mistake in Murdock? (Mk 11:14)

[gbausc]

Shlama Yuri,

Have you not read Mark 11:21?

Dave B

Shlama Dave,

Of course I'm aware of Mark 11:21.

(Mark 11:21 YLT) and Peter having remembered saith to him, 'Rabbi, lo, the fig-tree that thou didst curse is dried up.'

But I'm primarily concerned with Jesus' words, themselves. If these words, as given in both Mt and Mk, do not in fact express a curse, then we have two possibilities. Either Jesus' words had been changed later in some manuscripts, including the Aramaic ones (to make his words sound less harsh), or perhaps Mark 11:21 reflects some later editorial activity (perhaps this whole verse was added later).

Keep in mind that this whole incident is very different in Mk and in Mt. If we assume that the Matthean version is earlier -- as I believe to be the case -- then Mark 11:21 may only represent a later Markan redaction/elaboration of this episode.

Shlama,

Yuri.

I don't know where to start here. You say you are concerned with Jesus words only; that assumes we may place more confidence in some parts of the narrative than others, when all of it was written by the same man, unless you are questioning Peter's knowledge of Aramaic expressions.

How is "the whole episode very different in Matthew and Mark" ?

Here is what I see. In both accounts, Jesus spoke to - [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hl rm0w[/font] the fig tree. Now why would He do that ? I can think of only two reasons:
1. He wished to instruct the fig tree of future events, as you suggest, or
2. He wished to do something to the fig tree by His words.

If He had wished merely to instruct His disciples, He would have addressed them directly about the future of fig trees.

Matthew 21:21 says : "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nwdb9t 0ttd 0dh[/font]" "You may do this of the fig tree". I take this as confirmation of #2 above, that our Lord did something to the fig tree by speaking to it. He was not speaking to his disciples or to the temple; He spoke to the fig tree. He was not giving it information about the future by so speaking to it.
Peter had it right when he said Jesus cursed the fig tree.

I don't accept redaction theories, but the theory I am familiar with is that Matthew followed Mark,Mark being the shortest and most basic narrative, and Mark used "Q" for the basic gospel account.

To suggest that The LORD was merely stating a prophesy about the temple is silly. "No man shall eat fruit of thee from now and forever", is an assertion of power over the fig tree. Are you saying that the tree would have withered immediately as it did, had Jesus never spoken to it ?

He went on to teach a lesson of faith to His disciples from this example: "but also if you shall say to this mountain (Matthew and Mark), be removed and fall into the sea..."

The one is an extension of the other. Faith is required, not to know the future, but to make things happen, as our Savior did. Mountains do not fly and fall without a miraculous power moving them. Fig trees do not shrivel up in a few hours of natural causes.
In both cases, words spoken in faith are the cause of great signs and wonders.

But if , as you say,"perhaps Mark 11:21 reflects some later editorial activity (perhaps this whole verse was added later)" , then "perhaps " all of the NT is claptrap and Jesus Christ is a myth. How would we ever know ?

If we don't know what the words of God are, how can we ever know what they mean?

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do ?" Psalms 11:3

Shlama,

Dave