Horticultural Apologetics ...

amishrockstar · #1 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 07:37 PM

Okay,
I'm going to a secular college and I'm taking a "Bible as Literature" course. The teacher gets a bunch of his stuff from John Dominic Crossan and other guys who twist the Bible and want to pervert truth.

Anyway, we are going over the Gospel of Mark and in the teacher's book he says this:

"Mark states that Jesus' arrest coincides with Passover (14:1). If so, the episode of the entry into Jerusalem, occuring just a few days before Passover (11:1-11), is called into question. Why? Answer: The presence of 'leafy branches' (11:8). Passover occurs in the spring. Leafy branches, and figs being out of season (11:12-14), point to a fall date. Can Mark have it both ways? Can it be spring and fall at the same time? Can the triumphal entry and the execution of Jesus be within a week of each other and occur simultaneously in the fall and the spring? Mark, it seems, is fudging on the chronology of one of these events. What might be his motivation"

Any thoughts on this stuff???

I just got done talking with a friend from Ethiopia who has been to the Middle-East and he said that olive trees 'always' have leaves on them and those would have been the branches that were thrown in the springtime when Jesus made the 'triumphal entry.' So I have half of this question answered, but what about the cursing of the fig tree--11:12-14 (figs put forth leaves in the summer at the 'earliest' and the fruit comes out in the 'fall').

Semper Fidelis · #2 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 07:48 PM

These kinds of arguments always strike as so desparate. It is quite amazing that an unbeliever can grasp at the leaves on a tree to try to avoid truth.

Nevertheless, the argument at least suffers from the fact:
1. It's written by a Jew
2. Who knows ancient Palestine
3. Who knows when the Passover occurs
4. Who nevertheless mentions that it wasn't the season for figs

What empirical evidence does this naturalist have that the species of fig tree in the story was in season during the Passover?

victorbravo · #3 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 07:59 PM

Heh. As Rich said, grasping at leaves.

I used to do agriculture in the Middle East at the same latitude as Israel. I can assure you that there are lots of leafed-out trees in early spring. There are palms, olives, and even orange trees! And figs do leaf out but don't have fruit until mid summer or early fall, just as scripture tells us.

Trying to debunk Scripture from the perspective of New England-like seasons is pretty desperate.

Peter · #4 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

These kinds of arguments always strike as so desparate. It is quite amazing that an unbeliever can grasp at the leaves on a tree to try to avoid truth.

Nevertheless, the argument at least suffers from the fact:
1. It's written by a Jew
2. Who knows ancient Palestine
3. Who knows when the Passover occurs
4. Who nevertheless mentions that it wasn't the season for figs

What empirical evidence does this naturalist have that the species of fig tree in the story was in season during the Passover?

Don't many scholars dispute that Mark wrote his Gospel? they'd probably cite this as evidence too.

Semper Fidelis · #5 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 08:39 PM

That's their problem in arguing and not mine. In the context of this specific argument, I need not adopt every skeptic's scheme regarding authorship.

Quote:

Author All four Gospels are anonymous, and together they provide the church an authorized, collective witness of Jesus’ person and work through the apostles—a theme often emphasized in Mark (3:14; 4:10; 5:37; 8:32 and notes). There is nothing inconsistent about the apostles’ using fellow workers such as John Mark, whose name appears above this Gospel, to put this collective and individual witness into writing. For John Mark’s relations with the apostles, see Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24.

Mark’s authorship is established by certain external considerations. Although the title, “According to Mark,” is not original, it appears in all the ancient canonical lists and many ancient manuscripts and is thought to have been added very early in the history of the text. Second, early church fathers such as Papias (a.d. 140), Justin Martyr (a.d. 150), Irenaeus (a.d. 185), and Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 195) all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias refers to Mark as Peter’s “interpreter.” Another reason to accept the authenticity of Marcan authorship is that in the second and third centuries of the church, books falsely claiming apostolic authorship usually claimed well-known apostles as their authors rather than secondary figures such as John Mark.

Within the text itself a veiled indication of Mark’s connection with this Gospel may be seen in an otherwise apparently irrelevant notice of a “certain young man” who fled when Jesus was arrested. Some interpreters have suggested that this is Mark’s way of referring to himself on that occasion (14:51 note). Possible evidence of Mark’s position as Peter’s “interpreter” (above) is the simplified chronological order of events in Mark that mirrors Peter’s rehearsal of those events in the Book of Acts (Acts 3:13, 14; 10:36–43). 1

1 Whitlock, L. G., Sproul, R. C., Waltke, B. K., & Silva, M. (1995). Reformation study Bible, the : Bringing the light of the Reformation to Scripture : New King James Version. Includes index. (Mk 1:1). Nashville: T. Nelson.

amishrockstar · #6 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 09:10 PM

Hey THANKS for your responses!
This class I'm taking is 'bad' in the sense that it's full of errors and questioning the Bible; it's 'good' in the sense that I've been digging 'deeper' to answer some of the 'garbage' that the teacher comes off with.
Thanks again for your insights,
Matthew

Semper Fidelis · #7 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 09:29 PM

Alfred Edersheim (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/l...es.x.ii.html):

Quote:

It was very early5078 on the morning of the second day in Passion-week (Monday), when
Jesus, with his disciples, left Bethany. In the fresh, crisp, spring air, after the exhaustion of that
night, ‘He hungered.’ By the roadside, as so often in the East, a solitary tree5079 grew in the rocky
soil. It must have stood on an eminence, where it caught the sunshine and warmth, for He saw it
‘afar off,’5080 and though spring had but lately wooed nature into life, it stood out, with its
wide-spreading mantle of green, against the sky. ‘It was not the season of figs,’ but the tree, covered
with leaves, attacted His attention. It might have been, that they hid some of the fruit which hung
through the winter, or else the springing fruits of the new crop. For it is a well-known fact, that in
Palestine ‘the fruit appears before the leaves,’ 5081 and that this fig-tree, whether from its exposure
or soil, was precocious, is evident from the fact that it was in leaf, which is quite unusual at that
season on the Mount of Olives,5082 The old fruit would, of course, have been edible, and in regard
to the unripe fruit we have the distinct evidence of the Mishnah,5083 confirmed by the Talmud,5084
that the unripe fruit was eaten, so soon as it began to assume a red colour - as it is expressed, ‘in
the field, with bread,’ or, as we understand it, by those whom hunger overtook in the fields, whether
working or travelling. But in the present case there was neither old nor new fruit, ‘but leaves only.’
It was evidently a barren fig-tree, cumbering the ground, and to be hewn down. Our mind almost
instinctively reverts to the Parable of the Barren Fig-tree, which He had so lately spoken.5085 To
Him, Who but yesterday had wept over the Jerusalem that knew not the day of its visitation, and
over which the sharp axe of judgment was already lifted, this fig-tree, with its luxuriant mantle of
leaves, must have recalled, with pictorial vividness, the scene of the previous day. Israel was that
barren fig-tree; and the leaves only covered their nakedness, as erst they had that of our first parents
after their Fall. And the judgment, symbolically spoken in the Parable, must be symbolically
executed in this leafy fig-tree, barren when searched for fruit by the Master. It seems almost an
inward necessity, not only symbolically but really also, that Christ’s Word should have laid it low.
We cannot conceive that any other should have eaten of it after the hungering Christ had in vain
sought fruit thereon. We cannot conceive that anything should resist Christ, and not be swept away.
We cannot conceive, that the reality of what He had taught should not, when occasion came, be
visibly placed before the eyes of the disciples. Lastly, we seem to feel (with Bengel) that, as always,
the manifestation of His true Humanity, in hunger, should be accompanied by that of His Divinity,
in the power of His Word of judgment.5086
With St. Matthew, who, for the sake of continuity, relates this incident after the events of
that day (the Monday) and immediately before those of the next,5087 we anticipate what was only
witnessed on the morrow.5088 As St. Matthew has it: on Christ’s Word the fig-tree immediately
withered away. But according to the more detailed account of St. Mark, it was only next morning,
when they again passed by, that they noticed the fig-tree had withered from its very roots. The
spectacle attracted their attention, and vividly recalled the Words of Christ, to which, on the previous
day, they had, perhaps, scarcely attached sufficient importance. And it was the suddenness and
completeness of the judgment that had been denounced, which now struck Peter, rather than its
symbolic meaning. It was rather the Miracle than its moral and spiritual import - the storm and
earthquake rather than the still small Voice - which impressed the disciples. Besides, the words of
Peter are at least capable of this interpretation, that the fig-tree had withered in consequence of,
rather than by the Word of Christ. But He ever leads His own from mere wonderment at the
Miraculous up to that which is higher.5089 His answer now combined all that they needed to learn.
It pointed to the typical lesson of what had taken place: the need of realising, simple faith, the
absence of which was the cause of Israel’s leafy barrenness, and which, if present and active, could
accomplish all, however impossible it might seem by outward means.5090 And yet it was only to
‘have faith in God;’ such faith as becomes those who know God; a faith in God, which seeks not
and has not its foundation in anything outward, but rests on Him alone. To one who ‘shall not doubt
in his heart, but shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass, it shall be to him.’5091 And this
general principle of the Kingdom, which to the devout and reverent believer needs neither explanation
nor limitation, received its further application, specially to the Apostles in their coming need:
‘Therefore I say unto you, whatsoever things, praying, ye ask for, believe that ye have received
them [not, in the counsel of God,5092 but actually, in answer to the prayer of faith], and it shall be
to you.’

5077 St. Mark i. 35; St. Luke v.16; St. Matt. xiv. 23; St. Luke vi. 12; ix. 28.
5078 πρωͺ, used of the last night-watch in St. Mark i. 35.
5079 ͺδͺν συκͺν μιͺν, a single tree.
5080 St. Mark.
5081 Tristram, Nat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 352.
5082 On the fig-tree generally, see the remarks on the Parable of the Barren Fig-tree, Book IV. ch. xvi.
5083 Shebh. iv. 7.
5084 Jer. Shebh. 35 b, last lines.
5085 St. Luke xiii. 6-9.
5086 Comp. St. John xi. 35-44.
5087 St. Matt. xxi. 18. 22.
5088 St. Mark xi. 20.
5089 Bengel.
5090 We remind the reader, that the expression ‘rooting up mountains’ is in common Rabbinic use as a hyperbole for doing the
impossible or the incredible. For the former, see Babha B. 3 b ({hebrew}); for the latter ({hebrew}) Ber. 64 a; Sanh. 24 a; Horay.
14 a.
5091 The other words are spurious.

Peter · #8 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

That's their problem in arguing and not mine. In the context of this specific argument, I need not adopt every skeptic's scheme regarding authorship.

I don't understand what you're saying. The skeptic who raised the question probably isn't going to grant you the 1st point of your earlier argument, namely, that the author was Jewish.

Thanks for the quote on Markian authorship.

Semper Fidelis · #9 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 09:40 PM

I understand that Peter but I don't grant his point that the author is not Jewish. Are you saying I need to move to his premise in order to make an argument?

These guys are sub-scholarly to begin with. Are you suggesting I need to follow every point and say: "OK I grant you that and that and that and that..." and then get to the fig tree bit and say: "Oh, and that too."

Frankly, by the time I got to the fig tree, who cares about the tree? I've already given away the Word of God.

amishrockstar · #10 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 11:10 PM

SemperFideles,
Thanks for that quote from Edersheim, I've heard his name quite a bit but have been pretty unfamiliar with his works-- he's got a creative way of re-writing (re-telling) the biblical account.

Semper Fidelis · #11 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 11:13 PM

Well, he wrote in the 19th century. Personally, it's a bit too ponderous for my taste. I read the whole book (and a few others) and it is really hard for my modern mind to read sometimes.

Peter · #12 (**permalink**) 07-22-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I understand that Peter but I don't grant his point that the author is not Jewish. Are you saying I need to move to his premise in order to make an argument?

These guys are sub-scholarly to begin with. Are you suggesting I need to follow every point and say: "OK I grant you that and that and that and that..." and then get to the fig tree bit and say: "Oh, and that too."

Frankly, by the time I got to the fig tree, who cares about the tree? I've already given away the Word of God.

Mr. Leino, You need substantiate your first premise that the author is Jewish in order to make an argument.

I don't think you need to do anything. But you've already given him 4 levels of reasoning to believe the gospel account. Why not simply ignore him totally if moving to his premise is "giving away the Word of God."

That Mark wrote the Gospel isn't even in the Word of God.