Luke refers to "the Lake of Gennesaret", but Matthew, Mark, and John refer to it as "the Sea of Galilee". Luuk van de Weghe offers a potential explanation:
"As Notley ('The Sea,' pp. 185-186) has argued, the Markan/Matthean/Johannine toponym [Sea of Galilee] (Matt 4.18; 15.29; Mark 1.16; 7.31; John 6:1) - elsewhere unattested - likely results from theological motivations, i.e, to highlight Jesus' fulfillment of Isa 8.23 [Eng. 9.1] (cf. Matt 4:12b-16, 18)" (The Historical Tell [Tampa, Florida: DeWard, 2023], n. 146 on 160)
You can read Notley's article here.
Van de Weghe cites the proximity of the mention of the Sea of Galilee in Matthew 4:18 to the discussion of Isaiah 9 in Matthew 4:12-16. It's also worth noting that the mention of the Sea of Galilee in Mark 1:16 comes between some references to Nazareth and Capernaum, the two cities that fulfill the references to Zebulun and Naphtali in Isaiah 9:1 (Mark 1:9, 1:21). The first two chapters of Mark mention both towns multiple times. The mention of the Sea of Galilee in John 6:1 comes just before the large amount of attention given to Capernaum later in chapter 6 and the large amount of material on Galilee and Isaiah 9 in John 7-9, which I've discussed in depth many times over the years (e.g., here). So, Matthew and John both introduce the Sea of Galilee terminology in proximity to giving a lot of attention to Isaiah 9 and its fulfillment. Mark isn't explicit about the Isaiah 9 background, but brings up the Sea of Galilee language in proximity to mentioning some aspects of Jesus' life that fulfill Isaiah 9.
I've written before about the significance Capernaum had for Matthew and John. They worked in the area, lived there, met Jesus there, and surely would have discussed with him his move from Nazareth to Capernaum (in fulfillment of Isaiah 9). The same can be said of Peter, Mark's primary source.
Another advantage of the explanation Notley and van de Weghe are proposing is that it aligns so well with such a large number and variety of other characteristics we see in the lives of Jesus and the early Christians. There's a lot of precedent for the prominence of Isaiah 9 in the thinking of Jesus and his earliest followers. I've argued from many different lines of evidence that Jesus viewed himself as the figure of Isaiah 9 and that his identification as that figure is often reflected in the gospels, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly. See the relevant posts in my collection of Isaiah 9 resources here. You can get an overview of the evidence, which is found in all four gospels, in the post here.
In point of fact, there are rabbinic uses of "yam" for the Sea of Galilee (they use "Sea of Tiberias"), and that word has a similar semantic range to the Greek "thalassa." The Greek term is very well applicable to any large body of water, whether it's technically ocean or fresh water. In the OT that Hebrew term is also used (see Num. 34:11, Josh. 13:27), and the Septuagint uses "thalassa" to translate "yam." See the Septuagint here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/num/34/1/s_151011 The good thing about this is that it doesn't require us to hypothesize any special motive (as in Vandeweghe's theory) or ignorance (as skeptics will claim) for using the term. It was probably just the term used at the time for that body of water. I appreciate Vandeweghe's work in many respects, but I disagree with him on this point.
ReplyDeleteAnd let me add that Notley is *definitely* claiming that the Gospels that use "thalassa" are less accurate. He's quite explicit about it. I just read his article. He also claims that Mark at one point gives Jesus a roundabout trip for theological reasons, which strongly implies that Mark is making stuff up. I think we need to be more sensitized to the fact that mainstream biblical scholars (here I'm not referring to Vandeweghe but to Notley) will imply *without batting an eyelash* that the evangelists changed the facts for theological reasons. This should make us more hesitant to adopt a theory of theological motivation for some alteration. Notley even tries to consider the Septuagint usages but doesn't draw the obvious conclusion from them--namely, that the Septuagint authors *and the evangelists* apparently *disagree* with modern scholars on whether it was topographically accurate to use "thalassa" for a large, freshwater body! Notley implies that simply because the evangelists use "thalassa" with "Galilee" while the Septuagint uses "thalassa" with "Kinnereth," we can shrug off the Septuagint issue as if it has no impact upon his theory of topographical adaptation (to something "less correct," as he indicats) for theological reasons.
ReplyDeleteI don't think van de Weghe's argument depends on the lake/sea distinction you're addressing, and I know that mine doesn't. I cited some comments van de Weghe made about the "Sea of Galilee" reference as a whole, not just the "sea" designation, and I added some further arguments. Even assuming the accuracy of the use of the term "sea", there are other issues that have to be addressed (which terminology was more common at the time, what the immediate context suggests about why one name for the body of water was chosen over another, etc.). I don't agree with the skeptical objection you referred to concerning ignorance on the part of the gospel authors, nor do I agree with everything in Notley's article. But I do think the Isaiah 9 backdrop makes the most sense of the choice to use "the Sea of Galilee" rather than one of the alternatives.
DeleteI think the Notley article is very poor, to be blunt. I cannot think of a single good reason to cite it positively. It's not just a question of "not agreeing with everything." His argument is all of a piece. The sea/lake thing is an extremely important part of his argument for the theological allusion, which is supposedly being made *by way of deliberately using* the term "thalassa" as well as "Galilee." Not just one or the other! I think it really significantly undermines the argument that the Gospel authors are using the phrase "Sea of Galilee" for such a theological reason once one realizes that apparently the word they use for "sea" was just a way of putting "yam" (for that *very body of water*) into Greek. Remember too that John's Gospel *never* explicitly cites the Isaiah passage. Yes, I know that you think "light of the world" is a sign that John was thinking of it, but that's pretty darned indirect. Yet John does use "Sea of Galilee." I really think it's a stretch to hold that the phrase was being used in Matthew, Mark, and John for some heavy theological reason, while Luke is just giving a literal name--a mis-estimate of the value of simplicity considerations.
DeleteAlso, I don't see *anyone* citing evidence that the use of "lake" rather than "sea" in Greek was widespread among Palestinian Jews of the time. Does anyone claim to have such data? As far as I know the data I've already cited from the Talmud using "yam" (translated by thalassa in the LXX) is the only relevant data we have on the subject of contemporary usage! Certainly Notley doesn't give even the feeblest attempt at such empirical argumentation. In fact, he implies something outright false when he uses the phrase "otherwise unattested" despite being aware of the LXX usage!! No doubt he'd fall back on the claim that it's the entire phrase "Sea *of Galilee*" that he doesn't find otherwise attested, but I think that would be a desperate save, considering the emphasis he puts on "thalassa" in and of itself and its supposed inaccuracy. He states, "What is clear is that Luke presents a more informed picture of the physical nature of the lake." Well, no, that isn't clear at all. And he later refers to Luke's usage as "more correct." It's like he's using the bellman's rule--if he says it several times, it must be true.
ReplyDeleteThe terms "sea" and "lake" don't need to have the distinction you're objecting to in order to be two different terms. And whichever of those terms is used, it's being combined with another (e.g., "of Galilee") in the contexts under consideration. So, there are multiple terms that are relevant here. Van de Weghe and Notley provide some significant information about the terms involved and their usage by the relevant sources. You asked for "evidence that the use of 'lake' rather than 'sea' in Greek was widespread among Palestinian Jews of the time". But there are other terms involved here as well (including non-Greek descriptions of how the body of water was referenced), so what van de Weghe and Notley provide can be significant even if it doesn't give you what you're asking for. Given the comments of sources like Strabo, Josephus, and Pliny the Elder, it seems likely that "lake" was used more commonly than "sea". They refer to how the body of water was commonly described, and they refer to it as a lake in the process. It would be unlikely that they would appeal to common usage for a term like "Tiberias" or "Gennesaret" while combining that term with a noncommon qualifier ("lake" if that term was used less frequently than "sea"). The best explanation for why "lake" keeps getting used in passages about how the body of water is typically described is that the "lake" terminology was more popular.
DeleteYou criticize Notley for "[implying] something outright false when he uses the phrase 'otherwise unattested'". I don't know which part of his article you're referring to. Are you thinking of van de Weghe's use of "elsewhere unattested"? If so, he was referring to "Sea of Galilee", not "sea" in isolation. But you go on to say that Notley's comment would be inappropriate even if he meant to refer to "Sea of Galilee" rather than just "sea". Like I said before, I doubt that van de Weghe was making the lake/sea distinction you're concerned about, and I know that I wasn't. To whatever extent Notley makes it, that's not what I cited him for.
We have three different gospel authors choosing the name for the body of water that aligns best with Isaiah 9 and doing so in proximity to citing Isaiah 9 and/or referencing Nazareth and Capernaum. That gives us some evidence to go by.
You object that the reference to Isaiah 9 in John 8 is "pretty darned indirect". That reference isn't all that's relevant. Capernaum is prominent in John 6, chapter 7 gives a lot of attention to Jesus' geographical background (Bethlehem and Galilee), and the theme continues to be brought up into chapter 9. You cite the reference to being the light of the world in 8:12, but the surrounding context also references prophecy, Galilee, walking in darkness, etc. That gives us a lot of parallels between Isaiah and John. Calling the allusion to Isaiah 9 "pretty darned indirect" doesn't address the evidence I've cited that there is an allusion (and I've cited more than what I just reiterated). Objecting that the appeal to Isaiah 9 isn't "explicit" doesn't give us reason to reject it or be agnostic about it.
John uses "thalassa" with "Tiberias" in John 21:1. Presumably you're not going to argue that the Thalassa of Tiberias has some special theological meaning or constitutes some theological Old Testament allusion. At least I would guess not, since you're emphasizing the combination with "of Galilee" and since, of course, Isaiah 9 says nothing about Tiberias. But John's unselfconscious use of thalassa with both Galilee and Tiberias, for the very same body of water, should constitute at least some evidence that the entire theological interpretation is an over-reading and that John is merely using literal phrases for a literal body of water with no intention to allude to Isaiah by so doing.
DeleteThe issue isn't literalness. The issue is the choice of terminology for a body of water that was referred to in a variety of ways. Three Christian authors chose "sea" and "Galilee", both of which line up better with Isaiah 9 than the alternative terms, and all three did so in a context that's highly relevant to Isaiah 9. The many references we have to that body of water from ancient non-Christian sources don't follow that pattern. The influence of Isaiah 9 is a better explanation than dismissing all of those characteristics as coincidental.
DeleteRegarding John 21, as I said earlier, I don't hold the view that "sea" is an inaccurate term for referring to that body of water. Since that term was used earlier by John, continuing to use it for the sake of consistency would make sense. He goes out of his way to use "Galilee" at the opening of chapter 6, even though he'll clarify it with "Tiberias" just after and will use Tiberias without referring to Galilee later. That makes sense under my view. Given the nature of John's material in John 6-9 (as discussed earlier), he had reason to highlight Galilee in that context (and the term "sea").
But the region *was* known as Galilee. So the attempt to attach theological meaning to "of Galilee" is *itself* dubious. Since John himself uses "sea" in a context where (as you agree) he isn't making any theological point, you have to dismiss this as "for consistency." I would say that when we put together three points the evidence is actually strong *against* any theological intention: 1) The region really was known as "Galilee," and the body of water really was located there, so "of Galilee" requires no special explanation. 2) Both the Septuagint writers and John (and also one non-Christian writer cited by Notley) have been preserved to us using "Sea" for that very body of water in contexts where there is no theological reference intended by that use. 3) John gives no explicit reference to Isaiah 9, so his alleged intention to allude to it is quite conjectural. I really don't know what more one could want to conclude that this is just one of the ways to refer to the body of water. I think that Notley has a higher prior for theological *invention* than you do and hence ascribes it here, as well as the critical scholar's regrettable tendency to over-read trivial wording differences between the Synoptics. *You* do not share Notley's high prior for theological invention, so I think you should be more able to recognize the weakness of his argument.
DeleteOne other point: I think his argument gains specious appearance of strength from Josephus's reference to "the inhabitants" and what they called the body of water. But Josephus doesn't actually say that the inhabitants call it the lake of Genesserat. He says it is "the lake, which the inhabitants call Gennesar." As Notley admits, there are other instances of just calling it "the Gennesar."
Notley even seems to think that John's two-fold reference to it as "the Sea of Galilee" and "Tiberias" in John 6:1 supports his point, but I think that's completely wrong. The immediate juxtaposition in John of two different names for the body of water, one of which you acknowledge has no theological intention, is best explained by a mere desire to designate the body of water explicitly and clearly, for narrative purposes. In this sense John's "the Sea of Galilee, of Tiberias" is very much like Josephus's "the lake, which the inhabitants call Gennesar." Neither of them is making any theological point. They are both just narrating and calling to mind names for a particular body of water in a particular region.
Bodies of water can be named after a region they're in, like Galilee, but they can also be named in other ways. The evidence suggests that the body of water under consideration was referred to by something other than Galilee the large majority of the time. The body of water is sometimes referred to as a sea, but seems to have been referred to as a lake more often. The issue isn't whether something like naming a body of water after its surrounding region or referring to it as a sea can possibly happen without intending anything like an allusion to Isaiah 9. Rather, the issue is how we best explain the terminology chosen in the contexts in question. When two unusual terms are chosen ("sea" and "Galilee"), and those terms line up so well with Isaiah 9, the terms are introduced by three of the gospels in a context that's highly relevant to Isaiah 9, and the authors show interest in Isaiah 9 elsewhere, those characteristics make more sense if the Sea of Galilee language was influenced by Isaiah 9 than if it wasn't. As I said before, there's a way we can further test what I'm saying. Look at how non-Christian sources use the language. How often do you see them accidentally falling into the pattern we see in Matthew, Mark, and John? I'm not aware of a single example, much less something comparable to three out of four gospels. Maybe there is an example (or more) of that happening among non-Christian sources, but, if so, I'm not aware of it, and I doubt that it happened as often as we see it with the gospels.
DeleteYou keep making dismissive comments about John's use of Isaiah 9. I've argued at length for my view of John's material, and you haven't interacted with any of that argumentation. Instead, you just vaguely object that the allusions to Isaiah 9 are only "alleged", that they aren't "explicit", etc.
Concerning the issue you raised related to Josephus, I addressed that earlier. When somebody like Josephus explains how the body of water is typically referred to, it would be unlikely that he'd use a less popular qualifying phrase, such as "lake" (if the body of water was referred to that way less often), in the surrounding context. In other words, his concern for addressing how the body of water is most often referred to suggests that he'd use the more common of the lake/sea terms in that context, not the less common one. Neither of the terms in the Josephus passage you cited, "lake" or "Gennesar", taken individually or together, is what we see in Matthew, Mark, and John. If you're going to bring up the scenario of referring to the body of water as "the Gennesar", then that just shifts the question to why "sea" was brought up by the gospel authors rather than raising the question of why "lake" was replaced by "sea". Either way, all three gospels seem to be departing from normal usage. They're doing it in the same way, which aligns with Isaiah 9, and in the same kind of context that's highly relevant to Isaiah 9.
According to Anthony Rogers, GMark likely uses the phrase "SEA of Galilee" for the theological purpose of presenting Jesus as bringing about the New Exodus prophesied in the OT (passim, e.g. in Isaiah) and therefore portraying Him to be Yahweh. GMark has Jesus re-enacting the events of the first Exodus. Just as Yahweh parted the Red/Reed Sea, so Jesus rebuked the Sea of Galilee causing them to be still so that His disciples could safely cross over into the wilderness similar to what happened in the first Exodus (cf. Ps. 106:9ff.; 89:9). Just as God drowned Pharoah's host, so Jesus drowned the devil's host of unclean spirits possessed swine in the sea. Then just as Yahweh fed the Israelites in the wilderness with manna "bread" and meat, so Jesus multiplied bread and fish in the wilderness to feed the multitudes. Rogers briefly surveys this in his opening statement in his debate with Unitarian Dale Tuggy HERE. Rogers goes into fuller depth in his 3 part video series totaling over 4 1/2 hours in this Playlist on "The New Exodus" HERE.
ReplyDelete