Matthew Corrects Mark - Figs Anyone?

[Snow]

Mark 11: 12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

The account from thE author of Mark has Jesus seeing a fig tree off in the distance. Being apparently hungry, Jesus walks into the distance looking for something to eat. Upon arriving Jesus finds that there is not fruit - it is not the proper season and so Jesus reacts and curses the tree. The tree dies the next day.

Matthew 21: 18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

The author of Matthew has Mark as one of his primary sources yet takes liberties with the account in Mark and revises the story to fit his own theology.

No longer is the fig tree in the distance. For the author of Matthew it doesn’t make sense that Christ would walk all that distance looking for food, not knowing, as God would know, that the fruit was not in season. Instead, the fig tree is merely by the road so that Jesus doesn’t have to expend any unnecessary energy - he just happens upon the tree. In Mark, the tree takes a day to die, but Matthew, who is more concerned with the deity of Jesus, makes Jesus more powerful and the tree dies right away. Mark’s version of Jesus is more human - hungry, forgetful or unknowledgeable and then exasperated when he doesn’t get the expected meal.

This is merely one of many instances where Matthew takes it upon himself to correct Mark. Since Mark is older, it is viewed as being more accurate and less revised. Matthew appears to be more interested in his version of theology and less interested in historical accuracy.

[ozzy]

Hmmm, yet another instance that sort of proves that as wonderful scripture as the Bible is, there is discrepancy and we do need more sources of scripture (aka: Book of Mormon, living prophet, etc.).

[Moksha]

"Die you out-of-season juvenile fig tree die!"

"Yo fig tree, eat manure and die"

"You gonna swim with the fishes tonight you stupid tree"

I am glad they didn't get these versions didn't make it to print.

:)

[Justice]

The Matthew account says He was on His way back to the city, making it sound like He travelled pretty far. There is no indication whatsoever that He saw the tree near or far, it's just your interpretation that He didn't see it from far away. Because He saw it beside the road doesn't mean it was beside Him. He very well could have spotted it from a distance beside the road He was travelling back to the city, and as He passed by He went up to it.

Neither do I find the Mark account any more or less "reactionary" than the Matthew account.

The only difference you can difinitively make from the text is when the tree was withered. That discrepency could be entirely dependant on who told the story and when they witnessed that the tree was withered. One was possibly with Him and saw it wither that very moment, while the other possibly heard the story and went to look at the tree himself the next day.

In any case, I do see differences. I just don't draw the same conclusion as you do, that one has to be correcting the other. The writer of Matthew either was an eye-witness to the event or heard the story from someone who was, and told it from that perspective, while the writer of Mark heard the story from someone and went to view the tree he knew had leaves on it the day before and saw it was bare.

Both are telling what they knew, or what they were told. The fact that Jeus approached the tree for food and cursed it because it had none yet appeared to be in the time of it's season remains constant.

Just another way of looking at it.

[Yekcidmij]

It' not that Matthew is "correcting" Mark so much as it is that Matthew is telling his own story. It's not a dichotomy where you have to choose one story over the other or figure out which story is representing the historical reality. Neither Matthew nor Mark were modern historians; neither were modern authors. Matthew has his own emphasis which is slighty different from Mark in this case. It's a mistake as well to make an "older is better" argument. And it's just as much a mistake to say that Mark isn't making a theological emphasis as well; pay attention to the placing of the two fig tree stories in Mark 11. Notice anything about their arrangement?

Edited January 4, 2010 by JimmieD1

[Elgama]

could always be separate incidents - maybe he was in a bad mood and cursed 2 trees that day

[volgadon]

The only major difference in the two accounts is the timing of the curse, and even such is not that major.

the tree still withhers up and dies. We don't know that it took a whole day in Mark's account, as they walked away from it, returning only the next day.

[rameumptom]

Differences like this are often considered to be from the Q source (Quelle - German for "source"). It may be that instead of correcting Mark, Matthew was just using a different source for this story.

Also, for a fig tree, the leaves come on AFTER the fruit begins to grow. It is possible that upon seeing the leaves (far or near distance), it was assumed that the tree may have some edible fruit. It becomes a lesson for the disciples that it is important to not just put on a good show on the outside, but that you must actually bear fruit, to be accepted of God.

Edited January 4, 2010 by rameumptom

[Yekcidmij]

Differences like this are often considered to be from the Q source (Quelle - German for "source"). It may be that instead of correcting Mark, Matthew was just using a different source for this story.

Also, for a fig tree, the leaves come on AFTER the fruit begins to grow. It is possible that upon seeing the leaves (far or near distance), it was assumed that the tree may have some edible fruit. It becomes a lesson for the disciples that it is important to not just put on a good show on the outside, but that you must actually bear fruit, to be accepted of God.

This section isn't actually Q material though. Q is material that is unique to both Matthew and Luke, but not Mark. This section is in Mark and Matthew. Not only is it the same story, but it occurs in the same sequence in Matthew as it does in Mark. The biggest difference is that Mark has divided the story and stuck the temple "cleaning" incident in between the division. Matthew has told the fig tree part all at once, and doesn't divide it. Mark's maneuver here is almost surely on purpose, and is very significant. This actually is a key to Mark's (and perhaps Peter's by connection) interpretation of the incident in the Temple, and it makes it clear that Mark is saying that what Jesus did in the Temple is not a cleansing of the temple.

Edited January 4, 2010 by JimmieD1

[Moksha]

It becomes a lesson for the disciples that it is important to not just put on a good show on the outside, but that you must actually bear fruit, to be accepted of God.

Or else, "To every thing there is a season;... a time to plant, and a time to pluck..."

[Snow]

The Matthew account says He was on His way back to the city, making it sound like He travelled pretty far. There is no indication whatsoever that He saw the tree near or far, it's just your interpretation that He didn't see it from far away. Because He saw it beside the road doesn't mean it was beside Him. He very well could have spotted it from a distance beside the road He was travelling back to the city, and as He passed by He went up to it.

Why bother apologizing for the differences. The author of Mark made a point to say that the tree was in the distance requiring time and effort to get there. The author of Matthew made a point of saying that the tree was merely at the side of the road, making it convenient for the passerby. No one needs you to put a spin on what the author might have said but choose not to.

The only difference you can difinitively make from the text is when the tree was withered. That discrepency could be entirely dependant on who told the story and when they witnessed that the tree was withered. One was possibly with Him and saw it wither that very moment, while the other possibly heard the story and went to look at the tree himself the next day.

Uh - no. That is one of two differences, the first being the location of the tree. Read the text. As for the withering, one author depicted the withering as a non-immediate event, while the second author said it was immediate. You do not need to apologize for the difference.

In any case, I do see differences. I just don't draw the same conclusion as you do, that one has to be correcting the other. The writer of Matthew either was an eye-witness to the event or heard the story from someone who was, and told it from that perspective, while the writer of Mark heard the story from someone and went to view the tree he knew had leaves on it the day before and saw it was bare.

Oh brother. The Matthew author was even more removed from being an eyewitness than was the author of Mark, who was already at a 3rd or 4th remove from Jesus. “Matthews” source for the story was Mark.

Both are telling what they knew, or what they were told.

Matthew is RE-telling what he learned from reading Mark and changing the details.

[Snow]

It' not that Matthew is "correcting" Mark so much as it is that Matthew is telling his own story. It's not a dichotomy where you have to choose one story over the other or figure out which story is representing the historical reality.

Matthew's source for the fig story is Mark.

[Snow]

The only major difference in the two accounts is the timing of the curse, and even such is not that major.

the tree still withhers up and dies. We don't know that it took a whole day in Mark's account, as they walked away from it, returning only the next day.

What we do know is that Mark represented the tree's withering as a non-immediate event while the author of Matthew took Mark's story (Matthew's source) and altered it to make it an immediate event.

You don't have to read into it. You can just accept the accounts as described as being the way the authors wanted them to be.

[Snow]

Differences like this are often considered to be from the Q source (Quelle - German for "source"). It may be that instead of correcting Mark, Matthew was just using a different source for this story.

Q is a theorized source of the sayings of Jesus as reconstructed from the Gospels. The Fig story is based on Mark, not on Q.

[volgadon]

Snow, because I refuse to be overly simplistic in my readings does not mean that I am reading into the text any more than you are.

Here is a question, how far is afar off? Was it further down the road, or was it way off to the side? Guess what, the text doesn't say. Either is quite plausible.

[Snow]

Snow, because I refuse to be overly simplistic in my readings does not mean that I am reading into the text any more than you are.

Here is a question, how far is afar off? Was it further down the road, or was it way off to the side? Guess what, the text doesn't say. Either is quite plausible.

Does it make you dizzy - applying the apologetic spin?

"Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf..."

"Seeing a lone fig tree by the road..."

(from the NASB)

Only someone trying to argue a pre-decided point would try to argue that "by the road" and "at a distance" convey the same meaning. Those of us who can read English, however, understand instantly what the difference is.

Matthew could have chosen to quote Mark. He didn't. He chose to convey something different. You can wish it differently all you like but it's in black and white.

[Justice]

I'm not apologizing for anyone or anything. I don't read apologist sites or material.

The author of Matthew made a point of saying that the tree was merely at the side of the road, making it convenient for the passerby.

I don't see the words merely or convenient. The fact that different words were used, or some words were omitted, doesn't necessarily mean they were saying different things.

“Matthews” source for the story was Mark.

Matthew is RE-telling what he learned from reading Mark and changing the details.

Show me how this can be proven.

[volgadon]

Does it make you dizzy - applying the apologetic spin?

Thus speaks the one reading with an agenda.

"Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf..."

"Seeing a lone fig tree by the road..."

(from the NASB)

Don't own an NASB, nor do I intend on doing so.

Only someone trying to argue a pre-decided point would try to argue that "by the road" and "at a distance" convey the same meaning. Those of us who can read English, however, understand instantly what the difference is.

You are the one arguing the pre-decided point. I am saying, lets look at the text and check our assumptions.

Does afar off, or at a distance tell us where the tree was located? Do they render implausible its being by the side of the road, at a distance from Christ?

So please, explain to me what the difference is. silly, quatrilingual me doesn't see how at a distance excludes by the road.

Matthew could have chosen to quote Mark. He didn't. He chose to convey something different. You can wish it differently all you like but it's in black and white.

You and your pre-decided points. It is far from proven that Mark was Matthew's source. Sure, it is the predominant supposition, but that is all it is. Certainly not black and white.

[Yekcidmij]

Matthew's source for the fig story is Mark.

I don't believe I indicated otherwise. I'm for Marcan priority. It's still probably anachronistic to say that Matthew was correcting Mark, as if his goal was to fix Mark’s mistakes. Matthew is simply retelling the story.

What we do know is that Mark represented the tree's withering as a non-immediate event while the author of Matthew took Mark's story (Matthew's source) and altered it to make it an immediate event.

It may be very well that Mark was the one that split the story into two in the first place. Mark’s objective is clearly to give us the key to interpreting Jesus’ temple actions. The literary technique is commonly called “sandwiching” or an “inclusio“, and Mark uses it often. If you were going to try to figure out which story was the “real story”, as if a first century author would be so overly concerned with that, you would have to consider that Mark’s is the altered one as he is very obviously using a literary technique to make a particular emphasis. Even then, it’s not that Matthew is trying to fix Mark’s work. Matthew is retelling, or in an oral culture like first century Judea Matthew is simply performing the story for another audience. To try to impose 21st century scholarship standards of reporting history onto the 4 gospels is anachronistic. The more accurate way to see it is that Matthew and Mark are each performing the story. Even though Matthew uses Mark as a source, he is in no way compelled or obligated to retell the story EXACTLY as Mark did and Mark is under no obligation or compulsion to report it as a bland and boring history as we might do today.

If you wanted to draw some history out of their stories, I think you could be safe to say that during Jesus’ last week he did curse a fig tree which Mark interpreted for us by using this sandwiching technique and Jesus did talk about casting mountains into the sea, as most scholars (1) seem to say and as is attested additionally in 1 Cor 13:2, the Gospel of Thomas 48, and the actual Q variant attests (Matt 17:20//Luke 17:6). The actual point of the cursing of the fig tree, and it’s adjoined saying about tossing around mountains, is not a figurative and arbitrary philosophical maxim. It’s a warning against the Temple and Jerusalem that judgment is coming. Mark’s sandwiching of the Temple “cleansing” in between the story gives us the key to Mark’s (and certainly Matthew’s as well) interpretation of Jesus’ Temple “cleansing”. In fact, it was no cleansing at all. For one, it doesn’t even look like a Temple cleansing. Temple cleansings were supposed to take 8 days to do properly and was accompanied by songs, celebration, sacrifices, dedication of the altar, etc.. (1 Macc 4; 2 Macc 10; 1 Kings 8; 2 Chr 29-30). Jesus’ actions were a prophetic style sign-act. Prophets would often act out the prophecies in very vivid ways like Jeremiah smashing pots or Ezekiel cooking his food over cow manure (gross I know, but it‘s there). Jesus’ Temple action is a sign-act of the coming judgment and destruction on the Temple (and hence Jerusalem and Judea). This sort of behavior is almost certainly what caught the authorities attention and made them want to arrest Him.

In any case, Matthew is not fixing Mark. Matthew is very much in line with Mark; they just tell the story slightly differently. Matthew isn’t hungry for Mark’s sandwiches.

(1) “Proclamation” , Jeremias, p 161; Matthew 2.727-28, Davies and Allison; “Historical Jesus”, Theissen and Merz, p 293; “Jesus of Nazareth”, Becker, p 182; “Jesus”, Ludemann, pp 79, 102; “Jesus Remembered”, Dunn, pp 681, 693; “Jesus and the Victory of God”, Wright, pp 334, 364, 416, 421, 494; “Matthew”, Witherington, pp398-399; “Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels”, Malina and Rohrbaugh, pp 196-197; “Commentary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”, Beale and Carson, pp 208-209.

Edited January 5, 2010 by JimmieD1

[Justice]

"Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf..."

"Seeing a lone fig tree by the road..."

(from the NASB)

Matthew 21:

19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Mark 11:

13 And seeing a fig tree far off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

(KJV)

Both statements can be interpreted the exact same way. That the tree was near or across the road is NOT the only way to understand Matthew's version.

You can wish it differently all you like but it's in black and white.

The only thing that is in "black and white" is that the tree was close enough in both accounts to recognize the tree as a fig tree.

[volgadon]

It may be very well that Mark was the one that split the story into two in the first place.

I lean towards that understanding. Mark has Jesus come to Jerusalem, sit at the temple until it grows dark and walk the several miles over to Bethany, only to return the next day to cleanse the temple.

Why not on the first day?

[Snow]

Matthew 21:

19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Mark 11:

13 And seeing a fig tree far off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

(KJV)

Both statements can be interpreted the exact same way. That the tree was near or across the road is NOT the only way to understand Matthew's version.

Really? Please tell us the original Greek words for "far off" and "in the way" and demonstrate that they can mean the same thing.

Do you think I'll have to wait long for that?

btw... I've already checked the Greek lexicon so I know the answer.

oh, and bbtw... bolding the word "came" is deliberately deceptive. It is not the verb of moving from one place to another that is being discussed and you know it. We are discussing the location of the tree.

[Snow]

I don't believe I indicated otherwise. I'm for Marcan priority. It's still probably anachronistic to say that Matthew was correcting Mark, as if his goal was to fix Mark’s mistakes. Matthew is simply retelling the story.

It may be very well that Mark was the one that split the story into two in the first place. Mark’s objective is clearly to give us the key to interpreting Jesus’ temple actions. The literary technique is commonly called “sandwiching” or an “inclusio“, and Mark uses it often. If you were going to try to figure out which story was the “real story”, as if a first century author would be so overly concerned with that, you would have to consider that Mark’s is the altered one as he is very obviously using a literary technique to make a particular emphasis. Even then, it’s not that Matthew is trying to fix Mark’s work. Matthew is retelling, or in an oral culture like first century Judea Matthew is simply performing the story for another audience. To try to impose 21st century scholarship standards of reporting history onto the 4 gospels is anachronistic. The more accurate way to see it is that Matthew and Mark are each performing the story. Even though Matthew uses Mark as a source, he is in no way compelled or obligated to retell the story EXACTLY as Mark did and Mark is under no obligation or compulsion to report it as a bland and boring history as we might do today.

If you wanted to draw some history out of their stories, I think you could be safe to say that during Jesus’ last week he did curse a fig tree which Mark interpreted for us by using this sandwiching technique and Jesus did talk about casting mountains into the sea, as most scholars (1) seem to say and as is attested additionally in 1 Cor 13:2, the Gospel of Thomas 48, and the actual Q variant attests (Matt 17:20//Luke 17:6). The actual point of the cursing of the fig tree, and it’s adjoined saying about tossing around mountains, is not a figurative and arbitrary philosophical maxim. It’s a warning against the Temple and Jerusalem that judgment is coming. Mark’s sandwiching of the Temple “cleansing” in between the story gives us the key to Mark’s (and certainly Matthew’s as well) interpretation of Jesus’ Temple “cleansing”. In fact, it was no cleansing at all. For one, it doesn’t even look like a Temple cleansing. Temple cleansings were supposed to take 8 days to do properly and was accompanied by songs, celebration, sacrifices, dedication of the altar, etc.. (1 Macc 4; 2 Macc 10; 1 Kings 8; 2 Chr 29-30). Jesus’ actions were a prophetic style sign-act. Prophets would often act out the prophecies in very vivid ways like Jeremiah smashing pots or Ezekiel cooking his food over cow manure (gross I know, but it‘s there). Jesus’ Temple action is a sign-act of the coming judgment and destruction on the Temple (and hence Jerusalem and Judea). This sort of behavior is almost certainly what caught the authorities attention and made them want to arrest Him.

In any case, Matthew is not fixing Mark. Matthew is very much in line with Mark; they just tell the story slightly differently. Matthew isn’t hungry for Mark’s sandwiches.

(1) “Proclamation” , Jeremias, p 161; Matthew 2.727-28, Davies and Allison; “Historical Jesus”, Theissen and Merz, p 293; “Jesus of Nazareth”, Becker, p 182; “Jesus”, Ludemann, pp 79, 102; “Jesus Remembered”, Dunn, pp 681, 693; “Jesus and the Victory of God”, Wright, pp 334, 364, 416, 421, 494; “Matthew”, Witherington, pp398-399; “Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels”, Malina and Rohrbaugh, pp 196-197; “Commentary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”, Beale and Carson, pp 208-209.

Obviously the author of Matthew did not believe that the Mark account was inspired, at least not enough that he couldn't put his own spin on it - changing two details in the process.

As to whether or not Matthew was fixing Mark... he does so time after time. It starts in the beginning of the Gospel where Matthew corrects Mark's garbled and incorrect use of Old Testament sources (Mark 1) and continues right up to the end of the Gospel where Matthew correct Mark (13:9) where Mark had incorrectly miscalculated "the time of troubles." There are numerous examples in between.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Snow

[volgadon]

btw... I've already checked the Greek lexicon so I know the answer.

So since you've checked the lexicon can you tell us that makrothen rules out the possibility of the tree being further along the road?

Perhaps you would share what lexicon it is. Certainl neither Thayer nor BAG seem to bear you out on this one.

[Snow]

So since you've checked the lexicon can you tell us that makrothen rules out the possibility of the tree being further along the road?

Perhaps you would share what lexicon it is. Certainl neither Thayer nor BAG seem to bear you out on this one.

That would be wrong.

Matthew:

In = epi = upon, on, at, by, before

road = hodos = a way, a travelled way, a road

Mark:

[afar] off = makrothen = from afar, far

From the New Testament Greek Lexicon:

"The New Testament Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.""