Jesus (At Times) Was an Embarrassment to the Gospel
(Note: In addressing this issue, I’ll assume the reader has a basic working knowledge of the Synoptic Tradition).
In the earlier Gospel of Mark, we find a pericope which tells us that after leaving Bethany with his disciples, a hungry Jesus sees a live fig tree in the distance. Given the change to stuff-his-gut, Jesus makes a bee line to it and finds nothing but leaves, since, as the writer of Mark even knows; hey, it’s not the season for figs.
So what does the Son of God do? He throws a temper fit just like a kid who didn’t get want he wanted. He uses his healing powers now to attack a defenseless fruit tree and kill it (Mark 11:14, 20; = Matthew 21:9).
Now, how is this embarrassing situation handled by the Synoptic Gospel of Luke (13:6-9)? Luke completely rewrites it. The pericope is now placed on the lips of Jesus in the form of a parable so you know it can’t go wrong! Plus, it will make Jesus look good.
The irrational action of an immature Jesus is now transformed and then transferred to a level headed and patient, wisdom-aged farmer who goes three times to the fig tree wanting fruit and finding none, he tells his vinedresser “Cut it down and reuse the ground.” But even the vinedresser pleads with the farmer not to be so impatient and to just give it one more chance by waiting another year. He’s sure, with just a little care and work, the tree will produce fruit. If not (and after the fourth year), the vinedresser agrees with the farmer that it would not be irrational to cut it down (kill it).
The author of Luke /Acts has taken an irrational story where an out-of-control Jesus is removed and it is totally reworked into a wise and intelligent parable of wisdom. By putting it on the lips of Jesus, Luke has now credited Jesus with a parable which will further the spread of the Gospel and not be an embarrassing hindrance to it.
22 comments:
My dear Harry McCall,
Greetings. I see you have been true to your word. You have moved the conversation from there to here. I hope readers will read your earlier post, and its ensuing thread.
I don't see what you see in Luke, even if I accept the Synoptic Problem and Q. I have no qualms that Luke could have unearthed something from a source unknown to the others; this alleged Lukan revision that you cite is so different from Matthew and Mark that I am comfortable stating that it is not a revision at all. Plus, just because Mark and Matthew precede Luke -- right? -- it does not follow that Luke's is the revision: perhaps Luke has got the source material right. Maybe Matthew and Mark have it wrong.
But I don't think so. Clearly Luke does have access to other sources; the nativity narrative suggests this.
Regardless, there seems to be a flaw in your argument. Let me see if I can highlight it. I've already touched on it, I think, but perhaps I can bring it out in more relief.
Why do you assume that Luke is rewriting something that is embarrassing (your word)? Embarrassing to whom? You see, if this act of Jesus -- the cursing of the fig tree -- is indeed embarrassing, then how could Matthew, Mark, and Q not notice this? Why would they have not reworked it? Would they have not smoothed it out?
But if we grant that they knew it was embarrassing and chose to keep it in knowing that we readers would laugh at Jesus' absurd behavior, then we can ONLY conclude one thing: Mark and Matthew leave this tale in in order to incite in us nothing but ridicule for the Lord! Look at how embarrassing this "Lord" is, everyone! Look at the nut who thinks He's the "Messiah!" We are left believing that Matthew and Mark do not want us to have a fair representation of the Lord. After all, the Synoptic Problem states that the Gospel writers are working as redactors: there is intention in what they do. That said, what was Mark and Matthew's intention if not to make the Lord look loopy?
Or are you saying that only Luke is embarrassed? Is that why you assume he changed the text? Well, if that's the case, then Matthew and Mark are NOT embarrassed by Jesus' actions. Hence, we must ask, "Why are they not?"
They are not embarrassed because Jesus' actions are utterly wonderful, powerful and interesting. What a cool tale this is!
Why? Because Jesus, the Messiah, has come to Israel, and Israel is not ready! But Israel SHOULD be ready: There is no In Season/Off Season for those who await the return of the Lord. Alas, Israel is like a fig tree that is also not ready for the Creator of the Universe: the fig tree is a symbol of not being ready at all times.
Does it offend you that Jesus cursed a fig tree? Why? Do you feel sorry for it? If so, are you suggesting something akin to animism, that the tree feels and knows? Or is it just a thing with no sentience? If it is just a tree, how is cursing it at all problematic? I recall Bertrand Russell, the great mathematician, had a problem with these passages. One wonders how such a great mind could not have reasoned his way through his own muddled thoughts.
The broader point: Jesus cursed the fig tree as a symbol of what he could have done in deliberate judgment upon a people -- and a world -- that should have been ready for Him.
Be instant in season and out of season.
That's the point.
So, in the end, I am unconvinced this whole "issue" is embarrassing, or a revision. That there are other problems with these texts, well, I'll grant that. But, as I said, I am unable to see what you see. I will admit that I even have a hard time with these passages, largely because I am a big softy: I DO feel bad for the tree.
I hope this helps you as you make your way through this interesting subject.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
Bill Gnade said...
Clearly Luke does have access to other sources; the nativity narrative suggests this.
What the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke clearly imply is that there were no sources at all, so they just made it up, hence the divergence in the two accounts, a part of the Jesus story that the earliest gospel is silent about. Or do you think, Bill, that the different versions of the birth story can be harmonized? Perhaps they can, but only by the most strenuous of mental gymnastics, something which you've proven yourself quite good at with your numerous posts at this site.
The gospel writers (they were all anonymous) had different purposes and different audiences. There is no good reason to suppose it impossible that what was embarrassing to one writer was not to another. What this all suggests, of course, is that the gospels are largely, if not entirely, legendary, the product of human minds and not divine revelation.
The idea that the Gospel writers had no source material to work off of, Sean, is absolutely rediculous for most New Testament scholars. I was once talking to my New Testament professor (and yes, im at a secular university with a Catholic tradition) about these issues and she essentially said that all serious New Testament scholarship recognizes the Gospel writers were using source material, both oral and written.
GordonBlood said...
The idea that the Gospel writers had no source material to work off of, Sean, is absolutely rediculous (sic) for most New Testament scholars.
It is clear in context I was referring to what Bill Gnade said about the nativity story in Luke as can be seen also when I wrote later hence the divergence in the two accounts,a part of the Jesus story that the earliest gospel is silent about.
Where did I say the gospel writers had no sources at all? I love it when someone puts words in my mouth, it really shows their methodology (kind of like the gospel writers who put whatever words they wanted to into the mouth of Jesus, or at least changed them when it suited them). Can you tell us then why Matthew and Luke tell such different stories at the beginning of their respective accounts? Clearly if they had sources those sources themselves disagreed, and are therefore no more reliable as history than what we have in the extant gospel accounts. What we are dealing with is religious fiction.
By the way, where do you think Matthew got his story of the saints being raised after the death of Jesus and "appearing to many" (Matthew 27:52,53), a story that appears no where else? An embarrassing passage even to apologists! Are you saying there was a source for every story and none of the gospel writers invented or embellished anything? A curious position, that!
A "defenseless fruit tree"??? What are you, Greenpeace? If Jesus was really that upset, he could have saved everyone the emotional trauma at seeing this poor tree die by causing it to burst into flames or disappear in a cloud of dust planet...but then that would ruin the meaning of it all.
The fig tree is frequently used as a symbol of the nation of Israel. Jesus is deeply unhappy with Israel and he acts out this parable of cursing the tree. Strikingly, the next thing that happens, sandwiched between the fig tree event details, is an account of events in the Temple (15-18).
This is Christ's cleansing of the Temple – met with universal unpopularity and unrepentant traders. The Temple was going to be destroyed as a result. No figs were on this tree, only a show of leaves. Immediately after this, we have verses 20-21.
There's no coincidence here: this is a prophecy of the destruction of Israel.
Jason said...
"There's no coincidence here: this is a prophecy of the destruction of Israel."
My reply...
Yep, to help smooth out the distortion of the fig tree story, why not just highlight "prophetic" connections sort of around the text! That's what I'd do -- did -- as a believer.
This is one of those instances where "the Bible can be used to prove anything" proves true. I mean, it makes sense; if you're going to put a new twist on something, always make the connection to something familiar--like fig tree references to Israel...and general talk of judgment...and cleansing of temples, another judgment concept enforcer.
I must admit, to those who won't face the biblical integrity issue of turning a literal story into a parable, this is a nice out!
(JH)
Bill gnade is a good apologetic fireman! He is usually first on the scene (the Post comments section) to try and dowse the atheistic fire before too much damage can be done.
Bill stated: “Why? Because Jesus, the Messiah, has come to Israel, and Israel is not ready! But Israel SHOULD be ready: There is no In Season/Off Season for those who await the return of the Lord. Alas, Israel is like a fig tree that is also not ready for the Creator of the Universe: the fig tree is a symbol of not being ready at all times.”
It’ good the see the allegorical school began with Philo in Alexandria, Egypt and continued in with Origen is very much alive and well. However, a word of caution here: Don’t allegorize too much or you may end up as a Gnostic interpreter where all scripture has a real and true hidden meaning below the literal meaning.
You know Bill, Phio was very embarrassed over the actions of God in the Hebrew Bible and used allegory to solve the problem of this crude God.
Even Origin used allergory to such an extent in the New Testament that he believed even Satan and the demons would be saved in the end times.
Bill, I want to get technical here just to see if you have an overall perspective of the Biblical text. I wonder if you’ve done any research in Biblical textual history and the theological goals behind it. Thus, let me ask:
A. In comparison with the Masoretic Text (as set today in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), why was the Targum (beyond the language of Aramaic) translated? What was the goal theologically of the translators?
B. With regards to the Revisions of the Septuagint, what were the problems that caused the revisions of Aquial, Symmachus and Theodotion to translate theirs?
C. Why did an allegorical Christian like Origin feel the need of create the Hexapla?
D. Why did the Jews at Qumran use a Pesher interpretation to keep the Hebrew text alive?
E. What were the main problems and goals of the Christian Tatian as expressed in his Diatessaron?
Bill, the above are questions which are answered by the very reasons why not to do what you seem great at doing…taking the meaning as written and running with it to allegory.
Finally, Bill Robert M. Grant who was for years professor of New Testament and Early Church History at the University of Chicago pointed to this problematic Synoptic text out and its changes in Luke. This is not an obscure “Harry McCall creation”; it’s pointed out in any Synopsis of the Four Gospels such as those edited by the late Kurt Aland and his wife.
Finally Bill, to bolster my point about Mark being rework in Luke, the works of John S. Kloppenborg on “Q” and the Synoptic tradition are main stream scholarship and the consensus of scholars of the text and not people with and agenda in apologetic faith.
If you are able to keep your apologetic fire truck going, you might want to have a full tank on the next post on Jesus I’m working. It going to take a lot of water and textual twisting for you to keep it looking good to the Christian faithful.
Sad to say the Church even stole the pagan holiday of winter Solstice and the rebirth of the god of light giving it to Jesus so he could have a birthday we call Christmas. There always is some Christian to keep Jesus up and running.
Merry Xmas
Joe,
There is no distortion of the fig tree account because Jesus' mission was never to judge fig trees. Christ used the fig tree as a symbol of the very present 'unfruitfulness' of the Jews (seen perfectly by the exchange in the Temple) and their impending destruction seen almost 40 years later.
The prophets frequently spoke of the fig tree in referring to Israel’s status before God (Jer. 8:13; 29:17; Hos. 9:10; Joel 1:7), while the destruction of the fig tree is associated with judgment (Hos. 2:12; Isa. 34:4; cf. Lk. 13:6-9)
Gosh, it is disappointing to see someone who is supposedly committed to replacing superstition with rationality reading the Bible in exactly the same way the fundamentalists do!
I don't take offense at this story, nor, apparently, did the woman in the story. Why is that? Because she recognized that Y'shua was acknowledging the truth, not indicting her for it.... dogs do not inherit heaven because they cannot practice their abusive behavior there. Having been raised in a dog pack, I know all too well, that what Y'shua was saying is truth and that what He was offering was salvation - I would rather be one of the children's pets (faithful people treat their animals better than some people treat one another) than to suffer the abuse of people who are insensitive and cruel. The Jews were elected to be purveyors of light to the gentiles - to show them how they ought to love one another.
About the cursing of the fig tree- I see it as a parable that can refer to the nation of Israel but also to each of us on an individula basis - a fig tree can respond only to natural circumstances - it cannot be fruitful out of season. By faith, we are not to be driven by natural circumstances. We are called to overcome (or curse) those situations that might corrupt or interrupt our ability to love. We are to love those who are easy to love and also those who are a challenge to love. We are to love in season and out of season, or, supernaturally.
I think what's going on here is Mark is creating symbolic myth by historicising Hosea chapter 9. Mark probably doesn't intend this to be history. Luke doesn't get it, so he re-tells it in a way that would be more reasonable from a historical perspective.
We see the same thing throughout the Gospel of Mark. Take the absurd story of Barabbas. There is no reason to think that the Romans made a habit of releasing murderous insurrectionists during Passover. They're not going to release such people under any circumstances. But if you understand Jewish customs the symbolic myth becomes clear.
Jews had a custom at Passover of laying hands on a scape goat to bear the sins of the people, while taking a second goat and sacrificing it to appease their deity. Here we see the exact same thing, but symbolically told in the story of Jesus and Barabbas. What does Bar-Abbas mean? It simply means "Son of the Father." So you have one "Son of the Father" that represents the sins of the Jews, and he is released to the wild, and another "Son of the Father" sent off to be sacrificed.
It's a beautiful story brilliantly written, but like Matthew and Luke todays Christians don't get the symbolism.
My apologies - I put my first comment wrongly on this post when it should have been on the post about Y'shua being accused of bigotry....
I'm amazed at the tendency people have to argue that the Gospels must agree with one another. Witnesses to any event do not agree with one another. Each persons subjective reality however, gives evidence of the one objective reality. Keep in mind that the bible is inspired by God, but written by humans. Perfect agreement is not possible where humans are concerned.
I was once a witness to an accident at a busy street corner in San Francisco. The red car clearly smashed into the white one who was making a right turn at a green light, or so my testimony revealed. The guy witnessing the scene from across the street claimed loudley to the officer interviewing me that it was in fact the white car that was at fault because he had a red light that he blew through. The red car had the green.
The officer interviewed many witnesses, looked at all angles, took complex measurements and photographs and using his training and discernment, concluded that the driver of the white car was at fault.
The wonderful thing about the bible is that the truth is in the accounts, if you look for it, and use your training and discernment. Discernment is the key. It is born of training. Discernment allows for a passage to be considered within the larger context of the bible.
I hope you all find what you are looking for.
Chris
Bill Stated: “Does it offend you that Jesus cursed a fig tree? Why? Do you feel sorry for it? If so, are you suggesting something akin to animism, that the tree feels and knows? Or is it just a thing with no sentience? If it is just a tree, how is cursing it at all problematic?”
Jason stated: A "defenseless fruit tree"??? What are you, Greenpeace?”
Gentleman, have you not heard of the use of “irony” in writing? The “defenseless fruit tree” is just that; irony.
James McGrath stated: “Gosh, it is disappointing to see someone who is supposedly committed to replacing superstition with rationality reading the Bible exactly the way fundamentalist do.”
I do believe D.C. is dedicated to debunking evangelical Christianity. Mr. McGrath, I checked out your website and you certainly would not make it on the platform at a Billy Graham a Crusade or at James D. Kennedy’s seminary.
Jon…some good observations! According to the Textual Committee on the United Bible Society’s “Greek New Testament” as stated by Bruce Metzger in the companion “A textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” 2nd ed. He noted that some manuscripts also call Barabbas Jesus or “Jesus Barabbas”. On page 56 Metzger concludes with: “A majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the original text of Matthew had the double name in both verses and that Jesus was deliberately suppressed in most witnesses for reverential considerations.”
Harry,
What's ironic about Jesus and the fig tree? It's a living parable. Have you heard of symbolism? :)
Jason, so is the Book of Revelation and its symbolisms are total confusion. Someone once told me that she thought the writer of Revelation was on LSD.
“Have you heard of symbolism?” Symbolism for what… Israel?
If you think the Jewish nation was like a barren fig tree, you certainly have not read the vast amount of intertestamental literature produced by the Jews or even the Pesher texts from Qumran.
Harry McCall said...
Jason, so is the Book of Revelation and its symbolisms are total confusion. Someone once told me that she thought the writer of Revelation was on LSD.
That reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's remark on the book of Revelation : "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherencies of our own nightly dreams."
Harry,
No one's arguing whether the book of Revelation is symbolic and no one needs to read 'intertestamental literature' to understand the symbolism of the fig tree. A fig tree does not always represent Israel, but it does always represent something prosperous, or unstable. The comparison between the fig tree and the state of the Temple can't be ignored, neither can the destruction of both.
So Jason, just where does the symbolism end and the factual story of Matthew begin?
Mary Baker Eddy, in her “Science and Health with Keys to the Scriptures”, claims most everything in the New Testament is symbolism. Satan is Error; Sin is “Animal Magnetism” and so on.
Docetism claimed Jesus did not really exist, but was merely a “symbol” or an illusion.
Plus, the barren fig tree which could be a “symbol” for a barren or childless Jesus who is likewise killed.
Harry said: So Jason, just where does the symbolism end and the factual story of Matthew begin?
The factual story of Matthew starts at the beginning and it ends, er, at the end. Symbolism is mixed in throughout (e.g. Christ's parables).
Mary Baker Eddy, in her “Science and Health with Keys to the Scriptures”, claims most everything in the New Testament is symbolism. Satan is Error; Sin is “Animal Magnetism” and so on.
Hurray for Mary Baker Eddy.
Docetism claimed Jesus did not really exist, but was merely a “symbol” or an illusion.
Docetism is the belief that Jesus' literal body was an illusion and that he was actually a spirit who couldn't physically die.
Plus, the barren fig tree which could be a “symbol” for a barren or childless Jesus who is likewise killed.
There's no record of Christ ever bemoaning the fact he was to remain 'barren'. The comparison between the fig tree and the spiritual state of the Temple/Israel is clear and logical.
Jason stated:
“The factual story of Matthew starts at the beginning and it ends, er, at the end. Symbolism is mixed in throughout (e.g. Christ's parables)…”
“There's no record of Christ ever bemoaning the fact he was to remain 'barren'. The comparison between the fig tree and the spiritual state of the Temple/Israel is clear and logical.”
Your symbolism completely neglected the fact that this story ends with Matt. 21: 20 - 22 . Thus verse 20: “And seeing this (the withered fig tree) the disciples marveled, saying, How did the fig tree WITHER AT ONCE?
21) And Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, IF YOU HAVE FAITH, AND DO NOT DOUBT, YOU SHALL NOT ONLY DO WHAT WAS DONE TO THE FIG TREE, BUT EVEN IF YOU SAY TO THIS MOUNTIAN, ‘BE TAKEN UP AND CAST INTO THE SEA,IT SHALL HAPPEN.
22) “AND EVERYTHING YOU ASK IN PRAYER, BELIEVING, YOU SHALL RECEIVE.”
So Jason, how (and I beg you!) can you convert a story about faith without doubt bringing action into: “The comparison between the fig tree and the spiritual state of the Temple/Israel is clear and logical.”?
This section of Matt. 21:18 – 22 “is clear and logical.” in that it is NOT a discussion about the Jewish Temple…you’ve just symbolize you way completely out of the semantics of the text as used here!
Verse 21 -22 is strictly about working miracles via strong faith just as Jesus did. It has NOTHING to do as a symbolism of a spiritually barren Jewish Temple!
Post a Comment