Matthew Corrects Mark - Figs Anyone?

Snow · January 5, 2010

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.

Here's a better run down of one such corrective instance:

In Mark 1:2-3 the author says:

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

"BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,

WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;

THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,

'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,

MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.'"

The problem is that Mark is writing from some already composed source instead of writing with the OT in front of him and is unaware that much of what he claims if from Isaiah is instead a merging of the first 9 words of the Septuagint version of Exodus 23:20, with a paraphase of Malachi 3:1, and then joined with the Septuagint version of Isaiah 40.3.

Matthew sees the problem and corrects the quote and attribution in his chapter 3

volgadon · January 5, 2010

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.""

And it should now be painfuly obvious that just because Mark says makrothen doesn't mean that it wasn't also epi hodos.

Do you see my point? Just because something is at a distance from you (and again i ask how far is makrothen) doesn't mean that it can't be by the road.

Hemidakota · January 5, 2010

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.

I highly doubt it was a correction Snow but more of an observation of what is being seen by Matthew and what was told to Mark. Wasn't Matthew part of the twelve and part of the group that walked with Christ? This would make it a first-hand account versus Marks who I believe is a second-hand account.

How many times different writers while writing at a sermon given by Joseph Smith have altered accounts of what was told?

Assumption is made that Mark writings is older than Matthew. We simply don’t know the surety of such since known of us were there to account who wrote it first and was it written for the purpose to compare each other work to ensure the record was correct.

Hemidakota · January 5, 2010

I agree with Ram but here something I wrote in my journal concerning the cursed Fig Tree -

[skip...]

0640 - Some Fig background: historically, the fig is one of the oldest domesticated fruits on record with references dating back literally thousands of years. The tree itself is a robust, self-sufficient organism — often living for more than 100 years (more than three times the average life of other fruit bearing trees). Figs grow all over the world and come in an astonishing range of varieties and characteristics. But the one thing all figs share is their sweetness — at full ripeness they can concentrate more sugars than any tree fruit.

Figs are also one of only a few tree fruits that have two distinct parts to their harvest season. The first harvest (or “Breba” fruit) comes from the branches the tree produced the previous year. In the U.S. this Breba fruit is generally available in late May through mid-June. The second harvest and main crop on the tree’s new branches grows all summer and generally is ready to harvest at the end of August through October. For those of us in the produce trade, the Breba fruit is a tantalizing (sometimes maddening) preview of the main season yet to come.

Strange how when we listen to the Spirit, it will again later, gives us further clarity of on single thought (revelation) that what was given was indeed was truth and instruction from the Godhead. As I still stand behind that it was the Fig Tree that transformed the blood of Eve and allow the veil to be dropped before her eyes concerning who Lucifer was.

[skip...]

0715 – Elder McConkie in his teaching (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 1)about cursed Fig Tree stated the following -

Why did Jesus curse the fruitless fig tree? Unique among our Lord's miracles, this manifestation of divine power teaches a number of great truths:

(1) By exercising his power over nature, Jesus was testifying in language written in the earth itself that be was Lord of all. As the Lord Jehovah he had in times past created all things in heaven and on earth; now, though tabernacled in mortal clay, he possessed the same eternal powers over life, death, and the forces of nature. By using these powers—as he had before done in calming the tempest, multiplying loaves and fishes, walking on the water, healing multitudes, and raising the dead—he was leaving a visible and tangible witness of his own divine Sonship.

(2) Though Jesus had come to bless and save, yet he had the power to smite, destroy, and curse. "It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things" (2 Ne. 2:11); if blessings are born of righteousness, their opposite, curses, must come from wickedness. True gospel ministers seek always to bless, yet curses attend rejection of their message. "Whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord." (D. & C. 132:47.) It is fitting that Jesus should leave a manifestation of his power to curse, and the fact that he chose, not a person, but a tree, is an evident act of mercy.

(3) Withering and dying at Jesus' command, the fruitless fig tree stands as a type and a shadow of what shall befall hypocrites. On fig trees the fruit grows first and then the leaves. But here was a precocious tree, holding itself out as bearing fruit because its leaves were now grown, but in fact being deceptively barren. "Were it reasonable to regard the tree as possessed of moral agency, we would have to pronounce it a hypocrite; its utter barrenness coupled with its abundance of foliage made of it a type of human hypocrisy. " (Talmage, p. 527.)

(4) Also: "The leafy, fruitless tree was a symbol of Judaism, which loudly proclaimed itself as the only true religion of the age, and condescendingly invited all the world to come and partake of its rich ripe fruit; when in truth it was but an unnatural growth of leaves, with no fruit of the season, nor even an edible bulb held over from earlier years, for such as it had of former fruitage was dried to worthlessness and made repulsive in its worm-eaten decay. The religion of Israel had degenerated into an artificial religionism, which in pretentious show and empty profession outclassed the abominations of heathendom." (Talmage, p. 527.)

I simply don’t believe it was the case but the tree was denying to keep the commandments or laws that governed its own realm and the Lord witnessed this. The tree was capable in bringing forth fruit but refused. At this point, it was not point for the tree to exist. As I can understand there is a teaching moment here but it was clearly not the case since the Savior said nothing but what the tree failed to do.

Here is what Matthew recorded (chapter 21)-

17 ¶ And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.

18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

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.

20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

This is where I disagree with both McConkie and Talmage, or anyone else in adding words to the Savior original thoughts with no merit of what was being taught. The Savior was hungered in being fatigued from the previous day, saw a Fig tree while returning to the city wanted to fill this hunger. What was found was a living tree that was barren of fruit in season. Remember, the fruits grows before the leaves as stated before. Having the FATHER’s priesthood power or GOD’s Honor, He knew this tree refused to put forth fruit in season and noted its lack of sustaining the laws given it. It is a living identity or intelligence. He cursed the living tree when it violated the laws pertaining to it and began to wither on the spot. This cursing as you note, may stop the further progression of this intelligence or living identity. It is the same of cursing a perdition member of the kingdom. They will return back to chaos or matter unorganized, as inert matter. Being of no good but will be reused later for other progressing intelligences.

The key here is verse 21 and 22 where the Savior stated to have faith in themselves in doing what the Savior did in cursing the tree or moving a mountain. What is not stated, it stills require the priesthood (the authority to act in) and the honor of GOD (the power to make it so). I hope you now understand such a fundamental keys are given here in doing what the Savior did in righteous.

I will stop here on the matter of the Fig tree….

Hemidakota · January 5, 2010