Another text, another story

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Another text, another story

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote:
The concept of hallucination (to see something that is not really there) was unknown then , I think ...
I understand dreams were a big part of philosophizing from ~300 BC/BCE to the 3rd century AD/CE.

Early Christians had to accept the idea that at least some dreams had a divine inspiration. The bible mentions a lot about dreams and God communicated through them. The dreams of the New Testament were seen as straightforward messages from God, the disciples and other founders of Christianity. In the old testament, God declared that he would speak through dreams and visions and he said
  • “hear now my words: if there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision,
    and will speak unto him in a dream” (Num. 12:6).
Christians find [found?] dream important because they believed that God chose to communicate through them.

In dreams, they would see visions of the bible and God would grant them gifts and provide them with guidance.
Dreams are reliable messengers. They reveal the condition of one’s heart (Dan.2:30) as well as the voice of
God within one’s heart. (Acts 2:17) The bible says that when people wake up from their dreams, they act upon them.

http://www.academia.edu/3100958/Ancient ... out_Dreams

During the Hellenistic era (the first three centuries of the Common Era), the practice took place in dream incubation temples that were staffed by priest-physicians.

In fact, dream temples made up the single most popular spiritual healing institution in the Mediterranean world. These restful sanctuaries were designed to produce dreams that provided healing wisdom —and also instant cures— if we are to believe the boasts of ancient graffiti.

The divine figure associated with these dream temples is Aesclepius, the Greek god of healing.

http://dreamstudies.org/2011/12/04/5-as ... -dreaming/
See http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 512#p35512
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Another text, another story

Post by iskander »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:...
Btw, Iskander pointed out one of the two major ideas what the fig tree could symbolize: the institution of the temple.
iskander wrote:...14 And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
May the temple lose its power to deceive

As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.
And the temple had lost its power to deceive
The second is that the fig tree symbolizes “Israel”. But there are also other theories.

The main argument for the first theory is that the “Cleansing of temple” is sandwiched by the “Cursing of the fig tree” and that the fig tree is therefore a symbol of the temple. But my impression is that this theory ignores that in no Markan sandwich an object is symbolically mirrored in another object and that in the Hebrew bible and in Paul the fig tree is not a preconceived metaphor for the temple. ("Metaphors work only where the patterns are known")

The main argument for the second idea is that in the Hebrew bible the fig tree would allegedly symbolize Israel, what I would judge as wrong. There are only two verses in which good or early figs (and not the tree) symbolize good Isrealites.

In the Hewbrew bible the fig tree is (together with the vine) simply a sign of the times. In the good times "every man is sitting under his vine and under his fig tree” and in the bad times “the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines”. I have counted 20 of 28 “fig tree”-passages in the Septuagint with this or a similar meaning.

Mark used the fig tree in Mark 13 also as a sign of the end times. Therefore I suspect that the fig tree in Mark 11 participate also in this image.
Jesus was a reformer and for him the temple is only a religious institution. The modern state of Israel has no temple.

Equating the temple with Israel was wrong and it remains wrong. The RCC said , extra ecclessiam nulla salus , also meaning that the temple was Israel: they pretended that the Vatican is the new Israel. The fig tree is not to be associated with the end of time, but it is a programme for the living and for those looking forward to a long and happy future.
.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Another text, another story

Post by iskander »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.
My suggestion is simple

- Jesus did not curse the fig tree
- the fig tree did not wither
- all that happens only in the ears and in the eyes of the disciples
- because they did not bring forth “fruit”
...
Why is my reading of the same material different from the one above? The best explanation is the one that Frank Barlow offers in the introduction of his book , Edward the Confessor, See attached file


Edward the Confessor (The Yale English Monarchs Series) Paperback – 8 Apr 1997 / page XXIV
by Frank Barlow
Attachments
edward 1.PNG
edward 1.PNG (34.03 KiB) Viewed 6051 times
oleg
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 8:59 am

Re: Another text, another story

Post by oleg »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: The main argument for the second idea is that in the Hebrew bible the fig tree would allegedly symbolize Israel, what I would judge as wrong. There are only two verses in which good or early figs (and not the tree) symbolize good Isrealites.

In the Hebrew bible the fig tree is (together with the vine) simply a sign of the times. In the good times "every man is sitting under his vine and under his fig tree” and in the bad times “the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines”. I have counted 20 of 28 “fig tree”-passages in the Septuagint with this or a similar meaning.

Mark used the fig tree in Mark 13 also as a sign of the end times. Therefore I suspect that the fig tree in Mark 11 participate also in this image.
Two points:
first: thanks, for an interesting, and informative thread, very much welcomed. good job.
second: I wonder if you have considered, instead of "the Hebrew bible the fig tree would allegedly symbolize", perhaps, a review of ancient Greek texts devoted to study of the Fig tree, its fruit, its harvest, its role in society, and any apparently descriptive, mythological characterizations?

Here is an example of what I am getting at, regarding a statement ostensibly written by Xenophanes of Colophon (570-475 BCE):
http://www.iep.utm.edu/xenoph/
A better reading of Xenophanes’ skeptical statements is to see them not as an attack on the possibility of knowledge per se, but rather as a charge against arrogance and dogmatism, particularly with regard to matters that we cannot directly experience. The human realm of knowledge is limited by what can be observed. “If,” for example, “god had not made yellow honey [we] would think that figs were much sweeter.” (frag. 38)
I view Mark's text as a GREEK, not Hebrew story. Yes, there are certainly Jewish traditions, language inferences, and cultural insertions in the text. But, in my opinion, one not shared by most people surely, an interpretation of the text of Mark, ought to commence with comparison to Greek texts regarding Herakles, a mythical figure who serves, in my view, as the model for Jesus' fictional existence.

Ancient Greek culture was filled with anecdotes, hints, and overt textual elaboration regarding culture and harvest of figs. They were an important component in Greek civilization, just as were bees/honey, grapes/wine, olives/oil. Starting point in analyzing the Greek fairy tale, about Jesus, ought to be Greek, not Hebrew, mythological traditions, at least, until one can demonstrate a text more ancient than those we currently possess for the "original" Hebrew books of the Torah. As far as I am aware, we lack even agreement about whether or not, the Masoretic text (9th century CE) or the LXX (4th century CE), or DSS fragments, equate to the "original" reading.

Same could be argued, of course, for Xenophanes, I agree. We have only fragments of his thoughts. But, what about Aristotle, and many other Greek authors, whose works would have been known to Mark, and whose writings, including some regarding figs, still exist today? Starting with a goal of analyzing the underlying meaning of Mark's reference to fig trees, by reading one version or another of the Hebrew bible, without knowing the origins of that text, i.e. how that text had been derived from older Greek mythological concepts, seems to me, misdirection. Nothing wrong with including Hebrew texts in your analysis, but, in my opinion, if no one else's, Hebrew quotes should not form the starting point for analysis of a Greek mythological tall tale.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Another text, another story

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Maybe I don't understand you. First, I get the impression that you think the “Cursing of the fig tree” is an acted parable and the fig tree “is” the temple.
iskander wrote:14 And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
May the temple lose its power to deceive
But then you wrote
iskander wrote:The fig tree is not to be associated with the end of time, but it is a programme for the living and for those looking forward to a long and happy future.
And now the quoted “vivid memories” seem to indicate that you think rather that it was real event and there was really a fig tree, cursed by Jesus.
iskander wrote:Why is my reading of the same material different from the one above? The best explanation is the one that Frank Barlow offers in the introduction of his book , Edward the Confessor, See attached file
Edward the Confessor (The Yale English Monarchs Series) Paperback – 8 Apr 1997 / page XXIV
by Frank Barlow
I don't mean this critically, but your position seems a bit unclear, perhaps in progress.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Another text, another story

Post by iskander »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.
Maybe I don't understand you. First, I get the impression that you think the “Cursing of the fig tree” is an acted parable and the fig tree “is” the temple.
iskander wrote:14 And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
May the temple lose its power to deceive
But then you wrote
iskander wrote:The fig tree is not to be associated with the end of time, but it is a programme for the living and for those looking forward to a long and happy future.
And now the quoted “vivid memories” seem to indicate that you think rather that it was real event and there was really a fig tree, cursed by Jesus.
iskander wrote:Why is my reading of the same material different from the one above? The best explanation is the one that Frank Barlow offers in the introduction of his book , Edward the Confessor, See attached file
Edward the Confessor (The Yale English Monarchs Series) Paperback – 8 Apr 1997 / page XXIV
by Frank Barlow
I don't mean this critically, but your position seems a bit unclear, perhaps in progress.
The fig tree is a what the reformers wanted to do with the Temple and .... The People of The Way would vividly recall the comments , hopes and fears as members of a religious reforming party. The parable of the fig tree is the condensed statement of their position and it is the reality of their lives.

They wish to abolish the power of the Temple and indicate that men and women can abolish the Temple . In the future humanity will deal with God directly , once the Temple ( Cathedral, Mosque ..) no longer is perceived as the intermediary between man/woman and God.

Temple is bad ( fig tree image), a new faith will replace the old one . Hallelujah.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Another text, another story

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.

My suggestion is simple

- Jesus did not curse the fig tree
- the fig tree did not wither
- all that happens only in the ears and in the eyes of the disciples
- because they did not bring forth “fruit”
I understand that you are looking for arguments against your suggestion. Here is my interpretation, based on my chronological research on the origins of Christianity. It will mainly center around the words ‘was hungry’ in verse 12 and ‘mountain’ in verse 23.

The words ‘was hungry’ in verse 12 are the translation of the Greek ‘epeinasen’. The Greek verb ‘peinaoo’ has nothing to do with appetite, the little hunger for a next meal, but always refers to the hunger of starvation, of long-lasting lack of food. The use of this verb is an argument against a symbolic interpretation of this fragment because in my opinion being extremely hungry is not a condition for constructing a symbolic story. If we look for a period of famine in first century CE Palestine, there is only one to be found, and that is the famine during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Hungry people become highly irritated, and that seems to have happened here. Besides irritability there is – of course – a constant obsession with food. So when Jesus sees a fig tree, although it is not the season for figs, he goes and inspects it for fruits, and when he doesn’t find any, he curses the tree. This is a small embarrassing siege story, a little view into the real period and circumstances of Jesus’ activity.

Then there is the mountain of verse 23. It is quite improbable that a real, physical mountain is meant here, the Greek ‘oros’ might have been used symbolically. About the symbolical use of ‘mountain’ I found the following in H. Gagne’s ‘Then Shall the Wicked be Revealed: Babylon the Great’: ‘In the Old Testament the word mountain, Hebrew “har” was used symbolically to describe a national kingdom. (…) In Jer 51:25 “har” is used figuratively to describe Babylon as a ‘destroying mountain’. Mountain symbolizes Babylon’s destructive military power.’ I think it is clear from the book of Revelation that the Jews saw Rome as the new Babylon, so in my opinion here ‘mountain’ is the veiled description of Rome’s military power, more specifically the Roman legions reconquering Palestine in the war of 66-70 CE. In this sentence Jesus says that if the defenders of Jerusalem do not doubt their victory over Rome, they will defeat them in the end. In other words: they will cast the Roman legions into the sea. The phrase ‘and does not doubt in his heart’ indicates that there might have been serious reasons for doubt, that the fortunes of war were bad. So verses 22-24 also point to the war, more specifically to its final phase.

My conclusion:
• Jesus did curse the fig tree because he was starving during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
• It is quite improbable that the fig tree withered spontaneously.
• Jesus tells his followers that, although the prospects are bad, they can defeat the Roman ‘mountain’ if they keep believing in their revolutionary project.

P.S. For a good description of famine, see Scrimshaw, N.S. The phenomenon of famine, Annual Review of Nutrition, 1987-7;1-21. A strong review, the more when you combine with Josephus, War VI, 201-213 and Luke 23, 27-30.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Another text, another story

Post by Giuseppe »

If we see a dualism, a conflict of interpretations, between what the disciples see (and think, as outsiders) and what Jesus says them after as ''explanation'' (assuming it was for the insiders what Frans writes: ''In this sentence Jesus says that if the defenders of Jerusalem do not doubt their victory over Rome, they will defeat them in the end ''), then the possible inference is not strictly a historicist one since there would be there a mythicist alternative: by the mouth of a mere son of man (the earthly failed Israel), the Son of God may say something as:
''if you have faith in me then the evil archons of this eon (Rome included) will be defeated''.
But the defeat of Rome (his deities included) can happen only by the destruction of an earthly sacrifice system : the temple of a Jerusalem occupied by Romans. Hence the destruction of the fig (=the temple).

To destroy the physical temple (and replacing it with a celestial temple) is paradoxically equivalent to destroy the evil archons of this eon (= the spiritual forces behind Rome).

(Thanks Frans for this indirect help).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Another text, another story

Post by Charles Wilson »

FransJVermeiren wrote: • Jesus did curse the fig tree because he was starving during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
• It is quite improbable that the fig tree withered spontaneously.
• Jesus tells his followers that, although the prospects are bad, they can defeat the Roman ‘mountain’ if they keep believing in their revolutionary project.
I agree. This has become a two-level Symbolic Tale, involving Rome (Post 70, the Ruling Dynasty) and Herod. I will probably Post on the Herod part of the Story soon. There was a famine in Judea during Herod's rule and he built Caesarea into a Safe Harbor to get grain from Petronius, Procurator of Egypt. Thus, the Story (the Original?) is concerning Herod and the Priests worry that people could be bought off with food.

This appears to have been Transvalued and the point of the story is two-fold. For years, it appeared to me to be a straight vignette of the End of the Julio-Cludians and the Ascension of the Flavians. It still reads that way to me.

However, it was Titus and the Flavians who finished the job at the Destruction of the Temple. It was the End of the Mishmarot Priesthood and the last chance the anyone who fought for Dynastic Judea.

Revelation 5: 10 (RSV):

[10] and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on earth."

All of this has to be rewritten and Transvalued into the story of a savior/god loyal to Rome. Even the hatred formed in starvation must be Transvalued into a story of love. "Your country and people were destroyed and murdered out of love." Yeah, right. This points to the rewrite occurring after 70. The use of Domitian, voted "Damnatio Memoriae" (the dis-embodied, featureless "Holy Spirit"), points to Post 98-ish.

Nice Post, FJV.

CW
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Another text, another story

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

FransJVermeiren wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:My suggestion is simple

- Jesus did not curse the fig tree
- the fig tree did not wither
- all that happens only in the ears and in the eyes of the disciples
- because they did not bring forth “fruit”
I understand that you are looking for arguments against your suggestion.
Not exactly. I am very much willing and interested in to discuss all ideas and questions about the “Cursing of the fig tree” and will do that also with your interpretation, but my wish was to discuss the pericope on a specific basis. My question was:

1) Is there anyone, even if he/she disagree with my conclusion, who would first agree with the following points.

In GMark is a theme that the disciples do not hear and do not see.
Mark 8:17-18 Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?
In the pericope “Cursing of the fig tree” is a hearing and seeing of the disciples.
And his disciples heard it / they saw the fig tree withered away
Jesus’ saying does not sound like a curse. It seems that Matthew noted this and therefore “corrected” Mark.
Mark “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
Matthew “May no fruit ever come from you again!”
The saying in Mark 13:28-29 seems to sound more or less like a look back to the “Cursing of the fig tree”. From this we get the impression that the leaves of the tree gave Jesus a good hope for the time to come and that the fig tree will bear figs.
as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near
2) If we agree on these points (specific basis) what then are the arguments against my conclusion?
Post Reply