In chapter 11 Mark has the cursing of the fig tree before, and the discovery of its withering after, the clearing of the temple. An example of literary technique called a “Markan sandwich”. Matthew has both events occurring at the same time after the clearing of the temple. This all occurs in the morning as Jesus is on his way into Jerusalem, in both Mark and Matthew.
Matthew’s story has a triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the clearing of the temple courts. Then back to Bethany. Then the next morning walking into Jerusalem, cursing the fig tree, and entering the temple courts to teach and argue with the religious leaders.
Mark follows the same general pattern, but because of his insistence in inserting Markan sandwiches where they don’t belong, he is forced to have the clearing of the temple courts on the day after the triumphal precession into Jerusalem. Going off script Mark now needs to create his own account of what happens after the triumphal entry on day one. And his answer is “nothing”.
In Mark, Jesus is at bethphage and bethany, tells the disciples to get a colt for him, travels to Jerusalem as the Messiah to cheering crowds, enters the temple courts, realizes its late in the day and decides to return back to Bethany.
Mark 11:11 “Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.“
Ridiculous to think that Mark 11:11 exists for any reason other than the insertion of a Markan sandwich to the original account.
Well sure if you start out with the assumption of Matthean priority you can make this case but you can just as easily see Matthew unmaking the Markan sandwich. I don’t think this particular example works very well to make the case for Matthean priority.
Much more interesting is the relationship between Mark and the parable at Luke 16:3-9. Is there one?
Just on the Markan sandwich – Mark has the Messiah’s triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, in fulfillment of Psalm 118, resulting in his immediate returning back to Bethany. Its almost comical in its anticlimax. None of the other gospel writers have anything so ridiculous.
The question is why does Mark have it. Is it because he is the original author and thought this would make a good story? or is it because he’s editing Matthew and likes inserting markan sandwiches where they don’t belong?
I’m not sure why you think there’s a link between Mark and Luke 16:3-9? This is the section where Luke is veering wildly from Matthew/Mark’s order. If anything it looks like a parable made to parallel Matthew 6:19-24.
Your argument for Matthean priority would be stronger if you understood Mark’s own artistry in the creation of his plot.
Yes one of the chief problems with Matthean priority is it’s consequent lack of appreciation for Mark. This is lamentable because the author of Mark is the real genius of the new Testament.
…and transforms Mark’s parable of fig-tree into a much more reasonable parable of Jesus in 13,6-9.
Robert what do you think of the suggestion by some that Luke here actually preserves the original version of the parable and it is Mark who has made the changes to create his sandwich?
Robert said
That is, of course, possible, but I am a firm believer in Luke’s creativity. I see him as a kind of Steven Spielberg of the New Testament. He’s clearly building on Mark, the Oliver Stone of the New Testament, and there’s a really good reason why he would not like Mark’s story about Jesus unfairly cursing a fig tree that did not produce fruit out of season. Thus there’s no need to suppose that Luke is relying on an earlier tradition about Jesus’ fig tree parable while also deleting Mark’s fig-tree parable. A fig in the hand is worth two non-existent figs not on the fig tree. Or something like that.
Well what makes the point of view interesting is that Luke’s “parable” would seem to more clearly reflect the view one would expect from the historical Jesus and Mark seems to decisively shut the door on the Jews and the Temple. But if you’re right not only does Luke unmake Mark’s sandwich, he turns it into an apple turnover.
Robert said
Your argument for Matthean priority would be stronger if you understood Mark’s own artistry in the creation of his plot.
Personally, I have always loved the anti-climactic end to the so-called triumphal entry scene. Mark does not see Jesus as a conventional triumphalist Messiah, which may be the whole point of enacting the prophecy from Zechariah.
None of the gospel writers have Jesus as a conventional triumphalist Messiah. All of them have him attempt to enter Jerusalem lowly on a donkey but the crowds cheer him on nonetheless.
All have him cleanse the temple, but Mark’s is the greatest, his Jesus refuses to let anyone even carry vessels through the temple courts.
All three synoptics quote Jer 7:11 “you have made it a den of robbers” and the withered fig tree probably comes from Jer 8:13 “There will be no figs on the tree and their leaves will wither“.
Only Matthew correctly maintains this order of temple cleanse and fig tree withering in his account.
Stephen said
Your argument for Matthean priority would be stronger if you understood Mark’s own artistry in the creation of his plot.Yes one of the chief problems with Matthean priority is it’s consequent lack of appreciation for Mark. This is lamentable because the author of Mark is the real genius of the new Testament.
Mark 4:24 “With the measure you use to measure, it will be measured to you—and even more to you“
Mark doesn’t understand the meaning of this teaching. It is correctly used in Matthew 7:1-2
“Judge not lest you be judged. For whatever way you judge you will be judged. And whatever measure you use to measure so it will be measured to you”
Robert said
Are you intending to offer any real argument for Matthean priority? Just asserting that Matthew is correct is not really an argument.
The argument is about what is the best explanation for Mark having his Messiah enter Jerusalem in fulfillment of Psalm 118, only to have him realize its late and return immediately back to Bethany.
Is the best explanation that he was the original author and thought that would make a good story? or is it written that way in order for Mark to insert one of his favored literally sandwiches?
Robert said
That’s a highly subjective point about if and how one appreciates the artistry of Mark’s plot. Let’s ask this another way, do you have any appreciation for Mark’s story-telling ability or his linguistic ‘style’ or is every single one of your points about Mark merely part of an argument in favor of Matthean priority and Mark’s supposed lack of understanding of Matthew? If so, you’re approaching this from a fundamentally biased perspective. Instead, take my advice and familiarize yourself with the classics of redaction criticism of the last century. Do you need any suggestions? Try to appreciate the scholarly consensus rather than attacking it at every turn from an uninformed and biased perspective.
But the classics of redaction criticism assume Markan priority.
One’s interpretation of Mark’s style is determined in part by whether one thinks he wrote first or not. So one shouldn’t use an understanding of his “style” when deciding on priority. One should always be open to the possibility that Mark’s anti-climatic messianic entrance into Jerusalem does not contain some deep underlying rejection of tradition Messianic belief but is in fact just poor writing which exists purely to insert his favored “sandwich”. One should be especially open to this possibility given that everything else about the Jerusalem entry and aftermath is the same as Matthew’s.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert