

livingink

[Guest]

The following information from Bargil Pixner's 1992 book "With Jesus through Galilee according to the fifth Gospel" may be pertinent to your conversation. Re: Mark 7:31--"At that time a road led from the region of Tyre and Sidon through Caesarea Philippi onto the Golan Heights. It was the road over which grain was brought from Bosra to both these coastal towns(cf. Acts 12:20). This is probably the way Jesus and his followers took to reach the Hippene, the upland northern corner of the Decapolis. From here another route (still traceable today) led down to the lake situated 200m. below sea level. They would have reached the shore near Tel Hadar. page 80

Thanks for your response, livingink. It certainly is possible that Jesus and his party, after leaving Tyre, travelled east on the Via Maris, past Dan and onto Caesarea Phillipi, which was just a few miles east of Dan, and from there south through the Golan Heights. As you pointed out, from the Golan Heights, the Sea of Galilee could be reached near Tel Hadar.

However, Matthew provides slightly more detail of this leg of the journey, which casts doubt on this route. According to Matt. 15:29, Jesus left there (Tyre) and went along the Sea of Galilee. He then went up a mountainside and sat down. Following your route through the Golan Heights, Jesus would have had to have gone from the Golan Heights, climb down the eastern slope of the Jordan River valley to the Sea of Galilee, then turn right around back the same road up the slope to reach any sort of mountainside on which to sit.

A route more consistent with Matthew is that described earlier -- upon reaching Dan, they turned south along the Hula Valley, which leads directly to the northern end of the Sea of Galilee. From there, they could proceed "along the Sea" as said by Matthew, then climb up the eastern valley slope to the mountainside.

I believe you mean Matthew 8:31, Jackal, rather than Mark 8:31.

Yes, thanks. My fingers type faster than my mind thinks.

In Mark chapter 5:1 the people identified are Gerasenes, Gadarenes or Gergesenes depending upon manuscript.

Yes, the latter Byzantine texts, such as the Textus Receptus, use Gadarenes, while the earlier, Alexandrian texts, as used by Nestle & Aland, use Gergesenes. I believe most modern NT versions are based on the Nestle & Aland translation.

Perhaps the original text of Mark, which has caused so much confusion, namely, 'They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes,' should have read simply 'They went across the lake to the country of expelled people'(Hebrew: Gerushim or Gerashim)."

Perhaps, but the earliest extant manuscripts I don't think support that speculation.

[Guest]

Jackal,

you mention of speculation, yet that (speculation) works two ways, in the sense that it is a two way street. If you can, (which a lot of your reasoning seems based on that) then so can believers of the bible. I am not against speculation, for I am begining to love critically thinking, but what I am saying is is seems unwise to base your life off of speculation, and to present something as truth and actuality, when it's grounded in speculation.

your internet friend,
Troy

[Guest]

Could I ask a general housekeeping question? Was Soaring Eagle's 4/16/06 post part of an ongoing discussion somewhere else? I wonder if I've got all the background to participate since it appears to be some subject you've discussed before.

Jackal, I'm rereading some of Pixner's information to see if there's a reasonable answer as to why Jesus would have taken the route I previously described and also where he would have climbed the hill. I've read his explanation a couple times but I need to look at a good map to clearly understand what he's saying. I hope you're not one to quickly go on to other topics as it may take me several days to study this.

livingink

[Guest]

Jackal wrote:

Perhaps, but the earliest extant manuscripts I don't think support that speculation

So I responded with my post. He mentioned speculation, and I touched on it a bit, and one of Jackal's methods (speculation)to come to some of his conclusions.

[Guest]

The 4/16 post is the first I have on this topic nearly a month ago re: Dr. Kornform, etc. I was referring to that post.

[Guest]

In From Manger to Throneby T. De Witt Talmage approximately 1890, Dr. Talmage recounts his trip to the Holy Land. His descriptions of travel by foot and by donkey are quite interesting. He also relates the following as his understanding of Jesus' trip from Tyre/Sidon to Decapolis--"Having probably passed through several towns of Phoenicia, and certainly visiting Tyre and Sidon, the two largest cities on the Mediterranean coast, Jesus left the latter place and travelled south-eastwardly along the Lebanon Mountains and over the natural archway that bridges the Leontes, through the upper Jordan valley, under the Hermon range, and by Caesarea Philippi, on to the uplands of Gaulonitis, and thence down the Jordan valley to the east coast of Gennesaret, in Decapolis".... p.401

From Pixner(1992)pp.80-81 "The people of Decapolis who had heard of the miraculous cure of the deaf-mute were enthusiastic. People were overwhelmed with amazement. 'He has done everything well,' they said. 'He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.'" (Mk 7:37) We can assume that "the big crowd which in those days (while Jesus was in the Decapolis) gathered around him" (Mk 8:1) was made up to a large extent of Gentiles who followed him down to the hill (Tel Hadar) by the lake."...

The references that I have been finding seem to follow the route through Gaulonitis. The hill or mountainside is descriptive of Tel Hadar overlooking the Sea of Galilee. I wouldn't necessarily read "went along the Sea of Galilee" as meaning Jesus physically walked some distance along the shore although it could easily mean that. It may simply mean that he came from some direction and was next active in the Decapolis on a hill by the Sea of Galilee. From continued reading of the account, we could support such a view. I am unable to detect a discrepancy in the Mark and Matthew accounts. Interestingly enough, both writers above speak of the land of Palestine as the 5th gospel. They both make the point that actually seeing the land confirmed the other New Testament books for them.

livingink

[Guest]

You say -- I wouldn't necessarily read "went along the Sea of Galilee" as meaning Jesus physically walked some distance along the shore although it could easily mean that. It may simply mean that he came from some direction and was next active in the Decapolis on a hill by the Sea of Galilee.

In Mark 7:31, it states, in the transliterated greek: "eis thalassa galilala". Here, "eis", used in the accusative tense, means "into, to, towards or among" according to Thayer's Lexicon.

Similarly, Mt 15:29 uses the phrase, "para thalassa galilala". Again, according to Thayer's Lexicon, para is a preposition indicating close proximity.

Thus, the straight-forward reading of both accounts is that jesus reached and was at the Sea of Galilee, not in the Golan Heights in the vicinity of the sea. The most straightforward route from Tyre would be along the Via Maris to Dan, down the Hula valley to the Sea of Galilee.

[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