Solo

Malachi, you and I had already had an exchange on Hosea 9. The problem with correlating Mark with the vision of Hosea is that in Hosea the grapes and figs are there and the 'withering' only comes as a result of the sin of idolatry. By contrast in Mark, Jesus desires figs but sees none for quite natural reasons. He curses the tree prior to dealing with the 'thieves' in the Temple. So, if Mark was inventing the story and wanted to apply Hosea 9, he did not need to go into the lengths of having Jesus look for figs which were not there. The curse could have been effected using other imagery, one not relating Jesus' hunger and anger at not being fed. IOW, Mark would have retrofitted the story to suit his purpose without introducing cognitive elements that did not fit. But it could have been that he had a story of Jesus looking for figs out of season, found Hosea 9, and decided to expand on it by making the tree wither overnight. Unfortunately, like in Mt 1:25 the OT "shoe" did not fit.

On the issue of the "mad" prophet, earth-born prophets were "mad" almost by definition in antiquity; it's the idea of heaven-descended Wisdom being seen as mad that needs some corroboration. None of the Jewish prophets before Jesus were family relation to God.

Jiri

Malachi151

This is bunk. This is one of the most lame attempts at apologetics I have seen. The parallels are extremely clear on this one. Again, just the shear audacity and uselessness of apologists and Bible believers.

You really will stop at nothing, and stoop to any level to try and rescue this bit of ancient mythology.

Ted Hoffman

Hold it Malachi. Take it easy. This is simple.
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?
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.

Solo

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 ?



Jiri

Dave Reed

This is excellent, and the concept also portrays it's own weakness of
those who wish to be thoughtful, or maintain reasonable peace. I gave
up the alledged importance of "being right at any cost" a while back,
and it feels very serene .

Johann_Kaspar

I find this question highly derogatory. And the OP totally lacking of respect. This is an open forum as I understood it. Tell me if I am wrong. As such everybody has the right to express his opinions whatever they are. Again, tell me if I am wrong. Everybody too is free to open anywhere on the web a blog, a list or his own forum and set the rules he wants, to accept or refuse whom he wants.Take it private, what's the problem? Or a private forum.So you agree that you are free to do here what you want. Why don't you accept the same for other people?
Wow, there is a life outside the web! Could you imagine?So you want that others will only do what you want and what you need! Making gains for whom? You? Isn't is a bit too egoistic?YOU can move. You are free. Your move with this OP is a manipulative one. Fitting your needs.

Johann_Kaspar

Who is informed and rational? Most people here are completely uninformed of the works in other languages if these works were not translated (and most of the time even if they were translated - I guess so few were translated anyway).

Informed and rational? Well, nobody here could give a rational explanation about "walking on the sea". And yes, there is one. It clearly means that nobody here is "informed". Too bad.

Nobody understands what is the meaning of the fishes, and so on, and so on...

:notworthy:

Malachi151

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.

BTW, Solo, I apologize for my prior reply, it was a bit over the top, sorry.

Amaleq13

Nobody could give you the specific explanation for which you were looking. Whether that makes them uninformed depends on the nature of that explanation but you have so far been reluctant to share.

And you complain when others play games?

post tenebras lux

Thank you Johann for basically saying what I wanted to say but I was too worried at being flamed to reply to this thread before now.

IMHExperience, Chris has never been eager to share his knowledge, instead prefering the (christian) dodge of demanding that his critics prove him wrong (to his satisfaction) rather than providing evidence that he is right in the first place.

Luxie