Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)

Date: Wed Sep 06 1995 - 19:48:12 EDT

Carl Conrad wrote,
. . . >Mark, by dividing the fig-tree episode into two >halves,--11:12-14
(Jesus' quest for fruit from the tree and >his curse upon it when he
discovers there is no fruit) and >11:20-21 (the observation that the tree has
>withered)--dividing it into two halves and putting the >narrative of the
"cleansing of the Temple" between the two >halves, has chosen to employ this
narrative for symbolic >rather than historically factual narrative. It may be
that the >story was originally told of a different tree; it is a singularly
>unedifying story about Jesus, if I may dare to say so: hungry >and cursing a
tree because it doesn't bear fruit before the >harvest season is ready--this
seems more a child's behavior >than a story about the actual historical
behavior of Jesus. >Personally I can make no sense of it EXCEPT in its
symbolic >dimension as FRAMING the narrative of the cleansing of the >Temple.

A number of people have pointed out the fact that while Luke does not have
the cursing of the fig tree, he does hav the parable of the fig tree in
13:6-9 that makes the same point as the cursing of the fig tree in Mark. Did
Luke incounter the parable in the tradition and the cursing in Mark and
decide he needed only one as he does the feeding of the multitude or did Mark
(or someone before him) find the parable and transform it into a dramatic or
acted parable?

Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
LA College, Pineville, La.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:26 EDT