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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

Kartagraphy Markoff, Missing the Mark. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?


JW:
This Thread is inspired by a recent post by the Holy Con/Pro Fessor of the Faith in historical Jesus, James McGrath (JM)[bold mine]:
Where Jesus May Have Walked

We also passed through Cana. This led to a thought about mythicism: The likelihood that Christians in some other part of the world decided to turn a belief in a purely celestial figure into a narrative about a historical one, set it in this part of the world, and got so many place and people names authentic and accurate would be nothing short of a miracle. And so historical study prefers a more probable scenario, that there is some genuine reminiscence of actual events this part of the world in the origins of Christianity. Everyone gets some things wrong, and many of the stories told are at best highly mythologized developments from stories about things that happened. But this is only one part of the picture. Getting details right in a time before accessible written records or encyclopedias was far more difficult than mythicists seem to realize, and so when it happens, it often reflects access to accurate information, whether oral or written.
I read this (which I now read in place of the Sunday Comics) as I was having my customary breakfast of sour grapes and had a John Stewart moment of a reflexive spewing onto my screen (thanks Jim). The accurate geography is evidence for historicity? What you talking bout Baruch Wills us!?

For the more learned Skeptics here, "Mark", the original Gospel, has something of a reputation for bad geography. Our own Diogenes the Cynic has a, as Larry David would say, pretty, pretty good summary of "Mark's" god-awful geography here:

Shredding the Gospels: Contradictions, Errors, Mistakes, Fictions
3. The Gospels contain factual errors

It's hard to know where to start with this one or how to categorize the errors so I guess I'll just take the Gospels one at a time starting with Mark.

Errors in Mark

Mark probably has the greatest number of factual inaccuracies. He makes mistakes of geography, custom and law. The trial before the Sanhedrin is Mark's invention and is a catalogue of errors unto itself but let's start with geography.

Geographical Errors

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.

Matthew recognized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.
As usual I've inventoried some of the more grievous Markan geographical errors at ErrancyWiki such as Jewrassic Pork (above):

Mark 5:1

which I think is now the best article ever written on the subject and in customary fashion, after having checked a few related references in books, some related searching on the Internet when I had nothing better to do and fruitlessly arguing with one or two Apologists, I have Faith that I Am the foremost authority the world has ever known on the subject.

The traditional question asked in Polemics regarding the relationship of "Mark" and geography is:

Did "Mark" get any geography wrong?

but after skimming (love that word) through "Mark", again, thanks to JM, I think the better question is:

Did "Mark" get any geography right?

I confess that the title of this Thread is an attention getter. I think everyone except for aa/MM would agree that "Mark" got some geography right, like say Jerusalem being in Israel (But how do we know Jesus was not Mel Torme?). But if we raise the Bar (so to speak) for geographical competence to Geographical Relationships, did "Mark" get anything right? Let's say for the sake of argument that "Mark" was composed in Rome. It strikes me that it would be typical for Romans of the time to have heard the names of some places in Israel and the surroundings but not to be familiar with the geographical relationships. Let's say you are from New York. You know that Minneapolis and St. Paul are in Minnesota but do you know where they are in relation to each other?

The purpose of this Thread will be to count how many geographical relationships "Mark" probably got wrong and how many, if any, he got right.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

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

Post by Blood »

Saxo Grammaticus got a lot of Danish place names correct in Gesta Danorum, so that's proof right there Odin was real. Case closed!

Is McGrath going to continue to make these silly arguments until the day he dies?
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

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

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

Has McGrath been able to find Iscarioth or Haramathea?
User avatar
hjalti
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:28 am

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

Post by hjalti »

This Thread is inspired by a recent post by the Holy Con/Pro Fessor of the Faith in historical Jesus, James McGrath (JM)[bold mine]:
Isn't it basic "internet etiquette" to provide a link to writings you're responding to? Here's James' post: Where Jesus May Have Walked.
User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

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

Post by Tenorikuma »

It's funny. I've been a longtime reader of McGrath's blog (years and years). I never even considered the mythicist view of Jesus to be a plausible theory until McGrath started posting his arguments for historicity and I saw how bad they were.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

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

Post by Blood »

Tenorikuma wrote:It's funny. I've been a longtime reader of McGrath's blog (years and years). I never even considered the mythicist view of Jesus to be a plausible theory until McGrath started posting his arguments for historicity and I saw how bad they were.
:D
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Which is doubly ironic because one of McGrath's biggest fears has always been that he would give skepticism of the existence of Jesus credibility just by talking about it. This has motivated the manner in which he has sometimes treated the topic (towards being a bit more dismissive than he otherwise might - something he has been explicit about).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

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

Post by spin »

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Has McGrath been able to find Iscarioth or Haramathea?
These are understandable. Iscariot is not a place name. It is usually in apposition with Judas while Luke specifies it as an added name (επικαλουμενον). It is usually taken to reflect Ish-Kerioth, ie "man from Kerioth", a town in Judea. Dunno if it is true, but we do find names in the old testament such as Ishbaal. Arimathea has a Greek place suffix, which when removed reflects αρημωθ in LXX Josh 20:8, the Hebrew of which is rendered in English Ramoth. Josephus has various forms of the name including Aramathe and Ariman (eg AJ 9.105).
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

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

Post by stephan happy huller »

Did someone say Ish?
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

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

Post by spin »

stephan happy huller wrote:Did someone say Ish?
Yeah, ish. You ind them in resh water or not.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Post Reply