Talk:Cursing of the fig tree/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

This is about an item in the New Testament that is written about extensively and has art devoted to it. It is clearly notable since it appears in book after book and is clearly referred to with the same term as part of Gospel harmonies, e.g. in Steven L. Cox, Kendell H Easley, 2007 Harmony of the Gospels ISBN 0805494448 page 350 . I was surprised it did not have a page, so I built one. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

An explanation and a cautioning

User:History2007 saw fit to delete the paragraph that I added that begins "Since neither Matthew nor Mark explain...", with the justification "Sorry, those are not WP:Reliable sources by any measure". In fact, they do indeed meet WP:Reliable. The first source, Internet Infidels is one of the main portals for freethought and atheism on-line, with over 7 million Google hits and about 10,000 visits per day. In fact, leading apologist Gary Habermas has called it "one of the Internet's main Web sites for skeptics". The other source, evilbible.com, is slightly less well-known, with still over 115,000 Google hits and over 1,200 unique visits per day. But to make it a little easier for you, I'll remove the latter citation and just let it rest on the former, which makes both assertions anyway.

I realize that, as the originator of this entry, you feel protective of it, but you cannot arbitrarily decide to remove additions to it just because you dislike them contradicting your own Christian beliefs. The story of Jesus cursing the fig tree is allegedly an historical event, and is thus subject to critical inquiry. The entry, as you wrote it, only provides the Scriptural side. It is not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to claim a miracle occurred, nor is Jesus' alleged action logical. An argument could be made that it was irrational and contradictory to the supposedly perfect character of Jesus. Indeed, the sources I cited do just that. It would be rather like the entry on Julius Caesar asserting that, upon his death, citizens of Rome observed Caesar's soul ascending to heaven, as Suetonius claimed in his biography of Julius Caesar -- and just leaving it at that. If a skeptic of Suetonius' claim posted substantive objections from WP:Reliable sources that assert that Suetonius' claim is unlikely to be true and that no such miracle could've occurred, then they must be allowed to have their say.

Finally, it's a breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette to simply delete non-vandalism additions to entries. The correct protocol is to first post an objection to it in the Talk page and debate its merits first. This you never did. Consequently, I'm reverting the entry. If you want to actually debate the matter, here's your chance. Bricology (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

God hates figs

User:History2007 has deleted God hates figs from the "See also" section. This is a modern (admittedly unusual) invocation of this parable, and deserves at least a "See also" mention in here. (A section on how the parable has been invoked over the years would be a reasonable addition, but it should probably be done with more than the one example if it's to be done at all.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I also removed another irrelevant item in that edit. Looking at Wikipedia articles often reminds me of driving on Sundays past people's open garage doors that are full, full of accumulated junk over years. These See also sections gather junk over time and need to be cleaned up. That item is really way out of what one could remotely call "biblical content" and its existence in itself serves only one purpose in the end: to draw attention to some current conflict between some groups of people who have nothing better to do. This is not encyclopedic, it is attention seeking by junk placement. History2007 (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not a Bible reference, and does not exist merely to document what you think people should be doing. It is designed to reflect the interrelationship of things, that is a point of wikification. If you want to create a reference in which the Bible exists in isolation from all other things, this is not the place for it. You may think it peripherally-related, but "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, please just see a 3rd opinion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think we should keep the link to God hates figs in the "See also" section of this article. As peripherally related as it may be to this article, it does not seem to me to be so unrelated that it does not belong in that section. And as there is right now only one other entry in the "See also" section, there's also not much need to prune that section of any "accumulated junk" at this time, either. My opinion is that God hates figs should be restored (and btw not the other link removed, Sour grapes, because that one really does seem too unrelated to go there). WikiDao ☯ 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)—WikiDao ☯ 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I do not like that but 3O is 3O, so Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits to lead

I've made a few edits to the lead, and I'll explain them here.

1. I've added blockquotes for both the Gospel stories - since the story is told twice, we can't be encyclopediac is we conflate them into one.
2. I've used the NIV version instead of the KJV. This is because of a language problem - the KJV says the tree withers "presently", which in modern English means "after a while," but in the English of the KJV it meant "immediately."
3. The older version of the lead had something about the tree in Mark withering the next day, but there's nothing in the blockquote about that and I can't find anything in the chapters immediately following.

PiCo (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You did well, as usual. History2007 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir or madam. It occurs to me, without having researched it, that figs must have had some symbolic meaning in ancient Judaism. Probably connected with fruitfulness (as indeed it is today), and with seeds multiplying (all those seeds you find inside a fig) - which connects to the constant Deuteronomistic emphasis on fruitfulness and multiplying (the Israelites had to be fruitful and multiply in order to outnumber their enemies ASAP). Surely there's a book about this.PiCo (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The "next day" references would appear to be Mark 11:20-22, where they don't see that it has withered until the next day (or at least until after "even" has come and then "morning"), rather than seeing it happen immediately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I missed that. I'll make an edit. Thanks for catching it. PiCo (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Future directions (suggestions for new material)

I think, or suggest, that the article could usefully go like this:

1. Brief discussion of the relationship between Mark and Matthew (the gospels, that is), including probably authors, dates, and such.
2. Origin of the Matthew story (comes from Mark)
3. Origin of the Mark story

That last part is the most interesting. The author of Mark has probably based it on Psalm 37:35-36 and Micah 7:1, where "the imagery of a search for figs is a figure for God's search for righteous Israelites, and the image of a barren or withered fig tree is occasionally used to represent national failure as a manifestation of divine judgment." There's also Hosea 9:15-16, where the prophet is talking the "wicked" (rebellious Israel) and the Temple: "Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house; I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious; Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit."

1. Meaning

The fig tree (the tree, not the fruit) is a symbol for Israel in the OT see Jeremiah 8:13, 29:14, Joel 1:7, Hosea 9:10, and 9:16. (For example, Jeremiah 8:13: "When I would gather them, says the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them"). So when Jesus curses the fig tree, he curses Israel. But what about the fact that Jesus curses the tree out of season? T.L.Thomspon says it's because Jesus is the Messiah who has come "out of season" - Israel should be ready for the Messiah at any season, but the Jews reject him, and so he (or rather, the author of Mark) curses them.

Incidentally, it's juvenile to point out gleefully that the incident can't really have happened - that's teenager stuff. PiCo (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the juvenile comment. But the rest may be overkill. Somewhat like using elephant gun to shoot fig tree? This is just one episode. History2007 (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

All those OT references? PiCo (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If the story is worth noting, it is worth noting because it has reaction and impact - and that reaction and impact should be noted as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "reaction and impact"? PiCo (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Morgan

I think the Donald Morgan quote is pushing beyond the limits of notability and clearly fails WP:V. I asked for proof that he is notable, and none was offered. It is just from a website whose Wiki-article calls it of questionable notability, and Morgan's only claim to fame seems to be that website. He is just one critic who has not written a single scholarly work that I can find on Amazon (feel free to do an Amazon search). He can only get published on that website. He is not encyclopedic or notable at all, and unless proof of notability is provided, I will delete it. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't fail WP:V at all, as the statement is that the site says that, and that is quite verifiable. It is a statement of an educational foundation on their significant secular website. But you may want to look into whether F.F. Bruce has any recognized expertise on botany. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:V and WP:RS do not work that way. If a "non-notable" person says something on a street corner, and some website puts it on the web, that is not notable, or encyclopedic and is not a WP:RS source known for double checking facts and presenting multiple viewpoints. All over Wikipedia there is debate about scholarship. Morgan is not a scholar, or a reliable source for commentary. And that website is not a well known publisher, just a website set up by a few like-minded people who gave their credit card number to pay for the internet web service charges. It is not Oxford University Press. Your statement is pushing far beyond Wikipedia standards for scholarship. There are "scholar critics" and "nobody critics". Morgan is in the 2nd category, else by now you would have pointed to the 12 books he has written. History2007 (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while it may be fun for you to make up about a website in order to demean it, it doesn't actually forward the conversations. It's the website of an IRS-registered 501(c)3 non-profit, cited as a "Best of the Web" by PC Magazine, cited by a number of works on religion and opposition thereto. And I'm sorry if you don't understand WP:V and WP:RS, but even if it were established that this is not a generally-reliable source Wikipedia:V#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves does exist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

First, avoid negative and impolite language, Monsieur. I can think, the last I checked. And I do understand WP:V and WP:RS. And since when is being registered non-profit is an indication of reliability? All that takes is filling some forms. Now I think you have started to accept that it is not a "generally-reliable source". Self-published sites may be used "about themselves". This is NOT about itself, is about an episode in another book. That argument fails. So that statement is not a main stream generally accepted statement from a high quality web site and needs to be deleted. I have marked it with tags anyway. I see no benefit from adding low quality material to Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Before you resume editing the comments of others, I suggest that you read WP:TCO. If you have concerns about tone, you may wish to do something about that mote in your own eye first.
• "since when is being registered non-profit is an indication of reliability?" I didn't say that it was an indication of reliability, I was showing the falsehood of your claim that it was "just a website set up by a few like-minded people who gave their credit card number to pay for the internet web service charges".
• "This is NOT about itself" - the statement as it was last made was directly about the site. If I said that the story has a contradiction, and ref'd it to that site, that would not be about itself, but saying that the site said something, yes, that's about itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"F. F. Bruce states that fig trees produce 'taqsh' before the season if they are going to bear fruit in the season itself. Since this one didn't, it was a sign that it would not produce any fruit that year either." So he's arguing that this isn't a miracle at all. Very odd. Does he also hold therefore that Jesus wasn't divine? I really wonder if Bruce realises where his argument is taking him. PiCo (talk)

I think all that section is junk and should be deleted altogether. History2007 (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that causing a tree to immediately wither would still be recognized as a demonstration of some sort of force; I doubt (wagging an IANAB flag) that not having any forthcoming fruit causes a tree to immediately wither. I think all Bruce is arguing (in what's quoted) is that this wasn't a case of cursing a tree because it wasn't producing fruit out of season, but rather of cursing a tree because it wasn't going to produce fruit in season. (I'm not saying that's supported by the Biblical text, mind you.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ALL WP:OR and unsubstantiated junk. History2007 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement supposedly supported by footnote #7 is inaccurate. The Secular Web lists a perceived contradiction between Matthew stating that the fig tree withered immediately, and Mark saying that the disciples noticed it when they passed by the following day. There is no mention of fig season. ...Who is Donald Morgan and why is his opinion of any interest???Mannanan51 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)mannanan51

"The Texts"

Recently the biblical texts were blanked out over copyright reasons. Should I go ahead and stick some uncopyrighted text back in, or do we want to avoid having the texts in there altogether? Alephb (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I lean toward not having the texts and pointing to Bible hub, as varying biblical translations create differing emphases. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that on Bible Hub, you can find just about any Bible translation you want, as long as its a conservative Protestant translation. (For the sake of variety, they do have one badly outdated conservative Catholic translation as well, which is obsolete by the standards of post-Vatican II Catholicism). They also have an excellent selection of outdated conservative Protestant commentaries. It's a good place to go if the goal is to understand how conservative Protestants read the Bible. Alephb (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is a more appropriate bible aggregate, feel free to suggest it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the really unfortunate thing. I don't know of any kind of Bible aggregating site that does not have a specific sectarian agenda. The closest thing might be BibleGateway, which at least includes the NRSV (a pretty standard scholarly non-sectarian translation, to the extent such a thing exists) and NAB (Catholic). But still it's an overwhelmingly conservative Protestant site as well. Personally, I'd link out to the NRSV if we've got to link out to something, just because it's the closest thing (for the New Testament) that the scholarly world has to a "standard" translation that isn't the property of one religious movement. Alephb (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer no texts.Achar Sva (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I can live with that. Alephb (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Point of view problem

Editor @Achar Sva: has been attempting to install in the introduction a single interpretation of the "cursing the fig tree" as the one correct one, despite the article itself pointing out that the tale has been subject to various interpretations. (They've also, for some reason, undone an attempt to open with a sentence that doesn't assume you're in a bible encyclopedia and understand some for the context of what is being said.) Wikipedia choosing a "correct" Bible interpretation violates are neutral point of view guideline and goals. I am tagging the article for that NPOV problem. Please join in on the conversation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, the lead would simply summarize the body of the article. Unfortunately, the Interpretation section of the article is currently a bit too scattered to make writing a clear summary lead. The Interpretation section currently seems to be just throwing bits and pieces together to see what sticks. I think if the body were made more coherent, the questions about the lead would likely answer themselves.

For example, NatGertler, you say that Achar Sva is "attempting to install ... a single interpretation". Which of the interpretations currently in the body contradict the lead? Alephb (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is find sources - recent ones, preferably - for the statements in the article. I'm also trying to find a single description of the subject, which isn't easy. I've done some more editing.Achar Sva (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The interpretation that the cursing is a demonstration of Jesus's power over nature is a strongly different one that it being Jesus making a comment about Israel. Using Wikipedia is trying to dictate what the correct meaning of the Bible is is both ludicrous and dangerous. We should not be treating anyone's interpretation as The Truth, merely as an interpretation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about "strongly different". They don't seem incompatible at all; even if the action is intended as commentary on Israel, it would still seem that the ability to whither trees on command would speak to one's power over nature. I guess what I'm asking is, are there any significant voices who do not believe that Jesus was making a comment about Israel here? And I don't know the answer to that question one way or the other, nor can I tell from the article as it currently exists. Alephb (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't need proof that there are contradicting interpretations to state that these are interpretations. We do need proof that there are no contradicting interpretations to not list them as interpretations, and we certainly lack that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "Traditional Christian exegesis regarding these accounts include affirmation of the Divinity of Jesus by demonstrating his authority over nature" is unsourced - without a source it can't stay in the article. Incidentally, even Matthew Henry (who also can't be used as a source) says it's about Israel.Achar Sva (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Without a source it can stay in the article with a {{citation needed}} - and even if it were gone, that does not justify some spin on the bible as being The Truth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm heartily in agreement that Matthew Henry shouldn't be used as a source, so I've gone ahead and yanked that bit out. Alephb (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

While sometimes information does stay in articles with a citation needed tag, this is optional, and anyone is free to remove unsourced material. Especially in a case like this, where we seem to be having some sticky troubles, it seems to be it would be best to remove all the unsourced stuff and let sourced material guide us from there in constructing the article. So I'm planning to go ahead and yank the unsourced paragraph out of the Commentary section. Anyone who can find reliable sources and add them is welcome to put the information back in. In this case, given that the interpretation of this passage has to do with how Christian groups view Jews, it seems like following WP:V strictly would be a good idea. And, as WP:V puts it, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Alephb (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I've now finished editing - all statements are sourced and all sources are recent, or fairly so, and reliable. Nat Gertler: please review the article and remove the tag if there are no further queries. Achar Sva (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No, will not be removing the tag at this time. The article continues to present the opinion of individual analysts as plain facts in Wikipedia's voice. We should not be saying things like At first sight the destruction of the fig tree does not seem to fit Jesus' behaviour elsewhere, but the miracle stories are directed against property rather than people, and form a "prophetic act of judgement".; at most we should be saying Craig S. Keener states that, while at first sight the destruction of the fig tree may not seem to fit Jesus' behaviour elsewhere, as the miracle stories are directed against property rather than people, they form a "prophetic act of judgement". Credited analysis is appropriate, better when it can be pointed to a third party source that felt that opinion worth noting. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If you still have problems with the article, then edit it. However, we do not say things like "Craig Keener states..." unless there are two or more competing academic views, both or all wityh a significant following, in which case we say "the majority view is..." and "the minority view is..." - and even then we don't take individual voices and identify them. And we certainly do say things like "At first sight the destruction of the fig tree does not seem to fit Jesus' behaviour elsewhere..." if such statements are reliably sourced. If you are unable to revise the article in a satisfactory way I will remove the tag myself and you can take this to dispute resolution if you wish, but I must say that my impression to date is that your attitude has been obstructive and unreasonable.Achar Sva (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We do in fact cite opinions when we are stating opinions, and the idea that we've found the solid academic consensus by citing one source is ludicrous. (And even Keener points out that there is disagreement with the "this is talking about Israel" view, although he holds it; page 504, footnote 133.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC) By the way, before removing the tag, I suggest that you review the conditions under which such a tag is to be removed, as I don't see any of them having been met. And I make no apologies for obstructing efforts to make this article POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I find your attitude incomprehensible. The source templates at the end of each sentence already identify who the sources are, and there's no need to repeat the information. Nevertheless, it's now up to you to make whatever edits you feel are necessary before the next and I fear inevitable step, which is dispute resolution. But what does Alephb say?Achar Sva (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Achar Sva believes that WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP is WP:NPOV by default. See WP:CHOPSY for details. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Except bible review isn't science, which is what WP:CHOPSY addresses, primary sources are not secondary sources, Eerdmans (who publish Keener) is not an academic press but a religious one. There seems little point in editing it when Achar's edits and his attitude above make it clear that he intends to revert anything that suggests that his preferred analysis is just an analysis rather than facts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Opinions are divided, but many consider history to be a science. Achar Sva's point is about history, not about theology. Bible scholarship is about history, not about what believers should accept as the true faith. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

When one is explaining what Jesus meant by something, that is literary analysis, not history. Pointing to when figs were growing on Mt. Olive, that's history. Meaning is not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I guess you are not on the same page as the rest of us. I suggest that you watch the whole first video at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, I'm still waiting for you to either edit the article or to explain why you think it violates NPOV.Achar Sva (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, you continue to keep me waiting. Either edit the article to correct whatever deficiencies you feel it has, or explain your concerns here. Achar Sva (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that I'm supposed to be on call 24-hours to jump to your every request (it may surprise you that I am not a paid, full-time Wikipedia editor but a volunteer who does this amidst actually more important things in life, although I recognize that on a breaking news story like "Jesus gets his mad on at fig trees", it's important to be up-to-the-minute.) However, to save you the time from having to reread what I've already written, here you go: the article is taking the POV of individual bible commentators and presenting them as Wikipedia's point of view or as flat fact, rather than presenting them neutrally as that commentator's point of view. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to be more precise: where exactly does the article present sources in an inappropriate way? And you need to be cooperative: how would you resolve the issues you identify?Achar Sva (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, if we'd write "According to Isaac Asimov the Earth is not flat. According to Carl Sagan the Earth is round.", etc., etc., it would soon become awkward. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Achar, see the Keener example presented above as both an example of the problem and of the solution. Tgeorgescu, if presenting interpretation precisely as interpretation is a problem, then we can skip presenting interpretation altogether. However, the current method of finding one source that says something and then saying that, because we only look at one source, the interpretation is unanimous and thus a fact to be presented in the Wikipedia voice has logical problems. If anything, we should have more interpretation, with crediting; even if we don't think the interpretation is accurate, the Bible has been used in varying ways for centuries, and the impact of the story is not just in what we guess Jesus meant by it, but in how it has been portrayed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

At last a concrete suggestion. You're saying that "We should not be saying things like 'At first sight the destruction of the fig tree does not seem to fit Jesus' behaviour elsewhere, but the miracle stories are directed against property rather than people, and form a "prophetic act of judgement"' should be replaced by "Craig S. Keener states that ...". I've already explained this, but will do so again: on WIkipedia, as in any encyclopedia, we only ascribe a view in-text to one person when (a) it's unique to that person, who originated it, and (b) it's because there are opposing views and we need to balance them (so we have "According to Keener, this and that, but according to X, the other). To phrase that in terms of npov policy guidelines, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." If you want to continue contesting the article, you need to show that specific statements are contested or controversial. Otherwise, no change is needed. Achar Sva (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

And again you keep us waiting, Nat Gertler.Achar Sva (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This little harassment game you're playing, to insist that I respond on your schedule? Yeah, that can stop. Your contention that such things are "Uncontested and uncontroversial" fly in the face of the fact that you've been deleting or calling for deletion from the article views that do not represent what you want to present; that literary analysis is the same as "factual assertions"; and that the sources presented are reliable (meanwhile, here you are deleting a Keener statement for not being reliable.) It's literary analysis, it's not science, and only allowing one source for something is not the same as unanimity. What the symbology of the Bible means is the sort of thing that wars are fought over, and they're not the thing that Wikipedia should be choosing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

After all that venting, you don't produce a single quote or source showing that anything in the article is contested. I'll repeat it: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Do you or don't you have any evidence?Achar Sva (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Repeating the line that just got picked apart does not make it more true. And this cycle you have of re-demanding things I've already given, like "And even Keener points out that there is disagreement with the "this is talking about Israel" view, although he holds it; page 504, footnote 133." And of course there's the Knox source that you deleted because you didn't know what it referred to, and couldn't AGF on an earlier editor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You continue to dodge the question instead of answering it. Once more, the line from the Wikipedia policy on pov and Wiki-voice is: ""Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Keener p.504 fn 133 mentions a view that Matthew might be referring to the Roman Empire, a view so rare that if fails to pass the due weight test. You have to show (I repeat, SHOW), that at least one sentence in the article is contested or controversial. Achar Sva (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's see, I've shown where Keener, who you have put forth as a reliable source, has both contested one of the statements and cited someone else contesting one of the statements. Now, how does that make it all uncontested? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Jacques Ellul's idea that the fig tree refers to the Roman EMpire is held by almost no one - compare, for example, R.T. France, whose commentary on Matthew is regarded as the touchstone of Matthean criticism _ even those who disagree with France begin by refering to his book) - he makes no mention at all of Ellul or any symbolic meaning except the temple/Israel.the temple leadership. I'm sure you've read widely in the field, and you must surely be aware that the "Roman Empire" view is a minority one. Now try again, and this time find a sentence or statement that is disputed by a large faction of the profession.Achar Sva (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

And again we wait. Nat Gertler, you have to show that that there's at least one idea in the article that's currently contested in scholarly circles, i.e., has a following large enough to be noted/discussed in contemporary commentaries and similar works. I suggest you browse through the very comprehensive bibliographies at the articles on the three relevant gospels. If you can't find anything, we'll take it you agree that the pov tag should be removed. I'll give you a couple of days.Achar Sva (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You will give me a couple days? Gee, must be nice to declare yourself my boss and to demand that I follow the rules that you invent and are free to invent an agreement on my behalf. Currently, the source that says that the opposition is not substantial is... Achar Sva. Not a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, it's been a week and yet again we have no movement. You put this on my personal talk page and I'll copy it here:
The continued attempts to harass me for not responding on whatever schedule you would wish for response is inappropriate. I don't know about you, but I'm actually a volunteer who works in bits of editing in the spare time within a large array of professional and family obligations, and this article is neither the most important nor the most urgent among those that I edit. If you continue to act in this hostile, uncollaborative manner, then I will raise the issue in the appropriate location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Nate, I'm not harassing you and I'm sorry you feel that I am, but obviously if left alone you won't respond. (A week, after all, should be long enough). So let's review the dispute:

• It began when I revised the article replacing unsourced statements with sourced ones. As a result of those statements, the article now says that the fig tree is a symbol for Israel or the temple priesthood.
• You put a pov tag on the article, and at the top of this thread you said that I was trying "to install in the introduction a single interpretation of the 'cursing the fig tree' as the one correct one, despite the article itself pointing out that the tale has been subject to various interpretations."
• A few posts later you clarified this by saying that"[t]he interpretation that the cursing is a demonstration of Jesus's power over nature" should be mentioned (or so I interpret that posting). You did not, however, offer any sources to back that up. I pointed out that the line in the article saying "Traditional Christian exegesis regarding these accounts include affirmation of the Divinity of Jesus by demonstrating his authority over nature" was unsourced; you replied with: "Without a source it can stay in the article with a ", a statement that I can't agree with - this is too important to be unsourced. You also said that "even if it were gone, that does not justify some spin on the bible as being The Truth" - a statement I find frankly puzzling.
• Later again you said each statement should be ascribed in-line to whatever author it comes from. I explained that this is not Wikipedia policy, which is instead (and I quote): "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." I explained that you needed to demonstrate, through sources, that assertions in the article are contested/controversial. In response you quoted a footnote in Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew where Keener mentions a hypothesis that the fig tree symbolises the Roman Empire rather than Israel or the temple and the priests. I pointed out that Keener doesn't argue with this idea, he simply dismisses it (in a footnote at that), and that it isn't mentioned in other major commentaries such as that of R.T. France.

So to sum up: Wikipedia policy requires us to mention major and significant minor points of view, and to identify all statements through reference to reliable sources. This the article currently does, at least in my opinion. If your opinion differs, please engage in a discussion in the usual way, meaning prompt replies and references to sources. I'll give you a month, and if you can't reply at all in that time I'll feel free to delete the tag. Achar Sva (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good, the bullying attempts continue. Nate [purposeful misidentification] I'm not harassing you [gaslighting] obviously if left alone you won't respond. (A week, after all, should be long enough). [playing make-believe that I was not the last one to respond and that it wasn't you who went close to a week without responding]. Then you repeat things you've already said before and ignore that things like "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources" have already been addressed by pointing out where you are using it for things that are contested and that a source you are using this to cover is one where you yourself have pointed to its unreliability. But hey, you've set the timer again for you declaring yourself right! -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Sorry to say it, but at Wikipedia one should have a feeling of when pursuing a quarrel is no longer productive. I trust that Achar Sva knows the scholarly literature well. He is really an established user, who lost his password, so he had to register with a new account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And I trust that whoever put the Knox material in there did so with a reason, even if they did not format the reference properly. But it didn't fit in with the narrative that Sva wants to promote, so it got deleted. (I also don't go with the view that scholarly analysis is the only source of "meaning" worth covering on an article of a religious topic, since the impact of a religious text is primarily not in its effect on scholarship but in its impact on believers.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Well, well, I thought that WP:RS gives the lie to impact of a religious text is primarily not in its effect on scholarship but in its impact on believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, no it doesn't. If we have reliable sources that say that The Lower Slobovian Church interprets the fig tree tales as calling on them to attack Upper Slobovia, that would be a vital thing to cover in the article whether or not that's how scholars interpret it. Showing only the Official Wikipedian Truth and pretending there haven't been other interpretations would be treating the readership and our goals as an encyclopedia quite poorly. The way non-scholars interpret the Bible has had and continues to have large impact on the world, and it would not behoove us to pretend it's not going on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nat, thanks for engaging on the talk page. You're not being harassed or bullied, you're simply being asked to help us build a good article. So, with that in mind, do you have any specific edits to propose (sourced of course) relating this article to the idea you seem to be expressing here, that the "curse of the fig tree" has been used for political purposes?Achar Sva (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You're not being harassed or bullied Oh for crimminy sake. I was actually coming here to say that I'm simplifying my life and taking the page off of my watch list, and that you were free to play the make believe that no sources worth noting say anything but the view that you wish to promote. But you couldn't go without trying to act like you hadn't repeatedly harangued me about not jumping to your schedule, eh? Religious texts have impact, and it's not always based on the analysis of scholars. Something that is trying to be an encyclopedia rather than a bible concordance would reflect that. Tgeorgescu's suggestion that such texts have their primary impact through scholarship rather than through religion is undone by, well, history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC) (And as an example of how this might have effect beyond what scholars think of it, Bertrand Russell in Why I Am Not a Christian (one of the most influential books of the 20th century, per the NYC library) used the tale as evidence that Jesus was not great. That there were other views, New Testament scholar Thomas Walter Manson noted it as "a tale of miraculous power wasted in the service of an ill temper", and that the curse was probably actually a prediction.<ref>Jesus Behaving Badly: The Puzzling Paradoxes of the Man from Galilee, Mark L. Strauss, p. 64.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)