Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mark 5:1 "Gerasenes"

Expand Messages
  • joewallack
    JW: Continuing with my textual criticism of your textual criticism of Mark 5:1: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 1 Matthew BY WIELAND WILLKER
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      JW:
      Continuing with my textual criticism of your textual criticism of Mark 5:1:

      A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 1 Matthew BY WIELAND WILLKER

      For TVU 92 27 NA27 Matthew 8:28 you write:

      "Zahn cannot believe that one of the evangelists really used the well known town Gerasa, which is a two day's journey away from the lake
      ...
      If we follow Zahn and rule out Gerasa completely, what was probably the source that led to it? Transcriptionally Gergeshnw/n is more probable:
      gera shnwn
      gergeshnwn
      gadar hnwn
      So, it is probable that Gergeshnw/n was the original reading in Mk (and Lk). Since the reading Gerasa is not found in the Greek tradition of Mt, it is probable that Mt did not read Gergeshnw/n originally. So we are left with Gadarhnw/n for Mt. Josephus calls the area around Gadara (which is about 10 km from the lake) h` Gadari/tij (Bel. Jud. III 10,10), which belonged to the Dekapolis. So, the incident happened eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n Gadarhnw/n. But the mentioned village cannot be Gadara, which is too far away. There must have been a village called Gergesa. Where was this village? Only in the area of es-Samra hills meet the lake. These are called tulul es-se'alib, "fox-hills". Several ruins can be found there, the highest point is 93 m above the lake. This is the argumentation/speculation of Zahn."

      Your wording is unclear as to the primary reason you are quoting Zahn here. Is it primarily because he is an Authority or because his argument has significant weight? If it's because he is an Authority this does not help your conclusion much as Authority in general is clearly against him. Your last related post makes clear you think his argument has weight. Following are his main assertions and the problems I see with them:

      1) Zahn can not believe that "Mark" wrote "Gerasenes" because it would not fit the physical requirements of the story. As I already mentioned, it's more likely that "Mark" originally wrote it than subsequent scribes who would have had the benefit of hundreds of years of thought on the subject and a more historical based assumption.

      2) He does not consider "Gerasenes" as a possible transcription ancestor because of 1) so his only transcription candidate for "Gadarenes" is "Gergesenes". Close, but so is "Gerasenes". And again, the transcription exercise is secondary as we have superior evidence (Sinaiticus and Patristic) that "Gerasenes" is the ancestor. Also, Gadarenes can be better explained as editing for a position closer to the Sea.

      3) He says "Gerasenes" is not in the Greek tradition of "Matthew" but Origen/Eusebius not only indicate it was but are evidence that it was the dominant Greek text.

      To summarize how I see the External Categories and my related objections to your commentary:

      1) Manuscript = I see the quality as favoring "Gerasenes". I also observe the related dividing of the Manuscripts here as a pattern with the "Gerasenes" team usually on the winning Textual Criticism side. Your observation?

      2) Patristic = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". You seem to be dismissing Origen/Eusebius because they do not say "Mark" rather than just discounting. Why?

      3) Scribal = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". Sinaticus' correction is unreMarkable to you?

      4) Authority = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". I find the attention you give to Zahn inconsistent with the position of Authority here in general. I assume you accept that Authority says "Gerasenes". Why no weight?

      Note that all of the above coordinate. In Origen/Eusebius' time the text was "Gerasenes". Origen famously objects to "Gerasenes" as not fitting and proposes "Gergesenes" with no Manuscript support. Subsequent Editors accept Origen and change from "Gerasenes". In summary you are rejecting this known explanation and instead selecting an inferior one which is unknown.

      I'll cover the Internal evidence next.


      Joseph















       
    • George F Somsel
      All of this speculation regarding the reference to the location was to a known locality.  If, as seems likely, the physical location was not well known to the
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        All of this speculation regarding the reference to the location was to a known locality.  If, as seems likely, the physical location was not well known to the author, the author may have supplied any location name which became known to him.  The actual location of the site is somewhat immaterial.
         
        george
        gfsomsel

        search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________

        From: joewallack <joewallack@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 11:07 AM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 5:1 "Gerasenes"

         

        JW:
        Continuing with my textual criticism of your textual criticism of Mark 5:1:

        A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 1 Matthew BY WIELAND WILLKER

        For TVU 92 27 NA27 Matthew 8:28 you write:

        "Zahn cannot believe that one of the evangelists really used the well known town Gerasa, which is a two day's journey away from the lake
        ...
        If we follow Zahn and rule out Gerasa completely, what was probably the source that led to it? Transcriptionally Gergeshnw/n is more probable:
        gera shnwn
        gergeshnwn
        gadar hnwn
        So, it is probable that Gergeshnw/n was the original reading in Mk (and Lk). Since the reading Gerasa is not found in the Greek tradition of Mt, it is probable that Mt did not read Gergeshnw/n originally. So we are left with Gadarhnw/n for Mt. Josephus calls the area around Gadara (which is about 10 km from the lake) h` Gadari/tij (Bel. Jud. III 10,10), which belonged to the Dekapolis. So, the incident happened eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n Gadarhnw/n. But the mentioned village cannot be Gadara, which is too far away. There must have been a village called Gergesa. Where was this village? Only in the area of es-Samra hills meet the lake. These are called tulul es-se'alib, "fox-hills". Several ruins can be found there, the highest point is 93 m above the lake. This is the argumentation/speculation of Zahn."

        Your wording is unclear as to the primary reason you are quoting Zahn here. Is it primarily because he is an Authority or because his argument has significant weight? If it's because he is an Authority this does not help your conclusion much as Authority in general is clearly against him. Your last related post makes clear you think his argument has weight. Following are his main assertions and the problems I see with them:

        1) Zahn can not believe that "Mark" wrote "Gerasenes" because it would not fit the physical requirements of the story. As I already mentioned, it's more likely that "Mark" originally wrote it than subsequent scribes who would have had the benefit of hundreds of years of thought on the subject and a more historical based assumption.

        2) He does not consider "Gerasenes" as a possible transcription ancestor because of 1) so his only transcription candidate for "Gadarenes" is "Gergesenes". Close, but so is "Gerasenes". And again, the transcription exercise is secondary as we have superior evidence (Sinaiticus and Patristic) that "Gerasenes" is the ancestor. Also, Gadarenes can be better explained as editing for a position closer to the Sea.

        3) He says "Gerasenes" is not in the Greek tradition of "Matthew" but Origen/Eusebius not only indicate it was but are evidence that it was the dominant Greek text.

        To summarize how I see the External Categories and my related objections to your commentary:

        1) Manuscript = I see the quality as favoring "Gerasenes". I also observe the related dividing of the Manuscripts here as a pattern with the "Gerasenes" team usually on the winning Textual Criticism side. Your observation?

        2) Patristic = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". You seem to be dismissing Origen/Eusebius because they do not say "Mark" rather than just discounting. Why?

        3) Scribal = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". Sinaticus' correction is unreMarkable to you?

        4) Authority = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". I find the attention you give to Zahn inconsistent with the position of Authority here in general. I assume you accept that Authority says "Gerasenes". Why no weight?

        Note that all of the above coordinate. In Origen/Eusebius' time the text was "Gerasenes". Origen famously objects to "Gerasenes" as not fitting and proposes "Gergesenes" with no Manuscript support. Subsequent Editors accept Origen and change from "Gerasenes". In summary you are rejecting this known explanation and instead selecting an inferior one which is unknown.

        I'll cover the Internal evidence next.


        Joseph















         


      • schmuel
        Hi Folks, Matthew 8:28 (AV) And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Folks,

          Matthew 8:28 (AV)
          And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes,
          there met him two possessed with devils,
          coming out of the tombs,
          exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

          Wieland Willker expounding on Theodor Zahn
          " Since the reading Gerasa is not found in the Greek tradition of Mt, it is probable that Mt did not read Gergeshnw/n originally."

          Steven
          Here we have the famous evidence from silence expanded into the silence of a non-corruption, a very thin reed :) .

          Wieland
          So we are left with Gadarhnw/n for Mt. Josephus calls the area around Gadara (which is about 10 km from the lake) h` Gadari/tij (Bel. Jud. III 10,10), which belonged to the Dekapolis.

          Steven
          This Gadarenes--Decapolis connection is very important. 
          Here is where Decapolis is mentioned, in Mark, not in Matthew. 

          Mark 5:20  (AV)
          And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

          With the Gergesenes region as Kursi, across from Tiberias, that is not a Decapolis region, as it is above Hippo. Thus, allowing that the Gospel writers were well informed, the Decapolis reference is one of many that supports the Received Text - Greek Majority text reading, Gadarenes, matching Decapolis, for Mark and Luke, Gergesenes for Mattthew.  (Putting aside the attempt to place Kursi with Samra.)

          Wieland
          So, the incident happened eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n Gadarhnw/n.
          But the mentioned village cannot be Gadara, which is too far away.

          Matthew 8:33
          And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city,
          and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

          Luke 8:27
          And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man,
          which had devils long time, and ware no clothes,
          neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

          Steven
          You can not read too much into this, as evidence for or against. The city could have been the few mile trek up the hills (walking distances was far more common in those days, as we see in the Bible) or there could have been a Gadarene port village on the lake, your other alternative.

          Wieland
          There must have been a village called Gergesa. Where was this village? Only in the area of es-Samra hills meet the lake. 

          Steven
          There is an etymological difficulty here.
          If you claim Samra was somehow Gergesa, then it becomes the region of the Samra, not just a village.

          Wieland
          These are called tulul es-se'alib, "fox-hills". Several ruins can be found there, the highest point is 93 m above the lake. This is the argumentation/speculation of Zahn."

          Steven
          This is a bit stale, as incomplete info, as the Kursi identification is more common today for Gergesenes, across from Tiberias. While I disagree with Franz on some elements, this is the basic factual info about Gergesa, he simply mentions the two possibilities. 

          Note that Franz does not talk of the region of Samra, or even a village, simply that the hill was called Samra at one good, southern (Gadarene) spot.

          The Demoniacs of Gadara
          Gordon Franz
          http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2011/03/07/the-demoniacs-of-gadara.aspx
          The text is clear that this event took place on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Two (maybe three) possible sites have been proposed for the setting of the casting of the demons into the swine. The first possibility, which is now a National Park, is the Byzantine Kursi church on the southern banks of the Wadi Samek. The other possibility is Tel Samra, situated under the campground of Kibbutz Ha�on.

          Stevem
          Now we switch to JW.

          JW:
           Zahn  ...  does not consider "Gerasenes" as a possible transcription ancestor because of 1) so his only transcription candidate for "Gadarenes" is "Gergesenes".

          Steven
          This is a reasonable point to make against the minority alexandrian reading of Gadarenes in the text of Matthew. Although, harmonization can often supply a missing possible vector of original inclusion. And you can not read too much into scribal mind-reading theories when there are overlapping elements, like the complex dual-language, lectio difficilior, geography knowledge, harmonization and word-similarity considerations.  You can always have a theory for A to Z.)

          JW
          Close, but so is "Gerasenes". And again, the transcription exercise is secondary as we have superior evidence (Sinaiticus and Patristic) that "Gerasenes" is the ancestor.

          Steven
          This is basically the same type of error JW made earlier, the previous post.

          Gerasenes is exceedingly week in Matthew, Sinaiticus supports Gadarenes with correction to Gergesenes. Plus ECW support is weakest of all. So it is hard to fathom what JW is arguing here, perhaps that Gerasenes was the lost Greek "ancestor" of Gadarenes.  However, Gadarenes, if not original in Matthew (and I believe not) is easily explained by harmonization and geographical familiarity as derived from Gergesenes. Thus it does call out for any simplistic transcriptional vector, a concern which is grossly overrated in this verse study.

          JW
          Also, Gadarenes can be better explained as editing for a position closer to the Sea. 

          Steven
          Except that Alexandrian scribes in gnostic lands are not known for familiarity with Israel geography.
          e.g. Sinaiticus talks of Nazareth, a city of Judea, a blunder that is generally hidden from view.

          JW
          3) He says "Gerasenes" is not in the Greek tradition of "Matthew" ....

          Steven
          Which it clearly is not in the extant tradition.
          The discussion of Origen is limited by the simple fact that he does not discuss any particular books of the three synoptic Gospels.

          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
          Queens, NY
        • Wieland Willker
          The manuscript evidence is divided and I consider the case impossible to judge from external evidence. But I agree that the evidence for Gerasa is strong in Mk
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            The manuscript evidence is divided and I consider the case
            impossible to judge from external evidence. But I agree that
            the evidence for Gerasa is strong in Mk and Lk.
            You asked: "Sinaticus' correction is unreMarkable to you?"
            Yes, since it is harmonistic. The corrector changed the
            reading in all Gospels to Gergesa.

            Origen seems to have Gerasa as the majority(?) reading, that
            is true, but he is assigning no specific Gospel to it.
            Eusebius is mentioning the names in his Onomastikon without
            assigning a Gospel. What does this help?
            Epiphanius is assigning the names to each Gospel and he has
            Gergesa for Mk and Lk and Gadara in Mt, which is in
            agreement with the analysis of Zahn.

            I don't mention Zahn, because he is an authority. He is, but
            this is not important. I think his argumentation is one
            possible, although tentative explanation. I am very
            unconfident that it is correct. It is basically possible of
            course that Mark (and Lk) wrote Gerasa originally. Note
            Origen! Then, the other names might be attempts to correct
            the geographical problem.

            I think that this is overall very difficult to judge. In the
            end I left the case as "indecisive".


            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            --------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

            Please check out the TC forum:
            http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.