Country of Gergesenes...Gadarenes: Where did the pigs run?

FSSL

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,826
Reaction score
659
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
The problem with geography is, that geography changes. That is, the names of places change. So, this could cause some confusion. In fact, this has caused some textual confusion in the mss which shows in the English translations.

Matthew 8:28
KJV "And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils..."(Mt 8:28).
NIV "When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men..." (cf. ESV, NASB)

Then, there seems to be an inconsistency that we see in the synoptics. The KJV flips Gergesenes with Gadarenes.

Luke 8:26
KJV "And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee."
NIV "They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee." (cf. ESV, NASB)

The KJVO certainly cannot have this! Why would Luke 8 agree with modern versions in Matthew 8?

First, we need to get one issue off the table. These are the same events. The differences in names is not enough to simply say, that there were two swine demonizations.

Similar city names exist in different locales. See map below.

City names go through changes in pronunciations and spellings through the years. We know from modern geography (excavations on the East shore of Galilee) that the modern city of Kursi is the most likely location. Even this city has been called different things: Kursi, Koursi and Kersa.

The red dot with Gergesa is where modern Kursi is.

One commentator (Lane) says: "... a town whose name is preserved in the modern Kersa or Koursi. At the site of Kersa, the shore is level, and there are no tombs. But about a mile further south there is a fairly steep slope within forty yards from the shore, and about two miles from there cavern tombs are found which appear to have been used for dwellings."

In fact, scholars are pretty well convinced that modern Kursi is the location. ISBE states "Origen’s comment that there was a village called Gergesa on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee was confirmed in the course of road-building operations in 1970. D. Urman has excavated a first-century a.d. fishing village, called Kursi in Jewish sources, and a fifth-century a.d. church that commemorated the site of the miracle." 1:281

map-swine.jpg
 
Hi FSSL! Nice post.

Yes, while KJVOs struggle to reconcile everything in Scripture in such a way as to fill all of their doctrine's little superstition-pigeonholes just so, a simple reference to local tradition, plus a look at appropriate maps, and noting the relationship of potential locations to both an appropriately sized body of water and to historic tomb-sites, provides a viable and historically defensible result.
 
Not to mention Mark 5:1....

I'm certain a KJVO would say they are different cities but in the same region as to allow for Matthew (as translated in the KJV) calling it by one name and "Mark/Luke" another. The "Vulgate" makes the same mistake and most like is the source of the mistake finding its way into the KJV. Too bad there isn't an early Greek witness to the KJV rendering.... :)
 
Hi,

Nope, they are not the same events. Luke and Mark occurs in the Gadara area, and Matthew occurs in Gergesenes (Kursi), you even show the distinction very well in the map.  The Gadara region extended, with a port, to the Sea of Galilee in the southern part, toward the east, where the map has Ma'agen.

The two locales are unrelated geographically and are many miles away and they are not even contiguous, the Decapolis area of Hippos (Susita) intervening.  The area closer to the northern Golan, with the cliff area right by the water, Gergesenes, was never called Gadara, the southern area (famous for an incredible hot springs).  And there are about 10 distinct differences in the accounts, Mark and Luke agreeing, Matthew different, as confirmation.  This makes a very nice study in scripture purity and precision, even chronology is involved.

Nothing occurs at Gerasa, that would be 35 miles away in Jordan, a swine marathon. 

This is a major problem, a hard error, in the modern versions from the Alexandrian text, and the problem is also in the Vulgate.

(Modern Bible scholarship, stuck with the Critical Text errors, tends to simply say that Mark has geographical errors. And the skeptics and the errantists run with that conclusion.  Those apologists stuck with the Critical Text error will always have 'answers', of a sort.)

The Vulgate and Peshitta have similar errors of harmonizing to one area, although with different names, Peshitta to Gadarenes, Vulgate to the marathon Gerasenes.  To complete the harmonization triangle, the Jerusalem lectionary harmonizes to Gergesenes.

To give an example, the Decapolis region extended up to Hippos (near Kibbutz Ein Gev on the map) and that was below Gergesenes.  While Gadara was part of the Decapolis region and thus you have:

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

Since the whole Gerasa (Gerasenes) error likely occurred by bumbling Egyptian scribes who would know well the name Gerasa but for whom Gergesenes would be a puzzle, you would expect Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to have the names wrong, and they fulfill expectations.  (They have many geography blunders, e.g. Sinaiticus has 'Nazareth in Judea' and even in the modern versions is the infamous 'synagogues of Judea' in Luke 4:44, the list goes on, Sinaiticus even messes up Gadarenes as Gazarenes.)

Let's look at Mark 5:1 as an example, referenced above. In addition to the usual very strong Greek majority manuscript support, there is, given in LaParola, early support from the Syriac Diatessaron, the Syriac Peshitta and the Gothic line, in addition to the Origen analysis.  The sister verses in Luke 8:26 and 8:37 add the Curetonian Syriac. And Zahn adds additional supports like the Onomastica Sacra of Eusebius, which is referenced by Jerome.

Mark 5:1 
And they came over unto the other side of the sea,
into the country of the Gadarenes.

There is also strong and early Greek uncial support for the pure Bible text, LaParola gives as supporting Gadarenes as:  A C E F G H K Π Σ

(Sometimes the NA-UBS apparatus hides a number of Byzantine uncials by a trickster methodology, however that likely does not apply here, in what is given by LaParola.)

Incidentally, Origen was very helpful on these geography issues, one reason why criticisms of Origen should be done with some caution as to the topic (geography and doctrine are very different).  And in some cases, like here, Origen was clearly concerned with the fealty and accuracy of the Bible text, when faced with the mixed textual tradition. While Origen did not understand that there were dual accounts, or that the country of the Gadarenes extended to the Sea of Galilee, he understood well the nature of the Gerasenes corruption.

And it should also be noted that the apologetic for the corrupt text is rather wild.  Examples,  James Patrick Holding in Tektonics gives a rather absurd Milwaukee analogy, while Bruce Terry tries to make it all the Decapolis country.  William L. Lane in 1974 says that somehow Gergesenes was called Gerasa in some undocumented and unknown way, this idea is simply a phantom argument with zero actual  support. (Ironically, there actually is a 2nd Gadara, the second distant from the Sea of Galilee, these names are not mysteries.)  These fallback positions are desperation measures,  phantom apologetics for the modern versions here is rather awkward, in addition to being totally unnecessary, since it is all for a minority corruption.  Better to drop the TR-AV animus, even if for only for a couple of verses, and simply embrace and appreciate the pure word of God. :)

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
There is a real problem with the view that these were two events in two different places. The geography mentioned by Mark (5:1ff) matches the geography of the other events. Avery's suggestion that there was another event in Gadara is biblically problematic. There are no hillsides running into the sea. The "country of the Gadarenes" is not on the opposite side of Galilee. It is below the sea of Galilee.

There is a bit of playing around by Avery. Note that Avery words this in such a way as to suggest this. He says, "There is also strong and early Greek uncial support for the pure Bible text, LaParola gives as supporting Gadarenes as:  A C E F G H K Π Σ"

Fact is, there is even earlier Greek uncial support for the other readings.

This issue is not resolved by mss dating alone. It is resolved by making the best sense of Scripture and not making strains to protect one's superstition about the biblical text.
 
Hi,

There are some interesting points made by FSSL, and some fudgy ones.

Mark 5:1 
And they came over unto the other side of the sea,
into the country of the Gadarenes.

The "country of the Gadarenes" is almost precisely on the opposite side of the sea from Capernaum, which is the region of the synagogue where Jesus taught and where much of his ministry took place.

Mark 2:1
And again he entered into Capernaum,
after some days;
and it was noised that he was in the house.

From an analysis we can see that the Markan account is chronologically in order in this section. Note, e.g. "the ship" in Mark 5:2  which relates directly to the ship of the calming of the seas.

Mark 4:35 
And the same day,
when the even was come,
he saith unto them,
Let us pass over unto the other side.

However, as with going over all the differences between Mark and Luke compared to Matthew, the full chronology discussion is a survey that is beyond the current posts.

The geography simply does not match well Mark and Luke being Gergesenes.

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

The Decapolis, as I mentioned, works perfectly for Gadara, a major central Decapolis city, yet not Gergesenes, outside the Decapolis borders.

Luke 8:26 
And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes,
which is over against Galilee.

Luke 8:26 as well, since Gergesenes is not "over against Galilee", yet  it is a 100% accurate description for the Gadarene region. The Galilee region goes up to the Jordan, the city of Bet Shean is in the Decapolis region of Scythopolis and is the southern beginning of Galilee, extending up towards the Sea of Galilee.  The Gadarene region is over against this region.

Notice that the NIV and the NLT go out of the way to "help" the corruption, by tampering this verse to read "which is across the lake from Galilee." Error begets error.

===============

Textual Evidence

The evidence including uncials were mentioned in response to the poster above who thought that there was not solid evidence for Mark 5:1 Gadarenes.  The textual evidence is very strong.  It would take pages to go through all the evidences for the verses and variants, so the purpose was simply to use that as a point of response to the poster above. There always is "earlier" Greek uncial support for a modern version corruption, on almost any variant, since they, as a rule, follow Vaticanus.

One area where we agree: "This issue is not resolved by mss dating alone." Not even mss numbers. Nor ECW.  For those of us who understand the purity of the Received Text, providentially given, those issues are corroborative, not probative.

And for those without the pure Bible, the issue will never be resolved. The editions of Lachmann, Alford, Tischendorf and Tregelles all disagreed. In fact, what the critical text cornfuseniks will do is simply take the error spoon-fed to them by Hort and Metzger, and then try to make excuses and hand-waves for the blatant swine marathon error in their version, which really only got there because of the errors in Vaticanus.  And Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are loaded up with geographical errors, so the result is no surprise.

Or, you might claim to be following the latest in the textual criticism world.  Then the paper  "The Gadarene, Gerasene, and Gergesene Variants Reconsidered" by Peter J. Williams would tell you that the "modern editions have chosen the wrong reading in every instance".  So you just would not know nuttin.

==========

There definitely are hillsides in the Gadara region that fit well with the account.  The Glenn Miller Christian Thinktank website goes into that in depth.  He shows how the two locations both fit the basic swine needs. 

Questions on Mark's Geographical Ignorance... Gadara versus Gerasa and the problem of the Long Trip Home
http://christianthinktank.com/giddygaddy.html

Glenn does not address chronology issues, and differences in the accounts, and a few other items.

And he tries, but really fails, to also allow Gerasenes with the false argument inherited from some Christian apologist writings that maybe the region of Gerasa extended 35 miles  to the Sea of Galilee.  This is why Gerasa is an easily understood blunder, even understood by the rare sensible consideration of lectio difficilior.  The scribes far away never heard of Gergesenes and some text was easily smoothed to the well known Gerasa.  (Clearly, with the number of variants, there was a 2-step and more process in textual changes.)

One critical point.  Even if I were mistaken in there being two events (a long and fascinating discussion) the only pericoping that makes any possible sense at all is Gergesenes and Gadarenes.  Gerasenes would remain a modern version blunder from the Vaticanus primacy text.

My assertion is that the two events understanding is the best Bible text explanation, and has been recognized by some writers. It is a good study, however it is interpretation, not scripture.  John Lightfoot, e.g. equating Gergesenes with Girgashites saw that as the wider region. Either way, the modern version blunder of Gerasenes should be rejected for the pure Bible text.  The only reason for the faux apologetics for the Gerasenes swine marathon is the TR-AV animus that is the way of the Hortian fog.

The nature of the mistaken pseudo-apologetics effort (using mostly Glenn Miller's info for now, more can be added) goes like this:

(1) we have the errant Gerasenes in our versions, which our Hortian puppet-meisters tell us is the right text, not the vile and tyrannical Received Text which is in (gasp) the dreaded AV

(2) our versions are, technically, preferably, not supposed to be errant

(although we can fall back on the Warfieldian "who knows what was in the original autographs, you have to prove that to claim an error ... and maybe they only wrote to their knowledge and understanding" types of arguments)

(Here is an example of the Warfieldian approach from Gleason Archer:

"scribal error substituting the name of Gerasa,  possibly because at a later period the name of Gerasa had become more widely known than that of Gadara."  - Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982 p. 324-325

Acknowledge the error, but since we don't claim our texts are the autographs, it doesn't matter and errancy has not been demonstrated in the autographs, only our tangible, reading versions.)

ergo, let's try to work with the text we receive from Hort and Metzger and Aland and Martini:

====

(3a) Gerasenes must have been a name for Gergesenes or Gadarenes
EBCNT, ZIBBC, BKC

(3b) Gerasa must have have extended to the Sea of Galilee, wider regional area
NIVSBN, ZPEB

(3c) Gerasa is referring to Decapolis
[BBC] - also see Richard Thomas (R. T.) France

(3d) a deliberate, allowable error, as a literary device
[BEB, 857] - also Miller "more ‘recognizable’ to Lk/Mk’s readers"

(3e) the phantom city argument, maybe there was a second Gerasa
[Bock, Baker comm. On Luke] - also 3b

(3f) be ultra-creative - Gerasa ...“land of the foreigners?”... an entire region
(GBL I.442–43).

(3g) acknowledge the error, these things happen
[ABD. 2:991] - Archer

(3h) Gerasa region extended 10-15 miles, why not 35 ?
Miller

====

The effort is circular, to the Hortian fog, since with the pure Bible none of this is even relevant.  And it is kitchen sink apologetics as well.  Try not to admit the simple truth, there is a hard error in the versions, the swine marathon, and throw out nuts and bolts and washers and scotch tape, hoping something will stick. 

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Ipsissima Vox, people!  These are the same events but someone wrote a different local.  Its not big deal.  We expect these kind of differences when 3 people are giving various accounts w/ various motives of the same person and story.  It means we know they didn't forge them.  Their testimony is credible this way.  I say, stop trying to harmonize the gospels horizontally and read them vertically on their own merits. 

Handling the synoptic problem w/ different accounts of something that clearly is referring to the same event is the worst approach to take.  It simply means you are more committed to a questionable doctrine than you are to the actual text of Scripture.  I would much rather say that Luke meant what he wrote and Mark/Matthew meant what he wrote of the same event yet have minor disagreement instead of saying that these are 2 different events completely.  Inerrancy has caused much of the gospel studies in fundamentalism to be ridiculed.  Case and point here.

My $.02
 
Hi Folks,

Timotheos, you are squarely in the Warfieldian tradition, which allows that geographical error in the Bible text could simply be a lack of knowledge or understanding of the authors.  Note that this is not traditional Bible infallibility and inerrancy, and became almost a necessity when faced with the errors of the modern versions. The idea of Markan and Lukan geographical error fits well the modern version mentality.

And I referenced this above as the Warfieldian idea that:

and maybe they only wrote to their knowledge and understanding

And above it is one form of approach 3g.:

acknowledge the error, these things happen

Although this is not the scribal error form, it is the author ignorance form of scripture error.

Since you obviously do not understand what I wrote about the idea of two distinct events, and are not really concerned with issues like accurate geography and consistent chronology and a careful study of the sections,  I'll pass over that part of your post. 

Especially since I made it clear that I have no aversion to a pericoping idea, in the manner of John Lightfoot, as long as you are aware of the swine marathon considerations in the modern versions when discussing what is the pure Bible text in the three gospel accounts.

Incidentally, I would agree that the idea of "distinct accounts" is overdone occasionally by writers.  My view is that this particular synoptic group of accounts is rather special and unique in that regard, with very clear markers of independence that really at least requires a more careful review.

Your in Jesus,
Steven
 
Oh, no. You have got to be kidding me.  The whack job Avery has arrived.  Now the recent posts search will be crammed with his cultish ramblings.
 
Hi Folks,

Torrent, I don't think you need to be overly concerned. I took a look at the threads looking for sincere, substantive discussion on the pure Bible issues. And ended up with only this one, which has been edifying and educational. 

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi Folks,

Torrent, I don't think you need to be overly concerned. I took a look at the threads looking for sincere, substantive discussion on the pure Bible issues. And ended up with only this one, which has been edifying and educational. 

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Click to expand...

You don't care anything of "substance". You've always been looking to make a "name" in KJVO circles. Too bad you reject an orthodox beliefs in the Trinity and have issues with Messianic doctrine. You'll never get there. Even most KJVOist are smarter than to detail such ignorance as you believe. Thats the very reason you will always be sucking on the "hind teat" of the KJVO cult.
 
Hi,

Ah, I can always rely on these forums for a bit of psycho-babble  :). And anti-TR-AV vitriol misdirected.

Anyone want to return to the issue of the pure Bible and the swine marathon from Gerasa in the modern versions, and faux apologetics, it is a fine topic.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
 
[quote author=Steven Avery]Anyone want to return to the issue of the pure Bible...[/quote]

Sure...as soon as you can tell me which Bible that is.
 
Hi,

The Received Text editions are pure Bibles.  The AV is exceedingly pure.  They all are correct on the issue on this thread, the swine marathon is in the modern versions, not the pure Bibles.

Other men, like Westcott and Hort, wrote that their Vaticanus primacy text was pure.  They were in error, although perhaps, on another thread, some one would like to defend their position, or an updated nouveau-Hortian Critical Text, modern version purity position.  Thus, the pure Bible issue is a good way to look at the overall discussion on the Bible versions and the inspired and preserved word of God.

Again, though, if anyone can stay on the thread topic and contribute substantively, that would be appreciated.  We have a real difficult time finding any folks who are contra the purity of the TR and the AV who are able to engage in substantive dialog.  (This thread is quickly becoming a typical example.)

Yous in Jesus,
Steven
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

The Received Text editions are pure Bibles.  The AV is exceedingly pure.  They all are correct on the issue on this thread, the swine marathon is in the modern versions, not the pure Bibles.

Other men, like Westcott and Hort, wrote that their Vaticanus primacy text was pure.  They were in error, although perhaps, on another thread, some one would like to defend their position, or an updated nouveau-Hortian Critical Text, modern version purity position.  Thus, the pure Bible issue is a good way to look at the overall discussion on the Bible versions and the inspired and preserved word of God.

Again, though, if anyone can stay on the thread topic and contribute substantively, that would be appreciated.  We have a real difficult time finding any folks who are contra the purity of the TR and the AV who are able to engage in substantive dialog.  (This thread is quickly becoming a typical example.)

Yous in Jesus,
Steven
Click to expand...

But I've got several Bibles based on the TR that are different. Which one is right? Which version of the AV Bible is the correct one?
 
OP:

Country of Gergesenes...Gadarenes: Where did the pigs run?


My guess is...into the water!
 
Hi,

rsc2a said:
But I've got several Bibles based on the TR that are different. Which one is right? Which version of the AV Bible is the correct one?
Click to expand...
On many variants, like Gergesenes and Gadarenes, every TR edition is correct.  The purest edition of the TR is the AV, Edward Freer Hills wrote excellently in describing the AV as a Received Text edition.

Are any posters here concerned about the Gerasa swine marathon blunder in their versions?  Or are you all so paralyzed and parrotized that all you can write is warmed-over agitprop attempts?  Any substantive dialog?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

rsc2a said:
But I've got several Bibles based on the TR that are different. Which one is right? Which version of the AV Bible is the correct one?
Click to expand...
On many variants, like Gergesenes and Gadarenes, every TR edition is correct.  The purest edition of the TR is the AV, Edward Freer Hills wrote excellently in describing the AV as a Received Text edition.

Are any posters here concerned about the Gerasa swine marathon blunder in their versions?  Or are you all so paralyzed and parrotized that all you can write is warmed-over agitprop attempts?  Any substantive dialog?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Click to expand...

Which AV?
 
Smellin Coffee said:
OP:

Country of Gergesenes...Gadarenes: Where did the pigs run?


My guess is...into the water!
Click to expand...
And into Gennesaret, no less.

Anishinabe

 
Hi,

rsc2a said:
Which AV?
Click to expand...
All AVs are exceedingly pure, all are correct on Gergesenes and Gadarenes.  And I consider the Pure Cambridge Edition to be like a Received Text of AV editions.

When you read modern versions, does it concern you that the swine are running a marathon from a city about 35 miles from the Sea of Galilee ?  Do you understand that this is only a function of the Hortian errors in attempting to change the Bible, and that the historic Bibles do not have this difficulty?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top