Christians: Please Explain

[Crossless2.0]

That's a good question, Aractus. I'm not well versed on the bible (as is unfortunately typical for Catholics), but I'm curious to know the answer to this as well. I'm going to message Drich and see if he can answer this for us.

Really? Drich is your go-to guy?

Have some self-respect.

[John V]

I've asked this question before. I never seem to get an honest and straightforward answer. This is a map showing part of first century Palestine.

In Mark 5:1-20/Luke 8:26-39/Matt 8:28-34, Jesus comes across a man possessed by a Legion of daemons, he casts them out into a herd of pigs, and then somehow makes the pigs stampede into the Sea of Galilee to be drowned. A great tale of how Jesus saved a man possessed by evil. But there's a big problem with this story!

Mark 5:1: They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.
Luke 8:26: They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee.
Matt 8:28a: When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes


The problem is that the location is wrong. Mark and Luke both clearly say the location is Gerasa. Gerasa is a full 50km away from the Sea, and that's in a direct line, and that's longer than a marathon.

No, they don't clearly say Gerasa. They say in that region. I'm in the greater Pittsburgh area, but I'm miles from Pittsburgh proper. What they do clearly say - and you'd know this if you read just one verse farther in Mark and Luke - is that this occurred right after they landed and were by the sea.

[Aractus]

I don't understand here.  In one instance you acknowledge my definition, and then the other you ask me to back it up.  "Region" to me is a fairly broad and generalized term.  I am unsure if it is a cultural difference or what, as to why you are being fairly restrictive in it's application.  

Anyways, here is a link to a Babylon translation (keep in mind this is modern use) http://translation.babylon.com/greek/to-...%81%CE%B1/  and here is the strongs definition along with varied uses in the bible http://biblehub.com/greek/5561.htm

No RR, you claimed  that I'm likely "making assumptions based on translation and not what is inherent in the original Greek". That claim you need to back up with evidence. Strong's is a poor dictionary, but I suppose you know that and you're using it anyway just to troll this thread. If you're going to look up the Greek at least use something other than Strong's (Blue Letter Lexicon for example). However what you're claiming is essentially that all modern translators (most of whom by the way are Evangelicals) got the translation wrong, and that smells of straight-up BS to me.

It is incredibly difficult to find genuinely scholarly material for Biblical criticism, as most Journals are not open-access. Thus most of the information that is easily accessed is of poor academic quality, and fundamentally flawed.

Here's one example of a "solution": "I believe that the Textus Receptus has the better reading concerning this textual problem.  The proper reading of the text should be the region of the “Gergesenes” in Matthew’s gospel (8:28), and the region of the “Gadarenes” in Mark’s (5:1) and Luke’s (8:26) gospels." Yep that's right, this guy's solution is to ignore modern scholarship and just "decide" what the correct reading should be arbitrarily. Of course that shouldn't surprise you being the website is literally titled "Bible Archaeology".

Here's another explanation from a militant Evangelical with no academic qualifications (Matt Slick): "In Matthew it says, 'Gadarenes,' while in Mark and Luke it says, 'Gerasenes.' There are two possible explanations for the difference in spelling. First, there could be a minor scribal copying error on the spelling as there are different spellings in different manuscripts. Second, Gadara may have been the capital of the region in the Gerasenes, and Matthew may have simply referred to it by a more local term: the Gaderenes." Notice how he claims it's a "difference in spelling", but is not qualified to make such a determination about the Greek language! Like many Evangelical-Apologist types, they don't like to have their views polluted by modern scholarship. It's fucking pathetic, it's like an art teacher trying to explain chemistry, and why only the art teachers know the real truth, and not the chemists.

You just have to look up the way that the Orthodox church still defends the use of "the" LXX in spite of modern scholarship showing the MT is a far better representation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures to see how apologists will believe whatever their doctrine requires of them, and will forcibly ignore all evidence contrary to their "inspired" beliefs.

So again, I'm not interested in hearing an answer from amateurs, from apologists, from Evangelicals, or from your Bible commentary (which typically represents the views only of Evangelically-minded scholars). I want to hear the answer straight from the most qualified Greek scholars, and no one else.

[Aractus]

No it doesn't, what kind of bullshit is that? People who are indigenous to the land always feel a connection to it, and that's something we've learned pretty conclusively over the last few decades. Let's put it this way: just because "Australia" and its constitute states and territories exist doesn't mean that the Indigenous boundaries don't exist. Yes the Romans occupied and controlled the land, but just as "Israel" today, the indigenous people of the land feel that it is theirs and have their own territories.

where are you getting your history from?  A cereal box?

In 722 BC the Assyrians overran the northern kingdom.  The bible claims that the "Ten Tribes" were moved out and others brought in.  Assyrian records, doubtlessly more accurate as they were written at the time, also indicate that the upper classes of society were relocated and the area, which included Galilee, was under Assyrian control until the Babylonians took it from them and then the Persians took it from the Babylonians and then Alexander took it from the Persians and finally Alexander's generals, Ptolemy and Seleucus fought over it.  The Seleucids were the last people on top of the mountain bringing us down to the mid 2d century BC.  So when did Galilee come under "Jewish" control?  Obviously you have no clue so I'll tell you.

It didn't have to be under Jewish control at all, that was my point. The Hebrew people were indigenous to the land, yes their stories in antiquity do not match the historical and archaeological record, but that doesn't change the fact that they'd been living in the land for several centuries and felt a strong connection to it. It doesn't matter if the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Romans were controlling it, they still felt that it belonged to them.

You started the thread with a good question about the gospel's silly geographical errors, which are well known.  But you need to learn the history of the region and you are not getting that from the stupid fucking bible.

I didn't say the Jews controlled the land (they never controlled the whole of the "promised land" in the Levant, ever), I said they lived in it and felt it belonged to them. Just as exactly what they're doing in modern times in Israel, except that this time they aren't the indigenous people of the land - and the indigenous people (i.e. the Palestinians) are the ones being oppressed just as they themselves were under the Roman empire. Just as ISIL feels the land in Syria & the Levant belongs to them as well FYI.

[Mr Greene]

So what we're getting is 10 upper class families were removed for political reasons and centuries later some bunch claiming descent turns up and demands special treatment...

[Aractus]

Hmm, No.

[Catholic_Lady]

That's a good question, Aractus. I'm not well versed on the bible (as is unfortunately typical for Catholics), but I'm curious to know the answer to this as well. I'm going to message Drich and see if he can answer this for us.

Really? Drich is your go-to guy?

Have some self-respect.

I don't see why that's a bad thing? You may not like him personally, but fact is he's very knowledgeable of the bible.

[athrock]

I've asked this question before. I never seem to get an honest and straightforward answer. This is a map showing part of first century Palestine.

In Mark 5:1-20/Luke 8:26-39/Matt 8:28-34, Jesus comes across a man possessed by a Legion of daemons, he casts them out into a herd of pigs, and then somehow makes the pigs stampede into the Sea of Galilee to be drowned. A great tale of how Jesus saved a man possessed by evil. But there's a big problem with this story!

Mark 5:1: They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.
Luke 8:26: They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee.
Matt 8:28a: When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes


The problem is that the location is wrong. Mark and Luke both clearly say the location is Gerasa. Gerasa is a full 50km away from the Sea, and that's in a direct line, and that's longer than a marathon. Matthew seems to be aware that Mark got it wrong, and so changed the city to Gadara. It would have taken the pigs hours and hours to stampede into the Sea, and I doubt very much that a pig could physically sustain that kind of pace for that length of time. Dogs might be able to do it, but pigs are nowhere near as athletic. Do you really think pigs could run a marathon? If pigs could fly perhaps...

Once you look at it on a map the problem is obvious. It's not as obvious if you just read it in your study-Bible notes as it offers up (seemingly) possible explanations. It's true the Bible doesn't specify the city itself, which does make it possible that the even takes place in Hippus (or perhaps south of Hippus somewhere along the Sea) - at least in Matthew. But Luke and Mark tells us it takes place in the region of Gerasa - and by region it probably means something like a 5-10km radius around the city. Since Gerasa and Gadara are both major cities there is no way they shared a "region", especially north of Gadara.

In another thread, you berated people who make stupid arguments, so I'm surprised to learn that this one occupies enough of your mental energy that you've posted about it more than once. Some questions just nag at us, don't they?

Origen speculated that a town or village named "Gergasa" may have once stood on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, but this is unsupported by archaeological evidence to date.

The two cities, Gadara and Gerasa, may refer to two different levels of regional power, influence and wealth. Here's an example:

If someone who is not from your hometown asks where you are from, you might simply say, "Washington, DC" because they would have an idea where DC is on a map, and that's close enough if you are have a conversation in Tuscon or Liverpool. But if you are talking to someone who is from Washington (or the metro area at least), you might get more specific, and say, "Potomac". If you are really getting specific, you might name the stop on the Metro that is nearest to your home or even name the neighborhood. 

Similarly, it's not clear EXACTLY where the authors referred to in their accounts, but is this REALLY an issue? Three independent authors attest to the event, and you're hung up on the name of the place where it occurred?

I enjoy reading your posts, and your arguments are usually pretty logical and compelling. And yes, there are lots of ways to poke Christians, but I'm not sure this minor issue carries much weight.

[Cyberman]

Really? Drich is your go-to guy?

Have some self-respect.

I don't see why that's a bad thing? You may not like him personally, but fact is he's very knowledgeable of the bible.

That's sort of like asking a rabid Star Trek fan for his opinion on reality. All you're going to get are a thousand and one reasons why Kirk is better than Picard.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I've asked this question before. I never seem to get an honest and straightforward answer. This is a map showing part of first century Palestine.

In Mark 5:1-20/Luke 8:26-39/Matt 8:28-34, Jesus comes across a man possessed by a Legion of daemons, he casts them out into a herd of pigs, and then somehow makes the pigs stampede into the Sea of Galilee to be drowned. A great tale of how Jesus saved a man possessed by evil. But there's a big problem with this story!

Mark 5:1: They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.
Luke 8:26: They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee.
Matt 8:28a: When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes


The problem is that the location is wrong. Mark and Luke both clearly say the location is Gerasa. Gerasa is a full 50km away from the Sea, and that's in a direct line, and that's longer than a marathon. Matthew seems to be aware that Mark got it wrong, and so changed the city to Gadara. It would have taken the pigs hours and hours to stampede into the Sea, and I doubt very much that a pig could physically sustain that kind of pace for that length of time. Dogs might be able to do it, but pigs are nowhere near as athletic. Do you really think pigs could run a marathon? If pigs could fly perhaps...

Once you look at it on a map the problem is obvious. It's not as obvious if you just read it in your study-Bible notes as it offers up (seemingly) possible explanations. It's true the Bible doesn't specify the city itself, which does make it possible that the even takes place in Hippus (or perhaps south of Hippus somewhere along the Sea) - at least in Matthew. But Luke and Mark tells us it takes place in the region of Gerasa - and by region it probably means something like a 5-10km radius around the city. Since Gerasa and Gadara are both major cities there is no way they shared a "region", especially north of Gadara.

Don't forget about the story in Matthew 7:5 (NKJV) where Jesus said: 
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

He was always flapping his jaws in parables so that outsiders wouldn't know what he was really saying.  In the case of the demon-possessed swine jumping off of the cliff it could simply be a reference to the hopeful destruction of a bunck of Gentiles.  He did like to call them swine and dogs.  

The passage could even be a reference to some battle with the Romans in the Jewish revolt sometime around the year 70.  It's an ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale.  It's not supposed to make sense.