FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-26-2007, 01:58 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default Mark's fig-tree story and Hosea 9 - Split from Why does BC&H attract such...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman View Post
Hold it Malachi. Take it easy. This is simple.
So you say.

Quote:
Jiri, please consider Psalms 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
And Mark 15:24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

Now, tell me, do you believe Mark 15:24 was constructed off Psalms 22:18?
Yes.

Quote:
But Psalms is a Psalm of David, not an event. But David's hands and feet were not pierced yet Jesus' were. David was a king yet Jesus was a prophet etc etc.
Explain why you would accept Mark 15:24//Psalms 22:18 and not the Hosea parallel.
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
Solo is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 01:16 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

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

Quote:
One of the reasons why the Galileans grow ever more powerful and dangerous to us is their continual assimilation of our rites and holy days.

Since they rightly regard Mithraism as their chief rival, they have for some years now being taking over various aspects of the Mithraic rite and incorporating them into their own ceremonies. Some critics believe that the gradual absorption of our forms and prayers is fairly recent. But I date it from the very beginning.

In at least one of the biographies of the Galilean there is a strange anecdote which his followers are never able to explain (and they are usually nothing if not ingenious at making sense of nonsense).

The Galilean goes to a fig tree to pick its fruit. But as it is not the season for bearing, the tree was barren. In a fit of temper, the Galilean blasts the tree with magic, killing it. Now the fig tree is sacred to Mithras : as a youth it was his home, his source of food and clothing. I suggest that the apologist who wrote that passage in the first century did so deliberately, inventing it or recording it, no matter which, as a sign that the Galilean would destroy the worship of Mithras as easily as he had destroyed the sacred tree.
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.
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 01:52 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Doherty reasponded to my earlier questions quite well. Solo, I will get back to this later.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 06:43 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
P 333 of my edition of Gore Vidal's Julian (half of 666 an omen!)
Quote:
One of the reasons why the Galileans grow ever more powerful and dangerous to us is their continual assimilation of our rites and holy days.

Since they rightly regard Mithraism as their chief rival, they have for some years now being taking over various aspects of the Mithraic rite and incorporating them into their own ceremonies. Some critics believe that the gradual absorption of our forms and prayers is fairly recent. But I date it from the very beginning.

In at least one of the biographies of the Galilean there is a strange anecdote which his followers are never able to explain (and they are usually nothing if not ingenious at making sense of nonsense).

The Galilean goes to a fig tree to pick its fruit. But as it is not the season for bearing, the tree was barren. In a fit of temper, the Galilean blasts the tree with magic, killing it. Now the fig tree is sacred to Mithras : as a youth it was his home, his source of food and clothing. I suggest that the apologist who wrote that passage in the first century did so deliberately, inventing it or recording it, no matter which, as a sign that the Galilean would destroy the worship of Mithras as easily as he had destroyed the sacred tree.
Is this not clear evidence of Mithraism in the Gospels themselves?
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
Solo is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 08:15 AM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Near to the above excerpt from Julian, Gore Vidal has Julian commenting about the continual re-editing of the gospels for various reasons!
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 09:10 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

From the other thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
It's sheer audacity, Malachi. I had specific objections to your "parallels". Why would be Jesus approaching a fig-tree that was out of season to have something to eat, if all Mark meant do was to create a story to fulfil Hosea 9? Can you answer that ?
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

Quote:
10 I found Israel as grapes in the wilderness, and I saw their fathers as an early watchman in a fig tree. They went in to Baal Peor, and were shamefully estranged, and the abominable became as the beloved.

11 Ephraim has flown away as a bird; their glories from the birth, and the travail, and the conception.

12 For even if they should rear their children, yet shall they be utterly bereaved. Wherefore also there is woe to them, though My flesh is of them.

13 Ephraim, even as I saw, gave their children for a prey; yes, Ephraim was ready to bring out his children to slaughter.

14 Give them, O Lord; what will You give them? A miscarrying womb, and dry breasts.

15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal. For there I hated them; because of the wickedness of their practices, I will cast them out of My house, I will not love them anymore; all their princes are disobedient.

16 Ephraim is sick, he is dried up at his roots, he shall by no means bear fruit any longer. For even if they should beget children, I will kill the desired fruit of their womb.
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:

Quote:
Hosea 9:
10 Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel.
Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your ancestors.
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?

Quote:
Mark 1:6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.
Quote:
2 Kings 2:8 "They replied, 'He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist.' The king said, 'That was Elijah the Tishbite."
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:

Quote:
(NIV) Mark 11:
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area 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.

19 When evening came, they 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!"
Quote:
(NIV) Hosea 9:
1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; ...
7 The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. Let Israel know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac.
8 The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God.
9 They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins.
10 'When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved.
11 Ephraim's glory will fly away like a bird—no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
12 Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one. Woe to them when I turn away from them!
13 I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre, planted in a pleasant place. But Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer."
14 Give them, O LORD—what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.
15 "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious.
16 Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.'
17 My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him;
Quote:
(NRSV) Hosea 9:
1 Do not rejoice, O Israel!
Do not exult* as other nations do;
for you have played the whore, departing from your God.
You have loved a prostitute’s pay
on all threshing-floors.
2 Threshing-floor and wine vat shall not feed them,
and the new wine shall fail them.
3 They shall not remain in the land of the Lord;
but Ephraim shall return to Egypt,
and in Assyria they shall eat unclean food.

4 They shall not pour drink-offerings of wine to the Lord,
and their sacrifices shall not please him.
Such sacrifices shall be like mourners’ bread;
all who eat of it shall be defiled;
for their bread shall be for their hunger only;
it shall not come to the house of the Lord.

5 What will you do on the day of appointed festival,
and on the day of the festival of the Lord?
6 For even if they escape destruction,
Egypt shall gather them,
Memphis shall bury them.
Nettles shall possess their precious things of silver;*
thorns shall be in their tents.

7 The days of punishment have come,
the days of recompense have come;
Israel cries,*
‘The prophet is a fool,
the man of the spirit is mad!’
Because of your great iniquity,
your hostility is great.
8 The prophet is a sentinel for my God over Ephraim,
yet a fowler’s snare is on all his ways,
and hostility in the house of his God.

9 They have deeply corrupted themselves
as in the days of Gibeah;
he will remember their iniquity,
he will punish their sins.

10 Like grapes in the wilderness,
I found Israel.
Like the first fruit on the fig tree,
in its first season,
I saw your ancestors.

But they came to Baal-peor,
and consecrated themselves to a thing of shame,
and became detestable like the thing they loved.
11 Ephraim’s glory shall fly away like a bird—
no birth, no pregnancy, no conception!
12 Even if they bring up children,
I will bereave them until no one is left.
Woe to them indeed
when I depart from them!
13 Once I saw Ephraim as a young palm planted in a lovely meadow,*
but now Ephraim must lead out his children for slaughter.
14 Give them, O Lord—
what will you give?
Give them a miscarrying womb
and dry breasts.

15 Every evil of theirs began at Gilgal;
there I came to hate them.
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of my house.
I will love them no more;

all their officials are rebels.

16 Ephraim is stricken,
their root is dried up,
they shall bear no fruit.

Even though they give birth,
I will kill the cherished offspring of their womb.
17 Because they have not listened to him,
my God will reject them;
they shall become wanderers among the nations.
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.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 11:17 AM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
P 333 of my edition of Gore Vidal's Julian (or via: amazon.co.uk) (half of 666 an omen!)

....
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.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 01:57 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
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.
Whereas Hosea DOES see fathers as early fruit on the fig tree (considered delicacy). So, we would be starting with a non-starter.

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

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

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

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

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 02:10 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Are you sure Mark meant just Judea ? Did Mark's Pilate mean to call Jesus the King of the Judeans ?
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.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 04-27-2007, 02:12 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

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

Quote:
Yes, you are right. LXX drops the reference to "the first season"
Right, so what the author of Mark would have seen in his copy of the text would probably have been something like:

Quote:
10 Like grapes in the wilderness,
I found Israel.
Like the first fruit on the fig tree,
I saw your ancestors.
So, this could directly be taken to mean "early fruit", or for all we know it would have been interpreted directly as "early fruit."
Malachi151 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:49 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.