--- "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...
> John Lupia wrote:
> > Dear Jeffrey:
> > This is a question of geography and demography. In
> > both Matt. 16:1-4 and Matt 12:38-39 Jesus is in
> > Galilee. Mt 15:21-28 he is in Lebanon at Saida
> > and Sur (Tyre). Mt 15:29-39 Jesus travels 35 miles
> > from Sur (Tyre) to Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee;
> > Lake Tiberias). Mt 15:29b places him on a mountain
> > along the Lake Kinneret rim. Where is uncertain.
> > demographic mix would be predominantly Jewish.
> Even assuming that the Matthew's geography is as
> precise as you believe it is
First, it is what the text says. Second, you are the
one who wishes to know the demography of the mutes. To
ignore the geographic locale that can be considered in
answering or attempting to answer the question, would,
in my opinion, fail to be a complete investigation on
the question and would leave you open to criticism on
that point. Third, I was imprecise myself since I
noticed a lapsus calami on my part when I wrote "Jesus
travels 35 miles NE" when it should have read "Jesus
travels 35 miles SE". Sorry for the typo. Fourth, it
has nothing to do with what I personally believe. I
was pointing out essential material that must be
considered using scientific criteria.
> why do you insist on using terminology for the
> places named at Matt. 15:21 and
> 15:29 that the Matthew himself doesn't use?),
The nomenclature of the geographic places is properly
given with both modern or contemporary names as well
as those given by Matthew or any other antique writer
(the ancient names) as a standard academic form as I
was taught back in graduate biblical studies.
> is still the fact that you
> haven't taken account of -- that the mutes were
> *brought* to Jesus.
This is selective on your part. You choose to not give
credence to Matthew's geography but at the same time
choose to completely believe "that the mutes were
*brought* to Jesus. How do you make determinations on
which parts of the text you selectively choose to
believe and discard or disregard? Moreover, the lame,
blind and mutes were among the crowd that came to
Jesus from the geographic location on the Lake
Kinneret rim that might be identifiable in light of Mt
16:5,13. Since traveling to the other side of the Lake
Kinneret rim placed them within walking distance of
Caesarea Philippi NE it indicates that the time of the
healing of the lame, blind and mutes he was NW in
Upper Galilee as I said yesterday. Being NE in the
district of Caesarea Phili put Jesus then on the
east-west highway, an international trade route
running from there to Sur (Tyre), Lebanon and
Damascus, Syria. If Jesus and the crowds with the
infirm had convened there then your inquiry regarding
Gentile ethnicity would be further strengthened and
legitimized. However, Mt 16:5 tells us they crossed
over to the other side to be in that location. So,
hence, the crux of your question becomes severely
weakened in any attempt to identify the infirm with
Gentile specific ethnicity. However, if you
selectively choose to disregard Matthew's geography
the question of demography will remain open and
answerable exclusively by other criteria that ignores
> issue is where they were brought from, not where
> Jesus is.
This needs to be seriously reconsidered by you if you
are to be taken seriously.
> Besides that, are there no mountains PARA THN
> QALASSAN THS GALILAIAS that are
> Gentile territory? And what do you make of the
> description in Matt. 15:38 that
> the healings take place somewhere away from and
> outside of the region of Magadan?
See my above comments regarding this. Curiously, you
selectively choose to believe this and are aware that
Jesus, in Matthew's description, is on the west side,
not the east. If they are away from Magadan (Magdala)
they are obviously north or possibly south, but
certainly, not east prohibited by Mt 16:5.
John N. Lupia, III
Toms River New Jersey 08757 USA
Fax: (732) 349-3910
God Bless America
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!