Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Johanine anti-sacrament?

Expand Messages
  • Graham Hagens
    This question may not be appropriate for ANE-2, but I hope the moderators will let it through if only to request for direction to references or an altenative
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This question may not be appropriate for ANE-2, but I hope the moderators
      will let it through if only to request for direction to references or an
      altenative discussion group.

      Compared to the parallel passages in the Synoptic gospels, John 13: 26-27
      suggest an anti-sacramental bias. I am wondering if Johanine studies have
      explored this, and if so where such ideas might be found.

      Thanks

      Graham Hagens
    • George F Somsel
      One place you might pose this question is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibexegesis/ Graham Hagens wrote: This question may not be
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        One place you might pose this question is

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibexegesis/

        Graham Hagens <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
        This question may not be appropriate for ANE-2, but I hope the moderators
        will let it through if only to request for direction to references or an
        altenative discussion group.

        Compared to the parallel passages in the Synoptic gospels, John 13: 26-27
        suggest an anti-sacramental bias. I am wondering if Johanine studies have
        explored this, and if so where such ideas might be found.

        Thanks

        Graham Hagens



        george
        gfsomsel
      • DAVID HALL
        RE: Robert Whiting s comment: Perhaps there was a confusion between the terms domestication and cultivation. To cultivate implies production of food by
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          RE: Robert Whiting's comment:

          Perhaps there was a confusion between the terms domestication and cultivation. To cultivate implies "production of food by preparing the land to grow crops". This might mean planting a seed after scratching the ground with a stick and dropping seeds into the loosened soil.

          The article about figs indicated that the figs were evidence of human cultivation without providing details or proof of how the author determined the figs were planted by hand or gathered from fig trees growing wild. Whether the figs were thought to be hybrids from natural cross pollination or pollination by hand. The fig was usually pollinated by a wasp. When the fig was unpollinated it may have been scratched/dressed to enhance a ripening without pollination. This was a form of agricultural technology but not cultivation.

          James Mellaart studied the Neolithic of upper Syria and Anatolia. He cited a study where wild emmer not cultivated was gathered by hand in great quantities. Such seed may have been stored in unfired clay silos from early dates without any cultivation having occurred. Domestication of numerous plants and animals was thought to have occurred as early as the Neolithic.

          Years ago I read a study that put man's ability to start fires from sparks or friction to about 100,000 BP. A few years later I saw another study had moved that date back to 250,000 BP or earlier. It does not have much to do with cultivating figs or plowing ground.

          David Q. Hall
          dqhall@...




          Robert Whiting <whiting@...> wrote:
          On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, DAVID HALL wrote:

          > Having read that man made fire may have been sparked by 250,000 BP and
          > another study indicating men kindled fires about 100,000 BP,
          >
          > http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/tcoughl1/ENVS2/fire.html
          >
          > one might presume we do not know when the first cultivation occurred.

          I fail to see what the connection is between the ability to make fire and
          the origin of cultivation. One might as well speculate on the connection
          between the making of stone tools and the origin of cultivation.

          > Wild wheat was gathered before people learned to produce the hybrid
          > grain that clings to the head after it is ripe. They may have been
          > scattering seeds on the ground as cultivation long before they learned
          > to select the best seeds to produce the hybrid (tame) grain that may
          > have been produced in the Neolithic if not earlier.

          While we may not know precisely when the first cultivation occured, we
          know more about it than this idle speculation might imply. For a recent
          summary of specialist knowledge on the origins of cultivation, see <i>The
          Origins of Agriculture and Crop Domestication</i>, Proceedings of the
          Harlan Symposium, 10-14 May 1997, Aleppo, Syria, Edited by, A.B. Damania,
          J. Valkoun, G. Willcox, and C.O. Qualset, available as an e-publication at

          http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/publications/HTMLPublications/47/begin.htm

          One of the leaders in research on the origins of cultivation is the CNRS
          Institut de Préhistoire Orientale, Jalès, France, where experimentation
          with wild progenitors of cereals has taken place over a long period.
          See in particular WILLCOX, G. " Agrarian change and the beginnings of
          cultivation in the Near East: evidence from wild progenitors, experimental
          cultivation and archaeobotanical data." In: J. Hather (ed): <i>Change in
          subsistance systems: social theory and biological processes</i>. World
          Archaeological Conference, Routlege: London, 1999. 478-500.

          George Willcox and his colleagues from Jalès have also written a ton of
          other articles on the topic which can be found with a Google search.


          Bob Whiting
          whiting@...


          SPONSORED LINKS
          Near Columbia university University of helsinki

          ---------------------------------
          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


          Visit your group "ANE-2" on the web.

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          ---------------------------------





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • DAVID HALL
          In John it was written that Jesus was arrested during the day of Preparation for the Passover. The day began at sunset. In the synoptic Gospels there was bias
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            In John it was written that Jesus was arrested during the day of Preparation for the Passover. The day began at sunset.

            In the synoptic Gospels there was bias that Jesus was celebrating the last supper with his disciples during the night of the Passover feast.

            Numerous people have published studies of this subject. I have read the Jewish Talmudic laws governing Passover observance in Tractate Pesachim. The Talmud contained history dating back to first temple times (before the 70th year) and was probably codified in the second century. With this in mind I wrote an article on the subject from my own point of view.

            http://dqhall59.com/lastsupper/index.htm

            David Q. Hall
            dqhall@...






            George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
            One place you might pose this question is

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibexegesis/

            Graham Hagens <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
            This question may not be appropriate for ANE-2, but I hope the moderators
            will let it through if only to request for direction to references or an
            altenative discussion group.

            Compared to the parallel passages in the Synoptic gospels, John 13: 26-27
            suggest an anti-sacramental bias. I am wondering if Johanine studies have
            explored this, and if so where such ideas might be found.

            Thanks

            Graham Hagens



            george
            gfsomsel




            SPONSORED LINKS
            Near Columbia university University of helsinki

            ---------------------------------
            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


            Visit your group "ANE-2" on the web.

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ---------------------------------





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: ANE-2 Cc: GPG Re: Graham Hagens query on John 13:26-27 From: Bruce Graham had asked about the possible anti-sacramental bias in John 13:26-27, compared
            Message 5 of 19 , Jun 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              To: ANE-2
              Cc: GPG
              Re: Graham Hagens' query on John 13:26-27
              From: Bruce

              Graham had asked about the possible "anti-sacramental bias" in John
              13:26-27, compared to the Synoptic parallels. Strictly speaking, there are
              parallels only for Jn 13:26, but is it not 13:27 that is potentially
              anti-sacramental (with Satan entering into a communicant at a symbolic
              moment in a commemorative meal)?

              There is considerable discussion in the Johannine literature (eg, C K
              Barrett ad loc) about whether the Last Supper was or was not a Paschal meal.
              Whatever the fact may have been, there are indications that John probably
              intended to portray it as one. The specific sacramental issue, not
              surprisingly, seems to have been considered chiefly by Catholic
              commentators; see for example Raymond E Brown, The Gospel According to John
              XIII-XXI (Anchor Bible v29a, Doubleday 1970) 557 and 575 n26 and n27, with
              references to Loisy et al.

              If not from the Synoptics, where did John get 13:27? The question of John's
              sources, and how he made use of them, is highly vexed, and constitutes a
              literature of its own. There is a good recent review of that literature in D
              Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels, 2ed South Carolina 2001. The Sources of
              John discussion has been inhibited by the enormous reluctance which, for
              obvious reasons, exists in the NT field toward the possibility that any of
              the Evangelists made up anything on their own (or reported innovations among
              whatever group it is thought that their writing may reflect). Hence the
              multiplication of "sources" to account for Synoptic complications, of which
              the extreme example is perhaps Boismard. The world seems still to be on a
              trajectory leading toward the Faith pole of the Faith/Reason axis, and
              Smith's chronological summary should perhaps be read with that Zeitgeist
              factor in mind.

              The Gospel of Judas might be thought of as one way (not a very orthodox one)
              to rescue the dilemma raised by Jn 13:27. What John's own idea may have been
              probably depends in part on whether you associate that passage with the Jn
              21 addendum, or with the earlier material. The jury seems to be still out
              (and debating) on that question, which perhaps seemed clearer 20 or 30 years
              ago.

              [Our small NT task force is currently considering Gospel interrelationships,
              including those involving John; I have ventured to forward Graham's question
              to them, and will be glad to report any suggestions that may result].

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... You may wish to join and raise your question on the Johannine Literature Discussion List at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/ You might
              Message 6 of 19 , Jun 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Graham Hagens wrote:

                > This question may not be appropriate for ANE-2, but I hope the
                > moderators
                > will let it through if only to request for direction to references or
                > an
                > altenative discussion group.
                >
                > Compared to the parallel passages in the Synoptic gospels, John 13:
                > 26-27
                > suggest an anti-sacramental bias. I am wondering if Johanine studies
                > have
                > explored this, and if so where such ideas might be found.

                You may wish to join and raise your question on the Johannine Literature
                Discussion List at:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/

                You might also want to consult the bibliography on this passage in such
                recent commentaries on GJohn by Beasey-Murray and Craig Keener.

                But I'm curious to know how you define "sacramental bias" and why you
                see Jn 13 as suggesting an "anti-sacamental" one.

                Jeffrey Gibson





                >
                >
                > Thanks
                >
                > Graham Hagens
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > SPONSORED LINKS
                >
                Near Columbia university University of helsinki

                > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >
                > + Visit your group "ANE-2" on the web.
                >
                > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                > Service.
                >
                > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                Chicago, Illinois
                e-mail jgibson000@...



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: ANE-2 In Further Response To: Graham Hagens On: John 13:26-27 From: Bruce To previous suggestions, I would like to add links to two AAR/SBL 1999 papers by
                Message 7 of 19 , Jun 4, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: ANE-2
                  In Further Response To: Graham Hagens
                  On: John 13:26-27
                  From: Bruce

                  To previous suggestions, I would like to add links to two AAR/SBL 1999
                  papers by Horace Jeffery Hodges, both of which discuss the John passage in
                  question toward the end. Also included is a further link to Felix Just's
                  Johannine Literature Web, which may be a useful forum in which to further
                  pursue the original question.

                  http://catholic-resources.org/John/SBL1999-Hodges.html

                  http://catholic-resources.org/John/SBL1999-HodgesA.html

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                • Robert Whiting
                  ... Yes, there is doubtless a difference between cultivation and domestication. Presumably domestication occurred after cultivation began by selecting the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 4, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, DAVID HALL wrote:

                    > RE: Robert Whiting's comment:
                    >
                    > Perhaps there was a confusion between the terms domestication and
                    > cultivation. To cultivate implies "production of food by preparing the
                    > land to grow crops". This might mean planting a seed after scratching
                    > the ground with a stick and dropping seeds into the loosened soil.

                    Yes, there is doubtless a difference between cultivation and
                    domestication. Presumably domestication occurred after cultivation began
                    by selecting the seeds of the best suited grain for cultivation leading
                    eventually to the domesticated variety.

                    > The article about figs indicated that the figs were evidence of human
                    > cultivation without providing details or proof of how the author
                    > determined the figs were planted by hand or gathered from fig trees
                    > growing wild.

                    The BBC article posted by Jim West is better in this respect than the NPR
                    article. To quote from the BBC article
                    (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5038116.stm):

                    After examining the figs, they [the authors] determined that it was a
                    self-pollinating, or parthenocarpic, variety, like the kind we eat
                    today.

                    In nature, parthenocarpic fig trees appear now and again by a chance
                    genetic mutation; but because they do not produce seeds, they cannot
                    reproduce alone - they require a shoot to be removed and replanted.

                    Ofer Bar-Yosef, an archaeologist from Harvard University and an author
                    on the Science paper, said: "Once the parthenocarpic mutation occurred,
                    humans must have recognised that the resulting fruits do not produce new
                    trees, and fig tree cultivation became a common practice.

                    "In this intentional act of planting a specific variant of fig tree, we
                    can see the beginnings of agriculture. This edible fig would not have
                    survived if not for human intervention."

                    One needs to know that the parthenocarpic mutation is tastier than the
                    wild fig an hence was selected by humans for cultivation. The
                    parthenocarpic variety cannot be fertilized and can only be propagated by
                    cultivation. Cultivation by transplanting a shoot from the original tree,
                    however, is very simple.

                    > Whether the figs were thought to be hybrids from natural cross
                    > pollination or pollination by hand. The fig was usually pollinated by a
                    > wasp. When the fig was unpollinated it may have been scratched/dressed
                    > to enhance a ripening without pollination. This was a form of
                    > agricultural technology but not cultivation.

                    The parthenocarpic variety cannot be pollinated, neither by wasps nor by
                    humans. The seeds lack embryos. Interestingly, wasps were found in the
                    figs (I have now had a chance to see the original article in Science
                    rather than the news reports of it; this provides a much more detailed
                    background).

                    > James Mellaart studied the Neolithic of upper Syria and Anatolia. He
                    > cited a study where wild emmer not cultivated was gathered by hand in
                    > great quantities. Such seed may have been stored in unfired clay silos
                    > from early dates without any cultivation having occurred.
                    > Domestication of numerous plants and animals was thought to have
                    > occurred as early as the Neolithic.

                    Almost certainly as early as the neolithic. The existence of villages
                    implies cultivation (permanent settlements in the vicinity of an assured
                    food supply). While it is usually fairly easy to tell the difference
                    between seeds from wild and domesticated plants, there is nothing to prove
                    that wild plants were not being cultivated (rather than simply gathered
                    where they occurred). Indeed, it is the consensus that cultivation led to
                    domestication. The real question is how long it took.

                    <snip>


                    Bob Whiting
                    whiting@...
                  • Mikey Brass
                    Some further references on plant domestication which are very worthwhile for interested parties to read: Kusimba, S. 2005. What Is a Hunter-Gatherer? Variation
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jun 4, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Some further references on plant domestication which are very worthwhile
                      for interested parties to read:

                      Kusimba, S. 2005. What Is a Hunter-Gatherer? Variation in the
                      Archaeological Record of Eastern and Southern Africa. Journal of
                      Archaeological Research 13, 337-366.

                      Terrell, J., Hart, J., Barut, S., Cellinese, N., Curet, A., Denham, T.,
                      Kusimba, C., Latinis, K., Oka, R., Palka, J., Pohl, M., Pope, K.,
                      Williams, P., Haines, H. and Staller, S. 2003. Domesticated Landscapes:
                      The Subsistence Ecology of Plant and Animal Domestication. Journal of
                      Archaeological Method and Theory 10, 323-368.

                      Haaland, R. 1995. Sedentism, cultivation, and Plant Domestication in the
                      Holocene Middle Nile Region. Journal of Field Archaeology 22, 157-174.

                      With regards to David Hall's post. The earliest evidence for controlled
                      fire comes from Member III at Swartkrans, South Africa, dated to c. 1.2 mya.

                      --
                      Best, Mikey Brass
                      MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
                      "The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
                      Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"

                      - !ke e: /xarra //ke
                      ("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
                    • Graham Hagens
                      Thanks to all for references and links. ... When the author of a Gospel fails to mention a symbolic ritual ( this is my body... )of central importance to the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jun 4, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks to all for references and links.

                        Jeffrey B. Gibson asked:

                        >But I'm curious to know how you define "sacramental bias" and why you
                        >see Jn 13 as suggesting an "anti-sacamental" one.

                        When the author of a Gospel fails to mention a symbolic ritual ('this is my
                        body...')of central importance to the Synoptic writers and the 1st century
                        church (1 Cor 10:17), but presents instead an inversion in which Satan
                        rather than the Holy Spirit enters in with the bread and wine, one has to
                        wonder why. Had it become necessary by the 2nd century to remind readers
                        that praxis alone does not sanctify ritual? I look forward to reading the
                        research.

                        Graham Hagens
                      • DAVID HALL
                        I am not sure if the discovery of parthenocarpic figs indicates a cultivated variety or naturally occurring parthenocarpic tree that happened by chance. Wild
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jun 4, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I am not sure if the discovery of parthenocarpic figs indicates a cultivated variety or naturally occurring parthenocarpic tree that happened by chance.

                          Wild oats, barley, and acorns are indications of either gathering activities or cultivation.

                          It is likely that there was some sort of agricultural acitivity by 11,000 BP as this was about the time studies indicated people were domesticating sheep in the area of the Shanidar Cave, Northern Iraq c. 11,000 BP. It was speculated that there were alot more male lamb bones in the settlement than ewe lamb bone remains indicating the culling of males in order to keep more females for the greater milk and lamb production of the flock. If the people were hunting rather than herding, then they wanted to eat the males more than the females to preserve the flock; as only one male was required to mate with many females to continue the life of the flock.

                          Villages indicate sedentary activity dependent on rich gathering/hunting grounds or the added advantage of cultivation or other advanced agricultural processes.

                          David Q. Hall
                          dqhall@...





                          Robert Whiting <whiting@...> wrote:
                          On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, DAVID HALL wrote:

                          > RE: Robert Whiting's comment:
                          >
                          > Perhaps there was a confusion between the terms domestication and
                          > cultivation. To cultivate implies "production of food by preparing the
                          > land to grow crops". This might mean planting a seed after scratching
                          > the ground with a stick and dropping seeds into the loosened soil.

                          Yes, there is doubtless a difference between cultivation and
                          domestication. Presumably domestication occurred after cultivation began
                          by selecting the seeds of the best suited grain for cultivation leading
                          eventually to the domesticated variety.

                          > The article about figs indicated that the figs were evidence of human
                          > cultivation without providing details or proof of how the author
                          > determined the figs were planted by hand or gathered from fig trees
                          > growing wild.

                          The BBC article posted by Jim West is better in this respect than the NPR
                          article. To quote from the BBC article
                          (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5038116.stm):

                          After examining the figs, they [the authors] determined that it was a
                          self-pollinating, or parthenocarpic, variety, like the kind we eat
                          today.

                          In nature, parthenocarpic fig trees appear now and again by a chance
                          genetic mutation; but because they do not produce seeds, they cannot
                          reproduce alone - they require a shoot to be removed and replanted.

                          Ofer Bar-Yosef, an archaeologist from Harvard University and an author
                          on the Science paper, said: "Once the parthenocarpic mutation occurred,
                          humans must have recognised that the resulting fruits do not produce new
                          trees, and fig tree cultivation became a common practice.

                          "In this intentional act of planting a specific variant of fig tree, we
                          can see the beginnings of agriculture. This edible fig would not have
                          survived if not for human intervention."

                          One needs to know that the parthenocarpic mutation is tastier than the
                          wild fig an hence was selected by humans for cultivation. The
                          parthenocarpic variety cannot be fertilized and can only be propagated by
                          cultivation. Cultivation by transplanting a shoot from the original tree,
                          however, is very simple.

                          > Whether the figs were thought to be hybrids from natural cross
                          > pollination or pollination by hand. The fig was usually pollinated by a
                          > wasp. When the fig was unpollinated it may have been scratched/dressed
                          > to enhance a ripening without pollination. This was a form of
                          > agricultural technology but not cultivation.

                          The parthenocarpic variety cannot be pollinated, neither by wasps nor by
                          humans. The seeds lack embryos. Interestingly, wasps were found in the
                          figs (I have now had a chance to see the original article in Science
                          rather than the news reports of it; this provides a much more detailed
                          background).

                          > James Mellaart studied the Neolithic of upper Syria and Anatolia. He
                          > cited a study where wild emmer not cultivated was gathered by hand in
                          > great quantities. Such seed may have been stored in unfired clay silos
                          > from early dates without any cultivation having occurred.
                          > Domestication of numerous plants and animals was thought to have
                          > occurred as early as the Neolithic.

                          Almost certainly as early as the neolithic. The existence of villages
                          implies cultivation (permanent settlements in the vicinity of an assured
                          food supply). While it is usually fairly easy to tell the difference
                          between seeds from wild and domesticated plants, there is nothing to prove
                          that wild plants were not being cultivated (rather than simply gathered
                          where they occurred). Indeed, it is the consensus that cultivation led to
                          domestication. The real question is how long it took.

                          <snip>


                          Bob Whiting
                          whiting@...
                        • Ariel L. Szczupak
                          The recent talk of figs reminded me of the pictures I took to illustrate that fig trees bear fruit twice a year. I took them after the claim of figs being a
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jun 4, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The recent talk of figs reminded me of the pictures I took to
                            illustrate that fig trees bear fruit twice a year. I took them after
                            the claim of figs being a "summer fruit" came up several times in the
                            ANE-1 list (e.g. the "niqqu" thread). Marc Cooper was kind enough to
                            put them in the Photos section of list and you can find them in the
                            "figs" album.

                            The pictures are of the same branch of a "wild" fig tree that started
                            growing in my building's garden. The file names include the dates the
                            pictures were taken (March, July, October & February). The tree is of
                            the variety commonly found in the Jerusalem area and in most of the
                            country, the variety that was, and is, cultivated in Arab villages,
                            and is also available commercially in agricultural nurseries.

                            The dates in which the fruits form and ripen change from year to year
                            and depend on the weather and on the available water. The fruits of
                            the first cycle, the main one that starts early spring, are usually
                            gone (picked, fallen, eaten by birds) by the beginning of summer
                            (though some stay attached to the tree for months, or even to the
                            next year). By mid summer (July & August) there are no fruits on the
                            tree. The second cycle starts in September or October, depending on
                            the conditions.



                            Ariel.

                            [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                            ---
                            Ariel L. Szczupak
                            AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                            POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
                            Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                            ane.als@...
                          • David Hall
                            I took a photo of a ripening fig in September 2003 on the side of Tell Lachish and posted it to a web page: http://home.att.net/~bibarch/fig_tree.htm I recall
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jun 5, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I took a photo of a ripening fig in September 2003 on the side of Tell Lachish and posted it to a web page: http://home.att.net/~bibarch/fig_tree.htm

                              I recall ripe figs were available in the Souk of Jerusalem during Rosh Hashana in September. I thought the first and second cyle of figs may have varied from tree to tree and varied according to location and yearly climate changes.

                              In the Talmud there were a few references to eating unripe figs that were available by the time of the Passover.

                              David Q. Hall
                              dqhall@...


                              "Ariel L. Szczupak" <ane.als@...> wrote:
                              The recent talk of figs reminded me of the pictures I took to
                              illustrate that fig trees bear fruit twice a year. I took them after
                              the claim of figs being a "summer fruit" came up several times in the
                              ANE-1 list (e.g. the "niqqu" thread). Marc Cooper was kind enough to
                              put them in the Photos section of list and you can find them in the
                              "figs" album.

                              The pictures are of the same branch of a "wild" fig tree that started
                              growing in my building's garden. The file names include the dates the
                              pictures were taken (March, July, October & February). The tree is of
                              the variety commonly found in the Jerusalem area and in most of the
                              country, the variety that was, and is, cultivated in Arab villages,
                              and is also available commercially in agricultural nurseries.

                              The dates in which the fruits form and ripen change from year to year
                              and depend on the weather and on the available water. The fruits of
                              the first cycle, the main one that starts early spring, are usually
                              gone (picked, fallen, eaten by birds) by the beginning of summer
                              (though some stay attached to the tree for months, or even to the
                              next year). By mid summer (July & August) there are no fruits on the
                              tree. The second cycle starts in September or October, depending on
                              the conditions.



                              Ariel.

                              [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                              ---
                              Ariel L. Szczupak
                              AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                              POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
                              Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                              ane.als@...



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Mikey Brass
                              The January-February release Comptes Rendus Palevol. (volume 5, issues 1-2) contain articles which will be of interest to list members. The articles include
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jun 6, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                The January-February release Comptes Rendus Palevol. (volume 5, issues
                                1-2) contain articles which will be of interest to list members. The
                                articles include "Inception of agriculture and rearing in the Middle
                                East" by Colin Renfrew.

                                URL:
                                http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%237242%232006%23999949998%23623385%23FLA%23&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000038799&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=696278&md5=56fd5d738d41fdf43878a97a3388bd4c

                                Regards,
                                Mike Brass
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.