Geographical Discrepencies

The New Testament, like other ancient texts, reflects the geographical understanding of its authors and the cultural context in which it was written. While many geographical references in the New Testament are accurate, there are some instances where scholars have identified what may be geographical inconsistencies, errors, or discrepancies. These could arise from misunderstandings, later editorial changes, or theological motives rather than a detailed concern with geographical precision. Below are some examples:

The Land of the Gerasenes (Gadarenes or Gergesenes)

The Gospels of Mark (5:1), Matthew (8:28), and Luke (8:26) all describe Jesus crossing the Sea of Galilee and encountering a man possessed by demons. The story varies slightly in different Gospels with respect to the location:

• Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 say Jesus went to the region of the Gerasenes.

• Matthew 8:28 says Jesus went to the region of the Gadarenes.

The location of Gerasenes (related to the city of Gerasa, modern-day Jerash in Jordan) and Gadarenes (related to the city of Gadara, near the Sea of Galilee) present a problem because Gerasa is located about 50 kilometers (30 miles) from the Sea of Galilee—too far for the demons to have driven the swine into the sea, as described in the story. Gadara is closer to the Sea of Galilee, but it is still located about 10 kilometers (6 miles) away.

Jesus' Journey from Tyre and Sidon through Galilee

In Mark 7:31, the Gospel states that Jesus traveled from the region of Tyre, through Sidon, to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis:

“Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.”

Tyre and Sidon are coastal cities located northwest of the Sea of Galilee, while the Decapolis is southeast of the Sea of Galilee. The route described in Mark would be highly circuitous and geographically improbable, as Jesus would have to travel north to Sidon, then back south to the Sea of Galilee, bypassing his original starting point (Tyre).

Jesus Passing Through Samaria and Galilee

Luke 17:11 states:

"On the way to Jerusalem, he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee."

The phrasing of this verse suggests that Jesus is traveling "between Samaria and Galilee" on His way to Jerusalem. However, this presents a geographical problem because Galilee is to the north of Samaria, and Jerusalem is to the south of Samaria. If Jesus was traveling from Galilee to Jerusalem, He would naturally pass through Samaria, not travel "between" Samaria and Galilee.

Furthermore, the phrasing "between Samaria and Galilee" is confusing because there is no clear boundary region "between" these two areas; one would simply transition from Galilee into Samaria.

Jesus Traveling to the Region of Judea Beyond the Jordan

Mark 10:1 states:

"And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them."

The phrase "the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" raises geographical questions because it seems to describe two separate locations:

• Judea is the region around Jerusalem, on the west side of the Jordan River.

• The phrase "beyond the Jordan" (which is east of the Jordan River) generally refers to the region of Perea, part of modern-day Jordan.

The issue here is that Mark seems to combine these two regions, Judea and "beyond the Jordan," as if they were geographically adjacent or closely related, which they are not. Traveling from Judea to "beyond the Jordan" involves crossing the Jordan River, suggesting they are distinct regions rather than a single destination.

Bethphage and Bethany's Location in Relation to Jerusalem

In Mark 11:1, Matthew 21:1, and Luke 19:29, Jesus is said to approach Jerusalem from Bethphage and Bethany:

“When they approached Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives...”

The issue here arises from the relative locations of Bethphage and Bethany. Bethany is well known to be located about 3 kilometers (2 miles) east of Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. Bethphage, however, is traditionally placed closer to Jerusalem than Bethany, but Mark’s description seems to imply that Jesus passed through Bethphage first, which would not make sense geographically if Bethphage were located closer to Jerusalem than Bethany.

Luke's Description of a Census Under Quirinius

In Luke 2:1-3, Luke states that a Roman census was conducted during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which required Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem:

“In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

Quirinius did conduct a census, but it was in 6 CE, about a decade after the death of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE), during whose reign Jesus is said to have been born, according to Matthew. This presents both a chronological and geographical issue, as no evidence of an empire-wide census during Herod's reign exists, and a Roman census during that period in Judea would not have required people to return to their ancestral homes for registration (as described in Luke).

Jesus' Baptism "Beyond the Jordan"

In John 1:28, the Gospel describes the location of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist as occurring at Bethany beyond the Jordan:

“These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.”

This presents a potential geographical confusion because Bethany is traditionally located near Jerusalem, on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. However, John refers to a different Bethany, "beyond the Jordan," which is geographically unclear. This second Bethany does not appear in other sources, and its exact location is unknown.

Conclusion:

These examples reflect geographical challenges in the New Testament that likely stem from several factors, including differences in source material (such as oral traditions), varying levels of geographical knowledge among the Gospel writers, and the possibility of later editorial modifications.

This suggests that the Gospel authors were neither contemporaries of the events they report nor in direct contact with those who were. Such geographical inaccuracies cast doubt on the reliability of the information in the Gospels. If the authors could make errors on basic facts, it raises questions about the credibility of other claims in these writings.