Geographical Errors in Mark and J.P. Holding

[Vinnie]

This article:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MK.html

Holding: Geographical errors in Mark. Kümmel [Kumm.Int, 97] accuses Mark of "numerous" geographical errors, but names only three: Mark 5:1 (the Gerasene swine), 7:31 (having to do with Tyre/Sidon and the Decapolis), and 10:1 (re the region of Judea). He indicates that a lack of knowledge of the geography of Palestine is against Markan authorship. In reply we may note:

The "errors" are a product of the imagination. Let's look at Kümmel's three ("numerous") citations, along with a couple of others.

Here holding goes on to quote Mark 5:1 and comment on it:

Mark 5:1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.

Holding: How this qualifies as an "error" is beyond me. It is hardly a definitive statement, referring only to a "region" - as might be expected if the party landed in a countrified area, and if this is from a sermon of Peter to a Roman audience that really did not care where some out-in-the-boondocks locale was precisely located! The city of Gerasa was about 30 miles southeast of the traditional location of this event; that being so, to speak of being in the "region" is hardly any more erroneous than saying, after landing a boat thirty miles south of Milwaukee, that you have landed in the "region" of Milwaukee.

Was Gerasa so big or prominent or well known that people 30 miles away from it, 2000 years ago, would declare themselves to be in the region of Gerasa?

To people like me with a car, 30 miles may not be a huge distance. To people walking and riding asses, it might be a little different.

Also, if I said "near the Washington area" and I wasn't there that would be a valid statement. If I said "in the Washington region" and I wasn't actually there, would I be inaccurate or accurate?

Are there other examples of ancient sources mentioning being "in a specific region" when they are 30 miles away from it?

Was that region (where the incident occured) that "countrified"? Was there no other place, closer to mention? Did that specific place even have a name of its own?

Would Mark's audience be more likely to understand Gerasa rather than some other place?

For those on baord who know Greek, how clear is the Greek here? Is "in the region of" as broad and loose as Holding uses it?

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

I'm looking at a first century map of Palestine, and though all places are not listed, Gerasa is ridiculously far from the Sea of Galilee.

Here it is.

The X is where the event took place in Mark 5.
The 6 is next to Gadara. A proposed alternate reading. But even that is 6 mils from the sea.

Now Gerasa is way out there, with Gadara, Dion, Hippos, Abila and Pella all closer in the Decapolis.

If we move up North a pinch to the Tetrarchy of Philip even bethsaida is closer. In fact, about 10 places (Regions!?) on the opposite side of the Sea are closer to this event in Mark than Gerasa!

Now was Gerasa some extremely special place ca. 70 C.E.? Was it a geographical landmark for people outside Palestine? Are there any sources mentioning it in depth like Josephus and co. ???

I mean, it is way out there with a lot of "regions" much much closer. I mean, if anything, one would suspect Hippos in the Decapolis as its right near the lake (maybe a mile away).

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

The map is here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/junk/mapweb.jpg

It wouldn't let me upload it.

X pretty much should Mark the spot.

The 6 is the distance in miles to Gadara and the 30(+) is the miles to Gerasa

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Holding then quotes another passage from Mark and comments on it.

Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

Holding: This one is a little more complex, but no more problematic. It has been interpreted to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to GET TO The Sea of Galilee, which would indeed be the wrong way - but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is NOT a case of "what they went through to get there," but, "where they went also."

Holding also cites Miller:

Holding:
Glenn Miller has passed on to me this quote from Douglas Edwards, who, in his essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the First Century," has noted:

Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos. [GLA:59-60])

There is one fact against Holding's thesis: Mark is not a strict straightforward chronology. He has no reason to add in the extra step.

Or does he? Here we have to AGREE with Holding here. I do not think a GEOGRAPHICAL error can be demonstrated here/

Mark is creating a tour through Gentile territory, not coincidentally just after the nullification of the food laws and the account with the Syrophnecian (sp?) woman. Mark tries depsarately to maximize Jesus' contact with Gentiles.

As I wrote in an article which shows limits on Marcan creativity (that needs to be updated and will when my Mark project is finished) shows plausible motive for this tour:

As Sander's and Davies noted, "The geographical summary in 7.31 seems to be confused, since Sidon is North of Tyre, and one would not go through it in order to travel from Tyre southeast to Galilee. The verse, in fact, depicts Jesus as touring a lot of Gentile territory. After reaching the region of Tyre, where the meeting with the woman took place, he traveled approximately twenty miles North to Sidon, back south to Tyre, east approximately forty miles to the area of the Decapolis, and then at least thirty miles southwest to the region to the sea of Galilee (if the last leg followed the shortest route). This trip of at least a hundred and ten miles is more than double the direct route from Tyre to Galilee. Fairly steady walking will cover approximately fifteen miles a day, and thus Mark depicts a tip of eight days or so, even without stops to heal or teach. Mark, we have just seen, places two healings in this trip. Most scholars, making the form-critical observation that within the text of the second there is no reference to time or place, take it to be an isolated story which Mark has placed in the Decapolis in order to flesh out the account." (SSG, p. 306)

As John Meier wrote, "Mark may be combining various geographical designations from his sources, or betraying his ignorance of Palestinian geography, or both. . . In any case, the itinerary is probably more theological then geographical." (MJ, VII p. 712)

It is scarcely accidental that Mark places this pericope dealing with Gentile faith directly after a nullification of the Jewish food laws. Both issues were the focal point of sharp and dividing controversy in the early church. As Meier puts it, "having declared all foods clean (and therefore having torn down a major barrier between Jews and Gentiles in 7:19), the Marcan Jesus now passes through various Gentile regions, bringing healing and food (symbolically, the salvation proclaimed by the gospel) to the pagans and thus foreshadowing the Christian mission." (MJ, VII, p. 712)

The Gospels and Paul make it cleart Jesus conducted his minsitry to Jews. Mark's paucity of Gentile related pericopes also reinforces this as he certainly would have included any he inherited.

He simply is maximizing Jesus' contact with Gentiles with this roundabout tour. Its a theological foreshadowing of the later Gentile movement. The evidence of this is the context of Mark (occurring right after the food laws and so on).

So we have one demonstrable geographical error in Mark if we accept the Gerasa one as erronious. We shall list the next commonly cited one:

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

The Third Error:

We have the passage then Holding's commentary:

Mark 10:1a Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan.


Holding: ??? - I am confounded again by Kümmel's confusion. Here again we have a very general statement of a "region" and perhaps what is probably an itinerary: 1) the region of Judea; 2) across the Jordan. Is Mark not being specific enough for Kümmel's tastes? If so, why should this be a problem? Other than that Peter's audience would (again) not care about such minor details, we may add that Mark was a native of Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), and thus an urbanite. As such, we would not expect him to make an exact fix on certain places that were either far from his home or out on the country somewhere. Not even I, acquainted as I am with atlases and road maps as part of my library work, can get more precise than this when referring to boondock areas only 100 or so miles from where I live!


We know from chapter 9 that Jesus is in capernaum. Mark 9:33: 33They came to Capernaum.

Jesus then goes into Judea, which is an entire region south of Capernaum (which is in Galilee) and the Jordan is right there on the Eastern side of Judea. I don't see an error here myself. I am not even sure how anyone can think this is an error. I even wonder if Kummel actually said this!

I think what Kummel might have disputed is whether this is the first time Jesus has gone to Judea//Jerusalem as Mark narrates. There is no geographical error here, however. i would have to see a direct quote to believe Holding is accurately representing Kummel here.

We appear to be one for three, unless it can be shown that Gerasa was some mega city in the first century. I also would take any silence in the extant literature as ruling this thesis out in favor of the error scenario.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

And a final error:

Mark 8:10 he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha.

Holding: So what's wrong here? Well, Anderson complains that Dalmanutha is not referred to anywhere else in any extant literature! Considering how little literature we DO have from the first century, this is rather silly, and very much an argument from silence! (Some have regarded this as being the same as the village of Magdala, however.)

We agree with Holding here.

So I see evidence of one and only Goegraphical error in Mark.

Are there any others?

The next time someone says "mark makes inexact statements about Palestinian Geography" correct them. Mark makes an (single) inexact statement.

How does this now effect questions of Markan authorship? Even natives of a land sometimes make inexact geographical statements? Can then, the Gerasa error rule out John Mark as the author?

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

Hi Vinnie,

I remember reading a couple years ago in Nineham's commentary on Mark what was a more comprehensive list of alleged geographical goofs. This web page confirms that memory:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/markauthor.html

It would be good to interact with Nineham (though I can't look it up anytime soon myself).

best,
Peter Kirby

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Vinnie

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MK.html

Holding: Geographical errors in Mark. Kümmel [Kumm.Int, 97] accuses Mark of "numerous" geographical errors, but names only three: Mark 5:1 (the Gerasene swine), 7:31 (having to do with Tyre/Sidon and the Decapolis), and 10:1 (re the region of Judea). He indicates that a lack of knowledge of the geography of Palestine is against Markan authorship. In reply we may note:

The "errors" are a product of the imagination. Let's look at Kümmel's three ("numerous") citations, along with a couple of others.

Here holding goes on to quote Mark 5:1 and comment on it:

Mark 5:1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.

Holding: How this qualifies as an "error" is beyond me. It is hardly a definitive statement, referring only to a "region" - as might be expected if the party landed in a countrified area, and if this is from a sermon of Peter to a Roman audience that really did not care where some out-in-the-boondocks locale was precisely located! The city of Gerasa was about 30 miles southeast of the traditional location of this event; that being so, to speak of being in the "region" is hardly any more erroneous than saying, after landing a boat thirty miles south of Milwaukee, that you have landed in the "region" of Milwaukee.

Was Gerasa so big or prominent or well known that people 30 miles away from it, 2000 years ago, would declare themselves to be in the region of Gerasa?



Let us not forget that 5 miles is regarded by Holding as a huge distance, enough to make something a totally different region.


http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WRE2FF.html

TILL
The same verse says that the strike extended 'unto Gibeon,' which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem, so if Joshua had routed all the kings of this region and utterly destroyed all that breathed (v:40), he would have driven out and destroyed the Jebusites, who lived in and around Jerusalem...


HOLDING
This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east. The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier. Our opponent desperately wishes to erase these five miles in a different direction, as well as disregard any issue of delineating georgraphical features, which would clearly exclude Jerusalem from the range between Kadesh-Barnea and Gibeon, but that geographical equivocation will not float in this ocean.

CARR
So Jerusalem is so small that five miles away is a different region, while Gerasa was such a metropolis that the region of Gerasa was up to 30 miles away.

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Hi Vinnie,

I remember reading a couple years ago in Nineham's commentary on Mark what was a more comprehensive list of alleged geographical goofs. This web page confirms that memory:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/markauthor.html

It would be good to interact with Nineham (though I can't look it up anytime soon myself).

best,
Peter Kirby

I wask skimming through that. I will be discussing every incident in that paper. I have a bunch already written on Mark.

But he posed 2 geography erros, both of which were covered here already:

The Tyre one I might have fibbed on. I went back and reread Mark. This could be an error. It is still conceivble that Mark is trying to maximize Jesus' contact with Gentiles, but he narrates no details in the Tyre through Sidon. The healings Mark insets to flush out his little trip come in the decapolis area. But again, these are used to flush out the trip Mark is creating. It can't be to readily called coincidental that Jesus a) nullifies the food laws, b) meets the syropheoenicain woman, c) takes a long tour (with a zigzag) through Gentile territory, d) and then as Meier writes, Mark's two actions of Jesus include bringing healing (end of Mk 7) and food (symbolically, the salvation proclaimed by the gospel) which occurs with the feeding miracle in Mark 8.

Given Mark's other anti-Pharisee and pro-Gentile defenses (e.g. Sabbath controversy and so on) there is simply too much motive for Mark to create a "maximized" tour through Gentile territory.

Taken in itself I would call this an area. Given its place in Mark, this is not certain. That article does not address any of my objections here.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Its funny that while looking at Mark again I found this little beauty:

Mark 9:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

Jesus was in virtually the same spot as before and virtually just as far away from Gerasa yet Mark does not say region of Gerasa this time. He says the region of the Decapolis, which covers all that area.

Mark is definately mistaken on this first one. We have one definitve geographical error, and one potential error that simply cannot be demonstrated. I opt for an extenuated Gentile tour.


Back to my question: Its often stated that the Geography errors in Mark means John Mark, the arimaic speaking Jew of Palestine, and Peter's companion could not have written the Gospel.

Against this I note three things:

There is only one demonstrable geographical error in Mark.
I note that maps and stuff were not as common at that time as they are today.
Natives of a land sometimes make local geographical mistakes.

When taken in isolation this geographical error doesn't tell us much about Mark.

By itself it tells us that it probably wasn't written in Gerasa ;)

[Vinnie]

Apparently, Joel Marcus, opines the same thing:

http://www.after-hourz.net/forum/uploads/post-12-1080058174.jpg

He also raises a few other instances of errors.

[Vinnie]

Also, with this from Marcus, I add in this from Sanders and Davies:

"One last prefatory remark is required: the use of this text assumes that the evangelists did not rewrite their material entirely, so as to make it all harmonious with their own views (see above, 'redaction Criticism', p. 202). Luckily, this assumption will prove to be true. The assumption may surprise the reader, whose intuition may be that an author of strong views would recast all the material to agree with them. There are two points to be observed: (1) Imposing a completely consistent view on diverse sources is in fact quite hard. Modern academic work will provide a lot of examples. Those of us who read doctoral theses spend spend a fair part of our time checking for consistency from one part to another, but perfect consistency is nevertheless often not obtained. The problem of consistency of of course less acute in a short work than in a long one, and the gospels are short. Despite this, not one of them is perfectly consistent [John possibly the closest]. This leads us to our second point. (2) Ancient writers not infrequently incorporated their sources whole, or only slightly edited, with the result that the final work contains glaring inconsistencies and even contradictions. The ancients seem to have been less troubled by inconsistency that moderns are, and what strikes us as a blatant internal disagreement may have been viewed in some other light by the original author and readers." (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, Sanders and Davies, p. 305)"

Mark could, simply be trying to fit pre-Markan, localized traditions into his itinerary which is certainly not a strict, straightforward history. The itinery in Mark is largely theological.

The geography error(s) appear to be overpreessed.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Marcus mentioned 10:1 as an error as well? Is there something in the Greek I can't see?


If you have a map, follow along:

Jesus goes from Capernaum (Mark 9:33 which is in Galilee right off the NE portion of the Sea of Galilee) to the region of Judea (Mark 10:1).

1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea

Now Judea was a big region. Did Mark mean "Judea" as in the area on the map near Jerusalem, bethany and Bethlehem, or did Mark mean the "province of Judea" which covers the whole area?

At any rate, Mark then has Jesus cross the Jordan (10:1b) into, again the Decapolis or possibly PEREA (depending on how far into "Judea" they were), to miff a few Pharisees and then finally they go to Jerusalem (10:32) which is all the way back across the Jordan.

Maybe there is something on ancient roads I am missing? Where is the error on Geography? Mark has Jesus traveling around, covering some of the same ground a few times but I'm not sure how this can be pressed as an error?

Vinnie

[spin]

Has anyone who spouts about Mk 7:31 actually looked at the Greek of the text?? They might find that the AV is actually closer to the mark. Other translations seem to be based solely on the Vulgate.


spin

[Peter Kirby]

Yuri Kuchinsky (http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/geogr.htm) has an article on Mark 7:31.

The Westcott-Hort reading ("he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee") is supported by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, 019, 037, 038, 33, 565, 700, 892, and some versions (including the Vulgate but also the Ethiopic and some Coptic manuscripts).

The Textus Receptus reading ("he went out from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and came to the sea of Galilee") is supported by p45, Alexandrinus, 017, 032, 033, 041, 0131, 28, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, and some versions.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vinnie]

I can't find anything. Someone please explain how Mark 10:1 is an error.

"As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives"

Where is Bethpage? I can't find it?

Lets go back to what I wrote earlier:

you have a map, follow along:

Jesus goes from Capernaum (Mark 9:33 which is in Galilee right off the NE portion of the Sea of Galilee) to the region of Judea (Mark 10:1).

1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea

Now Judea was a big region. Did Mark mean "Judea" as in the area on the map near Jerusalem, bethany and Bethlehem, or did Mark mean the "province of Judea" which covers the whole area?

At any rate, Mark then has Jesus cross the Jordan (10:1b) into, again the Decapolis or possibly PEREA (depending on how far into "Judea" they were), to miff a few Pharisees and then finally they go to Jerusalem (10:32) which is all the way back across the Jordan.

Maybe there is something on ancient roads I am missing? Where is the error on Geography? Mark has Jesus traveling around, covering some of the same ground a few times but I'm not sure how this can be pressed as an error?

Now look at this Map taken from V 1 of Meier's Marginal Jew series at 434:

http://www.after-hourz.net/forum/uploads/post-12-1080144146.jpg

He actually has "major roads" but they don't come out in the Amazon online version so I added in where a major road is said to have been.

Assume Jesus is in Capernaum (up in Galileee). he goes down into the region of Judea (how far we know not but presumably far--se below). he goes into the Decapolis or Perea.

Look at the map and read this statement:

"As they approached Jerusalem and came to [Bethphage and] Bethany"

That is an accurate statement. The road leads right into Bethany before Jerusalem.

Thus, Mark may very well be reflecting accurate Palestininain geography here.

Anybody on this board know how 10:1 is supposed to be an error?

Even if Jesus went into the Decapolis and not Perea there is another road (dotted line on Meier's map) leading down into this one on the eastern border of Judea (the Province) where Jesus and co. would have crossed back over the Jordan.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

From the site Kirby linked, I noticed this as the bottom:

Mark 8:22-26: The pericopae of the healing of the blind man was mentioned by Mark to have occured at Bethsaida, which he referred to as a "village". But it is well known that Bethsaida during the time of Jesus was a large and prosperous town.[9]

Does anyone have any information on Bethsaida from the first century? What documents this?

The article quote Mark 10:1:


Mark 10:1: Jesus is supposed to have gone from Capernaum to the territory of Judea and "across the Jordan" river. As the reader can see by looking at the map, the statement by Mark is geographically problematic. Firstly, none of Judea is to the east of Jordan (which would be what "across the Jordan" from Capernaum would mean). Secondly, to get from Capernaum to Judea, Jesus would have had to cross the Jordon twice (avoiding the traditionally antagonistic Samaritans) or not at all (directly southwards through Samaria). The passage implies a single crossing, leading him nowhere.[10]

My questiuon here is, does Mark say they went to Judea by crossing the Jordan or does Mark say they went into Judea and crossed the Jordan.

The NIV leads me to think that Mark 10:1 says they went to Judea and then across the Jordan. This touches on the alleged error in Mark 11:1:

Mark 11:1: The passage has Jesus travelling from Jericho (Mark 10:46) via Bethpage and Bethany when it should have been in reverse order. We treat this particular error in more detail elsewhere.

Now if Mark is on the road I suggested above, he wopuld hit Jerico, then Bethany, then Jerusalem, just as Mark had it:

http://www.after-hourz.net/forum/uploads/post-12-1080144146.jpg

Link to translations:

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Mark+10%3A1&NIV_version=yes&NASB_version=yes&MSG_version=yes&AMP_version=yes&NLT_version=yes&KJV_version=yes&NLV_version=yes&ESV_version=yes&CEV_version=yes&NKJV_version=yes&KJ21_version=yes&ASV_version=yes&WE_version=yes&YLT_version=yes&DARBY_version=yes&WYC_version=yes&NIRV_version=yes&NIV-UK_version=yes&language=english

Can someonme fluent in Greek tell me what the post interpretation of Mark 10:1 is. Can is be Mark went into Judea and then across the Jordan. This makes sense since the rest of Mark's Journey seems like it follows that main road I posted an image of.

But if it says Jesus went into Judea from Capernaum by crossing the Hordan Mark is ridiculously screwed up.

So Greek people, I ask for your assistance?

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

as an FYI, the line I drew on the map is slightly off. The road goes directly through Jericho on Meier's version.

[Peter Kirby]

Here is a good map for the roads:

First Century Palestine (http://www.urantiabook.org/graphics/gifmap1.htm)

Here is one with less clutter:

Map of Israel (http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/map.html)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vinnie]

First one is a great map :)

It calls Gadara the cultural center of the Decapolis. Is it possibly Mark confused Gadara with Geresa?

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

There are three alternatives in the ancient manuscripts for the Greek of 10:1.

"He set out from there and went into the district of Judea through the other side (dia tou peran) of the Jordan." This is supported by A, K, X, and so on. It is the Byzantine/Textus Receptus.

"He set out from there and went into the district of Judea and beyond (kai peran) the Jordan." This is supported by Sinaiticus, B, C*, L, and so on. It is in Westcott-Hort.

"He set out from there and went into the district of Judea beyond (peran) the Jordan." This is supported by C2, D, W, Delta, Theta, and so on. It corresponds to Matthew.

Here is what Gundry has to say: "Mark lumps Judea and Transjordan together. Even though he will have Jesus approach Jerusalem from the direction of Transjordan (vv 32, 46; 11:1, 11; see G. Dalman, SSW 233-39, on Galilean pilgrims' usually avoiding the direct route through Samaria), he mentions Judea first because the events of the Passion will take place there (cf. his putting the ultimate goal Jerusalem first in 11:1 and then working backward through Bethphage and Bethany--also 7:31, and see 1:5; 13:14 for his knowledge that Jerusalem is located in Judea)." (Mark, p. 529)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vinnie]

Thx for the summary. That helps.

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Vinnie
It calls Gadara the cultural center of the Decapolis. Is it possibly Mark confused Gadara with Geresa? To start with, the textual evidence is confused.

Submit for your review Metzger's Textual Commentary:

http://www.christianorigins.com/gadarenes1.gif

http://www.christianorigins.com/gadarenes2.gif

For GMark 5:1, Metzger suggests that "Gadarenon" is an assimilation to Mt 8:28 and that "Gergesenon" is a correction (proposed in Origen Commentary on John?). Thus he chooses "Gerasenon."

You may want to consult Gundry's Mark pp. 255-257 on this verse.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Peter Kirby]

Here is what Origen (http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-41.htm#P6875_1280450) had to say.

In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority. The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes; "and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is "dwelling of the casters-out," and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places, who "besought Him to depart out of their coasts." The same inaccuracy with regard to proper names is also to be observed in many passages of the law and the prophets, as we have been at pains to learn from the Hebrews, comparing our own copies with theirs which have the confirmation of the versions, never subjected to corruption, of Aquila and Theodotion and Symmachus.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vorkosigan]

Great set of posts, guys.

[spin]

Here's a table I did a few days ago: Mt 8:28 Mk 5:1 Lk 8:26
TR Gergesenes Gadarenes Gadarenes
WH Gadarenes Gerasenes Gerasenes
P Gadarenes Gadarenes Gadarenes
V Gerasenes Gerasenes Gerasenes

I think that it makes certain aspects clearer.

In the Greek we have a tendency for Mk and Lk to agree against Mt, but there is an interesting split between Byzantine (TR) and Alexandrian (WH) versions, with the Peshitta following the Byzantine tradition and the Vulgate following the Alexandrian. Both P & V have smoothed out the Mt wrinkle.


spin

[Vinnie]

bumping this as someone asked me about geo erros in mark and i linked them here :)

Vinnie

[judge]

Mark 5:1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.



The original ;) aramaic (http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch5.pdf) reads gadarenes

[Vinnie]

The original ;) aramaic (http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch5.pdf) reads gadarenes

Original Arimaic? I was under the impression Mark was written in Greek?

Vinnie

[Vorkosigan]

Re this topic: the other day my wife turned to me and asked: Is Fengyuan (large town north of where we live) in Changhua (large county south of where we live)? -- which would be like a Chicagoan asking if Milwaukee was in the state of Indiana. Do pre-industrial people have a solid grip on geography? My experience in Africa and Taiwan says no. I don't think Mark's confusions and geographical problems qualify as evidence by themselves that he didn't know anything about Palestine.

Vorkosigan

[judge]

Original Arimaic? I was under the impression Mark was written in Greek?

Vinnie

Well this is definitely the view of scholars. ;)
The Church of the East maintain that their peshitta (http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html) is the original.
There does not seem to be an awful lot of serious consideration of this idea by western scholars.

[Ted Hoffman]

1. One error (5:1) has been demonstrated/admitted "Gerasa is ridiculously far from the Sea of Galilee" Or maybe Mark forgot to add "after two days..."

But the iredeemable error in Mark 5:1 is that they have to go "across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes" yet Gesarenes and wherever they were at the time is at the same side of the lake. This is his journey: Mark 2:1 he is in capernaum Mark 3:7 he is preaching at the sea of Galilee then he crosses to the "other side" in Mark 4:35 (the other side of Capernaum is where Gerasenes is).
Then in Mark 5:1 they have to go "across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes" - Yet they are already on that side! This is an abject, glaring error.

2. Regarding Mark 8:10, its strange that Vinnie can agree with Holding against someone who is objecting to the lack of MA for Dalmanutha. Very interesting.

3. Regarding 7:31, arguing that Mark "has no reason to add in the extra step", is pure apologetic. How does one (vinnie for example) deduce when Mark has no reason to add an extra step and when he does?
And so is offering Mark's desperation "to maximize Jesus' contact with Gentiles" as an explanation. Or "theological itinerary" as opposed to geographical one. Pure apologetic.
With this approach, one can explain away ANY error.

4. Another error: Mark 5:13 treats Gerasa as being close to the sea of Galilee:
Mark 5:13

He [Jesus] gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.
You cannot watch pigs rushing down a 30 miles/50 Kms bank (since Gerasene is like 30 miles from the sea).
IREDEEMABLE. Even Matthew couldn't rescue it.

This is what Funk had to say about this error:
Gerasa is located approximately thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee, not exactly a convenient location for the drowning of the pigs. Matthew relocates the demoniac to Gadara, which is only six miles from the lakeshore. Later scribes tried other remedies to accomodate the pigs.
Funk, et.al. The Acts of Jesus: p79

[Ted Hoffman]

And I hope Vinnie also intends to address non-Geographical errors in Mark sometime soon.
My experience in Africa and Taiwan says no.
Perhaps in cities with tall buildings - because the skyline can look very different because of what the building 'allows' you to see and sometimes, harmonizing travelling by car and walking can create confusion.
In the past, there were no skyscrapers and it was clear which direction particular things lay: routes followed by camels, donkeys or travellers were well set. Crossing points for rivers, harsh terrains, waterpoints etc were all known. Hills, the plains, mountains all added up to help one know when one would need to cross a lake or not.

[Vinnie]

Re this topic: the other day my wife turned to me and asked: Is Fengyuan (large town north of where we live) in Changhua (large county south of where we live)? -- which would be like a Chicagoan asking if Milwaukee was in the state of Indiana. Do pre-industrial people have a solid grip on geography? My experience in Africa and Taiwan says no. I don't think Mark's confusions and geographical problems qualify as evidence by themselves that he didn't know anything about Palestine.

Vorkosigan

It has to be admitted that even natives of a land can make geographical errors. Thus these considerations do not really factor into the authorship issue very much.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

3. Regarding 7:31, arguing that Mark "has no reason to add in the extra step", is pure apologetic. How does one (vinnie for example) deduce when Mark has no reason to add an extra step and when he does?
And so is offering Mark's desperation "to maximize Jesus' contact with Gentiles" as an explanation. Or "theological itinerary" as opposed to geographical one. Pure apologetic.
With this approach, one can explain away ANY error.

Your village atheism is ridiculous. The point is that whether or not the passage is erroneous cannot be demonstrated, There is a plausible motive for Mark to have purposefully written this. I demonstrated it. Notice the text in bold.

Vinnie: Mark is creating a tour through Gentile territory, not coincidentally just after the nullification of the food laws and the account with the Syrophnecian (sp?) woman. Mark tries depsarately to maximize Jesus' contact with Gentiles.

You simply want to assume any potential error is an error I guess. I don't play those games. In some instances plausible resolutions are possible. This is one of them.

Also, my statement "Mark has no reason to add an extra step" is arguing against Holding//Miller apologizing of the passage which if you bothered to actually read and understand what I wrote you would clearly see. I went on to suggest there may be a reason for the extra step. Mark decided to get creative after several gentile related incidents just occured in his gospel. It is entirely plausible.

You should read the page from Joel Marcus that I put up. And Mark certainly has a theologicxal itinerary. That is just factual.

2. Regarding Mark 8:10, its strange that Vinnie can agree with Holding against someone who is objecting to the lack of MA for Dalmanutha. Very interesting.

You just have strange ways of evaluating early Christian writings. There is not enough evidence to state whether Mark was correct or false here. The complete silence of any reference to this place anywhere else makes us cautious. But its not enough to conclusively show it did not exist.

The point is that historians always speak of Mark's numerous geography errors. I believe there is at least one very obvious error. The point in this thread was to evaluate all them. Several of them turn out to be not so easily labeled errors. Some of them I don't even understand why they are called errors.

4. Another error: Mark 5:13 treats Gerasa as being close to the sea of Galilee:
Mark 5:13

I went through this one in my first post. It is clearly an error. I put up a map and everything.

And your first error:

But the iredeemable error in Mark 5:1 is that they have to go "across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes" yet Gesarenes and wherever they were at the time is at the same side of the lake. This is his journey: Mark 2:1 he is in capernaum Mark 3:7 he is preaching at the sea of Galilee then he crosses to the "other side" in Mark 4:35 (the other side of Capernaum is where Gerasenes is).
Then in Mark 5:1 they have to go "across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes" - Yet they are already on that side! This is an abject, glaring error.


More village atheism. Where did you come up with this nonsense? The skeptics annotated Bible? Why are you disconnecting 4:35 from 5:1? They go together, there were no chapter distinctions in the original. Here is the text:

35That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, "Let us go over to the other side." 36Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"
39He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
41They were terrified and asked each other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!"

end of 4th chapter

Then 5:1 says: "They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[1] 2When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil[2] spirit came from the tombs to meet him. "

This should all be read continuously. 5:1 describes where the gang went upon deciding to cross the sea.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

I said this before on 10:1:

At any rate, Mark then has Jesus cross the Jordan (10:1b) into, again the Decapolis or possibly PEREA (depending on how far into "Judea" they were), to miff a few Pharisees and then finally they go to Jerusalem (10:32) which is all the way back across the Jordan.

Maybe there is something on ancient roads I am missing? Where is the error on Geography? Mark has Jesus traveling around, covering some of the same ground a few times but I'm not sure how this can be pressed as an error?

Nineham in his commentary on Mark disagrees with me. Page 263. I'll put up a full quote later.

His suggestion is that if Mark is deliberately putting in a joruney back over the Jordan to Perea then he must have pictured Jesus approaching Judea along the east coast of the border and he gets the names in the wrong order, like Behtpage and Bethany (ch. 11).

The point is if you are approaching from Jerico, which a Perea journey would entail, you would come to Bethany then Bethphage.

So this would trade in one error for another.

I think Weeden said in a paper on Markan provenance that Mark has good knowledge of Judea at times so maybe the other should be viewed as the error?

I'll have to dig up a quote later. Looks like we have a second geography error here though.

Vinnie

[dost]

Hi there,

I am interested in one particular possible geographical error in Mark:

"As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt there which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you,'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The lord needs it and will send it back shortly.'" They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" They answered that Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had out in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming of the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!" Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late he went out to Bethany with the twelve." (Mark 11:1-11)

In Mark 10:46 we read that Jesus was in Jericho. This seems to indicate that Jesus travelled from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethphage and then Bethany.

Matthew, on the other hand, says the following:

"When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives..." (Matthew 21:1)

So Matthew removes the reference to Bethany completely from Mark's account, presumably because he saw a problem with it.

Apologists, however, argue that Matthew was simply summarizing Mark's account, rather than "correcting" it. It is also argued that Mark does not state that Jesus went to Bethpage AND THEN to Bethany.

Randel Helms writes:

"Mark writes on the basis of a vague knowledge of Judaean geography, not knowing that one approaching Jerusalem from the east on the road from Jericho would reach first Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse order he indicates. However, the important location is the Mount of Olives; typology, not history, is at work here. The typological fiction continues on the basis of Zech. 9:9 LXX:

'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim it aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, the king is coming to thee, just and a Saviour [sozon, "saving"]; he is meek and riding on an ass, and a young foal [polon neon, a "new (unridden) foal"].'

It is only with this passage that we can understand why Mark has Jesus specify that his diciples obtain a "colt [polon] which no one has yet ridden" (Mark 11:2). Mark ignores the danger and unlikelihood of riding on an unbroken, untrained animal, assuming its miraculous tractability; typology rather than history is operative here."

Gospel Fictions page 103

Recently I came across the following critique by Mr J. P. Holding to the above:

"To be quite candid, Helms here is just doing his usual schtick...quoting liberal NT scholars uncritically. There are several things to note here before we go charging Mark with an error:

First, it is far from certain that "and Bethany" ought to be part of the text in the first place. While the phrase is found in almost all manuscripts, it is absent in three of them. It is also missing from the parallel verse in Matthew 21:1, though not from the parallel verse at Luke at Luke 19:29. This is enough for some liberals to withhold judgment of error; but we'll assume here that the text is genuinely from Mark. (The wording of the verse is also awkward, but this may be simply typical of Mark's less sophisticated grammar.)

Second, Helms and the liberals are simply playing the old game of making verses say more than they actually do. Simply because the cities are listed a certain way does not mean that Mark (or Luke) is saying that this is the order that they are approached; no more so does approaching Minneapolis-St. Paul from the St. Paul side, or Dallas-Ft. Worth from the Ft. Worth side, mean we have to reverse the order of the cities to make it clear what direction we are coming from. As long as Mark does not say, "we went from Jericho to Bethphage, and then to Bethany" he is not in error (unless the disciples were taking an unusual route for a purpose).

Finally, it is far more likely that Mark is listing the approach to Jerusalem in reverse order, in order to stress the importance of their Jerusalem destination. The order of Bethphage and Bethany is simply being determined by their relationship to Jerusalem.

In short, no error here, except due to the usual problem of skeptical overreading." http://www.tektonics.org/bethbeth.html

Are there any responses and critiques available of the above defence?

[Vinnie]

Actually, the Bethphage Bethany thing appears problematic no matter how you slice it.

On Meier's maps of roads on road leads directly to Jerusalem. If they travelled that they woul have hit Jerusalem before these two places which means they would have needed to jump off the road towards tye end since Mark only has only narrates one final climactic journey to Jerusalem in his Gospel this wouldn't otherwise fit. The other road comes from Jericho. So then Perea or no Perea this one appears to be off base.


Gundry tries to apologize this by saying Mark mentions Jerusalem, the place of fulfillment first and works his way out from their as a Jerusalemit woulkd to Bethphage then Bethany. In defense he cites two successive by unappositional phrases beginning with [ei5], "to" which shows how intent on Making Jerusalem the center Mark was.

He suggests seeing 7:31 and 10:1 for other instance of mentioning an ultimate destination before an intermediate one.

"The order Jerusalem-Bethphage-Bethany does not betray topographical ignorance, for the succeeding narrative shows knowledge that Jerusalem is Jesus' destination, not an intermediate point on the way to it."

Interesting to note that Gundry says Galilean pilgrims usually avoided going through Samaria to reach jerusalem which also makes the Jericho entrance inevitable.

But Gundry says Mark was working outwards from and prioritizing Jerusalem in his thought.

On the other hand Nineham says the reverse order indicates that we should think that the author did not know the positions of the two villages on the Jerico road.

I get the suspicion that Gundry is just apologizing here. He thinks John Mark, a Palestinian Jew actually wrote Mark so that may explain it.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

First, it is far from certain that "and Bethany" ought to be part of the text in the first place. While the phrase is found in almost all manuscripts, it is absent in three of them. It is also missing from the parallel verse in Matthew 21:1, though not from the parallel verse at Luke at Luke 19:29. This is enough for some liberals to withhold judgment of error; but we'll assume here that the text is genuinely from Mark. (The wording of the verse is also awkward, but this may be simply typical of Mark's less sophisticated grammar.)

I disagree with Holding. THis looks like an attempt at softening the skepticism with a red herring. As Nineham notes there is some MSS variation but the weight of the MS. evidence is for this being the text as is.

The textual critical standpoint adopted here of "be more textually skeptical if it could be an error" does not apply to me.

Second, Helms and the liberals are simply playing the old game of making verses say more than they actually do. Simply because the cities are listed a certain way does not mean that Mark (or Luke) is saying that this is the order that they are approached; no more so does approaching Minneapolis-St. Paul from the St. Paul side, or Dallas-Ft. Worth from the Ft. Worth side, mean we have to reverse the order of the cities to make it clear what direction we are coming from. As long as Mark does not say, "we went from Jericho to Bethphage, and then to Bethany" he is not in error (unless the disciples were taking an unusual route for a purpose).

The narration here in the reverse order is considered akward and it is out of place for a Gospel which generally gives its own order in a [created!!]chronological fashion of Jesus' ministry for Mark to list them out of place like this. Matthew drops it and I take it the few MSS fluctuations are also from this same awkwardness. The fact is that they should be listed the other way around.


Finally, it is far more likely that Mark is listing the approach to Jerusalem in reverse order, in order to stress the importance of their Jerusalem destination. The order of Bethphage and Bethany is simply being determined by their relationship to Jerusalem.

While this is certainly possible. I did just quote Gundry arguing this. Of course IU would love to see other instances of Ancient authors doing this rather thanattributing it to mark alone. But Holding is preachign to the choir with his "it is far more likely" line. He can't read the mind of the Marcan author anymore than anyone else. Either its a Marcan error or Mark reversed the order to speak as a Jerusalemite to prioritize this final climactic place in his Gospel. How he surmises that the latter is "far more likely" than the former can only be the case if we assume a Palestinian Jew with good knowledge of the Jericho rode and Judea wrote the text. Personally, I find this issue to have an important bearing on that very question thus it should not be found in any part of our judgment. So Hiolding slips a circular assumption into his answer which otherwise is worthy of consideration.

Like I said though, was this a common ancient practice? If we could document it elsewhere we ould be on firmer ground. If not...

Vinnie

[Ted Hoffman]

Vinnie,
I can see your debating style has changed. "Village atheism" is Turkel's pet phrase and I can see you have started employing it without restraint. I don't know what else you have learnt from Turkel regarding how to make your point when someone disagrees with you.

I have great difficulty seeing the relationship between 'village atheism' and what I have posted. But I know that I don't need the aggravation right now.

After your research, I hope to see a summary of what you are willing to concede are geographical errors.

[GakuseiDon]

What does "village atheism" mean? I've never heard it before.

[Ted Hoffman]

What does "village atheism" mean? I've never heard it before.
Village atheism is a primitive, paranoid brand of atheism. It is characterized by a persistent and all-out attack on religious belief of any kind and a conviction that religion is inherently evil and should be eliminated by all means. Its atheism as a 'metaphysical restraint' like a pathological phobia for the supernatural. It is characterized by lack of critical thought and unbalanced, sociopathic attitudes especially where religious issues are involved.

Some consider Madalyn Murray O'Hair to have been the classic village atheist. Her character is said to have been nasty and some claim that her loathing of humanity was dispensed without partiality. Her born-again christian son wrote an autobiography My Life Without God and I understand he did not paint her in an unflattering light.

Now, this is the kind of atheist that some quarters are eager to show as an example of what atheists are. But they are compelled to attach 'village' to it because atheists also are among the nicest, most brilliant, most tolerant and most humane of people. I don't know what the latter are called.

But a word like 'bright' instead of 'atheist' (all too commonly misunderstood) takes the sting out of 'village'. Try 'village bright'. Not very effective. Is it?

[Vorkosigan]

You know, there are quite a number of place names in Mark -- gethsemane, golgotha, nazareth, dalmanutha, arimathea, etc, whose location is unknown. What if Gerasenes was originally something like the TR has it -- Gergasenes, which coincidentally sounded like gerasenes and was thus corrected in later manuscripts.

[GakuseiDon]

Thanks for that, JA.

[Ted Hoffman]

Now that I have calmed down.

Vork, the idea that Mark made up locations, I think, merits a serious research. I will see if I can find time after I am done with the methodologies.

Vinnie argues that the fact that only Mark knew a place existed, a place that nobody else knew to have existed, does not mean that place did not exist. One wonders why we need other sources at all. This goes contra historical method which requires confirmation from external sources. And whats amazing is that Vinnie actually knows this. I mean, how do you know when an author is fabricating a story? What is the definition of fictitious?

Vinnie treats 5:1 and 5:13 as the same error. 5:13 is not an error: its a fabrication. An error repeated twice are two separate errors. They don't have to be different to be counted as two errors.

The inexistence of some of the places Mark mentions only serves to cast further doubt on the veracity of what Mark talks of. IMO, one clear geographical error is bad enough. But more than two errors is terrible.

Randel Helms, Funk and others have noted these errors. Vinnie has noted them too. All I want now is: How many geographical errors is Vinnie willing to admit, are existing in Mark?

Notice the impossibility of whats described Mark 11:1-11 besides what Randel Helms points out. A displaced peasant, a landless labourer (according to Crossan's protrait of Jesus) who couldn't read, couldn't write, couldn't speak Greek could not have made his way to the capital city of Judaism with it's sophisticated ruling elite, its temple and center of religious and imperial authority, and have the poor from the ghettoes in the city "spread their cloaks on the road" for his entrance.

This is a plain impossibility. What's further impossible is that this Jerusalem group (as opposed to the Galilean one) would have elevated this homeless peasant to a cosmic saviour, forgot about his miracles, his alleged antics (equally impossible like chasing the moneychangers outside the temple), his sayings and focused only his death and resurrection as a cosmic event that brings salvation to humanity and instead used the old testament as scripture.

I don't mean to derail the thread but the wider setting of the stories in Mark: just make them plain impossible.

[Vinnie]

""""""""Vinnie argues that the fact that only Mark knew a place existed, a place that nobody else knew to have existed, does not mean that place did not exist. """""""

No. Mark is not known to be the only person to know of its locale. In the surviving, incomplete and non-thorough literature from the time period, Mark alone refers to this place. Maybe it wa a localized way of referring to a place, maybe ther place was a tiny hamlet, maybe it was unimportant, maybe it didn't exist, maybe Mark confused it with something else, maybe he created it.


One wonders why we need other sources at all. This goes contra historical method which requires confirmation from external sources.

Exaggeration. Sarcasm. WHat does this mean? Are you even reading what I wrote? If the literature from the time period is so dense as to mention every name, alternative name and so forth of every square inch of the first century of this area please document it.

And whats amazing is that Vinnie actually knows this. I mean, how do you know when an author is fabricating a story? What is the definition of fictitious?

Knows what? You misunderstand historical method. Think of it as the same thing as strong and weak atheism. When we have a single-attested detail it has poor evidence in its favor. That does not mean it did not happen. It means we have insufficient evidence that it did happen. Ergo, "we lack belief in said incident" (weak atheism). We do not positively deny its existence (strong atheism).

Of course there are many places where positively denying it are appropriate based upon the evidence, in other places a judgment of "I don't know" is also in order.

Vinnie treats 5:1 and 5:13 as the same error. 5:13 is not an error: its a fabrication. An error repeated twice are two separate errors. They don't have to be different to be counted as two errors.

It has been suggested (e.g. Nineham) that the pig part was a secondary addition to the text. At any rate, I'm with you overall on the stoiry being an "fabrication" but my point is analysing geography errors here and there was no bank for the pigs to run off to where Mark's gospel as it now stands has them.

Randel Helms, Funk and others have noted these errors. Vinnie has noted them too. All I want now is: How many geographical errors is Vinnie willing to admit, are existing in Mark?

There is at least one. Many two to three more. If Mark didn't create a gentile tour to maximize contace then 7:31 is an error. If Mark wasn't working out from Jerusalem and if he didn't narrate a trip to Perea then 10:1 and 11:1 are erros.

Without confimaration that 11:1 exists in other sources from the time period I would call it a conclusive second error in the text.

I just noticed, 10: has them going to Jerusalem via Jericho. Text explicily mentions it.

The triumphal entry is irrelevant to this topic so I will not respond to it here. I can say that one serious negative criteria stands against it. It is strongly with the evangelist's theological grain. The attestation is not great either since questions of Mark//John tradition are unresolve IMO.

Vinnie

[Ted Hoffman]

No. Mark is not known to be the only person to know of its locale. In the surviving, incomplete and non-thorough literature from the time period, Mark alone refers to this place.
Therefore, Mark is known to be the only person to know of its locale. You nailed yourself on your way out.
Maybe it wa a localized way of referring to a place, maybe ther place was a tiny hamlet, maybe it was unimportant, maybe it didn't exist, maybe Mark confused it with something else, maybe he created it.

And nobody else seems to know where Arimathea or golgotha was. Methodological atheism, which undergirds NT criticism (because the Gospels have been judged to be containing myth), dictates that such a place was therefore the creation of the author - unless proved otherwise.

If the literature from the time period is so dense as to mention every name, alternative name and so forth of every square inch of the first century of this area please document it.

Slippery slope fallacy. You are saying we should only expect external attestation for the locations Mark uses only if "the literature from the time period is so dense that every name, alternative name and so forth of every square inch of the first century of this area"

You are creating an excuse for the lack of external attestation by arguing that it would require an extreme, or increasingly unacceptable or unrealistic situation.This is fallacious.

How about maps? You seem pretty good at getting them.

And oh, "every square inch" is a strawman in your slippery slope. Unless you want to argue that arimathea or golgotha was a square inch?

You misunderstand historical method. Think of it as the same thing as strong and weak atheism. When we have a single-attested detail it has poor evidence in its favor. That does not mean it did not happen. It means we have insufficient evidence that it did happen. Ergo, "we lack belief in said incident" (weak atheism). We do not positively deny its existence (strong atheism).
Wrong.

When a source has been shown to be fabricating incidents and scenes (as you have admitted with respect to Mark 5:13 to mention just one example), any other unattested scene or location is regarded as fabricated by that source unless proved otherwise because such a source is being assesed from a point where it has no credibility because it has lost it.

Jacob:How many geographical errors is Vinnie willing to admit, are existing in Mark?
Vinnie: There is at least one. Many two to three more. If Mark didn't create a gentile tour to maximize contace then 7:31 is an error. If Mark wasn't working out from Jerusalem and if he didn't narrate a trip to Perea then 10:1 and 11:1 are erros.

Without confirmation that 11:1 exists in other sources from the time period I would call it a conclusive second error in the text.
When will you be able to give us a conclusive number? I can see you conceding to a minimum three errors and twiddling your fingers and looking at your toes over the others but I would like to see your final number after all this.

[Vinnie]

I sent a thread through to X-Talk asking about Gundry's "Jerusalem centered" explantion of Mark's reversed geographical order in 11:1 from a band traveling from Jericho (10:46).

If anything develops I'll share it here and a link as soon as the message is approved for the list.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Here is the URL. If anyone responds, follow along if interested. I'll reprint anything usefulor informative here.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/16174

Vinnie

[Vorkosigan]

I think Zindler's comments on sacred geography in Mark are apropo here:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html

Bethany, allegedly less than two miles from Jerusalem, nevertheless is unknown in the Old Testament; nor is it known to Josephus or any other ancient geographer or historian. According to John 1:28, however, Bethany is located "beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing" -- i.e., Bethany is east of the Jordan River, in contradiction to the statement in John 11:18 that it is west of the Jordan. While this is confusing enough, some ancient witnesses (including Origen) indicate that the name of the Transjordan town of John 1:28 should read Bethabara instead of Bethany. Not surprisingly, 'Bethabara' also is unknown in the Old Testament, Josephus, and other ancient authors.

But keep up the XTALK threads. Looks promising.

Vorkosigan