Trees

[Giuseppe]

So Mcn:

6:43 For there is no good tree that produceth corrupt fruit;
nor corrupt tree that produceth good fruit.
44 For each tree is known by its own fruit.
For of thorns they do not gather figs,
nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
45 The good man out of the good treasure of his heart
bringeth forth that which is good;
and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart
bringeth forth that which is evil:
for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

It seems that Marcion interpreted the Parable of the Two Trees as typical Gnostic dualism and opposition between two Gods, the Good Alien God and the Evil Creator God. And only as mere earthly reflection of this cosmic dualism we see good people and evil people to act accordingly on the earth.

So Luke is identical with Marcion:

6:43 “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

...while Matthew changes the focus:

7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

In Matthew the cosmic dualism disappears and in its place there is only the opposition between good people and evil people.

And in Mark?

Apart the Parable of the Fig Tree, there is only an allusion to trees:

22 They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”
24 He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.”
25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 Jesus sent him home, saying, “Don’t even go into the village.”

(Mark 8:22-26)

Also in Mark, like in Matthew, the trees allegorize (evil or good?) people, but not more two Gods in conflict as per Marcion.

Some has advanced the idea that in the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida, the first vision of the man was the true reality, and only the second vision was newly an ''obscured'' vision.

If wee assume that ''being like trees'' means to be on the side of the Good God or of the Evil God, then what the blind man is ''seeing'' (the first time) is the same cosmic dualism at work: some are of the Alien God while others are of the Creator God.
The reference to ''walking'' alludes to the free choice of the people: on which side are they?

This may be a subtle clue of the marcionite origin of Mark...

[Giuseppe]

So Tertullian about the Trees:

Just as a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, so neither can truth generate heresy; and as a corrupt tree cannot yield good fruit, so heresy will not produce truth. Thus, Marcion brought nothing good out of Cerdon's evil treasure; nor Apelles out of Marcion's.(8) For in applying to these heretics the figurative words which Christ used of men in general, we shall make a much more suitable interpretation of them than if we were to deduce out of them two gods, according to Marcion's grievous exposition.

http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Tert4.html#AM174

It is very surprising that the interpretation of Tertullian fits apparently with that of Mark: the two trees would be ''figurative words ... of men in general'' therefore the men are ''as trees walking''.

What if the blind had said rather: ''I see two Gods: they look like trees walking around'' ?

Maybe Mark 8:25 may be an interpolation to avoid that the entire episode becomes a parable about two Gods, and not about two classes of men.

22 They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”
24 He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.”
25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 Jesus sent him home, saying, “Don’t even go into the village.”

And why did Jesus command to not enter in the village again?

Maybe the village represents the material world created by the god of the Jews. The blind man may be Paul himself who realized for the first time the truth of the marcionite dualism. As effect, he is not more of this world, as a stranger to it just as his new god.

There may be an implicit comparison between the recognition of the blind man and the recognition of Peter in the next verses (the famous ''TU ES CHRISTUS'').

Where the blind man recognizes the existence of two Gods (or of two Christs), Peter saw only a Christ, the one of the Demiurge, before him. And Jesus wanted his silence for this reason.

In this way, the blind man alias Paul would have recognized the Christ before and better than Peter.

[Giuseppe]

The point is that in Mark the reader, in order to understand the metaphor ''men = trees'', should know already the Parable of the Two Trees as interpreted in Matthew and by Tertullian (i.e., as referring to the only men and not to two gods). Given only as it is, the allusion to men ''as trees walking'' is without sense, but the sense comes under the knowledge of the Parable of the Two Trees.

But that parable is not given in Mark.

Therefore this may be a clue of the fact that the entire episode was realized after a previous Gospel where it is already found the Parable of the Two Trees. And that Gospel can be Mcn or Matthew.

[Giuseppe]

It is strange that in the episode of the blind man of Bethsaida, Mark doesn't like the town of Bethsaida (not sending there again the healed man), differently from Marcion, who places there the miracle of Feeding of the Five-thousand.

10 And the apostles returned, and declared unto him all that they had done.
And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place
of a city called Bethsaida.
11 And the multitudes perceived it, and followed him: and he received them,
and spake unto them of the kingdom of God,
and healed them that had need of healing.
12 And when the day began to decline, and the twelve came,
and said unto him,
Send the multitude away,
that they may go into the towns and country round about,
and lodge, and fetch victuals: for we are in a desert place.
13 But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat.
And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes;
except we should go and buy food for all this people.
14 For they were about five thousand men.
And he said to his disciples, Make them recline in companies by fifties.
15 And they did so, and made them all recline.
16 And he took the five loaves and the two fishes,
and looking up to heaven, he blessed them,
Panarion 42
and brake,and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.
17 And they did eat, and were all filled:
and there was taken up that remained to them of fragments twelve baskets.

Why didn't Mark like the positive description of Bethsaida in Mcn ? For Mark, only the blind man of Betshaida has to be healed, but not his entire people.

The reason is that Bethsaida is a gentile town. By doing there the miracle of Feeding against the explicit will of the Twelwe, the marcionite Jesus is raising a criticism against Judaism. In addition, for Mark it is a too much anti-Jewish clue the fact that ''remained to them of fragments twelve baskets''.

This remembers, in inverted roles, the words of the Syro-Phoenician Woman to Jesus (Mark 7:28-29):

But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” 29 And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.”

In the eyes of the proto-catholic Mark, Marcion is guilty of having reduced the same Twelwe to the level of dogs eating the ''fragments'' of the table of the gentiles.

The miracle of Feeding of the Five-thousand appears only one time in Mcn. Mark didn't like this fact. He and Matthew have two times the miracle of Feeding so to put on the same level both Jews and Gentiles as eaters of the multiplied food.

So the 12 baskets cease to be a negative symbol for the Twelwe (''what is left to them as mere fragments'' in Mcn) to become a positive symbol in Mark and Matthew (the 12 baskets are for the 12 apostles, while the 7 baskets are for the 70 nations of gentiles).

Hence the contempt of Mark's Jesus for Bethsaida is a correction of the contempt of Mcn's Jesus for the disciples.

[Giuseppe]

Note that Luke, since he doesn't have the possibility of a second Feeding (so to compare the 12 baskets/''crumbs'' for the Jews with 7 baskets/''crumbs'' for the gentiles as in Mark and Matthew), adds the episode of Jesus cursing Bethsaida:

Luke 10:13-17

13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades