# Horticultural Apologetics ...



## amishrockstar (Jul 20, 2007)

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 (Jul 20, 2007)

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 (Jul 20, 2007)

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 (Jul 20, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> 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
> ...



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


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 20, 2007)

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.



> *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.
> 
> ...


----------



## amishrockstar (Jul 20, 2007)

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 (Jul 20, 2007)

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


> 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
> ...


----------



## Peter (Jul 20, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> 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 (Jul 20, 2007)

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 (Jul 20, 2007)

*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 (Jul 20, 2007)

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 (Jul 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> 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. L., 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.


----------

