I ran across this speculation recently. The G.Mark depicts the ministry of jesus as 1 year long while G.John has been reckoned to require about 3 years to account for all the festivals in that version of the story. Does Luke suggest 4? Luke 13:6-9 has a parable of a barren fig tree that produces no fruit for 3 years and it's owner wants to cut it down but is convinced to wait 1 more year of special tending before chopping. Is this a cryptic way of suggesting the Jesus story was to be understood as 4 years long?
1,3,4 years?
by peacefulpete 4 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
inquirer
I saw a www site that was talking about this a few months ago. I saw the PDF of it, this site basically went out of it's way to say it was a 1-2 ministry.
Really bizarre aye!The Witness dudes swore blind to me it was 3 years, 3years, 3 years (not 6, if you know what I mean? :) )
It mustn't be important, because it's not mentioned in the Bible. That's the way I like to look at things really. I mean, really, even his age is guess work -- "about 30." That could mean 28,29,30, 30 1/3, 31, 32... They are all around 30! 27 and 33 is starting to stretch it... :) So really, his age is not important either -- other wise the Good Book would've told us, right?
Interesting what Jehovah decided Matthew and other gospel writers what to put in their respective gospels...
-
Leolaia
PP....Interesting, but seemingly unlikely. I don't know what the basis of the argument is, but it is clear to me that the specifically Lukan material in Luke 13:6-9 relates to the John the Baptist discourse in 3:9. The same situation is being discussed, fruitless trees being cut down. But the eschatological persepctive is quite different. In the earlier passage, John the Baptist claims that the eschatological moment is NOW: "Even now (édé) the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire". The fruits are the "fruits worthy of repentance (karpous axious tés metanoias)" (3:8). Jesus however characterizes the NOW as a moment of repentance: "Unless you repent (metanoéséte) you will all likewise perish" (13:3, 5). The Parable of the Fig Tree rather claims that a time has been granted for the tree to "bear fruit" (poiésé karpon) before the tree is cut down (v. 9). This is a time of the vinedresser digging about the tree and placing manure to help the tree blossom (v. 8). The parable thus works well if John the Baptist is the man telling the vinedresser that the tree should be immediately cut down, while Jesus is the "vinedresser" that offers a time of repentance and plants manure (Jesus' teaching?) to help bring about repentance. If we were interpreting the parable in a highly literal fashion, then this would instead point to John the Baptist's ministry as being 3 years in duration, followed by a year of Jesus' ministry. So I don't see how a 4-year duration for Jesus' ministry is indicated. However, I am quite doubtful as to whether literal years are intended here. While the Passion is the central soteriological event for Luke, it does not have the same significance as a terminus of repentance and time of judgment on individuals. The making of disciples continues after the end of Jesus' ministry, through the efforts of his own disciples who continue to lay "manure" for others to respond to the message and repent. There is also still an impending eschatological moment, still future from the standpoint of Jesus....the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21). Note also that 13:4-5 refers to the judgment on "all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem" and 13:31-35 goes on to mention the condemnation of Jerusalem itself. The period of repentance could well have been the decades before AD 70. If the judgment associated with the "coming of the Son of Man" is in view, then the period would be even longer. So I'm hesitant to infer on the basis of Luke 13:6-9 that Jesus' ministry was a year in length.
As for the relationship between this parable and the application made of it in the Apocalypse of Peter, the related miracle narrative in Mark and Matthew (and its indebtedness to Jonah), and the secondary miracle narrative in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, you might remember my old thread on the subject:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/65196/1.ashx
inquirer....If I remember correctly, I think the Society bases their claimed length of Jesus' ministry on a misinterpretation of the Seventy Weeks prophecy in Daniel.
-
TheListener
I was reading Schaff's history of the church and one of the first things to strike me was that his dates for Jesus birth, baptism and death varied from my WTS training.
The WTS does indeed pinpoint all Jesus related dates and time intervals based on the Daniel and other OT prophecies. I naively thought everyone did.
I still haven't figured out what the correct date are. If in fact there are any known correct dates.
This thread is very informative.
-
peacefulpete
Sorry about not responding earlier, my computer gave up the ghost. I'm posting from the library. Anyway, IMO Luke (author of) seems to be simply collecting parables and pericopes without regard for theme here. I agree that the parable has ties to JTB. Is this related to the Jesus is JTB resurrected evidence? Also the fact that the parable was rewritten as a miracle in Matt (mark?) suggests the parable is early, preMark??I generally feel there is reason for a detail in a parable, (in this case the 3,4 years) unless the detail itself has symbolic meaning that is obviously related to the purpose of the parable. If for example it had said 7 years, I would not expect some intended meaning beyond it being a 'long time'. I would think it would mean (to the author Luke) either that Jesus would preach a total of 1 year (following JTB's 3, per leolaia's comment which she rejected) or 4 years. Given it's placement so far along in the story, I think it better suggests he meant to tell (remind?) his readers that Jesus had preached for 3 years and only a year was left. Then again maybe he simply pulled the parable from an UrMark without application and slipped it in where he did without any real intent.
Thanks for the responses.