Jesus and the Fig Tree

In earlier posts, I discussed how some of the miracles of Jesus were derived from his parables. The Resurrection of the Rich Man miracle in Secret Mark 10 and John 11 was likely derived (at least in part) from the Parable of the Rich Fool (cf. Luke 12:16-21; Gospel of Thomas 63:1) and the Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus (cf. Luke 16:19-31). Another example is the Abundant Harvest miracle in Infancy Gospel of Thomas 12:1-2, which was inspired by the Parable of the Sower (cf. Matthew 13:3-9; Mark 4:2-9; Luke 8:4-8; Gospel of Thomas 9:1). Compare the language in the following two texts:

The parables of Jesus often employ hyperbole and exaggeration which lend themselves into reinterpretation as miracles; this is what is happening in the example above. This same parable was also reinterpreted in two other ways: as a prophecy of millenial abundance (cf. Papias 14, cited in Irenaeus, AH 5.33.3-4) and as a prophecy of the Resurrection (cf. 1 Clement 24:5). I believe I have found another example of this process in action: The Parable of the Fig Tree (cf. Luke 13:6-9) which was converted into the Cursing of a Fig Tree miracle (cf. Mark 11:12-14, Matthew 21:18-22). Here is the Lukan version of the parable, which unfortunately is only one of two versions of the parable extant (the other version is found in the Apocalypse of Peter):

In the OT, fig trees are a traditional symbol of prosperity and divine blessing (Deuteronomy 8:8; Judges 9:10-11; 1 Kings 4:25; 2 Kings 18:31; Isaiah 36:16; Hosea 9:10; Joel 2:22; Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10), for instance: "Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid" (Micah 4:4). Barren fig trees, on the other hand, signify a divine curse: "There will be no harvest, says Yahweh. There are no grapes on the vine, no figs on the fig tree, even the leaves are withered" (Jeremiah 8:13; cf. Haggai 2:19, Habakkuk 3:17). In rabbinical literature, the fig tree represents the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus the Torah, and reading of the Torah, is likened to eating figs (Berachoth 40a, 57a; Eiruvin 54b).

The parable plays on this notion of barren fig trees as cursed and reverses the usual expectation: Jesus says that there is still hope even in things that are believed to be lost so be patient. This theme is consistent with Jesus' other sayings and parables on forgiveness and repentance. Luke however has embedded this parable into a new context: it directly follows a denunciation of the people living near Jerusalem where Jesus says, "unless you repent you will all perish as they did" (13:5), and after the parable, Jesus again denounces Jerusalem (13:34-35). Such references look back to the Jewish War and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and Luke adapts the parable as a prophecy: Like the fig tree, Israel still has some time left to repent but when the appointed time ends, it will be "cut down" if it doesn't "bear fruit". The implication is that the religious order in Jerusalem was found to be "barren" and thus was cursed. This application resembles an apocalyptic saying in Luke 3:9 that is attributed to John the Baptist: "Even now the axe is laid to the roots of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Mark draws on the same parable, most likely in a different form from oral tradition, but he shows no awareness of a prophetic application to the destruction of Jerusalem. He instead develops it into a narrative about Jesus cursing a fig tree. I have placed both versions side by side:

Mark has omitted the theme of patience but the narrative begins much the same way as the parable: (1) someone came to a fig tree, (2) seeking to find any fruit on it (3) but found nothing. There is also a mention of something adverse happening to the tree: cutting it down in the case of the parable, and withering up the tree in the case of the narrative. Mark's narrative makes the rather bizarre statement that Jesus was looking for figs on a tree though it wasn't fig season! This statement forestalls the reader from assuming that the fig tree was barren because it was already cursed -- this was not the case, it bore no fruit simply because it wasn't fig season yet. The incident seems to have been modeled somewhat on the curse God declared on Jonah's castor-oil plant (Jonah 4:5-10). Jonah was in ill spirits because God did not attack Ninevah as he had warned and God made a castor-oil plant to grow over his head to give him shade and soothe his temper. The story continues: "But at dawn the next day, God arranged that a worm would attack the castor-oil plant -- and it withered (apexeranthe)" (Jonah 4:6; LXX). This story shares several similarities with the Cursing of a Fig Tree miracle: (1) the discovery of the cursed tree the next day, in the morning, and (2) the motif of "withering," utilizing the same Greek root (apexeranthe in Jonah 4:6, exerantai in Mark 11:21). To develop this narrative episode, Mark thus appears to draw on the Parable of the Fig Tree and the account in Jonah 4.

Matthew 11:18-21 presents another version of the miracle narrative, drawing on Mark but modifying the episode in an idiosyncratic way:

Matthew has altered the miracle narrative in several obvious ways: (1) Markan story was split over two days, while the Matthean version transpires on a single day, (2) the phrase "in the morning" was transferred to the beginning of the episode, (3) the fig tree withers immediately, in the presence of Jesus and the disciples rather than in their absence, (4) Matthew has omitted Mark's problematic statement that Jesus was looking for figs even though it wasn't fig season. By merging the two separate pericopes of Mark 11:12-14 and 20-22 and condensing the time frame, Matthew also departs from the parallel from Jonah where night intervenes between the planting of the castor-oil plant and its withering.

An even later development was the adaptation of the parable as an end-time prophecy. This is what we find in the Apocalypse of Peter, which adapts an different version of the parable to refer to the situation in the author's day:

The parable is preserved intact (in the shaded text) but it differs considerably from the Lukan version: (1) No mention of the owner coming to look for fruit but finding none, (2) Part of what the owner says in the Lukan version is part of the narration in the Petrine version, (3) The gardener replies not to the owner but to God, (4) The Lukan version refers to placing manure around the tree, while the Petrine version refers to the clearing of weeds and watering of the tree, (5) The Lukan version refers to cutting down the tree, while the Petrine version refers to the removal of its roots and the planting of another in its place. These extensive divergences suggest that the Petrine form is an independent version of the parable. More importantly, it is presented as an end-times prophecy about the coming of false Christs -- most likely a reference to the Simon bar-Kokhba revolt in A.D. 132 and the utter political devastation of Judea as a Jewish state. The interpretation of the fig tree as the House of Israel is similar to Luke's application to the parable as part of Jesus' denouncement of Jerusalem and those who do not listen to him. Both build on the traditional idea from the OT Prophets of divine judgment as making barren the fig trees of the land; in the Apocalypse of Peter, Israel has been barren for some time. The reference to the "branches" and "leaves" result from a separate Jesus saying: "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that the summer is near" (Mark 13:28; cf. Matthew 24:32; Luke 21:29). The author has creatively interwoven both fig-themed sayings, the Matthean saying about the end of the world and the Lukan parable about the unworthiness of the "House of Israel," and produced a prophecy that expects the regeneration of the fig tree (Israel) as a Sign of the end times. This preserves part of the original point of the parable: that there is still opportunity for repentence.

The apocalyptic regeneration theme of the Apocalypse of Peter, in turn, may have also been influenced by another lost source which is quoted as "Scripture" in 1 Clement, and again in 2 Clement:

Lightfoot believes the quoted passage derives from the lost Book of Eldad and Modad which influenced also the Shepherd of Hermas. Though the parable elaborates the maturing of the vine rather than the fig, the passage resembles the Apocalypse of Peter by linking anxiety about the delay in the Parousia with a new growth through suffering in persecution.

Finally, the Markan and Matthean miracle story possibly spawned another miracle story in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas:

Like the parable and the other miracle stories, reference is made to a tree that bears no fruit. The text departs from that of the Lukan-Petrine parable by the utterance of a curse and referring to the "withering" of the tree -- something peculiar to the Mark-Matthew miracle story. The resemblance appears to be shared between the Matthean and Markan versions of the story. The "withering" occurs immediately, just as in Matthew 21:19. There is also mention of "roots," which is mentioned in Mark 11:20 (and in the Petrine version as well) but not in Matthew. The reference to the tree not bearing leaves, on the other hand, recalls the tree shedding its leaves in the Clementine citations from a lost prophecy. There may also possibly be additional influence from Jonah 4. In the miracle story, Jesus asks the son of Annas: "What harm did the pools of water do to you?" This recalls God's question to Jonah: "Are you right to be angry about the castor-oil plant?" (Jonah 4:9) It also recalls Jesus' irrational anger at the fig tree in the earlier miracle stories.

The miracle stories, prophecies, and parables about the fig tree thus constitute another interesting example of fluidity in the gospel tradition.

Very interesting comparisons between the accounts. I never read anything like this before, but I see where the stories are borrowed and altered. "Fluidity" as you term it, makes it seem hard to know what (if anything) really happened. Was there a Jesus who told a fig tree story, and then Mark came along and changed it into a story about a tree that withered, as though inspired by Jonah?

It's all very confusing, this fluidity thing. I wish it were more solid than fluid.

Leo...enjoyable thread once again. The last line reminded me of a topic I was someday going to post about; that Jesus' personality has likewise undergone modification. In a number of early Xtian works he comes across as detatched even short tempered. When asked to heal lepers he ignores them or rebukes them, relenting only when the sick person nags him. (a litte of that has survived in the Samaritan woman story) The cursing of a tree is nothing compared to the killing of little children he is said to have done when he was young.

Leolaia,

I'm very glad you brought up this subject. Over the last two years I repeatedly came back to the fig-tree story from the standpoint of the Markan narrative. First, it is the only negative miracle in Mark and the canonical Gospels, resulting from Jesus' failure or disconnection with reality (it was not the season). Second, it paradoxically climaxes a series of miracle stories which appear more and more uneasy as the Markan narrative goes. Third, it introduces the Passion narrative. Fourth, it is the very occasion for the critical teaching about "hysterical" or "charismatic" miracle-working faith I earlier discussed on LittleToe's thread entitled "What is faith?" -- where the very omnipotence of faith leads to the crisis of faith. My guess is with the fig-tree story Jesus' own faith comes to a dead end, which in turn sheds light on the tragicomic Markan view of Jesus' fate.

About the relationship between Mark and Luke, one can also think it the other way around. Luke introduces a fig-tree parable in chapter 13 because he doesn't want to hear of a fig-tree miracle (definitely too weird for him). Yes parable can turn into miracles, but miracle stories also can turn into parables. Apart from a rationalistic/apologetic preconception, how can we know parables come first?

 

 

Narkissos.....My reasons for regarding the parable as a source of the miracle story instead of the other way around are: (1) The theme of the parable (patience and giving an opportunity for repentence) is more consistent with other Jesus parables and sayings than the cursing story, which conveys the opposite message.  Cf. Luke 6:27: "Don't pass judgment, and you won't be judged; don't condemn, and you won't be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven."  By expressing hope in something viewed as completely lost, the parable also goes against expectations -- which is a classic feature of Jesus' parables (cf. the Parable of the Mustard Seed, Parable of the Good Samaritan, Parable of the Empty Jar, etc.).  That would be two points in favor of the parable being more original. (2) The form of the parable is simpler than the miracle story and more consistent with prior oral transmission.  It has minimal embedding of clauses, it has a clear three-part structure typical of other Jesus parables (man came seeking figs, he speaks to the vinedresser, and the vinedresser replies to him), the first two parts of the parable are structurally paralleled, and the last part has two paralleled subparts.  This poetic structure is absent in the narrative, which also has greater embedding and adjunct phrases like the aside about it not being fig season.  (3) The use of the fig tree as a natural metaphor is consistent with other Jesus parables and sayings like those about mustard seeds, lilies of the field, birds, sparrows, fox dens, the date palm, and so forth.  Two other Jesus sayings mention figs: the By their Fruit saying (cf. "Grapes are not harvested from thorn trees, nor are figs gathered from thistles," Gospel of Thomas 45:1; Matthew 7:16-20; Luke 6:43-45) and the Blossoming of the Fig Tree saying (cf. "Learn the lesson of the fig tree: When the branch is already bud and the leaves come out, you know that summer is near," Matthew 24:32).  (4) The parable is also attested in a separate source (Apocalypse of Peter) which shows many divergences with the Lukan version.  While he may have known the Lukan version, it is also quite possible that he knew an independent version.  I also draw on a few other assumptions: (5) Miracle narratives like the Fig Tree miracle are not reminiscenes of actual events but are constructed from older legendary and literary material, such as the Elijah-Elisha cycle of miracles in the OT, the story of Jonah, Hellenistic miracle stories circulating in mystery cults, and parables attributed to Jesus which have been expanded into stories involving Jesus.  (6) The historical Jesus did speak in parables, and an attested parable has a greater chance of being a reminiscence of Jesus than a paralleled miracle story. (7) It is easier to use a parable as a source of a miracle narrative than to mimic the poetic oral form and convert a miracle story into a parable of a very different theme.

Having said all that, I fully admit that it could go the other way and much is uncertain.  My point is that if I had to choose between the two possibilities, the former one seems much more plausible, it fits well with the pattern of other miracle stories dependent on parables (like the Miracle of the Abundant Harvest and the Resurrection of the Rich Man miracle) and it explains a lot more than if we assume priority of the miracle story.

 

Peaefulpete....yeah, Jesus sure was a little snot in Infancy Thomas.  He appears, even as a little boy, as a judger of those who "sin".  Very different from the Synoptic and Johannine Jesus' emphasis on love, patience, not judging each other, and forgiveness.  I wonder if this trend in Infancy Thomas has something to do with construing Jesus as the Son of Man figure from 1 Enoch who will sit on the Judgment Seat on the Day of the Lord and judge humankind of their sins.  This certainly plays a role in the more apocalyptic sayings, and the denunciations and curses Jesus is made to say in the Synoptics. 

 

Isn't "Infancy Thomas" a relatively late work, and thus not a good source?

Interesting! 

Some "anointed" Christians, like myself, have a different take on many of these "isolated" Biblical references since likely they were placed there to convey some broader but secretive reference.   The gospels do that, quite consistent with Jewish tradition to camouflage their history and writings to be confusing or shallow to outsiders.  Jesus said himself he spoke in parables so that those hearing would not know what he was talking about, things that had a different meaning for his own followers.  And the prophecy that this would be in focus states "they would look but would not see" etc. 

But the gospels are rather "aggressive" in this regard.  For instance, in Jewish culture, much like in Latin America, naming children after icons was the thing, so there were lots of Marys around, so many that in the company of women who took care of Jesus and the apostles there were three "Mary Magdalenes", women named Mary who served as personal assistants and companions.  When Jesus died, each of them visited the tomb, but at different times.  Thus the gospels had to account for all three visits.  They do so, however, only giving specifics and never stating independently, "Oh by the way, there were three "Magdalenes" named Mary, along with another great many "Marys").   Thus when reading the gospels, with such a specific name and recurring reference it appears the gospels are in conflict about Mary Magdalene's visit and what happened, when in fact, it is talking about three different visits, under three different circumstances and specifically at three different times!

Same goes with Peter being told by Jesus that he would deny him three times before a cock crows and three times before a cock crows twice. You have to read the gospels and make critical comparisons to understand that Jesus, indeed, told Peter he would essentially deny him six times.  Three times before a cock crowed the first time, and then three times again, in rapid succession, before the cock crowed again.  If you follow the gospels you'll see Peter had to lie about knowing Jesus up to three times right before up to when he was in the courtyard and could be seen by Jesus, and when he did deny it that third (actually fourth) time, Jesus looked at him and Peter recalled what Jesus said about his denying him three times before a cock crowed.  A cock crowed right at that point.  But the homes that had the courtyards were large and you had to go through corridors and down stairs and past a "gate house" to get outside.  Thus from that moment when Jesus looked at Peter in the courtyard, he became depressed and decided to leave, having to pass many people though to get outside.  By the time he did finally get outside though, the time it took for a cock to crow a second time, with a girl on his tail accusing him, he had denied Jesus another three times! 

So while some think there are some loose contradictions, others who know better realize the brilliance of the gospels in relating events that are hidden from superifical eyes but revealed to those with insight who are searching the scriptures specifically.

Same goes with the fig tree and what it represents.  Israel?  Spiritual Israel?  It was put into the gospels for some reason specifically, no just to relate some event that happened.  It was put there because it was something important enough for us to know about.  But what?

It's hard not to relate that reference to another fig tree reference where a fig tree did not produce fruit at the appointed time and it was to be uprooted but someone begged to give it one more year of cultivation and fertilizer to see if it would produce, but if not, it would be chopped down.

If you compare the the two references, one would notice, in one aspect, that Jesus was a no frills guy, strictly business. (i.e. If you don't do your job then you're fired, of what use are you?).  Whereas the parable of the fig tree that was given another year was a request for leniency.  So this shows the interaction between Jesus and his tasks and the Church. 

Even so, this is not apart from scripture which describes Jesus as easily irritated.  Psalms somewhere says: "Kiss the son lest he be angry and you perish in your way." 

So I wouldn't think it was beyond scripture to presume that Jesus ran a bit on the hot side (i.e. throwing out the money changers) and needed a little mellowing by others, which he often acquiesced to (i.e. "why should we give bread for the children to the dogs" he told a Samaritan woman, who told him, "yet the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table"). 

Even so, all in all, it doesn't look good for anybody with the wrong attitude who is out of place.  Jesus is a harsh taskmaster in that regard.  But if you've got the right attitude and are humble even though in error, he tends to be soft and makes exceptions.  So it's "iffy" for the meek ones, but a definite quick throw into the lake of fire for all others....

Bottom line...."Don't mess with Jesus!...especially if he's in a bad mood" is the best advice.  We're all as good as dead being saved by God's mercy only and alot of humility and respect on our parts.  Something to keep in mind. 

JC

 

Yes, indeed, that's my very point.  It represents a much later development of the Fig Tree motif, but one that can still be traced back to earlier tradition.  My hypothesis is that Infancy Thomas builds on the earlier miracle narratives which in turn build on a still earlier parable.

 

Ummm, aren't the discrepencies better accounted for by positing different epiphany traditions than three different Mary Magdalenes?  Why, for instance, does Jesus go to meet his disciples in the Galilee area in Mark, yet he meets them in Jerusalem in John?  Why does the non-Markan ending in Mark 16:9 say that Jesus "appeared first" to Mary Magdalene, while Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5 says that "he appeared first to Cephas"?  Moreover, Matthew refers to the women as "Mary of Magdala and the other Mary," Mark refers to them as "Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome," Luke refers to "Magdala, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James," and John just refers to Mary of Magdala.  Mary was a common name; Mary of Magdala was not.  So by positing three different visits by three different Mary Magalenes, not only were there three separate people with the same uncommon name but there would have to be at least two different "Mary the mother of James," and thus two different James who both had a mother named Mary.  That's a bit much to swallow.

 

 

I can understand your tendency to simply assign this to an error or inter-gospel contradiction.  But the details of each of the visits all occur at different times. As I noted, the number of Marys around there was much like you'd find in Latin America where Mary's (Maria's) and Jesus's are extremely common.   Thus it could have been very likely since Magdala was not far away that three Mary's happened to come from there.

But putting that aside, let's just say there was an unusual coincidence where there happened to be three Marys could called themselves Mary Magdalene.  If all the disciples knew of these three by the same name, then it would be confusing or contradictory as they related their stories just what happened.  In that case, so that there would not be confusion among those who knew the three Marys would be to describe in one gospel or the other the visit of each. 

Further, each of the women seemed to be attached to a household and the name Magda, Magdalene or Madeline in German means Maid.  Thus it is thought that perhaps "Magdalene" was understood as some type of a profession or status per that custom, the details of which were lost. 

This is just offered as a possibility that resolves the conflict between the accounts without first presuming the NT Bible writers couldn't coordinate their stories; I prefer to give the writer the benefit of the doubt rather than to speculate with modern bias.  The contrast to your position is that if we could go back in a time machine we might find there were dozens of girls called "Mary Magdalene" and it just so happened that three of them were attached to households close to Jesus. 

Mary, the mother of James, by the way, is Jesus' own mother.  James was the brother of Jesus.

????

Leo I am only slightly familiar with the non-canonical books you are discussing. Could you recommend a book or url where I can learn more? Thanks

These are some of the books I use:

*****The New Jerusalem Bible (which had the Apocrypha)

*****The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth (2 volumes; this has 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Jubilees, Testament of Abraham, etc.)

*****The Apostolic Fathers, edited by Michael W. Holmes (which has 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Didache, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Papias, etc.)

*****The Complete Gospels, edited by Robert J. Miller (which has Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Secret Mark, Gospel of Mary, Egerton Gospel, etc.)

*****New Gospel Parallels, edited by Robert W. Funk (which places all the gospels side by side by passage)

*****The Nag Hammadi Library, edited by James M. Robinson (which has the entire collection of gnostic texts in one place)

*****The Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Geez Vermes (which has Essene sectarian writings)

*****The Ante-Nicene Fathers (which has Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athenagorus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus, Melito of Sardis, etc.)

*****The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, edited by Mark S. Smith (look for other Ugartic literature from Ras Shamra)

I especially love New Gospel Parallels -- it's one of the most useful references I have ever had on the subject.

slenderdog.....here is an overview:

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/outside2.stm

And for specific information on individual works, this is the best site on the internet:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Leolaia

Leolaia,

very interesting thread. I enjoy your bringing out these topics, but please change your avatar. I liked the other one much better .

 

IMHO Jesus reference to the fig tree was a metaphore for the status of Judiasm. If it no longer produced as a function of following the laws of God, nor was it able to recognize Him as the divine messenger and Son of God, then it (Judiasm) was fit for the fire. When you think about it, Judiasm has shrunk over the centuries to where it barely has 10 million adherents. Not too many are converting from other religions to become Jews, certainly nothing like the other dualistic recruiting religions.

 

carmel

aww, just out of curiosity, what is it about my avatar you don't like?

Leolia Very interesting, wow!

I also wish that you change your avtar. I dont like it allthough I enjoy following your logic..

looking forward to a new avatar

FNT

wow heaps of research...you could write the watchtower articles

Who is that in your avatar? It looks familiar....