Another text, another story

[Giuseppe]

If I understand you well, KK, your view is assuming impliciter that the fig is a positive figure in Mark, later damned by Matthew (frankly, I dislike the proto-catholic Matthew so much that it doesn't matter his ''reasons'' to modify Mark).

My personal suggestion:

Jesus Nazarene (or better, the Son of God possessing the mere son of man) was hungry in a spiritual sense (and not in a physical sense): his spiritual hunger of the coming Kingdom of God (the crucifixion of the son of man).

His spiritual hunger was reassured (and not ''frustrated'' as the usual vulgata wants it!) by the sight of the fig tree without fruit.

The disciples saw therefore a real fact: they didn't hallucinate the entire episode (as I had thought it was your opinion, wrongly) but the episode was real for both Jesus and the disciples (in the story).

Only, the mistake of the idiot Peter was the same of Matthew : To interpret the words of Jesus, at the light of the real fact of the drying of the fig :

Mark “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”

...as words of condemnation of the fig and not instead as words of hope basing on a positive omen: the summer is near. THere is no more need of physical fruit because the spiritual fruit is coming!

Therefore the miracle happens that the drying of the fig did satiate the spiritual hunger of Jesus: not only it did not bear fruit but even dried, confirming again and again the hope of Jesus that the end is already coming!


In short:

	According to Peter and the idiot disciples	According to Son of God possessing a mere son of man
Jesus is hungry	the son of man is hungry for physical food	the Son of God has spiritual hunger of the Kingdom of God (=the crucifixion of the son of man).
“May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”	words of condemnation of the fig (physical temple?) by the son of man	words of hope for the end of physical concerns and the arrival of a spiritual 'son of man': the new Israel, the pauline sect.
drying of the fig	an omen that the son of man will destroy the physical temple (the fig) and the Romans.	a confirmation of the hope of the Son of God: there is no need of a fig (a physical temple), because there is no need of physical fruit. The spiritual fruit is already coming! The spiritual hunger is already satiated.
Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’	words empty of meaning	Read 1 Corinthians 13:2
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”	words empty of meaning	the fig is an insider!

If the fig is an insider, then the blind of Betsaida, when he saw men as trees, was realizing that the trees know more than the idiot disciples.

[Giuseppe]

A clue that the unripe fig is an insider (by definition: something that is into a place, just as the paralytic was in Mark 2) is the name himself of Béthphagé: "house of unripe figs".

[Giuseppe]

Between the positive omen of the fig with ''the leaf'' (11:14) and the safisfaction (11:20) of the spiritual hunger of the Son of God, something is happened in whiletime that leads the Son to fulfill his words of hope (and not of condemnation) addressed to the fig: “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”

What happened in whiletime?

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers [λῃστῶν].’”
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

(Mark 11:15-18)

Josephus says us who were these lesthes: the Zealots who transformed the temple in their headquarters. Their sin is to find still an utility, a function (''a physical fruit'') from a temple (the fig tree) that must no longer offer no use to any man, because any man is already satisfied with the Gospel.

Therefore if even the Zealots are expelled from the temple by will of God, then the fig tree stopped serving any purpose and can be dried.

[JoeWallack]

.
My impression is that a few Markan pericopes point to a different understanding of the story as in Matthew or Luke, but their understanding is completely dominated by the understanding of the Matthean or Lukan pericope. I do not mean a secret or allegorical understanding, but more or less on the surface.

With regard to the “Cursing of the fig tree” I will suggest a not unproblematic and – in some sense - “scandalous” understanding of Mark’s story. Criticism is encouraged.

But for today only the two texts. Luke omitted the story.

Mark 11:12-14;20-25	Matthew 21:18-22
12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.	18 In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves.
14 And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”	And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!”
And his disciples heard it. ..
As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.	And the fig tree withered at once.
21 And Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.”	20 When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?”
22 And Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.	21 And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. 22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”
25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

JW:
Ah, si. So in the Teaching/Healing Ministry the Disciples see the physical but do not understand the spiritual/figurative meaning. This reverses in the Passion Ministry where the Disciples hear the spiritual/figurative meaning but (mis)understand it as physical. For those who need points sharply explained, Jesus, speaking figuratively about the Temple, says that the fig tree (Temple) will no longer bear fruit (followers of Judaism). The Disciples do not understand the figurative meaning and literally/physically see a withered fig tree (that does not literally/physically exist).


Joseph

[iskander]

.
Maybe I don't understand you. First, I get the impression that you think the “Cursing of the fig tree” is an acted parable and the fig tree “is” the temple.

14 And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
May the temple lose its power to deceive

But then you wrote

The fig tree is not to be associated with the end of time, but it is a programme for the living and for those looking forward to a long and happy future.

And now the quoted “vivid memories” seem to indicate that you think rather that it was real event and there was really a fig tree, cursed by Jesus.

Why is my reading of the same material different from the one above? The best explanation is the one that Frank Barlow offers in the introduction of his book , Edward the Confessor, See attached file
Edward the Confessor (The Yale English Monarchs Series) Paperback – 8 Apr 1997 / page XXIV
by Frank Barlow

I don't mean this critically, but your position seems a bit unclear, perhaps in progress.

The fig tree is a what the reformers wanted to do with the Temple and .... The People of The Way would vividly recall the comments , hopes and fears as members of a religious reforming party. The parable of the fig tree is the condensed statement of their position and it is the reality of their lives.

They wish to abolish the power of the Temple and indicate that men and women can abolish the Temple . In the future humanity will deal with God directly , once the Temple ( Cathedral, Mosque ..) no longer is perceived as the intermediary between man/woman and God.

Temple is bad ( fig tree image), a new faith will replace the old one . Hallelujah.

The post above explains the story we read in the gospel f Mark .

Is Matthew necessary for the understanding of Mark ? No. Matthew belongs to the history of the new religious attitude towards the Temple ( Mosque, Cathedral, Sangha...).


The following shows how Mark was finally understood by the winners :see attached file

[Giuseppe]

My question for KK and all: how do you interpret the words of Jesus addressed to fig tree?
As words of condemnation of the fig tree? Or as words of hope (later realized when the fig tree withered, because something is happened in meantime: the expulsion of thieves from the temple )?


I would argue this interpretation:

“May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”	the hope of Jesus is that the temple doesn't bring more profit for anyone
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” 18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.	the hope is frustrated: thieves have profit by the temple. The violent reaction of Jesus.
19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples[e] went out of the city. 20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”	The hope is realized.

Jesus is condemning the Zealots and the Pharisees as both people profit by the temple. The condemnation is not of who bears fruit (the fig tree), but of who profit by that fruit (Zealots and Pharisees). Matthew reverses the point: the fig tree himself (the entire system of Jewish sacrifice) is condemned.

[FransJVermeiren]

My question for KK and all: how do you interpret the words of Jesus addressed to fig tree?

Jerusalem and its fig trees

The year 70 CE was an extremely bad year for the fig trees of Jerusalem. In the spring of that year the Romans laid siege to the city, but the garden district west and northwest of the city was a difficult area for the besieger. The Jews inside the walls knew this big maze with its trees, hedges, little walls and rocky projections very well and used it for annoying sorties. So Titus ordered his troops to execute large scale engineering works: to strip this vast area of all vegetation and constructions, and to level it. For this purpose he used almost his whole army.

Josephus, War V, 106-108
Titus, now decided to abandon Mount Scopus and to encamp closer to the city, posted what he considered an adequate body of horse and foot to stop the sorties, and gave orders to the rest of his forces to level the intervening ground as far as the city walls. Every fence and palisade that the inhabitants had erected around their gardens and orchards was swept away, every fruit tree within the area pulled up, every dip and hollow filled in; the rocky projections were demolished with iron implements, and the whole space leveled from Scopus to Herod’s monuments which adjoined the spot called the Serpent’s Pool.

The orchards consisted in the first place of olive trees, vines and fig trees and these were all felled. For the Jews this was a brutal offense, because according to their rules of warfare trees with eatable fruits were not a party in military conflicts, which means that they were not destroyed during the acts of war. Because the area was as bald as a skull now, the Jews called it the place of the skull, Golgotha in Aramaic. This levelling operation took place in April 70 CE.

In the final stage of the siege, when famine was the terrible scourge of the inhabitants of the city, we see Jesus inspecting a fig tree, and he is frustrated that it doesn’t bear fruits. Then he orders: “May no one ever eat from you again.” In the next small sentence we once more discover a translation problem. ‘And his disciples heard it’ is the traditional translation. The Greek verb ‘akouoo’ does not only mean ‘to hear’ but ‘to listen to’, ‘to heed’ or ‘to obey’ as well. When Jesus gave the order that no one would eat from that fig tree again, his followers did not only hear what he said, they obeyed his order. How they felled the tree is left in the shadow, but the effect is clear the next morning: “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered to its roots.” As his troops were armed, to fell a fig tree (which is not a giant of the forest) was not a difficult task. But did Jesus give his order only because he was frustrated? Maybe there is more. When Jesus wanted that no one would eat from this tree again, he might have looked ahead to the final result of the siege: the recapture of the city by the Romans. So Jesus may have ordered this tree to be felled to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Romans and being of use for them in the future. The Romans had transgressed the rules of war on this point the same spring, so the Jews are allowed to do the same thing. Jesus knew that, apart from the many victims of the famine and the sword, the remaining Jews would be sold as slaves or would die in the arena, so this fig tree was of no benefit anymore for his compatriots. Through this act Jesus in fact admitted that the war was lost, it was a scorched earth policy.

This interpretation provides a good connection with the second part of the fragment, verse 20-24. When Jesus saw the felled fig tree soon afterwards, he realized that his act of the day before implied the acceptance of the final defeat. Then he compensated with his vision of Yahweh casting the Roman legions into the sea. This is desperate pep talk towards his revolutionary soldiers. The “Have faith in God” of verse 22 indicates that, in spite of the unfavorable evolution of the siege, the Zealot defenders of Jerusalem still hoped for a divine intervention in their favor.

[Charles Wilson]

FJV --

Compare with:

Mark 8: 22 - 26 (RSV):

[22] And they came to Beth-sa'ida. And some people brought to him a blind man, and begged him to touch him.
[23] And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, "Do you see anything?"
[24] And he looked up and said, "I see men; but they look like trees, walking."
[25] Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly.
[26] And he sent him away to his home, saying, "Do not even enter the village."

"I see men; but they look like trees, walking." "...and he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly."

These are two Passages with the same Intentionality. Jerusalem is Doomed. As the trees are culled, it becomes obvious that there will be no Divine Intervention. If you can see the road ahead you can see everything clearly. "Do not even go enter the village". It is over.

[Giuseppe]

Frans, from my point of view (in Mark the ''son of man'' is allegory of earthly Israel crucified in 70 CE for his sins and risen in the Galilee ''of Gentiles'' as Novus Israel) I think that you do a lot of good observations, as collateral effect of your (for me wrong) assumption that the ''historical Jesus'' is Jesus ben Saphat.
I think that you may share some my conclusions about Magdalene and Salome.


Therefore it's natural that I like your following point (as origin of Golgotha):

So Titus ordered his troops to execute large scale engineering works: to strip this vast area of all vegetation and constructions, and to level it.

...but I can see only an unique best candidate for the casting the mountain into the sea: midrash from 1 Cor 13:2 .

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
The reader and Judas Iscariot

Mark	Matthew	Luke	John
The motive of Judas in GMark is not narrated. His decision to deliver Jesus is made before the offer of the chief priests to pay money.	The motive of Judas in GMatthew is personal profit.	The motive of Judas in GLuke is the influence of Satan.	The motive of Judas in GJohn is the influence of the devil. But he is also a common thief who robbed the poors.
Mark 14:10-11 Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went away to the chief priests, that he might deliver him to them. They, when they heard it, were glad, and promised to give him money. He sought how he might conveniently deliver him.	Matthew 26:14-16 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests, and said, “What are you willing to give me, that I should deliver him to you?” They weighed out for him thirty pieces of silver. From that time he sought opportunity to betray him.	Luke 22:3-4 Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered with the twelve. He went away, and talked with the chief priests and captains about how he might deliver him to them. They were glad, and agreed to give him money.	John 12:4-6 Then Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, one of his disciples, who would betray him, said, “Why wasn’t this ointment sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor?” Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and having the money box, used to steal what was put into it. John 13:2 And During supper—the devil having already put into the heart of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, that he should betray him

German scholar Stefan Lücking argued that we can find a “purposeful indeterminacy” in Mark. This can be seen also in the “sandwiched” story, the anointing of Bethany.

A man with a name and a descriptive detail. He plays no role in the story.	Mark 14:3 While he was at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
An unknown woman with unknown motives. She plays an important role in the story.	Mark 14:3 While he was at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard—very costly. She broke the jar, and poured it over his head.
An unknown group of some. They play an important role in the story.	Mark 14:4 But there were some who were indignant among themselves, saying, “Why has this ointment been wasted? For this might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.” They grumbled against her.

Lücking argued that in GJohn the reader will identify Judas with a cliche of bad and evil. But in GMark the reader will scrutinize Judas.

To be a Judas is a real opportunity for all in GMark.