YANG, Y.-E., «Reading Mark 11,12-25 from a Korean perspective»

7/28/2019 YANG, Y.-E., Reading Mark 11,12-25 from a Korean perspective

1/11

Reading Mark 11:12-25from a Korean Perspective1

YoNG-Eu r YANG

On e of the most enigmatic and perplexing pericopes in Mark's Gospel iscertainly Mark 11:12-14, 20-25, which presents the fig tree story on eitherside of the Temple cleansing sto ry (11:15-19) . Scholars. have long been puzzled by this problematic pericope. Questions abo ut its origin an d historicity are not irrelevant , along with the problem that the stor y provides a soledestruct ive miracle by Jesus. What is the reason and purpose of th e miracle? T he awkwardness of the problem is added to by Mark's perplexingcomment in v. 13d: "for it was not the season for figs." Furthermore, comparison of his pericope with its parallel in Matthew raises a critical Syno ptic problem, especially in relation to the chronology of the sto ry.

Numerous approaches have been attempted to meet these problems? an d many of th em have, though in different degrees, moved us for -

1. I would like to express m y appreciation to Rev. Dr. R. T. France for read ing an earlyversion of this essay and for his valuable comments. I bear all respo nsibility, however, forany inaccurac ies or de ficien cies.

2. E. Schwartz, "Der verfluchte Feigenbaum," ZNW 5 (1904): 80-84; C. W. F. Smi th,"No Time for Figs," JBL 79 (1960): 315-27; A. d e Q. Robi n, "The C ursing of the Fig Tree inMark xi: A Hypo thesis," NTS 8 (1961-62): 276-81; J-1. -W. Bartsch, "D ie Verfluchu ng desFe igenbaum.es," ZNW 53 (1962): 256-60; G. Munderlein, "D ie Ve rfluch un g desFeigenbaumes (Mark n:12-14)," NTSw (1963): 89-104; R. H. Hiers, "No t the Season fo r Figs,"JBL 87 (1968): 394-400; ]. D. M. Derrett, "F ig Trees in New T e s t a Heythrop Joumal14 (1973): 249-65; H. Giesen, "De r verdorrte Fe igenba um .'Eine symbo lische Aussage? Markn,12-14.20f.,"' Biblische Zeitschrift 20 (1976): 95-111; L A .Losie, "The Cursing of th e Fig Tree:

78

Rending Mnrk 11:12-25 from n Korean Perspectiveward into a be tter un derstanding of the sto ry. Amo ng th em , a comprehensive st udy of thi s pe ricope by W. R. Telford3 has made remarkable

_ progress in ou r understa nding of the story. Here I do not add a new approach bu t present and discuss some of the major ways of in terpretationadva nced to date and evaluate them in orde r to identify those that aremost reliable an d profitable in readin g the Markan sto ry today. Th e perspective at work will be my own Korean perspective, which is di fferentfro m that of wes tern schola rs in S011,1e ways. Then in the fi nal section, wewill bring the qu est ion of the Korean pe rspective to the surface so as topoin t ou t those differen ces.

Th e Synoptic ProblemThe li terary and chronological scheme of Mark 11:12-25 is significantly different from that of Matt 21:12-22. In Mark the story is broken up into twoparts (u :i2-14, 2 0 ~ 2 5 ) and sur rounds the Tem ple story (11:15-19 ), bu t inMatthew (21:18-22) it simp ly follows the Temple story (21:12-17) withoutseparation. Th e literary and chronological disagreements between t he twoGospels can be easily observed in th e tables o n pag e 8o.

There are.at leas t two options to accoun t for these disag reements: (1)Those who support the two-source hypothes is of Gospel or igins may argue that Matthew has de libe rate ly rear rang.ed Ma rk's th ree-day schemeand redu ced it to a two-day scheme.1 Matthew's red actio na l purpose, however, is not easy to discern. Matthew may have aimed to make the chrono-Trad it ion Criticism of a Ma rcan Pericope: Mark 11:12-14, 20-25," Studia Biblica et Theologica7 (1977): 3-18; W. R. Telford, The Barren Temple m1d the Withered Tree: A Ret.laction-CriticalAnalysis of the Cursing of the Fig Tree Pericope in Mark's Gospel and Its Relation to theClea nsing of he Temple Tmdition, )SNTSup 48 (Sheffie ld: )SOT, 1980); W. ). Cotter, '"For lt Was Not the Season for Figs,"' CBQ 48 (1986): 62-66; W. R. Telford, "Mo re Fruit from theWithered Fig Tree: in Templwn Am icitiae, ed . W. Ho rbury, FS E. Bammel, )SNTSup 48(S heffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 264-304; B. vo n Kie nle, "Mk. IJ:J2-14, 20-25. Derverdorrte Feigcnb aum ," Biblische Notizw 57 (1991): 17-25; D. E. Oakman, "Cursing Fig Treesand Robbers' Dens," Semeia 64 (1993) : 253-72; G. W. Buchanan, "Wither ing Fig Trees andProgression in Mid rash," in The Gospels and the Scriptures of srael, cd . C. A. Evans and W. R.Stegner, JSNTSup 104 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 249-69; C. Bottrich, "Jesusu nd der Fe igenbaum . Mark 11:12-14, 20 -25 in de r Diskussion," NovT 39 (1997): 328-59 .

3 Telford, Temp le.4 Telford (Temple, 71-73) presents po ints in defense o f this solution.

79


2/11

' .

...YON G-EU I YANG

Table 1: Chronological Sequence according to Mark -The Three-Day SchemeMark nvv. 1-na(no par.)v.nbvv. 12-14vv. 15-17(no par.)V. 18V. 19(cf. vv. 12-14)vv. 20-25 (26)-vv. 27-33Matthew 21Mark nvv. 1-10avv. lOb-11(no par.)(cf. vv. 18-19a)vv. 12-13vv. 14 16(no par.)V. 17vv. 18-19aVV. 19b-22vv. 23-27

Matthew 21vv. 1-10a(vv. wb-11 )no par.(cf. vv. 18-19a)vv. 12-13(vv. 14-16)no par.V. 17(vv. 1B-19a)vv. 19b-22vv. 23-27

vv. 1-nano par.(v. 11b)(vv. 12-14)vv. 15-17no par.(v. 18)V. 19(cf. vv. 12-14)vv. 20-25 (26)vv. 27-33

The triumphal entry and the first visit to JerusalemJesus' arrival in Jerusalem; the reaction of hecityThe first visit to the Temple; the first returnto BethanyThe cursing of the fig tree on the secondvisit to the Temple .The second visit to the Temple; the cleansingof the TempleJesus' healing in the TempleThe chief priests and scribes conspire againstJesusThe second return to BethanyTile cursing of l1e fig treeThe fig tree is found withered on the thirdvisit to JerusalemThe question about Jesus' authority

The triumphal entry and the first visit to JerusalemJesus' arrival in Jerusalem; the reaction of thecityTl1e first visit to tile Temple; tile first retumto BetlwnyTile cursing of tile fig treeThe first visit to the Temple; the cleansing ofthe TempleJesus' healing in the 'H:mpleThe chiefpriests and scribes conspire against leHISThe first return to BethanyThe cursing of the fig tree on the secondvisit to Jeru salemThe fig tree withers immediatelyThe question about Jesus' authority

Boldface type indicates chronological disagreements.Italics indicate verses that are om itt ed or that appear in a different location.

Bo

Reading Mark 11:12 -25 from n Korenn Perspectivelogical process of the events sim pler and clearer and to make Mark's looserconnections between the triumphal ent ry an d the cleansing of the Templestronger and clearer.5 Ma tthew may also have in tend ed to enhance themarvelous c haracter of th e miracle, no t on ly by removin g the interval be twe en Jesus' announ cement (Mark 11:14) an d the account of the withering(11:20-21 ), bu t also by sta tin g that the withering took place in sta ntaneously(Matt 21:19).6(2) Those who support the Griesbach hypothes is of Matthean priority may argue that Mark has deliberately rearranged Matthew's two-dayscheme and extended it to a three-day scheme.7 Mark has do ne so by separating the instantaneous withering miracle (Matt 21:18-22) into two stages(Mark 11:12-14, 20-25). In that case Mark's redaction a l purpose is no t difficult to discern. An answer is imm ediately foun d in one of Mark's mo stcharacteristic literary methods, his sandwich st ructure. 8 As is generallyrecognized, this technique is used in order to establish a relationship be tween the two stories. In this case Mark wo uld have in terwoven the storiesso that the fig t r e ~ sto ry is un de rstood in the light of the Temple story. As amatter of fact, this relationship is generally agreed on , even without a hypothesis of a Ma rkan sandwich st ructure (see below on "The Old Testament Background") . Mark's in terweaving, then, may have been in trod uced to highlight the relationship even mo re clearly and strongly.9

Whi ch best accounts for the pericope as it stands in the two Gospels

5 Telford, Temple, 74; C. A. Evans, 8:27-16:20, Wl3C 34b (Nashville: ThomasNelson Pub lishe rs, 2001) , 149-50; cf. R. T. France, "C hronological Aspects of Gospel Harmony,"' Vox Evangelica 16 (198 6): 38 .

6. A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentilry 011 the Gospel According to S. Mlllthew(London: Rober t Scott, 1909), 290-91; R. 13ultmann, The History of the Synop tic Tradition,trans. j. Marsh (Oxford: 13lackwell, 1963), 218; Telford, Temple, 74-75; cf. Fra nce, "Ch ronological Aspects," 38. For a c ritique of this view, however, see E. Klosterman n, DasMatthiiusevangelium, HNT 3 (Tiibingcn: Mohr, 1950), 169.

7- W. It Fa rm er, The SynopticProblem: A Critical Analysis (Dillsboro: Western NorthCarolina Press, 1976), 258-62, presents argumen ts for th is solution ; cf. C. S. Mann, Mark, AB27 (New York: Doubleday, 1986), 443 -44; c f. also 13ultmann, History, 218; Fra nce, "C hronological Aspects: 39-

8. Most commentators and wri ters on Mark recogn"ize th is technique, an d we will focus on it later in this paper. For a helpful account of it at the mom ent, however, see j. R. Eel-wards, "Ma rkan Sandwiches: T he Significance of Inte rpo la tions in Markan Narratives,"NovT 31 (1989): 193-216.

9- For mo re de tailed discussion see below.


3/11

I

' '

,,..YONG-EUI YANG

depends, of cou rse, on one's view of the literary relationship between Matthew and Mark. 10 The great majority of scholars support the two-sourcehypo thesis, and not a few of them a re ready to s uggest that the sandwichstructure is not original but Mark's own creation. 11 But this sugges tion, regardless of its in tention, can add weight to op tion (2). So if we argue justfrom th is case, then op tion (2) seems more pe rsuasive than op tion (1).Such a s itua tion brin gs us into a rea lly unsettled area. The present writer,therefore, wonders whether any dec ision is tru ly helpful or even requiredfor the proper interpretation of the pericope. In such a situ ation it seemspossible and even r ealistic to leave the Sy nopti c prob lem unsettled, bu t toconfirm that the sandwich structure shown in Mark's Gospel is the resu ltof Mark's redaction.

A fina l comment on the ch ronolog ica l disagreements may beneeded. Either of the b o ~ e options (o r any other exp lanations of the present Synopt ic problem) 12 shows clearly that at leas t one of the two E v a n g e ~lists (an d Mark for cer tain) has "de liberately subo rdinated chronologicalorder to the effective co mmunica tion in narrative fo rm of the theo logicalsignificance which he saw in the cursing of the fig tree."13 In this case itmay no t be fair for an interpreter of thi s pericope to focus attention onchron ology. Furthermore, as R. T. France points out, if "Mark was no t atthis point intending to writ e in st rict accordance with chr ono logy, it is per verse to label non -chrono logical ord er as an 'erro r." ' 4

Other ProblemsIn addi tion to the Synop tic problem , the present pericope raises someother perplex ing prob lems. One of the mos t apparent pro blems is that thewithering of the fig tree is the so le mi racle of destruction attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels.15 It is, then, n atural to ask whe ther such a de-

10 . Or some may argue 1hat Mark and Matthew draw on an independ ent source re-spectively; for the lisl of tho se who support this solution, see Telford, Temple, 71.

11. E.g., Bultm ann, History, 218; Telford, Temple, 43-49, 238-39; Eva ns, Mnrk, 151-52.12. E.g., the Augustinian hypothesis, Goulder 's hypothesis.13. France, "Chronological Aspects," 39.14. France, "Chronological Aspecls," 40.15. The destru ction of the swine in Mark 5:1-20 is different from rhis case; the inci

dent, in fact, was the result of the action o f th e un clean spirits rather than that of Jesus' or-

82

Rending Mnrk 11:12-25 from n Korean Perspectivestructive miracle is consistent wi th Jesus' character as it is generally descr ibed in the Gospels. Th e two ways of dealing with the problem are toinsist that Jesus rea lly worked the mi racle and then to seek his purpose fordoing so or to insist that Jesus did not work this mi racl e and then ask whyand how the story arose.

Another problem in the Markan story is the incongruity between Jesus' expectation in v. 13b: "H e went to see if he could find anything on it,"and Mark's comment in v. 13d: "for it was no t the season for figs." The latter statement renders the former prob lema tic, especia lly when it accompanies his statement in V14. Fur thermore, if the real motive .of Jesus' statemen t in v. 14 were his hunger (v. 12), this would aggravate the difficulty. 16Tha t statement ("May no one ever ea t fruit from you again") adds difficulties on its own. If it is regarded as a curse, then such a response is no tthought consisten t with the merciful character attributed to Jesus in theGospels and is simply unjust. Would it be possible to imagine that Jesuscursed the t ree (v. 14) even tho ugh it was not the season fo r figs (v. 13), especially j'ust b e c a ~ s e he was hungry (v. 12)? T. W. Manson and others havesuggested, therefo re, that the statement in v. 14 was no t a c urse, bu t a simple declaration that the fruit of the tree wou ld never be eaten either by Jesus himself or perhaps by anyone else. 17 Their suggestions are by and largegro und ed on the am biguity of the possible underlying Aramaic sentence."Whatever the original mea ning however," as M . D. Hooker poin ts out, it isbeyond a doubt tha t "Mark has understood the wo rds as an emphaticcurse," 1H in which case the problem remains.der; cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Go$pel Accordiug to St. Mnrk, Cambridge Greek TestamentCommentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 354 n. 1; ). P. Meier, A Mnrgirrnl ]ew: Rethinkiug the 1-/istoricnl Jesus (New York: Do ub leday, 1991, 1994), 2:986-87, n. 69.In noncanonical Gospels, however, some destructive mi racles are attributed to Jesus; e.g.,lnfmzcy Gospel ofThomns 3:1-3; 4: 1-2; 14:2; cf. Gospel of Pseudo-Mm hew 26, 38 . It should bealso no ted that in the Old Testament (e.g., Exod 7:14-12:30; 14:23-31; 1 Kgs 13:1-5; 2 Kgs 2:23-24) and outside the Gospels in the New Testament (Acts 5:1- u ; 9:1-9; 13:6-12) there are anumber of destructive/pu nit ive miracles; see Meier, Margin nl few, 2:895.

16. Cf. Cranfield, Mark, 354-55. He sees Jesus' behavior as causing the moral difficulty.However, it does not seem to be proper to categorize one's treatment of a tree as a matter o f

. "mo ralil y."17. T. W. Manson, "The Cleansing of he Temple," .Bulletin of he John Rylnnds Librnry

33 (195 1): 271-82.18. M. D. Hooker, The Gospel Accordiug to St. Mark, Black's New Testament Commen

tary (London: Black, 199 1), 267.

83


4/11

I

YONG-EU! YANGNumerous understandings of the nature and origin of the story have

been put forward as attempts to solve these problems, some denying thehistoricity of the story and attributing its origin to someone other than Jesus' words and actions. Others ad mit the historicity of the story and attempt to resolve the problems in different ways.

A LegendE. Schwartz and many others regard the whole story as a lege nd and consequently deny the historicity of the story altoge ther. 19 This view is summarized we ll by B. H. Branscomb:

One is tempted to conjec ture that a fig tree on the road between 13ethanyand Jerusa lem, from which the disc iples and Jesus had several timesga thered figs, withered either dur ing the latter days of the ministry orsubsequently, and that pious legend supplied the cause. 20This view, however, faces some se rious objections. Fi rst, it is purely

based on conjecture without any co ncrete evidence.21 Second, A. de Q.Robin notes that the present form of the Markan narrative, short though itis, contains details which would be expected from "an eye-witness narrative."22 C. E. B. Cranfield points out that the reference to Peter 's memo ry inn:21 "looks like a personal reminiscence."23 Third, if the story were a created legend, such an a\Vkwa rd comment as "for it wa s not the season forfi gs" of v. 13d wo uld not be included. This comment rather lends supportto the historicity of the story. "All these details," Robin concludes, "re-

19. Sc hwar t2, "Der verfluchte Feigenb aum"; }. Weiss, Die Scllrifteu des Neue11 Testa-ments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1907), 1178-79; M. Gogucl, Tile Life ofJesus,trans. 0. Wyon (London: George Alien and Unwin,1933), 240-41; B. H. Branscomb, Tile Gos-pel ofMark, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (London: Hodder and Stoughton , 1937),201-2.

20. Branscomb, Mark, 201-2.21. Cf. H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, NC!3C (Lo ndon: Marshall, M01gan and

Scott, 1976}, 263-64. Even the supporters of this view admit that it is purely guesswork.Branscomb (Mark , 202) even says, "one guess is as good as another"; cf. V. Taylor, The GospelAccordiug to St. Mark, 2d eel. (London: Macmillan, 1966), '!59

22. Robin, "Fig Tree," 277.23 . Cranfield, Mark, 355

84

Rending Mnrk 11 :12 -25 from n Korenn Perspectivei ~ f o r c e th e concl usion that the narrative res ts on eye-witness tes timony."HFmally, as M.-}. Lagrange properly points out, a withered fig tree was too

~ m o n an object to give rise to a lege nd.25 All these cou nterargumentst ~ 1 c l 1 1 1 us to co nclu.de that the legend theo ry cannot be a sat isfactory solu tion for the problems that the pericope raises.26

A Historiciz ed ParableA number of scholars have suggested that the fig tree story originated froma parable of such as the parable of the fig tree in Lu ke 13:6-9.27 Arguments for this view are we ll summarized by Te lford: (1) In substance, theLukan and the Markan story are similar: if the fig tree(= fsrael)cannot show Itse lf fit for the kingdom, it must perish. (2) The "disa ppointed search for figs" theme of the Lukan parable would have made it aready subjec t for hi storiciza tion through allegorizat ion, especia lly when itwas once e c t ~ d wi th the disappointed result of Jesus' visit to Jerusale.m . ln certa in circumstances paraboli c teac hing can be converted intohistoncal story (e.g., the widow's mite, Mark 12:41-44;28 the s tater in thefish 's mouth, Matt 17:24-27 29). (4)While Mark and Matthew have the figtree s tory, they. lack the fig tree parable, while Luke has the parable butlacks the story. 0

24. Rob in, " Fig Tree," 277; he poi nts out ano ther de tail, name ly "Jesus seeing the treeapo makrothen" (v. 13}.25. M.-}. Lagrange, Evangile se/on saiut Marc, 8th ed. (Paris: }. Gabalda, 1947), 399n. 24 ; cf. A. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Mark, Cambridge Greek Testament for

Schoo ls and Co lleges (Cambridge: Cam bridge Universi ty Press, 1915), 137.26 . For more cr iticism, see Telford, Temple, 12.A. Loisy, Les Evangiles syuoptiques (Ccffonds: P res Montier-en -der, 1907, 19o8),

2:28-29; A. E. }. Rawlinson, Th e Gospel According to St. Mark, Westminster Commentaries(London: Methuen, 1925), 154; E. Klostermann, Das Ma rkusevangelirtm , HNT 3 (T!ibingen:Mohr, W. L. Knox, Sources of he Synoptic Gospels, vo l. I: S t. Ma rk (Cambridge:Cambndge Umvers1ty Press, 1953), 80-81; V. 1:1ylor, The Gospel Accordi11g to St. Mark (Lo ndon : Macm illan, 1966), 458-59; Anderson, Ma rk, 263-64; E. Schwcizer, The Good News Ac-cording to Mark, trans. D. H. Madvig (Londo n: SPCK, 1970), 230-31; and others.

28. BT. D. Smith, Parables of he Synop tic Gospels (C.Imbridge: Cam bridge Universi tyPress, 1937), 67.29. B. W. Bacon, " Fig Tree," in Dictiouary of Christ aud the Gospels, ed. }. Hastings(Edinburgh: Clark, 1906, 1908), 2:594.30. Telfo rd , Temple, 234-35.

ss


5/11

..YONG-EU I YANG

In re.ply to thi s view, however, so me cru cia l cou ntera rgu ments havebeen put forward. These are the ma in ones:31 (I ) A num ber of scholarspo in t out that the similariti es taken for granted be tween the parab le andthe sto ry are not significant. 32 T he parable and the story are different inspirit,33 contents,34 and style.35 (2 ) The second and third argum ents aboveare not convincing at all. In particular, the examples given for th e third argum ent are "fo r the m os t par t inappropriate or spe culat ive."36 (3) It seemsm ore likely that Luke uses Mark as his s ource, than vice versa . It seemsodd, though no t impossible, then that the earlier Gospel sho uld presentthe later form ( i.e., the s to ry), while the later Gospel sho11ld present theearlier form (i.e., the parable). Furthermore , as Telford properly pointsout , "a t a redactional level, the respect ive presence-absence of bo th storyand parab le in either Gospel is not a sufficient reason to conclud e that theon e was a source for the oth e r, especially when such a der ivatio n is considered unusual."37 Then th e fo ur th argum ent above loses its ground. Con side rin g all these coun terargu ment s, thi s second view once aga in seems tobe neither a persuasive no r a sa tisfactory solution for the problems raisedby our pericope.

A Creation of an Early Christian AuthorAnother sugg estion a ttemp ts to resolve the problem of disco ntinuity withJesus' character by a ttributing the or igin of the story to som eone otherthan Jesus. J. P. Meier a rgues that, judg ing from the crit eria of historicity,38

31. A useful list of cou nterargum ents is found in Telford, Barre 11 Temple, 235-36. I amind ebted to him for most of the followi ng list.

32. It is, of course, tr ue th at the disproof of the similarities does not necessarily implythat the story a nd the parable have no relation to one ano ther; cf. Telford, Barren Te mple,236. Neverth eless, it cann ot be denied that this disproof significantly weakens the viewabove.

33- Goguel, Life, 240.34 - Bra nsco mb, Mark, 201.35 Rob in, "Fig Tree," 277; cf. Cra nfield, Mark, 355.36. Telford, Barren Temple, 236.37. Telford, Bar re11 Temple, 237. ln relation to this cou nterargum en t the concluding re

mark ofOakman ("FigTrees: 267-68) is noteworthy: In the course of developmen t of he tradition, "[t ]he tendency was to forget the story Iof the cu rsing the fig tree], not to create it."

38. Schola rs seem to vie with o ne ano ther to show th e best working criteria of his o-

86

Reading Mnrk 11:12-25 from n Korenn Perspectivethat is, those of coherence and discontinuity, the fig tree st ory "has noclaim to go back to the public ministry of the hi sto rical Jesus." Curse mi ra.cles are known to the O ld Testa ment (Exod 7:1 4-12:30; 1 Kgs 13:1-5; 2 Kgs1:9-12, etc.), }udaism (2 Mace 3:22-30) , an d to later Chr istian literature(Acts 5:1-11; 9:1 -9; In fancy Gospel of Thomas 3:1 -3 , etc. ); bu t are complete lyabsent from Jesus' public ministr y as accoun ted in th e four Gospels, exceptfor this one story. This glarin g discont inuity with Jesus and continuitywith the Old Testament an d Jewi sh a nd Chr istian lite rature sugg est tha tthe story was created by a pre -Markan author to illuminate the mean ing ofthe Temple sto ry.39

The criteria of coherence and discontinuity, applied here to judge thehistoricity of the fig tree story, are, howeve r, not definite at all, and the discontinuity and continuity pointed ou t by Meier can be explained otherwise. O ur discussion below will show that the fig tree story has eno ughreason to break coherence with Jesus' other deeds as well as to be continu ous with the Old Testament miracles. Furtherm ore, the criterion of em-

.barrassment m ay direct us toward an oppos ite co nclusion. It is no t likelythat early Chri st ians would invent a story tha t co uld have caused embarrassment for the early church.40 I will no t at tempt to prove or disprove thehistoricity of the sto ry here, since I" regard such proo f or di sproof as mu chmore a matter of personal tendency than a p ure academi c affair.4 1 I regardpro of or disproof of historicity as neither profitable nor nec essary fo r u n-ders tanding the Markan story.

ricity without great success. For a recent discussio n of the c riteria , see Meier, Marginal Jew,1:167-95. He presents five "primary" cri teria (emba rrassment, discontinuity, multiple attestation, coherence, and rejection an d execution ) :md five "secondary" criteria (traces of Aramaic, Pa lest inian environment , vividness of narration, tendencies of the d eveloping Synoptic trad ition, and historica l pre sumption).

39 . Meie r, Marginal Jew, 2:894-96.40. Meicr's reply to thi s po int (Marginal Jew, 2:987 n. 71) does not suggest an imposs i

bility b ut only an improbability. In fact, he concedes (1:167-68) that "the function of the criter ia is .. . to inspect vari ous probabili t ies, and to decide which candidate is most proba ble.Ordi nar ily, the cri ter ia cannot hope to do m ore."

41. In my view, traditional western critical discussions o f th is issue are o ften too skep_ical; cf. C. 13lomberg, Th e Historical Reliability of h e Gospels (Leicester: In ter -Va rs iry, 1987),246-47


6/11

YONG-EU I YANG

A Historical EventA number of scholar s ad mi t that the incident actua lly happened and at tempt to account for t he p roblems of the story by suggesting that th e or iginal in ciden t was distorted by mi sunde rs tandings of the disciples, byMark's mo d ifica tion, or by a false transmission of the story. T. W. Manson,for examp le, a rgues th us. This in cident took place not at Passover time bu tin the autumn when th e leaves would be begin nin g " to change colou r, bu twhen one might still expect to find a few figs left over from the mai n crop."Finding no figs, "Jesus sa id something in Aramaic which could mean: 'Le tno one ever ea t fruit from thee aga in ' o r 'N o one s ha ll eve r ea t fruit fromth ee aga in' or 'O ne w ill never ea t frui t from thee again."' Manson furtherpostulates th at whi le Jesus m eant his statement either in the second sense- th at is, tha t the day of the Lord or the dest ruction of Jeru salem wo uldoccur before the nex t fig harvest - or in the third sense - that is, that Jesus himself would die before the next fig harvest, Pe ter and the other disciples wrongly un ders too d it in the first sense, that is, as a curse. Mansongoes on to specula te that so m e comb ina tion of circum sta nces perhaps hastened the shedd ing of th e leaves, so that the next day Peter and ot her disciples, seeing the tree from a d is tance, supposed that the words of Jesus, misunders tood as a curse, had taken effect. 42

This suggestion certa inly has the advantage of accounting for Jesus'sea rch for figs o ut of season and fo r h is curse. But this suggestio n also hassom e c ru cia l weaknesses . (1) It is purely based on speculat ions without anyco ncre te evidence. (2) As Robin points out, " it invo lves igno ring th eMarkan chronology in locating th e incident immediately before the Passover."43 As a m atter of fac t, it is inconceivable to imagine th at Mark wouldhave reloca ted the incident before the Passover even by adding the awkward comm en t of v. 13d ("for it was no t the season for figs"). (3) It do es no thelp us understand the s to ry as presented by Ma rk;44 it rather damages theflow of the story without any real evi dence.45 T hen it is quite evident tha t

42. Manson, "Cleansing," 279-80; a similar suggestio n is found in Bartsch,"Verfluchung; 256-60; cf. Bottrich , "Feigenbau m," 345 -48.

43. Robin, "Fig Tree; 278.44 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mnrk, N IGTC (Carlisle: Paternoste r, 2002), 440-4 1.45. Cf. Derrell, "Fig Trees," 254. Perhaps Manson's suggestion above may account for

Jesus' histor ical behavior, but it does not afford an)' real account fo r Mark's story itself.

88

Rending Mn rk 11:12-25 fro m n Kurenn Perspectivethi s view is a lso neith er a convincing nor a sa tisfactor y accoun t for theproblem s raised by ou r pe ricope.

Other scholars who admi t the historicity of the s to ry suggest that weregard Jesus' behavior as "a n acted parable" and interpret it sym bolically:16T his way of in terp retation is sup ported even by those who are no t interested in the historicity of the story.'17 In fact, thi s approach is pr imari lyco ncerned not with the historic ity of th e story or its development beforeMa rk bu t w ith its present form and func tion in Mark. It s imply admitsthat the incident is a des tructive miracle and th at Jesus' sta tement in v. 14 isa curse. T hen it a ttempts to find the reason for th e mi ra'cle and th e curse interms of symb olic behav ior in th e light of the O ld T e s t a m e 1 ~ t . It also notesthat such a sym bo lic mea ning is highlighted by Mark through his sandw ich structure. Th is app roach no t only see ms faithful to the text itse lf bu talso provides a most satisfacto ry account for the problems rai sed. In thenex t sec ti on we will turn to these issues.

Keys to th e ProblemsScho lars who are in terested in th estory's fun ct ion in Ma rk ra th er than itsorigin before Mark tend to see the story's O ld Testament backgro und andits sand wich s tructure in Mark as the crucial keys to the m eaning of thestory in Mark.

The Old Testament BackgroundAfter the study of Telford, it is a lm os t unanimously accepted that th e O ldTestament prov ides one of th e crucial keys to the proper unders ta;1ding ofthe Markan fig tree story. Since the O ld Testament formed a cent ral part ofthe daily environm en t of the first-century Chri stians,48 st ud y of th e Ol d

46. E.g., Cranfield, Mark, 356; Robin, "F ig Tree," 279-81; W. L. Lane, The Gospe/1\c-cordiug to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Ee rdm ans, 1974), 400-402; France, Mnrk, 439-41.

47. E.g., Hooker, Mnrk, 261; Schweizer, Mnrk, 230; Telford, Temple, 237. For a differen tview, however, see Evans, Mnrk, 158.

48. Th is ten et has already been well expressed by C. H. Dodd in his classic book, Ac-cordiug to theScrip tures: The Substructure ofNew Testruue/11 Theology (Londo n: Nisbet, 1952),132; cf. lelford, 'Jemple, 129-32. In add ition to the Old rcstamcn t, )udaism and some part of

,


7/11

..YONG-EUI YANG

Testament background then seems imperative. So we will examine the importance of the Old Testament for the proper reading of the story.

Two aspects of Old Testament background are pointed out as important. First is the prophets' use of symbolic actions in their proclamation ofthe destiny oflsrael or other nati ons (e.g., Isa 20:1-6; Jer 13:1-n;19:1-3, 10-n;27:1-15; 28:10-17; Ezek 4:1-5:4).49 To those acquainted with such actions, Jesus' behavior could readily be understood as a symbolic action with a prophetic. character.5 In this case the withering of the fig tree may have symbolized the coming doom of Israel. Then Jesus' search for figs from a treeout of season may be the sort of thing we could expect, "for an element ofthe unexpected and incongruous, which would stimulate curiosity, was acharacteristic feature of the symbolic actions of the O.T. prophets."51

Second, the fig tree, along with the vine, is one of the most notabletrees in the Old Testame.nt. The fig tree is mentioned in descriptions of thefertility of the Promised Land (Num 13:23; Deut 8:8). The fig tree or fig appears as an image in the prophetic books, 2 very often in passages. with eschatological import. Telford points out that the twin ~ o t i f s of the blessingand judgment of Israel are common to these passages.53 The fig tree isprominently associated with the peace and prosperity of the messianic age.The blossoming or fruit-bearing of the fig tree appears as an image in passages which depict Yahweh's eschatological blessing (Mic 4:4; Hag 2:19;Zech 3:10; cf. 1 Mace 14:12; Deut 8:7-8; 1Kgs 4:24-25). Conversely, the withering of the fig tree or the destruction of its fruit appears as an image inpassages which depic t Yahweh's com ing jud gment of Israel (Isa 28:3-4; }er5:17-18; 8:tj; Hos 2:n-13; 9:10-17; Joel1:2-12; Amos 4:4-13; Mic 7:1-6; Habthe New Testament may be background for the story. Though it may be useful to study allthese backgrounds, the limited space does not allow us to do so. A comprehensive study ofthem is found in Telford, Temple, chapters 6 and 7 Telford also provides a study of theGreco-Roman background of the story in his recent article, "More Fruit."

49 Cf. D. I. Block, The Book of z e k i e ~ Chapters 1-24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1997),164-70. Other cases are also found in 1 Kgs 11:29-39; 22:11; 2 Kgs 13:14-19; }er 16:1-9; 32:1-44; 35:1-19; 43:8-13; 51:59-64; Hos 1:2-9; 3:1-5; Zech 6:9-15.

50. Cf. Cranfield, Mark, 356; Lane, Mark, 400; }. A: Brooks, Mark, NAC 23 (Nashville:Broadman, 1991), 180-81.

51. Cranfield, Mark, 356.52. According to Telford, Temple, 133, the fig tree imagery occurs eighteen times in the

prophetic books: Isa 28:4; 34:4; Jer 5:17i 8:13; 24 passim; 29:17; Hos 2:12; 9:10; Joel1:7, 12; 2:22;Amos 4:9; Mic 4:4; 7:1; Nah 3:12; Hab 3:17; Hag 2:19; Zech j:10.

53. Telford, Temple, 134.

90

Reading Mark 11:12-25 from a Korean Perspective3:17). As Telford properly observes, very often the reason given for God'swrath is "cultic aberration on the part of Israel, . .. her condemnation for acorrupt temple cultus and sacrificial syste m, (Jer 5:17-18; 8:12-22; Hos 2:n-13;9:10-17; Amos 4:4-13),54 Mark's readers, who would have been schooled torecognize such symbolism, would readily have understood Jesus' cursingof the fig tree as an eschatological sign prefiguring the s olemn judgment ofIsrael and particularly the destruction of the co rrupt Temple.ssAlong with this general understc:mding of the Old Testament background, the connection with Mic 7:1-6 is particularly suggestive.s6 Thewhole p a s ~ a g e describes the prophet's dis appointed search for the first ripefig, for whtch he hungers, after the summer fruit harvest, as he beholds thedecayed state of the na tion a nd its leaders. Jesus' search for a fig out of season (Mark n:13b) and Mark's comment that "it was not the season for figs,(11:13d) may well indicate Jesus' disappoint ment at the state of Israel and theTemple. Whereas the Messiah has already arrived and visited the Temple,searching for spiritual fruits (cf. n:n), the Temple and its leaders have not

. been prepared for coming and have failed to meet his expectations. Hisverdict on the braggart fig tree (11:14) is then nothing but a verdict on thefailure of Israel and the Temple.57 It becomes thus quite probabl e that Jesus'

s ~ a r c h i n g for figs out of season and his cursing of the fig tree are not realp r o b l e m ~ as g e n ~ r a l l y ~ u p p o s e d , but rathe r a symbolic wayof pronouncingthe mess1amc d1sappomtment at the state of Israel and the coming judgment of the Temple. And Mark's comment expiains the real reason for Jesus' d i s a p p o i n t m e n t ~ namely the unreadiness of Israel and the Temple.ss

54 Telford, Temple, 135. Along wjth this idea, it is noteworthy that Israel is often identified w!th the. tree in general, which is planted in the Promised Land and on th e Templemount m particular (cf. Exod 15:17; Ezek 17:3-10, 22-24). It seems natural then, on the onehand, that the tree would blossom and bear fruits, if the Temple were functioning as itshould, and, on the other hand, that cultic aberration would bring a curse on the tree anddestruction to the Temple; cf. Telford, Temple, 137-42.

55 Telford, Temple, 136, 163; cf. Telford, "More Fruit," 300-304.. 56. Robi.?, "Fig Tree," 280-81; J. N. Birdsall, "The Withering of the Fig Tree (Mark

xu2-14, 20-22), ExpT73 (1962): 191; Lane, Mark, 401-402; Telford, Temple, 150-52; cf. France,M ~ r k , 441. Telford (Temple, 142-56) suggests five passages (Jer 8:13; Isa 28:3-4; Hos 9:10, 16;Mic 7:1; Joel1:7, 12). After a long investigation, however, he conCludes that "no one 'fig' verseseems to have provided a starting-point for Mark's story"; he rather think s that "the contribution of a number of passages, rather than any single one, is more in view" (1s6).57. Cf. France, Mark, 441.

58. Evans's suggestion (Mark, 156-57) on the basis of Cotter's comment regarding

91

. .,,


8/11

..YONG-EU I YANG

It seems now qui te clear that the Old Testament background studiesso far accoun t for the problems raised by ou r pe ricope quite meaningfully,wit hou t unsatisfactory conject ures of a legend or of a historicized parable.On the one hand, the Old Testament backgro und studi es in general showthat Jesus' cursing of th e fig tree was no t an unjust and illogical response toit bu t ra ther an inten tional eschatological sign prefiguring t he dest ructionof the co rrupt Temple. On th e other hand, Mic 7:1-6 in particu lar may wellprov ide the theological clue to Jesus' sea rch for the fig out of season, hiscursing of the fig tree, and the reason for the comment in Mark u:13d.

The Sandwich StructureA careful reader of Mark's Gospel will notice that the so-called "sandwichstru cture" is Mark's characteristic li terary convention. This conventionbreaks up a story by inserting a second sto ry into the middle of it, and creates an A1-B -A2 schema. Th e B unit is no t so long that the reader fails tolink A2 with A1, which need one anot her to beco me a complete story. A2usually includes a word, phrase, o r theme at its beginning which recallsA1. 59 According to Edwards, in Mark's Gospel the sa ndwich structure occurs so me nine times: 3:20-35; 4:1-20; 5:21-43; 6:]-30; 11:12-21; 14:1-11; 14:17-31; 14:53-72; 15:40-16:8.60 Of these nine cases, the stru cture is preservedonly five times in Matthew and four in Luke. This shows Mark's distinctpreference for this sandwich technique. Not a few scholars, therefore, recognize that Mark uses the sandwich technique with a particular goal inmind. Edwards offers a convincing suggestion: the B unit "nearly alwayspro vides the key to the theological purpose of the sandwich" and interpretsthe separated A units.6 1

Mark's using of gar is interesting and useful, thoug h no t conclusive. He suggests that the garof v. 13d explains why Jesus went to see if he m ight fi nd edible figs (11:13a), rather than whyhe fou nd no thing except leaves (u: 13c). This suggestion solves not on ly the chrono logicalprob lem but also Jesus' seeming illog ical behavior. Neverth eless, it does not seem to be amost natural way of reading the gar clause.

59 Cf. H. C. Kee, Community of he NewAge: Swdies in Mark's Gospel, NTL (London:SCM Press, 1977), 54; Edwards, "Sa ndwiches," 193, 197.

60. Edwards, "Sandwiches," 197-98. For a different list see Kee, Community, 54 -56 (2:1-12; 3:1-6; 3:20-35; 5:21-43; 6:6b-30; 11:12-25; 1


9/11

, .YONG-EU I YANG

crs, so the aberrant Temp le full of cultic activiti.es bu t without sp iritualfrui ts is doomed to destruction. As R. ]. Mckelvey remarks, "By embedd ingthe cleansing in the stor y of the cu rsing and withering of the fruitless figtree Mark shows that he understands the act ion of Jesus to mean noth ingless than the abrogation of the Temple and cult."66 Like the fig tree theTemple is about to be condemned and to wither away "to its roots"(n:2o). 67 :Even though we adm it the historicity of the fig tree story and theTemple story and the Markan (and Matthean) chronology locat ing the incident s immediately before the Passover together, it seems now quite clearthat the problems raised by the fig tree story are no t real, bu t rather function as st imuli for the readers to seek the deeper level of meaning of the

~ a r k ' s sandwich structure is his own creation, what he is do ingwtth thts ltterary convention may well be an attempt to help his (probablyGentile) readers to see thi s deeper, inherent but symbolic meaning of thestory more easily and clearly, which would be readily understood by Jewishreaders who were more fam iliar with the Old Testa ment. This might ex-

however, have some problematic areas, especiall y as regards the authenticity and historic ityof the "fcm ple sto r y, and they are d iscussed comprehensivelyby C. A. Evans, "Jesus' Action inthe Temple: Cleans ing or Porten t of Des tru c tion?" CRQ 51(1989): 237-70. ro r a response toEvans's arg uments, see Seeley, "Temple Ac t," 265-70. Eva ns himself, however, does not denythe possibi liry of understanding the story as a prop hecy of the Temple's doom ; see especially269: " the cleansing idea does not oppose the main point for which Sanders had argued. Cr iticism of Temple business activities, cou pled with a warning (o r threat) of dt:struction, coheres well with the prophetic Sc ri ptures, with Jesus' own prediction of the 1c mple's destru ction (M ark 13:1-2), and with the charge brought against him at his trial (Ma rk 14:58)." Mo rerecen tly Evans argues for the possibility more p ositively; see his Mark, 158: " the thrust of Jesus' action af!d teaching in the Temple is prophetic in terms of )er. 7:11-14, with its referenceto the co ming destruction of the Temple as God 's judgment....

66. Mckelvey, Temple, 65.67. As a matter of fact, it is not eworth y that the Temple theme is not only sandwiched

between the two fig tree ep isodes, but itself acts as a wider sandwich covering the whole unit,with mentions i n v. 11 and vv. 27ff. Th at is to say, the fig tree story is itself enveloped in theTemple theme as well as vice versa. Th is fact s trengthens the link between the two sto ries allthe m ore.

The limited space of the present chapter does not allow us to discuss the relation between the fig tree story and the mountain-m oving saying of 11:22-25. O ur und erstanding ofthe story above, however, encourages us to understand the mountain in tho se ve rses as asymbol of the Te mple mountain, and its removal into the sea as a symbo lic image sign ify ingthe utter destru ction of he Temple. Fo r a lengthy discussion-of this matter, see Telford, Tem -ple, 95-127.

94

Reading Mark 11:12 -25 from a Korean Perspectivelain why Matthew does not ado pt Mark's sandwich st ructure in his redac

~ o n , if h e used Mark's Gospel itself as his source.

A Korean Perspective

Wllat Is a Korean Perspective?Should a Korean readin g of Mark n:1 2-25 be different from what we m a y ~ a a"wes tern"68 reading? My initial response to this question .is positive . As H.-G.Ga damcr points out, a reading of biblical texts involves "two horizons,"namely the horizon of the biblical text and the horizon of the reader. Themeaning of a text is determined in the course of relat ing the reader's horizonto that of the text.69 That is to say, the reade r's und ersta nding of a text isbound up with the reader's horizon. A d ifferen t reader's horizon brings for tha different understanding. In this case a Ko rean reading may naturally be different from a w e s t ~ read ing, though the degree of difference may dependon how mu ch the Korean horizon is di fferent from the western horizon.

The Ko rean horizon, however, is too broad and vague to define.The reforeI will describe my own ho rizon as a Korean to make the discussion more co ncrete. I belong to one of the conservative Presbyteriandeno m inations70 and teach in one of the conservat ive Pre sbyterian seminaries. Ko rean conservative Presbyterians con fess the ultimate authority ofthe Bible as the inspired word of Go d and be lieve in the in fa llibility71 o f

68. "Western" here is a general term rep resen ting North Ame rican and European, inopposi tion to "eastern," including Korean. .

69. H. -G. Gadamer , Truth arrd Method, 2d ed. (London: Sheed and Ward, 1993), 277-379; cf. A. C. T hise lton, The 1ivo Horizorrs (Exeter: Paternoster, 1980), 10-17, 3 0 4 ~ 1 0 .

70. The Presbyterian chu rch constitu tes about two-thirds of he Ch ristian populationin Ko rea, and most Presbyferian denominat ion s in Korea tend to be conservative in theirtheological stance. The1991Korea Christiarr Yearbook (Seoul: Christian Literature Press, 1991I n Korean]) reports that Presbyterians have 24,539 out of a total of 35,869 churches. Cf. alsoY. J. Kim, A History of he Korearr Church (Seoul: Th e Korean Society fo r Reformed Paith andAction, 1992 [in Korea n]), 356-58.

71. T he distinction between " infa llibi li ty" and " inerrancy" is a mauer of definition. Iprefer " infallibility" in the sense of "enti re trustworthiness" to " inerrancy," which needsmuch qua lification. See I. H. Marshal!, BitJ/ical luspimtiou (London: H odder and Stough ton,1982), 73 Th is is, however, by no means an agreed posi tion of the Korea n conservative Presbyterian chu rch.

95


10/11

. ..YONG-EUI YANG

the Scriptures.72 The re fore, we generally accept the histo ricity of biblicalaccounts.73 Most of ou r seminaries are denominational and are usually expected to share these beliefs.7'1 Tn such a situation academic activities inthese seminaries are to reflect that expectation. As a result of this, in anumber of the leading Presbyterian sem inaries in Korea, historical-criticalmethods can be used only wit h great care and discernment. As a teacher inthese seminaries, I am no t free from this general envi ronment.Like mos t other teachers in Korean seminaries, Treceived my theological education no t only in Korea (B.A.) bu t also in the western world75(B.A., M.A., and Ph .D.). So my theological thinking is inevitably very western. I am much more open to the western historical-critical methods thanthe Korean church traditionally is.

Nevertheless, my way of using these methods may no t be exactly thesame as that of western critical scholars. When I am working in such a conservative environment, my interpretation of the biblical texts needs to reflect the church's tendency, its concern, and its expectations sensibly and insuch a way as to meet its needs, questions, and problems meaningfullythough critically. This is how 1 c.ommunicate my interpretation with mychurch. In reading the Gospels for my church, therefore, the critical discussions of the historicity, so urces, and origin of the Gospel stories are notprimary interests/ 6 especially when the arguments are no t conclusive, as is

d. f h . 77often the case, and do not contribute to the unders tan mg o t e stones.Usua lly these discussions bring no real meaning to my church bu t ratherprovoke it to close its mind to further discussion. 78 So for me methodol-

72. Cf. The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.1-10. This confession is still adoptedmore or less in its original form by most Korean conservative Presbyterian denominationsas their standard of fa ith.

73. For the interrelat ion between the infa llibility of the Scriptures and the historicityof biblical accounts, see Marsha ll, inspirntio11, 59

74 The -conservative beliefs described above may not be characteristically Korean.But the denominations' strong expectation for the seminaries may surely be characteristi-cally Korean. .

75 I studied in London for four years and in Oxford for three years.76. As mentioned above, in my view cr itical discussions of these issues are often too

skeptical.77 As a matter of fact, this tendency may no t be characteristically Korean. Not a few

exegetically-o rien tcd western scholars show such a tendency.;8. The hermeneutical crisis caused by the distance between historical-critical re-

Reading Mark 11:12-25 from a Korean Perspectiveogy is not an ideology; it is an instrument in search for the true reading ofthe Gospels. T give, therefore, more weight to those methodologies whichare really effective and profitable fo r reading the Gospels in the Koreanchurch today than to others.79

ReadingMark 11:12-25 from a Korean PerspectiveThe d iscussion above regard ing the historicity an d on gm of Mark'spericope has not , in fact, provided any definite conclusio ns Nor is it veryhelpful either for solving the problems of the pericope or for providing ameaningful understanding of t. Most discussions related to historicity andorigin of our pericope so far are based on pure speculation and turn ou t tobe unsatisfactory. In such a situation, in relation to our pericope, it doesno t seem to be sensible to focus ou r discussions on historicity and origin,especially cons idering the Korean church's tendency an d concern. Therefore, in O'ur discussions above, my ma in concern has naturally been notwith the story's origin or historicity bu t with the function of the story as itstands within Mark's Gospel. Whatever the or igin of the story, it has beenmy ultimate concern to recognizewhat Mark has done in his redactionalscheme. In face this kind of concern is no t particularly Korean. Tt is alsoexpressed by some western scholars such as Telford.80 But my concern may

. be much stronger than that of the western scholars.Secondly, as regards the Synoptic problem, it is extremely difficult to

de termine which option of the two hypotheses (the two-sou rce hypothesisand the Griesbach hypothesis) provides the more probable account of theproblem. Both have persuasive argum ents both for and against. Though thegreat majority of scholars favor the two-source hypothesis, in this pericopethe Griesbach hypothesis provides a less complicated and therefore morereadily und erstandable account of the problem. So I wonder whe ther anydecision is truly helpful or even required fo r the proper reading of thepericope. As a matter of fact, it seems possible and realistic to leave the Syn-search and the church's interes ts is well pointed out by U. Luz, Matthew iu History: in terpre-tation, influence, and Effects (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1"994), 5-13.

79 Cf. Evans, Mark, lvii : "The true test of any hypothesis is its effectiveness ." Hispoint of effectiveness, of course, is not related to the Korean chu rch's context bu t to thewestern biblical academic circle.

Bo. Te lford, Temple, 156, 233, 237-38.

97


11/11

ll.. .. .YONG-EUI YANG

optic problem unsettled, bu t to confirm that the sandwich structure is theresult of Mark's redaction, as even the majority of scholars favoring the twosource hypothesis admit. In this case Mark may have deliberately subordinated the chronological order to the effective communication of the theological significance. Conservative Christians might feel uncomfortable withthis explanation, since for them such a view of Mark's redaction may seem toresult in a chronological error. But they may need to be reminded that if"Mark was not at this point intending to wr ite in strict accordance withchronology, it is perverse to label non-chronological order as an 'er ror."'81

Thirdly, scholars who are interested in the story's function in Markrather than in the story's origin before Mark tend to see the story's Old Tes-tament backgroun d as a crucial key to the meaning of the story in Mark. Asa matter of fact, to the twenty-first-century reader, whether western or Korean, these background studies have a very important place in readingMark's Gospel through "the eyes of first-century readers, since the Old Tes-tament for-med a central part of the daily environment of the first-centuryChristians. Ou r background studies have shown that two aspects are im portant. (1) Prophets in the Old Testament pronounce. he destiny of Israelby means of their symbolic actions. In the light of this, Jesus' withering ofthe fig tree may well be considered a symbolic action pr.onouncing the com-ing doom of Israel. (2) The withering of the fig tree appears as an imageryin passages which depict Yahweh's coming judgment of Israel. Very oftenthe reason given for God's wrath is the corruption of the Temple ctiltus andsacrificial system. Then Mark's readers, who would have been acquaintedwith the above symbolism, would readily have understood Jesus' cursing ofthe fig tree as a sign prefiguring the messianic judgment of Israel and par-ticularly the destruction of the corrupt Temple. It seems then quite clearthat the Old Testament background studies help today's readers to accountfor the problems raised by our pericope quite meaningfully, without unsatisfactory conjectures of a legend or of a historicized parable.Fourthly, our concern with the story's function in Mark also invitesus to consider the sandwich structure of ou r pericope, which is Mark'scharacter istic literary convention. The Temple story, as usual in theMarkan sandwich stories, is expected to provide the key to the interpretation of the fig tree story and in fact does so. According to ou r investigations, the fig tree story by itself is already related to the corrup t state of the

81. France, "Chronological Aspects," 40.

Reading Mark 11 :12-25.Jrom a Korean PerspectiveTemple. Mark's sandwich structure then makes this inherent symbolicmeaning much clearer, and confirms the results of ou r background studies. In the case of the present sandwich st ructure, however, it i s o f t ~ n ad-mitted that not only does the Temple story provide the in terpretive key tothe fig tree story bu t also vice versa. In that case, the Temple story needs tobe understood in the light of the fig tree story. Jesus' behavior in Temple then is no t simply to be seen as the cleansing activity in terms of a removal of impurities and restoration to a true function! but is more to beseen as a symbolic action prefiguring the eschatological doom of the cor-rupt Temple. This character of the present sandwich structure links thetwo stories much closer, and brings the inherent symbolic 1 e a n i n g s of thestories to the surface very efficiently. If Mark's sandwich structure is hisown creation, as is generally agreed, what he is doing with this literary convention may be an attempt to help his (probably Gentile) readers to seethis deeper, inherent but symbolic meaning of the story more easily andclearly. A proper recognition of this structure then may also help twentyfirst-century Korean (i.e., Gentile) readers very effectively.

From our investigat ion above, the Old Testament background studies and the literary investigation regarding the sandwich structure haveturned out to be the most reliableand profitable methodologies in readingthe Markan fig tree story. This may be true no t only for the present writer,who belongs to a conservative Korean Presbyterian church, but also formost western scholars. Discussions regarding the Synoptic problem haveturned out to be necessary bu t inconclusive. I am comfortab le in leavingthe problem unsettled, though no t a few trad itionally critical westernscholars may not be comfortable with such a state. Discussions regardinghistoricityand origin have turned out to be neither satisfactory nor profitable, and therefore, for the present writer, no t necessary. This may be thecase for some exegetically-or iented western scholars. For many t ~ a d i t i o n -ally critical western scholars, however, they may be sti ll very important andcrucial academic issues. These summary observations may answer ou r initial question, "What is a Korean reading of Mark 11:12-25?" and may illustrate how much it is different from western reading(s). A conservative Korean reading may no t be far from an exegetically-orientated western one,though it uses traditional historical-critical methods with much mo re careand discernment. But it is distinctively d i f f e r ~ n t from a traditionally critical one, especially in its approaches to the historicity and origin of thesto ry and also to the Synoptic problem.

99

YANG, Y.-E., «Reading Mark 11,12-25 from a Korean perspective»

Documents

Transcript of YANG, Y.-E., «Reading Mark 11,12-25 from a Korean perspective»