In Mark's author's version of this story (Mark 11:12-25)) Jesus and his disciples are in the temple in Jerusalem. It's already late, so they go to Bethany and spend the night there. The next day they start back to Jerusalem, but before arriving in the city, Jesus finds himself hungry. He spies a fig tree in the distance and walks over to check it out, hoping to find a tasty snack. When he comes to it, all he finds on it are leaves, not a single fig. The author tells us that the reason it bears no fruit is that this is not the season for figs. Jesus becomes very angry and his disciples hear him say to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." They proceed back to the temple in Jerusalem where Jesus creates a stir by driving out sellers and buyers and overturning the tables of the moneychangers.
This is rather strange stuff. Jesus has spent his entire earthly life in Galilee and Judea: unless we accept Matthew's version of Jesus' birth narrative; then we have to add Egypt to the above locales. How is it possible that Jesus does't know when the fig season is? He has traveled around the area extensively and no doubt enjoyed figs on numerous occasions, otherwise he wouldn't have been looking for figs this time. This would be like someone who lived all his life in the southern parts of Quebec or Ontario, or New England, expecting to find apples growing on trees in April, or tapping maple trees in August hoping to make some maple syrup. Let's not forget that most Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate, and therefore, omniscient, and by definition would know what time of year to expect to find ripe figs on fig trees.
Jesus' behaviour here is bizarre, to say the least. The fig tree is leafed out, so it's likely healthy and will almost certainly produce fruit in season for the local people to enjoy. They'll be out of luck this year because Jesus, as we shall see, kills it. This seems like a total waste, to prove what? His behaviour also resembles that of a petulant child, who when told he or she can't play with a certain toy, smashes the toy, as if to say, "If I can't play with it, neither can anyone else."
The following morning Jesus and his disciples pass by the fig tree that Jesus cursed the day before and notice that it is withered away to its roots. Peter remarks on it and Jesus uses the occasion to remind the disciples of the great things that they can do (move mountains) through belief and prayer. They all return to Jerusalem.
Matthew's author, as we so often see, borrowed this story (Matthew 21:18-22) from Mark. He changes the quote from Jesus to, "May no fruit ever come from you again." ... a not an insignificant alteration. He must have recognized the problem of Jesus expecting to be able to pick some figs out of season, because he doesn't in fact mention that this isn't the fig season. This doesn't totally get him off the hook though, because he places this story within 24 hours of Jesus causing a ruckus in the temple, as does Mark, which according to Mark occurred during the off season for figs. Someone is making a mistake here. Either Mark's author is wrong about this not occurring during the fig season or Matthew's is making a serious omission in not telling us that it isn't the fig season.
Mark's author chronologically places this story before the temple incident (Jesus overturning tables etc.), Matthew's places it after the incident, a chronological contradiction. There is another contradiction between the stories. In Mark, there is no mention of the fig tree withering at once. Jesus and the disciples leave for Jerusalem without the knowledge of the tree withering. This is obvious, since the next day Peter is surprised to find the fig tree withered and calls Jesus' attention to it. In Matthew, "The fig tree withered at once." In other words, they leave for Jerusalem with the knowledge that the fig tree is withered. This is an irreconcilable contradiction. They don't pass by the tree the next day.
Given the obvious contradictions between the two versions and that both of them paint a less than flattering portrait of Jesus, one might be inclined to question the authenticity of the story itself. Luke's author may have agreed, since he takes a pass on this story, just as he did on the Jesus walking on water story. John's author had either never heard of this story, or he had, and perhaps just didn't think it had merit, since it is not included it in his gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment