Withered Fig Tree

Matt. 21:18-20; Mark 11:12-14, 20-21

(Huck 199, 201; Aland 272, 275; Crook 308, 310)^[107]

Text

Conclusion

The Withered Fig Tree story was composed by the author of Mark. The origin of the story appears to lie in the author of Mark’s strange interpretation of the Fig Tree parable in Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption as describing an eschatological sign. When a particular fig tree’s branches grow tender and put forth leaves, the Son of Man’s coming will be at hand. The Withered Fig Tree identifies which fig tree will supply this sign and explains how the poor fig tree’s fate became intertwined with that of the city and Temple that were doomed to destruction, but would one day be delivered when the Son of Man returned in glory. The author of Matthew took over Withered Fig Tree from Mark, but condensed it into a single episode. In the Gospel of Matthew the Withered Fig Tree symbolized the doom that hung over Jerusalem, the Temple and the Jewish people, but there is no indication that the author of Matthew believed that the unfortunate fig tree would one day be revived, thereby providing Jesus’ followers with an eschatological sign.

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] Such intercalation or sandwiching of narratives is especially common in the Gospel of Mark. See Bundy, 429 §332; Meier, Marginal, 2:890; LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” In most, if not all, cases the author of Mark wanted his readers to view the intercalated narratives as somehow related. For instance, between the two-part narrative in Mark of how Jesus’ mother and brothers attempt to apprehend Jesus because they believed him to be out of his mind (Mark 3:20-21), and how Jesus responded by declaring his followers to be his true mother and sisters and brothers (Mark 3:31-35), there appears a story in which Jesus is accused of being possessed by Beelzebub (Mark 3:22-30). Evidently, the author of Mark wanted his readers to understand that the supposition that Jesus was out of his mind was equivalent to the accusation that Jesus was demon-possessed. On Mark 3:20-21 as a Markan composition, see Yeshua, his Mother and Brothers, Comment to L1-10. ↩
• ^[2] See Bundy, 425 §328; Meier, Marginal, 2:887. ↩
• ^[3] On our supposition that the author of Mark intended his readers to think of the withered fig tree when he related his version of the Fig Tree parable, see Fig Tree parable, Comment to L8-9. ↩
• ^[4] Recall that in Yerushalayim Besieged, under the “Story Placement” subheading, we determined that the author of Mark saw himself as living in what he believed to be the very short period of time that would intervene between the unprecedented distress and the Son of Man’s coming to gather the elect. The author of Mark appears to have been convinced that the Son of Man’s coming could happen at any moment. See also LOY Excursus: The Dates of the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[5] See H. Van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 688. Some scholars think that the original version of the Withered Fig Tree narrative was a single episode, which the author of Mark split in two, and which, for reasons of his own, the author of Matthew put back together. Cf., e.g., Bultmann, 218; Knox, 1:80. Meier (Marginal, 2:894), on the other hand, believed the author of Mark received the Withered Fig Tree narrative in a two-part form. We regard the two-part form of Mark’s version of Withered Fig Tree as an original feature of this Markan composition. ↩
• ^[6] Cf. France, Matt., 791. ↩
• ^[7] Cf. Pryke (145, 167-168), who considered nearly all of Withered Fig Tree to be Markan composition. ↩
• ^[8] See Bundy, 425 §328. In John’s Gospel, too, a challenge to Jesus’ authority (John 2:18-22) is issued immediately after his demonstration in the Temple (John 2:13-17). See Bultmann, 20 n. 2; Meier, Marginal, 2:893. ↩
• ^[9] See Lindsey, LHNS, 156 §199. ↩
• ^[10] Cf. Collins, 525. ↩
• ^[11] It is possible that the author of Mark knew a story of Jesus causing a fig tree to wither, and that his familiarity with this story is what led him to interpret the Fig Tree parable in Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption in such an unusual manner. Some scholars have suggested that the story originated to explain the presence on the Mount of Olives of a dead fig tree that was left standing in its place. See Gustaf Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels (trans. Paul P. Levertoff; New York: Macmillan, 1935), 261; Taylor, 459; Van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 695. Other scholars have dismissed this suggestion, stating that the sight of a dead fig tree could not be so unusual as to warrant an etiological (explanatory) legend. See Lynn Allan Losie, “The Cursing of the Fig Tree: Tradition Criticism of a Markan Pericope: Mk 11:12-14, 20-25,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 7 (1977): 3-18, esp. 4; Davies-Allison, 3:149 n. 15. But is this assumption correct? The Unfruitful Fig Tree parable (Luke 13:6-9) indicates that non-productive fig trees, whether dead or alive, were not usually permitted to take up space on precious agricultural lands. Moreover, the wood of fig trees was in high demand for fueling the fire on the Temple’s altar (m. Tam. 2:3). Therefore, a dead fig tree permitted to stand in the vicinity of Jerusalem probably was an unusual sight. And if such a fig tree remained until the author of Mark’s time, this truly would be remarkable, since during the siege of Jerusalem the Romans felled the fruit trees surrounding Jerusalem as part of their scorched-earth policy (Jos., J.W. 5:107) and for the building of siege works (J.W. 5:262, 264). But even if a prominently located dead fig tree existed somewhere on the Mount of Olives in the first century, would it have inspired the kind of story the author of Mark narrates in Mark 11:12-14, 20-21? Dodd more plausibly suggested that the Withered Fig Tree story was inspired by a saying like the one in Luke 17:6, in which Jesus states that a person with faith amounting to as much as a mustard seed could speak to a mulberry or sycamore fig tree (συκάμινος [sūkaminos] sounds like συκῆ [sūkē, “fig tree”]) and it would be uprooted and planted in the sea. See C. H. Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), 45 n. 2. Cf. Manson, Sayings, 140; France, Matt., 796. As the author of Mark must have known, uprooting a tree and planting it in a body of water, whether salt water or fresh, would spell its demise. Cf. J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Figtrees in the New Testament,” Heythrop Journal 14.3 (1973): 249-265, esp. 256. ↩
• ^[12] In addition to the reasons discussed in Comment to L10, note too that whereas Luke’s version of the Fig Tree parable mentions “all the trees” in addition to the fig tree, Anth.’s version focused exclusively on the fig tree. See Fig Tree parable, Comment to L12. ↩
• ^[13] Numerous scholars have supposed that some kind of relationship exists between the Markan-Matthean versions of Withered Fig Tree and Luke’s Unfruitful Fig Tree parable. The two stories share key vocabulary (συκῆ [sūkē, “fig”], ἔχειν [echein, “to have”], τις [tis, “something,” “someone”], ἔρχεσθαι [erchesthai, “to come”], καρπός [karpos, “fruit”], ἐν αὐτῇ [en avtē, “in it”], εὑρίσκειν [hevriskein, “to find”], λέγειν [legein, “to say”]), and, as Oakman observed, the two stories share the same basic structure (a person comes to a fig tree for fruit→he does not find any→he condemns the fig tree). See Douglas E. Oakman, “Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers’ Dens: Pronouncement Stories Within Social-Systemic Perspective: Mark 11:12-15 and Parallels,” Semeia 64 (1993): 253-272, esp. 254-255. ↩
• ^[14] Luke’s version of Faith Like a Mustard Seed (Luke 17:5-6) appears in a cluster of sayings concerning temptation (Luke 17:1-2), forgiving a brother who sins (Luke 17:3-4), and the extraordinary power of faith (Luke 17:5-6). Jesus’ instruction in response to Peter’s reaction to the withered fig tree in Mark opens with a saying about the extraordinary power of faith (Mark’s version of Faith Like a Mustard Seed; Mark 11:22-23), continues with a saying about faithful prayer being answered (“whatever you pray for and ask, believe that you received”; Mark 11:24), and closes with a saying about reciprocal forgiveness (Mark 11:25). It is as though the cluster of sayings in Luke 17:1-6 regarding temptation, forgiveness and faith reminded the author of Mark of Jesus’ teaching on prayer in Luke 11:1-10, where the themes of reciprocal forgiveness (“forgive us our sins, for we forgave everyone indebted to us”; Luke 11:4), temptation (“and do not lead us into temptation”; Luke 11:4), and the promise that “all who ask receive” (Luke 11:10) occur. Since Luke’s version of Faith Like a Mustard Seed played a role in the author of Mark’s formation of Jesus’ response to the disciples’ reaction to the withered fig tree, it is possible that Luke’s version of Faith Like a Mustard Seed exerted some influence on Mark’s version of Withered Fig Tree as well. Specifically, the imperative ἐκριζώθητι (ekrizōthēti, “be uprooted”) may have given rise to Mark’s statement that the fig tree was dried up “from the roots” (ἐκ ῥιζῶν [ek rizōn]; Mark 11:20). Cf. LHNS, 157 §201. ↩
• ^[15] See Bultmann, 218; Knox, 1:20 n. 2; Meier, Marginal, 2:894; Hagner, 2:604; Davies-Allison, 3:147; Luz, 3:21. ↩
• ^[16] Cf. Lindsey, HTGM, 133, where Lindsey translated Mark’s καὶ τῇ ἐπαύριον as וַיְהִי לְמָחֳרָת (vayhi l^emoḥ^orāt, “and it was on the morrow”). ↩
• ^[17] Cf. Losie, “The Cursing of the Fig Tree,” 9. ↩
• ^[18] See Gundry, Matt., 415; Davies-Allison, 3:150; Nolland, Matt., 850 n. 20. It is unlikely, therefore, that the author of Matthew opened his version of Withered Fig Tree with πρωΐ in order to explain to his readers that the reason why Jesus was hungry was that he had departed his lodgings in Bethany so early that there had been no time for breakfast. For this suggestion, see Gill, 7:239; Nolland, Matt., 850. ↩
• ^[19] See LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Mark.” ↩
• ^[20] The LXX translators rendered בֵּית הַכֶּרֶם as Βηθαχαρμ in 2 Esd. 13:14. ↩
• ^[21] The LXX translators rendered בֵּת אֵל as Βηθήλ in 2 Esd. 17:32. ↩
• ^[22] The LXX translators rendered בֵּית לֶחֶם as Βηθλεεμ in Gen. 35:19; Judg. 12:10; 17:7, 8, 9; 19:1 , 2, 18 (2xx); 1 Kgdms. 16:1, 4; 20:6, 28; Mic. 5:1; Jer. 48[41]:17. ↩
• ^[23] The LXX translators rendered בֵּית צוּר as Βηθσουρ in 2 Esd. 13:16. ↩
• ^[24] See also Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[25] A town named Bet Hini is mentioned in b. Pes. 53a, where it is said to have figs, and also in b. Hul. 53a, but in a different connection. ↩
• ^[26] The noun חֲנִיָּה (ḥ^aniyāh, “encampment,” “right of colonization”), an even closer phonetic match for -ανία, is attested in rabbinic sources (see Jastrow, 483), but does not occur as a personal name or toponym. ↩
• ^[27] So, too, MHNT’s rendition of Βηθανία as בֵּית עַנְיָה (bēt ‘anyāh) is phonetically plausible, but the name is unattested in ancient sources. ↩
• ^[28] See W. F. Albright, “New Identifications of Ancient Towns,” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem 9 (1923): 5-10, esp. 9-10; idem, “Bethany in the Old Testament,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 4 (1924): 158-160; Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 250; Jacob M. Myers, Ezra ⋅ Nehemiah (AB 14; New York: Doubleday, 1965), 192; Rainey-Notley, 363. ↩
• ^[29] See Albright, “Bethany in the Old Testament,” 158-159. ↩
• ^[30] See Albright, “New Identifications of Ancient Towns,” 10. The -ος and -ας endings of Ἄνανος and Ἅννας are Greek suffixes used to accommodate the foreign names to Greek style. In LXX the name חָנָן was transliterated without the Greek suffix: Αναν (Anan; 1 Chr. 4:20; 8:23, 38; 9:44; 11:43; 2 Esd. 2:46; 17:49; 20:11, 23; 23:13). ↩
• ^[31] See Albright, “Bethany in the Old Testament,” 160. ↩
• ^[32] Whereas Mark’s version of Withered Fig Tree is told in 77 Greek words, Matthew’s version is told in 53 Greek words. ↩
• ^[33] Gundry (Matt., 416) saw Matthew’s replacement of “from Bethany” with “to the city” as a literary improvement intended to enhance the parallel fates of the Fig Tree and the Holy City. ↩
• ^[34] Only five instances of ἐπανάγειν occur in LXX (2 Macc. 9:21; 12:4; Sir. 17:26; 26:28; Zech. 4:12). See Hatch-Redpath, 1:506. ↩
• ^[35] See Moulton-Geden, 351. ↩
• ^[36] See A. B. Bruce, 417; Collins, 525. ↩
• ^[37] Cf. Plummer, Mark, 260. ↩
• ^[38] Cf. Swete, 253; France, Matt., 794. ↩
• ^[39] See Losie, “The Cursing of the Fig Tree,” 9; Evans, Mark, 153. ↩
• ^[40] See Gundry, Mark, 637. Gundry believed that it was not customary for first-century Jews to breakfast early in the morning, but he based his opinion on a dubious source, Eric F. F. Bishop’s (1891-1980) observations of when local Arab peasants in Palestine in the early twentieth century ate their breakfasts. The only account of Jesus eating a breakfast in the Gospels is found in John 21:1-14, where the breakfast takes place shortly after dawn. While it may be doubted whether this story is historical, John’s Gospel is surely a more reliable witness to first-century breakfasting customs than extrapolations from breakfasting customs in the early 1900s. According to Shmuel Safrai, first-century Jews in the land of Israel typically ate two meals a day. These included a light breakfast and the main meal in the evening after the day’s work was completed (Safrai-Stern, 2:801). Unfortunately, Safrai did not state when the breakfast was usually taken, nor did he cite any sources to substantiate his claim. ↩
• ^[41] See LHNC, 156 §199. ↩
• ^[42] The table below shows all the examples of the phrase ἀπὸ μακρόθεν in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 26:58 TT = Mark 14:54 (cf. Luke 22:54 [μακρόθεν]) Matt. 27:55 TT = Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49 Mark 5:6 TT (cf. Matt. 8:29; Luke 8:28) Mark 8:3 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:32) Mark 11:13 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 21:19) Mark 14:54 TT = Matt. 26:58 (cf. Luke 22:54 [μακρόθεν]) Mark 15:40 TT = Matt. 27:55; Luke 23:49 Luke 16:23 U Luke 23:49 TT = Matt. 27:55; Mark 15:40 Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[43] See Gill, 7:239. ↩
• ^[44] Some scholars have questioned whether unripe figs are edible, but there is sufficient literary and eyewitness evidence to quell such doubts. Rabbinic sources mention the eating of unripe figs in, e.g., m. Shev. 4:7 and Lev. Rab. 31:4. The following parable is a good example:

  משל למלך שגזר ואמר כל מי שאוכל פגי שביעית יהיו מחזרים אתו בקנפון הלכה אשה אחת בת טובים לקטה ואכלה פגי שביעית

  A parable. [It may be compared] to a king who decreed and said, “Everyone who eats unripe figs of the Sabbatical year: they will parade him in the arena!” A certain woman, a member of the upper class, gathered and ate unripe figs of the Sabbatical year.... (Sifre Deut. §26 [ed. Finkelstein, 36])

  The eating of unripe figs is also referred to in the following rabbinic comment:

  ראויה היתה לדוד בת שבע בת אליעם אלא שאכלה פגה

  Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam, was fit to be married to David, except that he “ate her as an unripe fig.” (b. Sanh. 107a)

  The point of this statement is that Bathsheba was not intrinsically unsuitable for marriage to David (e.g., she was not a close relative or a member of a forbidden ethnic group). Had David waited for the proper conditions to be fulfilled (e.g., waiting for Bathsheba to be divorced or for her husband to die), she could have been legitimately married to David. In any case, the saying is an illustration of the occurrence of eating unripe figs.

  McNeile (302) and Dalman (Sacred Sites and Ways, 262) are among the early twentieth-century scholars who attest to locals in Palestine eating unripe figs. See also Eric F. F. Bishop, Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents (London: Lutterworth, 1955), 217. For more recent assessments, see Wendy J. Cotter, “‘For It Was Not the Season for Figs,’” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48.1 (1986): 62-66, esp. 65; Gundry, Mark, 636. ↩

• ^[45] On the appearance of fruit buds on fig trees prior to the opening of the leaves, see also H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible (9th ed.; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1898), 351; Plummer, Mark, 261; McNeile, 302; Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 261.

  The Hebrew term for such unripe figs is פַּגָּה (pagāh, “unripe fig,” “green fig”; plur. פַּגִּים [pagim], var. פַּגִּין [pagin]). The following rabbinic statement seems to contradict the fact that the fruit buds appear before the leaves on fig trees:

  רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומ′ מהוצאת עלין עד הפגין חמשים יום מן הפגים ועד שיתין ונובלות חמשים יום ומשיתין ונובלות עד התאנים חמשים יום

  Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “From putting forth leaves until green figs: fifty days. From green figs until wild figs and prematurely cast-off fruit: fifty days. And from wild figs and prematurely cast-off fruit until [fully ripe] figs: fifty days.” (t. Shev. 4:20; Vienna MS)

  It seems, however, that the point of this saying is not that leaves appear before the appearance of fruit buds, but that the unripe fruit does not become edible until fifty days after the leaves have unfurled. ↩

• ^[46] Note that Mark 11:13 does not say that Jesus sought for ripe figs. He merely searched for “something” to eat. ↩
• ^[47] See Lindsey, HTGM, 133. Lindsey used a masculine pronominal suffix attached to the preposition עַל (‘al, “on,” “upon”) because, unlike Delitzsch, who rendered συκῆ (“fig tree”) with the feminine תְּאֵנָה (t^e’ēnāh, “fig tree,” “fig [fruit]”), he rendered συκῆ with the masculine construct phrase עֵץ תְּאֵנָה (‘ētz t^e’ēnāh, “fig tree”). ↩
• ^[48] Compare the LXX translations of וַיְהִי לוֹ צֹאן וּבָקָר (“and there were to him flocks and herds”) in Gen. 12:16 as καὶ ἐγένοντο αὐτῷ πρόβατα καὶ μόσχοι (“and there were to him sheep and cattle”); וַיְהִי לוֹ מִקְנֵה צֹאן (“and there were to him herds of flocks”) in Gen. 26:14 as ἐγένετο δὲ αὐτῷ κτήνη προβάτων (“and there was to him a herd of sheep”); וַיְהִי לוֹ צֹאן רַבּוֹת (“and there were to him great flocks”) in Gen. 30:43 as καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῷ κτήνη πολλά (“and there was to him a great herd”); וַיְהִי לִי שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר (“and there were to me oxen and donkeys”) in Gen. 32:6 as καὶ ἐγένοντό μοι βόες καὶ ὄνοι (“and there were to me oxen and donkeys”). ↩
• ^[49] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 416. ↩
• ^[50] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 416; Davies-Allison, 3:150. ↩
• ^[51] There is a long Christian tradition of reading certain of Jesus’ parables as though Jesus himself were the main character. Thus, the “good” shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine sheep to seek the one that is lost is often understood to be (and in artwork depicted as) Jesus. Similarly, Jesus is often cast in the role of the good Samaritan. Did the author of Mark suppose that Jesus was the man who came seeking fruit from the fig tree planted in his vineyard? ↩
• ^[52] See Plummer, Mark, 261; Taylor, 459; Cotter, “‘For It Was Not the Season for Figs,’” 65. ↩
• ^[53] Codex Bezae’s variant in Mark 11:13, with its historical present tense verb ἔστιν (estin, “he/she/it is”), cannot be construed as particularly Hebraic. ↩
• ^[54] Nevertheless, the Greek text printed opposite Lindsey’s Hebrew translation reads, εἰ ἄρα τι εὑρήσει ἐν αὐτῇ (ei ara ti hevrēsei en avtē, “if, therefore, something he will find in it”), the same text that appears in critical editions of Mark. See Lindsey, HTGM, 132. ↩
• ^[55] While the difference in word order between the Greek text and the Hebrew translations is not only excusable but necessary, it is strange that both translators rendered τι (“something”) in Mark 11:13 as “fruit.” A better translation in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew might be דָּבָר (dāvār, “word,” “thing”). Modern Hebrew would be מַשֶׁהוּ (mashehū, “something”). ↩
• ^[56] Matthew’s version of Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith (Matt. 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56) omits Jesus’ question “Who touched me?” which is present in the Markan and Lukan versions (Mark 5:30-33 ∥ Luke 8:45-47). ↩
• ^[57] See Plummer, Mark, 260-261. ↩
• ^[58] See Lindsey, HTGM, 133. ↩
• ^[59] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:150. ↩
• ^[60] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 416; Davies-Allison, 3:150. ↩
• ^[61] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 416; Davies-Allison, 3:151. The table below shows all the instances of the adjective μόνος in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 4:4 DT = Luke 4:4 Matt. 4:10 DT = Luke 4:8 Matt. 5:47 DT (cf. Luke 6:33/34) Matt. 8:8 DT (cf. Luke 7:7) Matt. 9:21 TT (cf. Mark 5:28; Luke 8:44) Matt. 10:42 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 9:41) Matt. 12:4 TT = Luke 6:4 (cf. Mark 2:26) Matt. 14:23 Mk-Mt = Mark 6:47 Matt. 14:36 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 6:56) Matt. 17:8 TT = Mark 9:8; Luke 9:36 Matt. 18:15 DT (cf. Luke 17:3) Matt. 21:19 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 11:13) Matt. 21:21 Mk-Mt/DT (cf. Mark 11:23; Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:6) Matt. 24:36 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 13:32) Mark 4:10 TT (cf. Matt. 13:10; Luke 8:9) Mark 5:36 TT = Luke 8:50 (cf. Matt. 9:[--]) Mark 6:8 TT (cf. Matt. 10:10; Luke 9:3) Mark 6:47 Mk-Mt = Matt. 14:23 Mark 9:2 TT (cf. Matt. 17:1; Luke 9:28) Mark 9:8 TT = Matt. 17:8; Luke 9:36 Luke 4:4 DT = Matt. 4:4 Luke 4:8 DT = Matt. 4:10 Luke 5:21 TT (cf. Matt. 9:3; Mark 2:7) Luke 6:4 TT = Matt. 12:4 (cf. Mark 2:26) Luke 8:50 TT = Mark 5:36 (cf. Matt. 9:[--]) Luke 9:18 TT (cf. Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27) Luke 9:36 TT = Matt. 17:8; Mark 9:8 Luke 10:40 U Luke 24:12 TT (cf. Matt. 28:[--]; Mark 16:[--]) Luke 24:18 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding verse

  From the table above we see that of the fourteen instances of μόνος in Matthew nine are unsupported by synoptic parallels (Matt. 5:47 [cf. Luke 6:33/34]; 8:8 [cf. Luke 7:7]; 9:21 [cf. Mark 5:28; Luke 8:44]; 10:42 [cf. Mark 9:41]; 14:36 [cf. Mark 6:56]; 18:15 [cf. Luke 17:3]; 21:19 [cf. Mark 11:13]; 21:21 [cf. Mark 11:23; Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:6]; 24:36 [cf. Mark 13:32]). This does not mean that every unsupported instance of μόνος in Matthew is redactional, but the author of Matthew’s use of μόνος in contexts where Matthean redactional activity is clear (e.g., in Faith Like a Mustard Seed [Matt. 21:21], where Matthew’s own doublet [Matt. 17:20] shows that μόνος was not in the original version of the saying, or in the Markan-Matthean pericopae, like Withered Fig Tree, where Matthew’s only source is Mark) certainly raises doubts about Matthew’s other unsupported instances of μόνος. ↩

• ^[62] See France, Mark, 441; Mark A. Proctor, “‘It Was Not the Season For Figs’: Aesthetic Absurdity in Mark’s Intercalations,” Biblica 98.4 (2017): 558-581, esp. 564. ↩
• ^[63] See Bundy, 425 §328; Beare, Matt., 419. Cf. Collins, 526. ↩
• ^[64] See Cotter, “‘For It Was Not the Season for Figs,’” 64-66. See also Gundry, Mark, 636; Meier, Marginal, 2:891. ↩
• ^[65] See Cotter, “‘For It Was Not the Season for Figs,’” 65. ↩
• ^[66] Additional examples of oddly placed γάρ clauses in Mark are found in Mark’s version of Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith, where “for she was twelve years old” (Mark 5:42) hardly explains why the girl got up and walked, and in Mark’s version of the Wicked Tenants parable, where “for they knew he spoke this parable against them” (Mark 12:12) hardly explains why the chief priests feared the people. In the second example, however, Mark’s placement of the γάρ clause agrees with Luke’s in Luke 20:19. ↩
• ^[67] Cf. H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible (9th ed.; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1898), 351; Plummer, Mark, 261; Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 261-262. ↩
• ^[68] See Meier, Marginal, 2:891. ↩
• ^[69] See Taylor, 460. The following table lists all the instances of the narrator’s use of a γάρ clause in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 3:3 TT (cf. Mark 1:2; Luke 3:4) Matt. 4:18 TT = Mark 1:16 (cf. Luke 5:2) Matt. 7:29 TT = Mark 1:22 (cf. Luke 4:32) Matt. 9:21 TT = Mark 5:28 (cf. Luke 8:44) Matt. 14:3 TT = Mark 6:17 (cf. Luke 3:19) Matt. 14:4 TT = Mark 6:18 (cf. Luke 3:19) Matt. 14:24 Mk-Mt = Mark 6:48 Matt. 19:22 TT = Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23 Matt. 26:43 TT = Mark 14:40 (cf. Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 27:18 TT = Mark 15:10 (cf. Luke 23:[--]) Matt. 28:2 TT ≈ Mark 16:4 (cf. Luke 24:2) Mark 1:16 TT = Matt. 4:18 (cf. Luke 5:2) Mark 1:22 TT = Matt. 7:29 (cf. Luke 4:32) Mark 2:15 TT (cf. Matt. 9:10; Luke 5:29) Mark 3:10 Lk-Mk (cf. Luke 6:19) Mark 3:21 U Mark 5:8 TT = Luke 8:29 (cf. Matt. 8:[--]) Mark 5:28 TT = Matt. 9:21 (cf. Luke 8:44) Mark 5:42 TT (cf. Matt. 9:25; Luke 8:55) Mark 6:14 TT (cf. Matt. 14:1; Luke 9:7) Mark 6:17 TT = Matt. 14:3 (cf. Luke 3:19) Mark 6:18 TT = Matt. 14:4 (cf. Luke 3:19) Mark 6:20 TT (cf. Matt. 14:5; Luke 3:[--]) Mark 6:31 Lk-Mk (cf. Luke 9:10) Mark 6:48 Mk-Mt = Matt. 14:24 Mark 6:50 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 14:26) Mark 6:52 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 14:33) Mark 7:3 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:[--]) Mark 9:6 (1st) TT (cf. Matt. 17:4; Luke 9:33) Mark 9:6 (2nd) TT (cf. Matt. 17:4; Luke 9:33) Mark 9:31 TT (cf. Matt. 17:22; Luke 9:43) Mark 9:34 TT (cf. Matt. 18:1; Luke 9:46) Mark 10:22 TT = Matt. 19:22; Luke 18:23 Mark 11:13 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 21:19) Mark 11:18 TT = Luke 19:48 (cf. Matt. 21:[--]) Mark 11:32 TT ≈ Matt. 21:26; Luke 20:6 (but the γάρ in Matthew and Luke is in dialogue) Mark 12:12 TT = Luke 20:19 (cf. Matt. 21:46]) Mark 14:2 TT = Luke 22:2 (cf. Matt. 26:5) Mark 14:40 TT = Matt. 26:43 (cf. Luke 22:[--]) Mark 14:56 TT (cf. Matt. 26:60; Luke 22:[--]) Mark 15:10 TT = Matt. 27:18 (cf. Luke 23:[--]) Mark 16:4 TT ≈ Matt. 28:2 (cf. Luke 24:2) Mark 16:8 (1st) TT (cf. Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9) Mark 16:8 (2nd) TT (cf. Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9) Luke 1:66 U Luke 5:9 TT (cf. Matt. 4:[--]; Mark 1:[--]) Luke 8:29 (1st) TT = Mark 5:8 (cf. Matt. 8:[--]) Luke 8:29 (2nd) TT (cf. Matt. 8:[--]; Mark 5:8) Luke 8:40 TT (cf. Matt. 9:18; Mark 5:21) Luke 9:14 TT (cf. Matt. 14:21; Mark 6:44) Luke 18:23 TT = Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22 Luke 19:48 TT = Mark 11:18 (cf. Matt. 21:[--]) Luke 20:19 TT = Mark 12:12 (cf. Matt. 21:46) Luke 20:40 TT (cf. Matt. 22:46; Mark 12:34) Luke 22:2 TT = Mark 14:2 (cf. Matt. 26:5) Luke 23:8 U Luke 23:12 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  We cannot understand the statistics Bird cited in his discussion of γάρ clauses in the Synoptic Gospels. See C. H. Bird, “Some γαρ Clauses in St. Mark’s Gospel,” Journal of Theological Studies 4.2 (1953): 171-187. Although Bird claimed to discuss “the gar clauses...in the narrative portions of Mark” (172) and their synoptic parallels, he stated that Luke “retains only four out of the twenty-one that occur in the narrative passages he has taken over from St. Mark” (173), whereas we count five instances of Lukan-Markan agreement on the use of narrative γάρ clauses (Luke 8:29 ∥ Mark 5:8; Luke 18:23 ∥ Mark 10:22; Luke 19:48 ∥ Mark 11:18; Luke 20:19 ∥ Mark 12:12; Luke 22:2 ∥ Mark 14:2). Likewise, Bird stated that “twenty-three times St. Matthew...introduced a gar where one was lacking in Mark...on thirteen occasions Matthew has inserted a gar comment of his own into a passage which has a substantial parallel in the second gospel” (173), whereas we find that Matthew has a total of eleven narrative γάρ clauses, ten of which (all but the first) are in agreement with Mark. Since Bird did not cite the data in support of his claims, we cannot know which instances he counted as narrative γάρ clauses and which he regarded as instances of dialogue. We do know, however, that in at least one instance, Mark 10:45, Bird (182) counted as a narrative γάρ clause what we consider to be a γάρ clause in direct speech. The γάρ clause in Mark 10:45 refers to the Son of Man, a term that the author of Mark exclusively placed on the lips of Jesus, either in direct speech (Mark 2:10, 28; 3:28; 8:38; 9:12, 31; 10:33; 13:26; 14:21, 41, 62) or in indirect summaries of Jesus’ speech (Mark 8:31; 9:9).

  Cotter (“‘For It Was Not the Season for Figs,’” 63-64) stated that there are “35 Marcan gar clauses which occur in narrative,” but, like Bird, she did not cite the verses in which these γάρ clauses are supposed to appear. (Our count is 33 narrative γάρ clauses in Mark.) Cotter (64) claimed that Matthew retains ten of Mark’s narrative γάρ clauses (Matt. 4:18; 7:29; 9:21; 14:3, 4, 24; 19:22; 21:26; 26:43; 27:18), but note that the γάρ clause in Matt. 21:26 occurs in direct speech and therefore should not be included. Cotter (64) also stated that Matthew “inserts 26 of his own [γάρ clauses—DNB and JNT] into Mark,” but cites only Bird to support this claim. As we have already noted, by our count Matthew’s Gospel has a total of eleven narrative γάρ clauses, ten of which he took over from Mark, so he can hardly have inserted twenty-six narrative γάρ clauses of his own. ↩

• ^[70] An Hebraic word order would be οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὁ καιρὸς σύκων (ou gar ēn ho kairos sūkōn, “For it was not the time of figs”; cf. Delitzsch’s translation: כִּי לֹא הָיְתָה עֵת תְּאֵנִים) or possibly οὐ γὰρ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν (ou gar ho kairos sūkōn ēn, “For it was not the time of figs”; cf. Lindsey, HTGM, 133: כִּי לֹא עֵת הַתְּאֵנִים הָיְתָה). ↩
• ^[71] Cf. Miguel Pérez Fernández, “Midrash and the New Testament: A Methodology for the Study of Gospel Midrash,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt and Peter J. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 367-384, esp. 377, where he wrote: “One can raise the objection that it was not the season for figs. But just at this point the Christological dimension of the scene appears: Jesus is there as the Messiah, arriving in his time, kairós or qeṣ, where all fruits must have reached their ripeness.” Fernández, too, intuited a connection between Withered Fig Tree and the Fig Tree parable, since it is only in the Fig Tree parable that the qētz (“time”) / qayitz (“summer”) wordplay was operative. ↩
• ^[72] See Luz, 3:21. ↩
• ^[73] On reconstructing ἀποκρίνειν...λέγειν as וַיַּעַן...וַיֹּאמֶר, see Call of Levi, Comment to L56 and Comment to L58. ↩
• ^[74] Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark’s use of ἀποκρίνειν...λέγειν in Matt. 14:16 ∥ Luke 9:13 (cf. Mark 6:37); Matt. 20:32 ∥ Luke 18:40 (cf. Mark 10:51); Matt. 22:41 ∥ Luke 20:41 (cf. Mark 12:35); Matt. 26:55 ∥ Luke 22:52 (cf. Mark 14:48) suggest that ἀποκρίνειν...λέγειν in these cases is due to Markan redaction. We have also found the instances of ἀποκρίνειν...λέγειν in Mark’s versions of Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, L20 (Mark 7:28), and Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, L70 (Mark 10:24), to be the product of the author of Mark’s pen. ↩
• ^[75] Gundry (Matt., 416) suggested that the author of Matthew had to omit the verb ἀποκρίνειν in order to change Mark’s εἶπεν (eipen, “he said”) to the historical present form λέγει (legei, “he says”). But since we find the combination ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει (apokritheis legei, “answering he says”) in Mark 3:33; 8:29; 9:5, 19; 10:24; 11:22; 15:2 and Luke 11:45; 13:8 (cf. Mark 11:33; Luke 17:37), the change to the historical present cannot explain why the author of Matthew omitted ἀποκρίνειν. ↩
• ^[76] For a list of all the instances of the historical present in Matthew, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[77] On the stacking up of prepositional phrases as typical of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[78] The table below shows all the instances of μηκέτι in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 21:19 Mk-Mt = Mark 11:14 Mark 1:45 TT (cf. Matt. 8:[--]; Luke 5:15) Mark 2:2 TT (cf. Matt. 9:[--]; Luke 5:17) Mark 9:25 TT (cf. Matt. 17:18; Luke 9:42) Mark 11:14 Mk-Mt = Matt. 21:19 Luke 8:49 TT (cf. Mark 5:35; Matt. 9:[--]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; [--] = no corresponding verse

  From the Markan Priority point of view, the data above suggest the author of Luke rejected all four of Mark’s instances of μηκέτι, but was willing to use μηκέτι in Luke 8:49, where it is lacking in the Markan parallel. The author of Luke was also willing to use μηκέτι in Acts 4:17; 13:34; 25:24. Why would the author of Luke have an aversion to Markan instances of μηκέτι, but not to μηκέτι in general? Viewing the data from the point of view of Lindsey’s hypothesis makes better sense. The author of Luke used μηκέτι when he wished to, but was uninfluenced by the instances in Mark. The author of Mark used μηκέτι when freely composing or paraphrasing a story. ↩

• ^[79] Cf. Oakman, “Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers’ Dens,” 256, 262. ↩
• ^[80] See Meier, Marginal, 2:980 n. 39. Cf. France, Mark, 443 n. 52. ↩
• ^[81] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 851. ↩
• ^[82] See Bundy, 425 §328; Collins, 526. ↩
• ^[83] Meier, Marginal, 2:980 n. 41. ↩
• ^[84] See Taylor, 460. On the author of Mark’s redactional preference for imperfect verbs, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[85] Cf. Hagner, 2:604. ↩
• ^[86] See Moulton-Geden, 760; Losie, “The Cursing of the Fig Tree,” 9, 17 n. 46. ↩
• ^[87] The following table shows all the instances of παραπορεύεσθαι in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 27:39 TT = Mark 15:29 (cf. Luke 23:35) Mark 2:23 TT (cf. Matt. 12:1; Luke 6:1) Mark 9:30 TT (cf. Matt. 17:22; Luke 9:43) Mark 11:20 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 21:19) Mark 15:29 TT = Matt. 27:39 (cf. Luke 23:35)

  ↩

• ^[88] The meaning of συκάμινος is properly “mulberry” (LSJ, 1670), but in LXX it always occurs as the translation of שִׁקְמָה (shiqmāh, “sycamore fig tree”). See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1301; Manson, Sayings, 141; Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, “συκἀμινος, συκομορέα,” TDNT, 7:758. In any case, the noun συκάμινος (“mulberry,” “sycamore fig tree”) looks and sounds like the noun συκῆ (sūkē, “fig tree”). ↩
• ^[89] See Taylor, 466. ↩
• ^[90] Cf. Knox, 1:104. ↩
• ^[91] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 852. ↩
• ^[92] The following table shows all the instances of παραχρῆμα in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 21:19 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 11:20 [--]) Matt. 21:20 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 11:21 [--]) Luke 1:64 U Luke 4:39 TT (cf. Matt. 8:15 [--]; Mark 1:31 [--]) Luke 5:25 TT (cf. Matt. 9:7 [--]; Mark 2:12 [εὐθύς]) Luke 8:44 TT (cf. Matt. 9:22 [ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης]; Mark 5:29 [εὐθύς]) Luke 8:47 TT (cf. Matt. 9:21 [--]; Mark 5:33 [--]) Luke 8:55 TT (cf. Matt. 9:25 [--]; Mark 5:42 [εὐθύς]) Luke 13:13 U Luke 18:43 TT (cf. Matt. 20:34 [εὐθέως]; Mark 10:52 [εὐθύς]) Luke 19:11 DT (cf. Matt. 25:[--]) Luke 22:60 TT (cf. Matt. 26:74 [εὐθέως]; Mark 14:72 [εὐθύς]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word

  We also find that παραχρῆμα occurs 6xx in Acts (Acts 3:7; 5:10; 12:23; 13:11; 16:26, 33). It may be that the author of Luke copied παραχρῆμα from the First Reconstruction (FR), or he may have inserted παραχρῆμα on his own. Note that we found the instance of παραχρῆμα in Luke’s version of Shimon’s Mother-in-law, L23 (Luke 4:39), to be redactional. ↩

• ^[93] See Taylor, 466. ↩
• ^[94] See Moulton-Geden, 61. ↩
• ^[95] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 852. ↩
• ^[96] See Nolland, Matt., 852. ↩
• ^[97] Cf. Bultmann, 67; Luz, 3:21. Also compare Mark’s story of the empty tomb, where the angel tells the women to inform the disciples and Peter of what happened (Mark 16:7), whereas Matthew’s parallel omits Peter and mentions only the disciples (Matt. 28:7). See McNeile, 303. ↩
• ^[98] On the use of the historical present tense as a Markan stylistic feature, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[99] Cf. Luz, 3:21. ↩
• ^[100] The noun κορβᾶν could be either Hebrew or Aramaic. ↩
• ^[101] Either Hebrew or Aramaic could be represented by ῥαββουνί. ↩
• ^[102] The noun ἀββά could be either Hebrew or Aramaic. ↩
• ^[103] On these Aramaic (or Aramaic/Hebrew) terms and phrases, see LOY Excursus: Greek Transliterations of Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew/Aramaic Words in the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[104] The only exception is that in Matthew’s Gospel Judas twice addresses Jesus as ῥαββί (Matt. 26:25, 49), which goes against the dislike Jesus expresses for this term in Matt. 23:7, 8.
  The following table shows all the examples of the addresses ῥαββί and διδάσκαλε by disciples in Mark’s Gospel and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Mark 4:38 [διδάσκαλε] TT (cf. Matt. 8:25 [κύριε]; Luke 8:24 [ἐπιστάτα, ἐπιστάτα]) Mark 9:5 [ῥαββί] TT (cf. Matt. 17:4 [κύριε]; Luke 9:33 [ἐπιστάτα]) Mark 9:38 [διδάσκαλε] Lk-Mk (cf. Luke 9:49 [ἐπιστάτα]) Mark 10:35 [διδάσκαλε] Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 20:20 [--]) Mark 11:21 [ῥαββί] Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 21:20 [--]) Mark 13:1 [διδάσκαλε] TT (cf. Matt. 24:1 [--]; Luke 21:5 [--]) Mark 14:45 [ῥαββί] TT = Matt. 26:49 (cf. Luke 22:47 [--]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; [--] = no corresponding word

  ↩

• ^[105] See our discussion in Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[106] On ἴδε as a Markan redactional term, see Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L42; LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 2:24. ↩
• ^[107] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩