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
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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:52 am
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).
It has long seemed to me that the gospel of Mark is better at geography in the Jerusalem area, where more specifics are given, than in Galilee, where vague generalities abound.
Furthermore, I tend to think that from Peter's memory we would expect a different designation than the unusual „Sea of Galilee“....
I think this one would actually work as Peter's memory. Both Aramaic יַם and Hebrew יָם are apparently used to designate both lakes and seas, so it would all be down to the Greek translation of Peter's words. (But, for my money, the influence of the Septuagint is probably in play anyway, in which case Peter's memories become a superfluous explanation.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander »

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.

Sidon is a mistranslation. It is a very trivial nothing that seems to excite the excitable!
Top
________________________________________
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?
• Quote

Post by beowulf » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:12 am
Sidon means Bet Saida (Bethsida)
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.
Should have been translated as follows:
Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Bet Saida, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis


TRACTATE AVODAH ZARAH, CHAPTER THREE, MISHNAH SEVEN:
EXPLANATIONS:
8
Our mishnah now brings a concrete event to illustrate the difference between the sages and Rabbi Shim'on. The incident is described as occurring in 'Zaidan'. It is, of course, very tempting to assume that the reference is to the town of Sidon which today is in Lebanon, several miles north of Nahariyya. But there is considerable evidence to suggect that the reference is, in fact, to the town of Bet Saïda (which in the Christian scriptures as called Bethsaida). This fishing town was near where the river Jordan enters the sea of Galilee in the north.
http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/az/az044.html

Bethsaida and the Talmud

Talmud - Mas. Yevamoth 122a
Abba Judah of Zaidan12
(12) The Biblical iuhm Sidon, on the Western coast of Phoenicia, [or, Bethsaida in Galilee]
Talmud - Mas. Kethuboth 7a
R. Jacob, the son of Idi, said:
R. Johanan gave a decision30 in Zaidan:31
(31) Sidon; [others: Bethsaida]
Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 82a
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 49b
R. Simeon says:
Even these are prohibited if left uncovered. Indeed, added R. Simeon, I once saw at Zaidan17
(17) Sidon or Bethsaida.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=384&start=100
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 »

Theissen takes "sea" for "lake" to be an example of local perspective, citing Aristotle as an analogy:

Aristotle, Meteorology 1.13: That there exist such chasms and cavities in the earth we are taught by the rivers that are swallowed up. They are found in many parts of the earth: in the Peloponnesus, for instance, there are many such rivers in Arcadia. The reason is that Arcadia is mountainous and there are no channels from its valleys to the sea. So these places get full of water, and this, having no outlet, under the pressure of the water that is added above, finds a way out for itself underground. In Greece this kind of thing happens on quite a small scale, but the lake [λίμνη] at the foot of the Caucasus, which the inhabitants of these parts call a sea [θάλατταν], is considerable. Many great rivers fall into it and it has no visible outlet but issues below the earth off the land of the Coraxi about the so-called 'deeps of Pontus'. This is a place of unfathomable depth in the sea: at any rate no one has yet been able to find bottom there by sounding. At this spot, about three hundred stadia from land, there comes up sweet water over a large area, not all of it together but in three places. And in Liguria a river equal in size to the Rhodanus is swallowed up and appears again elsewhere: the Rhodanus being a navigable river.

Aristotle, Meteorology 2.3: Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake [λίμνη] in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them.

What the Dead Sea is to locals (Palestinians) Aristotle calls a lake, and the same goes for that lake at the foot of the Caucasus (possibly Caspian).

But, again, I am not sure how this "local perspective" hypothesis is supposed to fare any better than the idea that Mark was simply influenced by the LXX or by Jewish lore in general, whether directly or indirectly.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander »

The locals call the Black Isle by the wrong name - and so ...



Despite its name, the Black Isle is not an island, but a peninsula, surrounded on three sides by water – the Cromarty Firth to the north, the Beauly Firth to the south, and the Moray Firth to the east with the Rivers Conon and Beauly marking its western edge. Long famous for its rich farmland and the annual Black Isle Show,
...
Come and discover the Black Isle!
http://www.black-isle.info/the-black-isle.asp
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:40 pm Theissen takes "sea" for "lake" to be an example of local perspective, citing Aristotle as an analogy:
No problem with that. I think the unusual is not "sea" but "of Galilee".
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:28 pm In keeping with the last part of what you wrote, "Sea of Galilee" does come off to me a bit like a description, like calling the Hudson the "river of New York" or some such.
I found this a very good example. I tend to think we could expect a "sea of Kinnereth" or "of Gennesar" and probably also a "Paneas" or "Caesarea Paneas" instead of Mark's "Caesarea of Philipp".
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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:04 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:40 pm Theissen takes "sea" for "lake" to be an example of local perspective, citing Aristotle as an analogy:
No problem with that. I think the unusual is not "sea" but "of Galilee".
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:28 pm In keeping with the last part of what you wrote, "Sea of Galilee" does come off to me a bit like a description, like calling the Hudson the "river of New York" or some such.
I found this a very good example. I tend to think we could expect a "sea of Kinnereth" or "of Gennesar" and probably also a "Paneas" or "Caesarea Paneas" instead of Mark's "Caesarea of Philipp".
You are right. I fixated on the "sea" part and forgot the implications of the "Galilee" part. I agree with you here.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander »

Sea of Galilee is better.


"Days before tens of thousands of Israelis descend on the Sea of Galilee for the Sukkot holiday, the Water Authority warned that the freshwater lake is at dangerously low levels and expected to reach “the lowest level ever recorded.”
Thirsty Sea of Galilee sinking toward lowest level ever recorded"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/thirsty-s ... -recorded/

The name Sea of Galilee would have been used by the locals in preference to Kinnereth



"the Galileans retained their own ethnic-geographic identity even after becoming Judeans
The Beginning of Jewishness"
Saye J. D. Cohen
page 18
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Black Sabbath Opens For Nazareth

Post by JoeWallack »

JoeWallack wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2015 9:15 am JW:
Regarding "Mark's" (author) Jesus supposedly coming from Nazareth of Galilee to the supposed baptism, this Thread has identified the following reasons to doubt:
  • 1 - We have problems in general with "Mark's" claimed geographical relationships.

    2 - The Protevangelium of James - = An attempted harmony of the Infancy narratives does not mention "Nazareth" and implies that Jesus grew up in Judea.

    3 - Sextus Julius Africanus = Says that "Nazara" is in Judea

    4 - History of Joseph the Carpenter = Says that "Nazareth" is by Jerusalem.

    5 - Justin Martyr = Implication that "Nazareth" was in Judea

    6 - The Acts of Peter and Paul and Mary says that Nazareth is in Judea.

    7 - Pseudo-Tertullian comments on 1:9 and has no mention of Nazareth

    8 - The parallel verse in GMatthew 3:13 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." lacks "Nazareth" (spin's favorite piece of evidence).

    9 - Hippolytus Fragments = Mainly GMatthew baptism story with no unique quote of GMark and no mention of Nazareth.

    10 - The parallel verse in GLuke 3:21 "Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened," lacks "Nazareth".

    11 - e-catena commentary on 3:21 - no mention of Nazareth.

    12 - The parallel verse in GJohn 1:29 "On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" - no mention of Nazareth.

    13 - e-catena GJohn - Obsession with "the lamb of god". No mentions of Nazareth of Galilee.

    14 - Origen gives a detailed commentary on the contradiction between the Synoptics and GJohn regarding where Jesus went after the baptism but makes no mention of such an issue regarding where Jesus came from for the baptism.

    15 - Sinaiticus, probably the most authoritative manuscript, has Nazareth as a city of Judea in Luke 1:26.
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

As you can see here [reproduction]:

Image

Across from verse 6 in the right hand column is "TONNAZAPNON" ("the Nazarene"), an edited addition which the original lacks.

Myself and others here have often indicated that "Mark" has a style of matching/paralleling things at the start and end of literary sections. Here a lack of "the Nazarene" at the end of GMark with Jesus going to Galilee at the end of the Gospel parallels/matches better with Jesus just coming from Galilee at the start of the Gospel rather than having one side have a Nazareth/Nazarene reference not balanced by the other side.

From a literary criticism standpoint there is also no reason for identification purposes to add "the Nazarene" here to the phrase "ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified" since the narrative has no competing crucified Jesus to possibly get confused with. For that matter, there is likewise no reason to add "who hath been crucified" since there is no other Jesus in the narrative as it stands. More support that has been long suspected for GMatthew's Barrabas, that the original had "Jesus Barabbas". And if GMatthew originally had "Jesus Barabbas", what might the source have been.

Really the evidence above indicates that there was no evidence through the 3rd century that GMark originally had "Nazareth" in 1:9. The simple explanation for why there is no related Patristic reference here to Nazareth in 1:9 and all related Patristic references indicate Jesus' Nazareth was in Judea is that there were no/few manuscripts through the 3rd century that had "Nazareth" This also helps explain why Christianity did not want to preserve Manuscripts of GMark this early.

Word.
JW:
I think the author of GMark would really appreciate the irony of the recent attempts here to find more obscure than the Necronomicon, Origen's Commentary on GMark and Aristotle's Poetics's evidence for whether Jesus was from Nazareth when the best related article is already in plain site in this Forum.

But c'mon gals, we're the Skeptics:
  • 1) Even if "Nazareth" is original to 1:9 it's really not very good evidence that Jesus was "from" Nazareth. Let's just say "Mark" is history challenged.

    2) The context of 1:9 is direction and movement. So what exactly does "from" mean.

    3) Where exactly was this Nazareth?

    4) It's generally agreed that the modern Nazareth is hilly and has ancient tombs in the hills. It would fit "Mark's" style to show that Jesus came from the tombs and went back to the tombs (just like spirit comes from heaven and goes back to heaven).

    5) The general observation, that is exponentially better evidence than anything mentioned in this Forum regarding if Jesus was from Nazareth, is that the overwhelming majority of people in Jesus supposed time did not come from Nazareth.

Joseph

"I agree to stop all terrorist attacks against Israel" - Yassir Arafat - Oslo Accords

The New Porphyry
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

There may have been more than one definition of Judaea. From a note (1997):

"The part of Judaea adjoining Syria is called Galilee, and that next to
Arabia and Egypt Peraea," according to Pliny N.H. V.70, who then listed the
ten toparchies within the area that *we today* usually think of as being
Judaea.
This raises the question of which sense of Judaea (the larger or
smaller area) is meant by various other ancient writers (and their
sources). For instance, when Gabinius, Governor of Syria from 57-55 BCE,
created five synhedria and installed an overseer (epimeletes) in each one,
Josephus refers to the epimeletes of Sepphoris, Galilee as a Judaean
epimeletes (Ant 14.127, 139). [....]

[Related: "Rereading Pliny on the Essenes:
Some Bibliographic Notes"]
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Black Sabbath Opens For Nazareth

Post by Steven Avery »

JoeWallack wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 5:27 pm 11 - e-catena commentary on 3:21 - no mention of Nazareth.
...
13 - e-catena GJohn - Obsession with "the lamb of god". No mentions of Nazareth of Galilee.
Usually much better than e-catena:

Mark 3:21
https://www.catholiccrossreference.onli ... ark%203:21
Post Reply