The theme of the thread is:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I'm curious, how many and which stories can be presented as further developments of Mark.
The cursing of the fig tree in Mark has already led to
various parallels, and I want to explore a couple of them. I
mentioned that I wonder whether the parable in Luke 13.6-9 might have led to the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree himself, but here I want to suggest for consideration precisely the opposite: that Luke neutered the cursing of the fig tree by turning it into a parable and moving it to a new context.
I would count Luke 17:6 as a third reaction (removing Mark's „this mountain“ and including the „mulberry fig“ - Maybe because many mountains in GMark are related to the disciples?)
What if Luke removing the mountain has more to do with its possible association with the Temple Mount? I think we have seen this kind of removal of the temple from any sign of God's disapproval before in Luke. In Mark 13.2, 14 and Matthew 24.2, 15, the temple is not only destroyed but also desecrated. But in Luke 21.6, 20 the temple is destroyed, and Jerusalem surrounded by armies, but the "abomination of desolation" is not mentioned. Perhaps similarly, in Mark, the
intercalation of the cleansing of the temple in between the two parts of the cursing of the fig tree imply, to my mind, that the temple itself (and not just certain activities within it) is in some way, for Mark, the target of Jesus' wrath. But Luke removes the cursing of the fig tree from around the temple incident, which leaves only this in 19.45-46: "Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling, saying to them, 'It is written, "And My house shall be a house of prayer," but you have made it a robbers’ den.'" One would never guess that the temple
itself had outlived its usefulness. It is merely the trade that goes on within it that offends the son of God.
Likewise, I think that the saying about casting the mountain (actually, "
this mountain", τῶ ὄρει τούτῳ) into the sea in Mark 11.23 implies, at least in its context, the Temple Mount. Maybe
that is why Luke turns the mountain into a sycamine tree in 17.6: he is protecting the temple from slander again. And maybe that is why he turned the cursing of the fig tree into a (comparatively) harmless parable and moved it to another context: he has no problem with armies surrounding Jerusalem in 21.20; and he has no problem with Galileans getting their blood shed over their sacrifices in 13.1-3, or with towers falling on people in 13.4-5 (neither of which was in Marcion, we are told), but he does like to keep the temple out of the mess; so, by putting the parable of the fig tree in this latter context, after the sayings about the Galileans and the tower of Siloam, the withering tree now represents the people, not the temple.
What do you think? Is there anything to this?
Ben.