Solo

So you say.

Yes.

I understand there is a problem in 22:16 with the LXX. translation, so it may be a red herring to begin with.

Now, I gave you and Malachi my analysis of the fig-tree story showing that in the Markan version, Jesus hungering for figs but finding none does not quite hang together either with the rest Mark's story or with Hosea 9. You can take, you may leave it, you may comment on it. It's interesting to note that neither of you had a real counter-point to make.

There is a larger issue: while I readily accept that many of the gospel "events" are structured to fulfill some OT prophecy or illustrate a psalm, I do not necessarily accept that whole events were created from scratch to do so. E.g. the crucifixion was not a mythical event just because the soldiers under the cross were casting lots for J's garments. It seems reasonable that the detail was planted by Mark to create the 'wow' effect by a reader who discovered the connection.

With the fig tree story, it is not a detail - it is the meaning in the action of Jesus that was badly missing in the presumed tradition about Jesus confronting a tree. Just accept for a second that there was such a tradition and Mark was to make sense of it. So Mark would have likely scoured OT for instances of a fig tree which could be used in his symbolisms.He would have thrown out Micah 7:1, and Psalm 35, but then lo and behold, there was a a prophet in Hosea 9. who had been seen as crazy by the wicked idolaters and Baal worshippers. So Mark expanded his narration to correlate the no-birth-no pregnancy-no conception punishment of Israel with the Jesus story he heard about or seen written some place, and sandwiched it around the cleansing of the temple. EXCEPT: as I asked, why was it necessary to make Jesus attempt to feed off the tree not yet bearing fruit ? To show he really was mad ? Does Hosea say, the prophet will be fooled by the wicked in Israel into mixing up his seasons ?

Evidently, it was completely meaningless for Mark to begin the narration in that fashion if he was creating it from the scratch and simply fulfilling the prophecy in Hosea. But he did did and ended up with a strange looking assertion that faith can move mountains coming from a guy who flew into a rage when he could not get himself a handful of figs a couple of months ahead of market.

Jiri

Clivedurdle

P 333 of my edition of Gore Vidal's Julian (half of 666 an omen!)

Is this not clear evidence of Mithraism in the Gospels themselves?

Why do Biblical scholars look so much to the Hebrew Bible for connections and ignore the connections made at the time to the wider world?

We need an equivalent of Dake - who has exhaustively connected the old and new testaments - that connects the new testament to its time and place - not a probably mythical Hebrew past.

Ted Hoffman

Doherty reasponded to my earlier questions quite well. Solo, I will get back to this later.

Solo

First, it may well be that the Persian cult of Mithra itself borrowed the sacred fig-tree from Buddhism (Gautama attained enlightment sitting under one). Second, the linking in Julian is highly problematic, and not just because it is hostile rhetoric. It assumes the Christian mores and preoccupations of his time to have been present from the beginnings. The proto-Christians of Mark's time though would not have the sense of religious identity and awareness of Mithraism (which was just then penetrating the Greco-Roman world) as a rival for the status of imperial religion.

Jiri

Clivedurdle

Near to the above excerpt from Julian, Gore Vidal has Julian commenting about the continual re-editing of the gospels for various reasons!

Malachi151

From the other thread:

That's the whole point, the whole bit from Mark is contrived in order to create a scenario where it is clear that Jesus is looking for "early fruit". Jesus looks for "early fruit" and finds none.

First of all, from what I can see, and again I can't read Greek or Hebrew, so that complicates things, the translations of the Septuagint that I find don't say the same thing that either you or I have quoted. I quoted origionally from the NIV. You are quoting from the NRSV I assume (which reads the same as what you have said), but we all know that the NRSV isn't sourced from the Septuagint for the Old Testament passages in most cases.

Here is I get from the Septuagint:

The Greek: http://septuagint.org/LXX/Hosea/Hosea9.html

English translation from 1800s: http://www.apostlesbible.com/books/h28hosea/h28c09.htm

You are trying to squabble over whether it was a first fruit or an early fruit, or if the fruits were supposedly out of season or just first fruits, etc., when in fact we know that it's impossible for us to know the exact translation that the author was using, or what he took it to mean.

From what I understand, and I could be wrong on this, figs don't even have a season, they produce fruit all year round. For all I know the author of Mark didn't have a good understanding of fig trees.

At any rate, what we have is this:

Hosea 9:10: Seeing a fig tree and finding figs on the fig tree
Mark 11:13: Seeing a fig tree and NOT finding figs on the fig tree

Hosea 9:15: "Because of their sinful deeds I will drive them out of my house"
Mark 11:15: "On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there."

Hosea 9:16: "Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit."
Mark 11:20: "In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots."

Now, in Hosea 9, were the figs that God saw the figs of the first fruit, were they figs early in the season, were they an "early watchman"?

I'd like to see more on the Greek of this, but ultimately I don't think it matters if the figs were first fruits in Hosea or early fruits, the reference is still clear.

Clearly, the author of Mark is setting up a scenario where if the fruits had been there when Jesus looked, they would have been early fruits. Had the tree fruited early, he would have found fruit, but it didn't fruit early.

Here is the NRSV translation:

The author of Mark was making it clear that he looked when it would have been too early to expect fruits.

Either the translation of Hosea 9 that the author of Mark was using said "early fruits", not "first fruits", or the author of Mark misunderstood "first fruits" to mean "early fruits", or he didn't understand the difference between first season and any other season, etc.

In fact, the fact that the author of Mark says, "When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs" brings the phrase linguistically closer to the NRSV interpretation, as both talk about seasons.

Your whole argument relies on the NRSV interpretation being exactly what the author of Mark used and understood, and on a strict adherence to the NRSV interpretation.

There are enough other significant elements to see that this is a very clear parallel. I mean there are a lot of botched references in the Gospels. Mostly by Matthew, but all over the place.

Will you say that Mark 1:6 isn't based on 2 Kings 2:8?

Obviously the author of Mark was either liberal in the way he made his references, or his translations of the OT were slightly different than ours.

-----------------------------

Additional info:

Again:

#1) I think that it fits with either translation, though the NIV translation fits better

#2) Without knowing exactly the text that the author of Mark used, there is no way to get this technical anyway. Obviously line 10 is a passage that has several variations, as with many examples from the scriptures, Psalm 22:16 being a prime example.

I see that possibly you misunderstand what I am saying as saying that "Mark" was trying to show that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy. No, not at all. That wasn't at all how the author of Mark used scriptural references. The point of Mark's scriptural references wasn't to show Jesus fulfilling prophecies, that is what the author of Matthew, Luke, and John did.

Mark simply used scriptures as a template for this story, and if any was alluding to the meaning of the base scripture. As I argue many times, the Gospel of Mark is a story about THE DESTRUCTION OF JUDEA. Mark's scriptural references are about Jesus, they are about Judea. Mark's scriptural references are almost always about the destruction of Judea, as in this case as well.

The point is a sub-textual meaning that is different from the face value of the story. The point of the Gospel of Mark is showing why Judea was destroyed in 70 CE.

Toto

Gore Vidal is a novelist. Can you find a historical source that links Mithras with fig trees? There are some indications that Mithras was associated with a fig tree, but so much that is asserted about Mithras is fantasy, that I would need to see more evidence.

In any case, fig trees were associated with Israel. It hardly seems necessary to read Mithras into this passage.

Solo

Whereas Hosea DOES see fathers as early fruit on the fig tree (considered delicacy). So, we would be starting with a non-starter.

Yes, you are right. LXX drops the reference to "the first season", which would be enhancing the joyous sight of innocence.

I do not wish to squabble, Malachi, that's not my nature.

Yet he lets Jesus expound a fig-tree season theory in 13:28-29. But, bottom line, you deny the text conveys (intentionally or not, willy or nilly) error in judgment on Jesus' part.

Well right ! Exactly ! It's a mismatch !

If Mark was fictionalizing using Hosea as script Jesus would have found his out-of-season figs and then predicted the tree's early demise. He would have cleansed the temple and walking past it on their way back the disciples would have seen it withered and so on.....

So take your pick: Mark either used Hosea 9 or he was fictionalizing the whole thing. I don't see how he could have done both.

Let me see if I understand you are saying as saying: Mark did not use scriptural references to show that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy. Mark's scriptural references are [something missing there, perhaps ?] about Jesus, they are about Judea. Mark's scriptural references are almost always about the destruction of Judea.

I do not agree with your reading of Mark as having a single motive. So, I do not see e.g. where Psalms 22:16 and King 2:8 that have been brought up in the thread here, are connected with the destruction of Judea.

Are you sure Mark meant just Judea ? Did Mark's Pilate mean to call Jesus the King of the Judeans ?

Jiri

Ben C Smith

Yes. Pilate rhetorically calls Jesus the king of the Judeans (ο βασιλευς των Ιουδαιων, usually translated as king of the Jews) four times in Mark 15 (with the soldiers adding a fifth time). I would take that many instances as intentional.

Ben.

Malachi151

No, no.

Hosea 9 says that when God first found the people of Israel they were like the early fruit, or first fruit, on the tree, thus he loved them.

Jesus sees a fig tree now and there is no early fruit, thus showing that there is no longer early fruit on the tree.

The fact that there is no fruit on the tree is the whole point, that IS what makes it make sense.

In the past God saw early fruit on the tree, and he loved the Jews.

Now Jesus looks for early fruit on the tree and there is none, because now it is the present, and now he no longer loves the Jews, or the Judeans. Teh lack of fruit is symbolic of the Judeans letting God down.

Right, so what the author of Mark would have seen in his copy of the text would probably have been something like:

So, this could directly be taken to mean "early fruit", or for all we know it would have been interpreted directly as "early fruit."