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

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Let's get this party started. Hell Yah(weh)!

1:5

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
1607 [e]	exeporeueto	ἐξεπορεύετο	went out	V-IIM/P-3S
4314 [e]	pros	πρὸς	to	Prep
846 [e]	auton	αὐτὸν	him	PPro-AM3S
3956 [e]	pasa	πᾶσα	all	Adj-NFS
3588 [e]	hē	ἡ	the	Art-NFS
2449 [e]	Ioudaia	Ἰουδαία	of Judea	N-NFS
5561 [e]	chōra	χώρα	region,	N-NFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3588 [e]	hoi	οἱ	they	Art-NMP
2415 [e]	Hierosolymitai	Ἱεροσολυμῖται*	of Jerusalem	N-NMP
3956 [e]	pantes	πάντες,	all	Adj-NMP
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
907 [e]	ebaptizonto	ἐβαπτίζοντο	were baptized	V-IIM/P-3P
5259 [e]	hyp’	ὑπ’	by	Prep
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ	him	PPro-GM3S
1722 [e]	en	ἐν	in	Prep
3588 [e]	tō	τῷ	the	Art-DMS
2446 [e]	Iordanē	Ἰορδάνῃ	Jordan	N-DMS
4215 [e]	potamō	ποταμῷ	river,	N-DMS
1843 [e]	exomologoumenoi	ἐξομολογούμενοι	confessing	V-PPM-NMP
3588 [e]	tas	τὰς	the	Art-AFP
266 [e]	hamartias	ἁμαρτίας	sins	N-AFP
846 [e]	autōn	αὐτῶν.	of them.	PPro-GM3P

JW
"Mark" is really getting off to a bad start here. "All" of Judea and "all" of Jerusalem? "Mark" did not know or at least did not care that Jerusalem was part of Judea? Would someone seeing this for the first time in BFE know that Jerusalem was part of Judea?

Note that the Jordan forms the North-east border of Judea:



Quite a haul from Southwest Judea. And only everyone from Judea? Josephus doesn't say John did business in the Jordan. But The Jewish Bible says the watered down story of Elijah/Elisha was there. "Matthew's" reaction?:

Matthew 3:5

Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan

Note that "Matthew" tries to preserve all the key words but exorcises one "all" and flips the order to Jerusalem and than Judea (smaller to larger) to try and move the presentation from duplication to increase. He also addresses the border issue of the Jordan adding, "and all the region round about Jordan".

Technically a geographical error by "Mark" duplicating all of Judea and all of Jerusalem and the combination of only all of Judea going to the Jordan is also suspect. Intent by "Mark" is secondary here as if "Mark" has presented geographical error here the cause could have been unintentional (ignorance) or intentional (style). Further analysis of "Mark's" geographical presentations will help move this question to a conclusion. At this point "Mark's" geography is likely 0 for 1.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

JW:

the cause could have been unintentional (ignorance) or intentional (style)

or a little bit irony ("confessing their sins"), made by Mark especially for JW

[andrewcriddle]

I think XWRA χώρα is being used to mean surrounding countryside compare John 11:55

Andrew Criddle

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Typically, it refers to fields directly around a town, and figuratively as the "country" in general. It can basically just be read as "from the fields," or "from the country." The verse, as phrased, is only drawing a difference between the city of Jerusalem and the rural areas of Judea. - "from both the city and the sticks."

I think Bethabara (the alleged baptism site) is in the wrong place on that map, by the way. The traditional site (and the current tourist site) is further south in Judea roughly across the river from Jericho.

[Tenorikuma]

Regarding Bethabara:

Bethabara (Heb., "house of the ford"), where John was baptizing (John 1:28 KJV, favored by Origen; the best manuscripts, however, and now the RSV read "Bethany"). John 1:28 describes the place of baptizing as "beyond the Jordan," but a sixth-century mosaic floor map discovered in Madeba, Jordan, shows Bethabara on the west side of the river, near the present traditional site of Jesus' baptism.

The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition (1996)

Translation: We don't know where the !@#$ Bethabara was.

[JoeWallack]

JW:

the cause could have been unintentional (ignorance) or intentional (style)

or a little bit irony ("confessing their sins"), made by Mark especially for JW

JW:
Hey Kuni "Mark" kata,
ain't no passing phrase.
It's "Mark's" problem free, reality.
Hey Kuni "Mark" kata.

I think everyone would agree that "Mark" has exaggerated here (even France in TNIGTC!):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

1:5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

I think the use of the double positive here "all of Judea" and "all of Jerusalem" at the beginning is meant to stand in opposition (so to speak) and contrast to the double negative at the end:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.

Literally "to none, nothing". You have the maximum positive "all" repeated twice and the maximum negative "none" repeated twice.

The irony is at the start everyone is coming to the messenger John while at the end no one is coming to the messenger Jesus even though messenger John prophesied that messenger Jesus was greater.

The style and theme of "Mark" represented above is probably the best category of evidence for Markan priority as we see it gradually being removed in subsequent Gospels. It is also indicative of original "Mark" being reMarkably well preserved.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[steve43]

Not sure about your map.

Prior to the revolt, Judea and Samaria were under Roman administration. Galilee and Perea were under herod Antipas as a client kingdom, as was the Gaulonitis and other northern territories un Herod Philip.

The Decapolis cities and surrounding territories administered themselves, though under the jurisdiction of Syria- as technically all the eastern lands were.

[JoeWallack]

I think XWRA χώρα is being used to mean surrounding countryside compare John 11:55

Andrew Criddle

JW:

http://biblehub.com/text/john/11-55.htm

305 [e]	anebēsan	ἀνέβησαν	went up	V-AIA-3P
4183 [e]	polloi	πολλοὶ	many	Adj-NMP
1519 [e]	eis	εἰς	to	Prep
2414 [e]	Hierosolyma	Ἱεροσόλυμα	Jerusalem	N-ANP
1537 [e]	ek	ἐκ	out of	Prep
3588 [e]	tēs	τῆς	the	Art-GFS
5561 [e]	chōras	χώρας	region	N-GFS

JW:
I think this helps your attempted defense some but not enough. There are still significant differences between the use of the offending word here and in 1:5:

• 1) "All" is attached to both areas in 1:5.
  
  2) Both areas are named in 1:5.
  
  3) The two areas have a relation here ("to") while 1:5 is just a conjunction.

I don't think you are going to find a good parallel usage to 1:5 for a type of description which is not rare. Default than, to me, is error. Again, this is "Mark's" style, unusual presentation to emphasize something at that point.

The general meaning of the offending word is a general or specific geographical area or location that is significantly greater than a city. Could the meaning just be Judea outside of Jerusalem and Jerusalem? Possible. Maybe the intent was to emphasize that even though John was distant from the city, not only the country folk but the big city as well went to him. I don't think the Way "Mark" said that would have been considered proper. All subsequent Gospels, that used "Mark" as a base, changed it.

Does the context create the meaning of Judea outside of Jerusalem and Jerusalem? Maybe. If you already knew the geography that meaning could make sense. If you did not? I think you would think Judea and Jerusalem were two different geographical places.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

Typically, it refers to fields directly around a town, and figuratively as the "country" in general. It can basically just be read as "from the fields," or "from the country." The verse, as phrased, is only drawing a difference between the city of Jerusalem and the rural areas of Judea. - "from both the city and the sticks."

I think Bethabara (the alleged baptism site) is in the wrong place on that map, by the way. The traditional site (and the current tourist site) is further south in Judea roughly across the river from Jericho.

JW:
Let's take a look at all the chōra of possible meaning:

3956 [e]	pasa	πᾶσα	all	Adj-NFS
3588 [e]	hē	ἡ	the	Art-NFS
2449 [e]	Ioudaia	Ἰουδαία	of Judea	N-NFS
5561 [e]	chōra	χώρα	region,	N-NFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3588 [e]	hoi	οἱ	they	Art-NMP
2415 [e]	Hierosolymitai	Ἱεροσολυμῖται*	of Jerusalem	N-NMP

We have the following reasons to think that "Mark" does simply mean all of Judea here:

• 1) "Judea" and "region" are connected nouns here. This suggests one combined noun as in "the province of Judea". "Countryside" or "fields" would be an adjective. "All" here is connected to "Judea region" so it refers directly to a place and not inhabitants.
  
  2) The use of "all" fits better with a definite geographical area such as the province of Judea than it would an indefinite area.
  
  3) This is the author's first use of "Judea" so it would be natural to indicate the type of area here, a province.
  
  4) I believe that "chōra" would be a natural word for a province. See Matthew 2:12, Luke 3:1, 15:13, Acts 16:6

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[neilgodfrey]

For what it's worth, R. Steven Notley in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (128, no. 1, 2009: 183-188) argued that Jesus' itinerary in Mark was based on Isaiah 9:1 --

-- by the way of the sea
-- the other side of Jordan
-- Galilee of the Gentiles

http://vridar.org/2010/08/06/mark-faile ... e-student/