spockrates, how about this one? It's not a contradiction but rather a complete misunderstanding between Gospel authors.
Mark 11 contains the part about Jesus and the fig tree:
This all came from Hosea 9 which refers to the destruction of Israel:
Matthew then reads this about the fig tree but doesn't understand why Mark wrote about Jesus going to inspect a tree that was out of season. It must have seemed rather absurd. So to fix that up he turns this event into a standard party trick to amaze his 12 zodia--I mean Apostles :
As one can see, the allegory is completely lost. From Matthew's account we can no longer make the comparison between Hosea 9 and understand that Mark was referring to the destruction of Israel.
I guess to me this is a contradiction after all. The contradiction being between the authors. Why does it seem like Mark is not writing history but merely referencing the OT but then only to have Matthew write a completely different 'account of history'? Did they believe in the same things here?? Seems to me like they didn't. If my interpretation is right then it can be assumed that Mark knew Jesus wasn't a historical figure and Matthew was once again trying to force Mark into being literal history by writing similar accounts and losing the allegory.
Mark 11 contains the part about Jesus and the fig tree:
Quote:
This all came from Hosea 9 which refers to the destruction of Israel:
Quote:
Matthew then reads this about the fig tree but doesn't understand why Mark wrote about Jesus going to inspect a tree that was out of season. It must have seemed rather absurd. So to fix that up he turns this event into a standard party trick to amaze his 12 zodia--I mean Apostles :
Matthew 21:18,19 Wrote:18 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
As one can see, the allegory is completely lost. From Matthew's account we can no longer make the comparison between Hosea 9 and understand that Mark was referring to the destruction of Israel.
I guess to me this is a contradiction after all. The contradiction being between the authors. Why does it seem like Mark is not writing history but merely referencing the OT but then only to have Matthew write a completely different 'account of history'? Did they believe in the same things here?? Seems to me like they didn't. If my interpretation is right then it can be assumed that Mark knew Jesus wasn't a historical figure and Matthew was once again trying to force Mark into being literal history by writing similar accounts and losing the allegory.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle