greatcalgarian said:
This perhaps is the best answer in this thread. Put it in another way, the gospel started with oral tradition. There is no way that in the development over the first hundred years or so, there will be different people remembering the story in a different way. It appears that what is claimed by John in one of the gnostic gospel appeared to have better parabol teaching then all others, which are trying to add additional explanation into the fig tree currently recorded in the two gospel accepted by Christian in the 400 AC. John, do you know which gnostic gospel? It cannot be Thomas right?
Peace,
it was the Gospel of the Holy Twelve
1. NOW on the morrow as they were coming from Bethany, Peter was hungry, and perceiving a fig tree afar off having leaves thereon, he came if happily he might find fruit thereon, and when he came he found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet.
2. And Peter was angry and said unto it, Accursed tree, no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And some of the disciples heard of it.
3. And the next day as Jesus and his disciples passed by, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, behold, the fig tree which I cursed is green and flourishing, wherefore did not my word prevail?
4. Iesus said unto Peter, Thou knowest not what spirit thou art of. Wherefore didst thou curse that which God hath not cursed? And Peter said, Behold Lord I was a hungered, and finding leaves and no fruit, I was angry, and I cursed the tree.
5. And Jesus said, Son of Jonas knewest thou not that the time of figs was not yet? Behold the corn which is in the field which groweth according to its nature first the green shoot, then the stalk, then the earwould thou be angry if thou camest at the time of the tender shoot or the stalk, and didst not find the corn in the ear? And wouldst thou curse the tree which, full of buds and blossoms, had not yet ripe fruit?