Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"The Sea of Galilee"

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
For those fans of G(spot)Markan geography such as DtC & GwB, Superior Skeptic Paul Davidson (Tenorikuma) has written a, as Larry David would say, pretty pretty good article on "Mark's" (author) use of the phrase "Sea of Galilee":

Did Mark Invent the Sea of Galilee?

Paul's emphasis is on why "Mark" chose the phrase "Sea of Galilee" while my emphasis in this Thread is if the offending phrase is an error. Paul's research indicates that contemporary Jewish writings generally did not distinguish between salt (sea) and fresh (lake) water while Greek writings did. An interesting read (not necessarily funny).


Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote:In addition, the ending of GMark in Sinaiticus:

16:6
And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! (ASV)
lacks the Nazarene
Bezae also lacks "the Nazarene".
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: "The Sea of Galilee"

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
For those fans of G(spot)Markan geography such as DtC & GwB, Superior Skeptic Paul Davidson (Tenorikuma) has written a, as Larry David would say, pretty pretty good article on "Mark's" (author) use of the phrase "Sea of Galilee":

Did Mark Invent the Sea of Galilee?

Paul's emphasis is on why "Mark" chose the phrase "Sea of Galilee" while my emphasis in this Thread is if the offending phrase is an error. Paul's research indicates that contemporary Jewish writings generally did not distinguish between salt (sea) and fresh (lake) water while Greek writings did. An interesting read (not necessarily funny).
That is a good read, but there are actually two potential Semitisms involved in the name Sea of Galilee. The post deals with the first one, the use of "sea" instead of "lake", but Greek and Roman usage normally used an adjective for the names of bodies of water (mare nostrum, Συριακή θάλασσα), not a noun in the genitive. There are exceptions, of course, but the use of the genitive seems to correspond to the most common practice in Semitic tongues, not in Greek or in Latin.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "The Sea of Galilee"

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ben C. Smith wrote:The post deals with the first one, the use of "sea" instead of "lake", but Greek and Roman usage normally used an adjective for the names of bodies of water (mare nostrum, Συριακή θάλασσα), not a noun in the genitive. There are exceptions, of course, but the use of the genitive seems to correspond to the most common practice in Semitic tongues, not in Greek or in Latin.
Ben --

Consider: "Increased security around the stadium led to a Sea of Football Fans gathering at the gates. This led to concerns that the vulnerabilities of the..."

How would, in your opinion, a Latin Thinker view a Semitic Text that used such high-lighted language as just above? It ends up in Greek but that's not the major concern. The entire complex of "Sea", "Boats" et. al. is to be questioned here. Do you find Linguistic Clues that these Stories were Semitic, translated by someone thinking in Latin and then given in Greek? (There was a person in History - possibly two - who could have accomplished this but it would be easier if it became a group project...)

Thanx,

CW
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by iskander »

Mas'ey
34.11
The boundary shall then run southward from Shefam to Rivlah to the east of Eyin. Continuing to the south, the boundary shall run along the eastern shore of the Kinnereth Sea.


Veyarad hagevul miShfam haRivlah mikedem la'Ayin veyarad hagvul umachah al-ketef Yam-Kineret kedmah.

http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp? ... portion=43
Sea of Kinnereth .
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by JoeWallack »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:JW:
For those fans of G(spot)Markan geography such as DtC & GwB, Superior Skeptic Paul Davidson (Tenorikuma) has written a, as Larry David would say, pretty pretty good article on "Mark's" (author) use of the phrase "Sea of Galilee":

Did Mark Invent the Sea of Galilee?

Paul's emphasis is on why "Mark" chose the phrase "Sea of Galilee" while my emphasis in this Thread is if the offending phrase is an error. Paul's research indicates that contemporary Jewish writings generally did not distinguish between salt (sea) and fresh (lake) water while Greek writings did. An interesting read (not necessarily funny).
That is a good read, but there are actually two potential Semitisms involved in the name Sea of Galilee. The post deals with the first one, the use of "sea" instead of "lake", but Greek and Roman usage normally used an adjective for the names of bodies of water (mare nostrum, Συριακή θάλασσα), not a noun in the genitive. There are exceptions, of course, but the use of the genitive seems to correspond to the most common practice in Semitic tongues, not in Greek or in Latin.
JW:
Good information Ben, thanks. I know you are not interested in trying to determine whether or not there is "error" but for those that are obviously the criteria that you select to determine error is an important factor. My standard for error is a modern one. Is the information significantly inaccurate based on modern standards. Strangely here, I have to confess that based on modern standards I do not think there is error. The Christian Bible says "Sea of Galilee" and that is generally how this location is described in our time. Regarding the generally incorrect modern usage of "Sea" in the title, generally the modern reader knows that it is not technically a sea so there is no significant communication error to the modern audience.

If you change your standard of error though to the time of the author, here maybe 100 CE, then I think there is error. The description "Sea of Galilee" would have been otherwise unknown at the time and Greek did distinguish then between seas and lakes. Also, the average reader of the time, outside of Israel and most likely Roman, would not have been familiar with the specific geography of Israel and likely would have thought "sea" meant "sea". Ironically, one tactic of Apologists is to try to avoid modern standards for error determination and switch to ancient standards. Here though the modern standard is no error while the ancient standard is error.

Another possible criterion here for setting is the time and location that the narrative is describing. Here, 30ish Israel. The Jewish Bible does use the word "sea" for it but not Galilee. Since Hebrew of the time did not distinguish between "sea" and "lake" and a Jewish reader of the time would probably know based on the combination of a body of water and "Galilee" what was being described and where it was, under this criterion there is also probably not error. This gets back to Ben's point above that the Greek genitive (sea) of GMark, a Semitic usage, defends against error under this criterion as "sea" is understood as genitive and the main identifier is the accompanying word "Galilee".



Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the Gerasa error is a minority Critical Text corruption

Post by Steven Avery »

JoeWallack wrote:The Gerasene Demoniac:
In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake. If you look at the map below you can see that Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.
Mark 5:1 (AV)
And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.


The only error here was using the modern versions with minority readings from the Westcott-Hort recension.

Otherwise the above that Joe quoted is a good description of the Critical Text blunder. It seems to from a Greek Orthodox fella named Gregory Hallam, and used by Diogenes the Cynic without attribution.

And the apologists using the corruptions versions who try to conflate Gadara and Gerasa are fishing in troubled water.
This one was referenced:

"the region of Gadara/Gerasa = the Decapolis generally." - John McClymont
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Defe ... els.htm#23

A nice theory, with no actual historical backing whatsoever.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Sat Jan 01, 2022 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Maybe a spiritual anointment?

(one of) the OT-allusion(s)
2 Kings 9
1 Then Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets and said to him, “Tie up your garments, and take this flask of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth-gilead. 2 And when you arrive, look there for Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi. And go in and have him rise from among his fellows, and lead him to an inner chamber. 3 Then take the flask of oil and pour it on his head and say, ‘Thus says the Lord, I anoint you king over Israel.’ Then open the door and flee; do not linger.” 4 So the young man, the servant of the prophet, went to Ramoth-gilead.

The foreshadowing
Mark 14:3
a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.

The anointment
Mark 14:32 And they went to a place called Gethsemane (Hebr.: Gat Shmanim = the oil press)
Mark 15:22 And they brought him to the place called Golgotha which means Place of a Skull
Mark 15:26 And the inscription of the charge against him read, “The King of the Jews

pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by pavurcn »

Consider Bauckham:
Richard Bauckham has noted that the geography in Mark is accurate when looked at from the perspective of fisherman from Capernaum, which is consistent with Mark relaying the gospel from Peter, who indeed was a fisherman. Many scholars use modern maps to gauge Mark, which often results in errors in judging Mark's geography. A fisherman would not have had a modern map in mind, but instead a mental map based on his experiential world.[79]
From here. Lecture available here.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

pavurcn wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:16 pm Consider Bauckham:
Richard Bauckham has noted that the geography in Mark is accurate when looked at from the perspective of fisherman from Capernaum, which is consistent with Mark relaying the gospel from Peter, who indeed was a fisherman. Many scholars use modern maps to gauge Mark, which often results in errors in judging Mark's geography. A fisherman would not have had a modern map in mind, but instead a mental map based on his experiential world.[79]
From here. Lecture available here.
and here (Bauckham, Richard. "The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts" (PDF). Retrieved 21 March 2015)

I was very curious about how Bauckham dealt with the famous problems of Mark 5:1 (Gerasa/Gadara) and Mark 7:31 (the way from Tyre via Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis). But he preferred the minor variant „Gergesa“ (an unknown town) at Mark 5:1 and did not comment on Mark 7:31. This is a little disappointing.

Bauckham assumed that „the locations (in GMark) they (Peter & Co.) remembered best were those with which they were already very familiar“ and that „the topography of Jerusalem and the particular places to which Peter went with Jesus will have been etched on Peter’s memory probably more other places to which he had travelled with Jesus. But we should also note that if the author of Mark’s Gospel was John Mark of Jerusalem, as I think there is good reason to suppose, then in this latter part of his narrative Mark’s own intimate knowledge of Jerusalem could have come into play.

Some of Bauckham's problems could be that GMark gives no detailed description of Caphernaum and the best „remembered“ description of place is probably the colt „at a door outside in the street“ in the „village in front of you“ „immediately as you enter it“, when they were drawing „near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives“ (Mark 11:1-4). Furthermore, I tend to think that from Peter's memory we would expect a different designation than the unusual „Sea of Galilee“ and that Caphernaum is called a village and not a town (Mark 1:33). From Bauckham's view one may be also surprised that the name of the mountain of the transfiguration is not mentioned (an overwhelming event, especially for Peter) and perhaps also the name of the mountain of the appointment of the twelve.
Post Reply