One Butt and Two Asses for Jesus
The gospel writers played fast and loose with the writings of the Old Testament Prophets in order to cobble together a narrative for Jesus the Messiah.
It has long been noted that the authors of the gospels were dependent upon scattered verses in the Old Testament as inspiration for their story. For instance virtually the entire passion narrative of Mark's gospel is cobbled together from OT verses, and virtually nothing appears within it which doesn't have an OT source antecedent. Christians have historically insisted that the close relation between the narrative and the OT texts was due to a direct fulfillment of prophetic expectation which proves that Jesus was the predicted Messiah. The problem comes when one examines the OT verses used and notices that they were wrenched out of their context by the gospel writers.
Sometimes, the use of the OT texts by the gospel writers results in absurdity. One example which clearly shows that the incident related in a gospel was based upon an OT text rather than an actual event is the story of Jesus making his not so triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Let us look at the OT test and see what the gospel writers did with it.
Our text for the day comes from Zechariah 9:9
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion.
See, your king comes to you righteous,
and having salvation,
humble and riding on an ass,
on a colt, the foal of a ass."
In its context, the whole of Zechariah's message deriving ostensibly from his exile in Persia is that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem by Zerubbabel, God will return his presence, He will protect his people, and He will destroy the enemies who surround them. Zechariah was heavily used by the gospel writers as source inspiration. Coincidentally, the second temple High Priest mentioned in Zechariah is named Joshua (Jesus) Zech 3:1. The figure in the verse above comes in the context of God portrayed as the divine warrior. Whether or not this verse has Messianic import is not the point of this study, but it will be noted that it is an apocalyptic statement which results in the establishment of the second temple and the Judean rule over all the earth. It is most definitely not a prophecy of a simple ride into Jerusalem with the inaguration of a spiritual kingdom.
This verse is written in poetry. The Hebraic form which is common throughout the prophets and the Psalms is known as the doublet. The doublet can be recognized when a statement in the primary portion of the verse is followed by a second line which modifies it. For instance, if we created a modern verse in the Hebraic doublet form, we might say:
"To the East I will travel,
and to the sunrise I run."
As a doublet, the meaning is:
"I am going East,
That is to say, toward the sunrise.
The Zechariah text is stating in two doublets,
"The king is righteous,
That is to say, he has salvation.
He is humbly riding on an ass,
That is to say, on a colt, the foal of an ass."
Now let us see what the author of Matthew's gospel does with this. He writes:
"Jesus sent two disciples, sayint unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if anyone say anything unto you, you shall say, The Lord has need of them; and immediately he will send them. now this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet saying,
Tell you daughter of Zion, Behold your king comes unto you, meek and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
And the disciples went, and did as Jesus told them, and brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their garments, and he sat thereon." Matt: 21:2-7
Matthew, not understanding Hebraic poetry and the use of the modifying doublet turned Zechariah's ass into two animals, an ass and a foal. Then he had the disciples rig up an ersatz saddle and had Jesus ride on both at once.
One can almost imagine the conversation between Jesus and the disciples which Matthew didn't record:
Jesus: Hey, great work guys. Those asses are just what I need to ride into town.
Peter: But master, why do you need two?
Jesus: I'm not sure, but the prophet said I have to ride both of them.
Peter: Maybe it's so you have a spare in case one breaks down.
Jesus: No more backtalk Peter. Just rig up some way for me to ride them.
Peter: But master, we have two asses and you only have one butt. How are we going to pull this off?
Jesus: Maybe we can tie them together real tight and I can get half my butt onto both asses.
Peter: Have you given any thought as to how silly this will look when artists in future centuries try to paint this scene?
Satire aside, it is obvious that Matthew constructed this absurdity first from Mark, who got it right originally and understood that only one animal was intended in Zechariah. But Matthew wanted to be sure the fulfillment matched that which he thought the text intended, so he added an extra ass. Why? Because he didn't understand the form of the text which was his narrative launching pad.
It has long been noted that the authors of the gospels were dependent upon scattered verses in the Old Testament as inspiration for their story. For instance virtually the entire passion narrative of Mark's gospel is cobbled together from OT verses, and virtually nothing appears within it which doesn't have an OT source antecedent. Christians have historically insisted that the close relation between the narrative and the OT texts was due to a direct fulfillment of prophetic expectation which proves that Jesus was the predicted Messiah. The problem comes when one examines the OT verses used and notices that they were wrenched out of their context by the gospel writers.
Sometimes, the use of the OT texts by the gospel writers results in absurdity. One example which clearly shows that the incident related in a gospel was based upon an OT text rather than an actual event is the story of Jesus making his not so triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Let us look at the OT test and see what the gospel writers did with it.
Our text for the day comes from Zechariah 9:9
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion.
See, your king comes to you righteous,
and having salvation,
humble and riding on an ass,
on a colt, the foal of a ass."
In its context, the whole of Zechariah's message deriving ostensibly from his exile in Persia is that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem by Zerubbabel, God will return his presence, He will protect his people, and He will destroy the enemies who surround them. Zechariah was heavily used by the gospel writers as source inspiration. Coincidentally, the second temple High Priest mentioned in Zechariah is named Joshua (Jesus) Zech 3:1. The figure in the verse above comes in the context of God portrayed as the divine warrior. Whether or not this verse has Messianic import is not the point of this study, but it will be noted that it is an apocalyptic statement which results in the establishment of the second temple and the Judean rule over all the earth. It is most definitely not a prophecy of a simple ride into Jerusalem with the inaguration of a spiritual kingdom.
This verse is written in poetry. The Hebraic form which is common throughout the prophets and the Psalms is known as the doublet. The doublet can be recognized when a statement in the primary portion of the verse is followed by a second line which modifies it. For instance, if we created a modern verse in the Hebraic doublet form, we might say:
"To the East I will travel,
and to the sunrise I run."
As a doublet, the meaning is:
"I am going East,
That is to say, toward the sunrise.
The Zechariah text is stating in two doublets,
"The king is righteous,
That is to say, he has salvation.
He is humbly riding on an ass,
That is to say, on a colt, the foal of an ass."
Now let us see what the author of Matthew's gospel does with this. He writes:
"Jesus sent two disciples, sayint unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if anyone say anything unto you, you shall say, The Lord has need of them; and immediately he will send them. now this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet saying,
Tell you daughter of Zion, Behold your king comes unto you, meek and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
And the disciples went, and did as Jesus told them, and brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their garments, and he sat thereon." Matt: 21:2-7
Matthew, not understanding Hebraic poetry and the use of the modifying doublet turned Zechariah's ass into two animals, an ass and a foal. Then he had the disciples rig up an ersatz saddle and had Jesus ride on both at once.
One can almost imagine the conversation between Jesus and the disciples which Matthew didn't record:
Jesus: Hey, great work guys. Those asses are just what I need to ride into town.
Peter: But master, why do you need two?
Jesus: I'm not sure, but the prophet said I have to ride both of them.
Peter: Maybe it's so you have a spare in case one breaks down.
Jesus: No more backtalk Peter. Just rig up some way for me to ride them.
Peter: But master, we have two asses and you only have one butt. How are we going to pull this off?
Jesus: Maybe we can tie them together real tight and I can get half my butt onto both asses.
Peter: Have you given any thought as to how silly this will look when artists in future centuries try to paint this scene?
Satire aside, it is obvious that Matthew constructed this absurdity first from Mark, who got it right originally and understood that only one animal was intended in Zechariah. But Matthew wanted to be sure the fulfillment matched that which he thought the text intended, so he added an extra ass. Why? Because he didn't understand the form of the text which was his narrative launching pad.
45 comments:
Excellent Bart! For an overview of this problem see here.
Why would you assume Zechariah 9:9 is written in poetry?
Jason,
Three things,
1. Most of the rest of the 9th chapter is written in poetry also.
2. The use of doublets
3. Most OT translators including Jewish expositors consider it poetry. Check out up to date versions of the Bible. Many of them set off the poetic paragraphs with indents.
Do you have a problem with it being poetic?
1. Most of the rest of the 9th chapter is written in poetry also.
Says who?
2. The use of doublets
The use of doublets only works if it's actually poetic. If it's not, Zechariah is talking about two animals.
3. Most OT translators including Jewish expositors consider it poetry. Check out up to date versions of the Bible. Many of them set off the poetic paragraphs with indents.
None of the commentaries I've read consider this section of Zechariah to be poetic. As the first verse mentions, this chapter is a "burden of the word of the Lord". This chapter is an "oracle" or "prophecy", the same as chapter 12.
Do you have a problem with it being poetic?
I do because there's no reason to assume it is.
I remember a Lutheran Sunday school leaflet when I was young that pictured Jesus seated side-saddle on one covered animal (the adult ass) with his feet one the second smaller covered (colt) like one would sit on stair steps.
This is like the Temptation of Matt. 4 where Jesus is on the high “pinnacle of the Temple” (we are not told how Jesus got on the roof ), so he could be tempted in the first place.
Although James 4:7 plainly states: “Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” Jesus seems to have followed Satan for awhile …to the Temple’s pinnacle (as if he could not have simply been questioned by Satan in the wilderness), and then Jesus again follows Satan to “a very high mountain and showed ALL the kingdoms of the world, and their glory;” which Jesus can have if only he will worship the devil.
So, in this flat earth context, if we can just get up high enough, we can (like Jesus) see the entire earth, plus Jesus saw in DETAIL each country and its riches; all this with out the aid of a telescope!
But, hey bro! This is Jesus we are talking about and this is the Bible and, as the saying of faith goes: “With God, all things are possible.” (Sorry I sinned by being logical with physics!)
But, I just proved the Bible is TRUE! True in that God has indeed “chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” (1 Corth. 1:27).
It’s like the time an atheist told a fundamentalist Baptist that “Nothing in the Bible is true.” At which time the Baptist grabbed the atheist by the nose a twisted it until it bleed and then quoted his K.J.V. proof text of Proverbs 30:33: “Wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood.”
Jason,
I'm curious. Did you ever study Hebrew? Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? While not an expert in Hebrew, I studied it for a year. It might surprise you to know that quite a lot of the OT psalters, wisdom literature, and prophetic utterances are in poetic form.
Jewish poetry doesn't rhyme. It is recognizable by rhythm and doublets.
Let me give you a source. earlyjewishwritings.com
click on Zechariah. Click on Bible gateway. Go to Zechariah chapter nine. You will clearly see how the prophetic procamation is divided into poetry.
But for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is not poetic and that two animals are intended. Then Mark got it wrong. Now what are you going to do? The two gospels contradict each other.
My friend, you are out of your league on this one. The more you write, the more ignorant you will appear.
Bart Willruth
Excellent.
Bart and Shygetz have a style of writing that invokes a single response from me every time:
"What he said."
None of the commentaries I've read consider this section of Zechariah to be poetic.
Let me refer back to my Harper-Collins Study Bible (NRSV) 1st ed, which hearkens back to my days as an undergrad in my Origins of the New Testament course.
"Two Gospels (Mt 21.2-7; Jn 12.14-15) cite this text in their accounts of Palm Sunday, but the Matthean version fails to take into consideration the parallelism of the Hebrew poetry (donkey is equivalent to colt) when it has Jesus riding on two donkeys at once."
As scholarly as the Harper-Collins Study Bible is, I have always been of the opinion that if you have a question on the Hebrew Bible, you ask the Hebrews. In Tanakh, a new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text 1st special format edition, Zechariah 9 is formatted as poetry starting with "He will reside in the land of Hadrach...".
Having a Jewish wife is SO convenient sometimes.
You need assume no longer, Jason. Sweet evidence has rescued you!
Yes, this is one of the classical examples of how the Bible is not "inerrant." Forget the Old Testament, if you look at Mark and Matthew the stories are simply inconsistent.
This is the point at which fundamentalists try to "reconcile" the stories. But the "reconciliation" is so pathetic that I become embarrassed for the fundamentalist. I feel like saying "dude, have some dignity. Please don't do this."
Interestingly, one can "reconcile" any story, not just stories in the Bible.
In Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Study in Scarlet," Dr. Watson says that "I was struck on the shoulder by a Jezail bullet, which shattered the bone and grazed the subclavian artery."
But then, in "The Sign of Four," Dr. Watson says "I made no remark, however, but sat nursing my wounded leg. I had had a Jezail bullet through it some time before, and though it did not prevent me from walking it ached wearily at every change of the weather."
The diligent Sherlockians have developed two theories. First, that there was not one, but two wounds, on separate occasions. (Comparable to the fundamentalist assertion that there were two Triumphal Entries, the first involving one donkey, the second involving two donkeys. That explanation brings tears to the eyes of all rational people.)
The second theory is more clever. Dr. Watson was stricken with some sickness, at which point he was draped over a pack animal. Then, in that condition he was struck with a bullet that both passed through the shoulder, the pack animal, and the leg. Thus, one bullet accounts for both wounds.
In other words, just because someone can "reconcile" two apparently contradictory texts, that means absolutely nothing. Sure, you can end up with an inerrant Bible, but you can also end up with an inerrant Sherlock Holmes, or an inerrant New York Times. So what?
Jason, Zechariah 9:9 is standard Semitic parallelism and can be found in any text from the ancient Near East form the cuneiform texts in Akkadian and Hittite to the more recent alphabetic text of Phoenician, Ugaritic, Aramaic and Hebrew.
This parallelism can and does take the place in poetry such as the Ugaritic (Canaanite) poem of AQHT and, like the Hebrew Bible, Ugartic myths are in prose and poetry such as the Baal Cycle (KTU 1 of which the poem of AQUT is part KTU 1.17-19).
Matthew’s failure to understand Semitic parallelisms and poetry for this verse is well know and noted by major New Testament scholars such a the late Bruce Metzger and now Bart Ehrman.
I have visited J.P.Holding’s apologetic explanation for this section of Matt. at his Tektonic website and must say he spends several pages in doing tortured eisigesis where he only fools himself.
There are at least 2 VERY PLAUSIBLE explainations for what you claim is a contradiction. They are outlined as follows:
1.
Zechariah’s prophecy actually mentions two donkeys (even though only one is stated as transporting the King to Jerusalem). The prophet wrote: “Behold, your King is coming to you…lowly and riding on a donkey [male], a colt, the foal of a donkey [female]” (Zechariah 9:9). In this verse, Zechariah used Hebrew poetic parallelism (the balancing of thought in successive lines of poetry). The terms male donkey, colt, and foal all designate the same animal—the young donkey upon which the King (Jesus) would ride into Jerusalem (Mark 11:7). Interestingly, even though the colt was the animal of primary importance, Zechariah also mentioned that this donkey was the foal of a female donkey. One might assume that Zechariah merely was stating the obvious when mentioning the mother’s existence. However, when Matthew’s gospel is taken into account, the elusive female donkey of Zechariah 9:9 is brought to light. Both the foal and the female donkey were brought to Christ at Mount Olivet, and both made the trip to Jerusalem. Since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew). The journey to Jerusalem, with multitudes of people in front of and behind Jesus and the donkeys (Matthew 21:8-9), obviously would have been much easier for the colt if the mother donkey were led nearby down the same road.
Also notice that Mark, Luke, and John did not say that only one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that only one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. The fact that Mark, Luke, and John mention one young donkey does not mean there were not two.
2.
Greek scholar A.T. Robertson believed that the second “them” (Greek αυτων) refers to the garments that the disciples laid on the donkeys, and not to the donkeys themselves. In commenting on Matthew 21:7 he stated: “The garments thrown on the animals were the outer garments (himatia), Jesus ‘took his seat’ (epekathisen) upon the garments” (1930, 1:167).
Matthew’s word order reads: “they put on the donkeys clothes.” The American Standard Version, among others (KJV, RSV, and NASB) is more literal in its translation of this verse than is the NKJV. It indicates that the disciples “brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon” (Matthew 21:7, ASV; cf. RSV, KJV, NASB). When Matthew wrote that Jesus sat “on them,” he easily could have intended for his readers to understand this “them” to refer to the clothes, and not to the donkeys. If the disciples’ clothes were placed on both donkeys (as Matthew indicated), and then Jesus mounted the colt, one logically could conclude that Jesus sat on the clothes (which were placed upon the colt)
I tend to lean toward the fact that all events occurred, 2 donkeys, One that was older, representing the OT, one that was newer which no man had riden representing the NT and clothes on the one that Jesus rode.
At either rate, the account is in no way contradictory and easily explainable regardless of the prose that was used.
You're getting simpler and simpler as time goes by.
Thanks...nice try though.
Bart,
I don't need to study Hebrew; a concordance is a wonderful thing. So yes, I do have a clue what I'm talking about.
Jewish poetry doesn't rhyme. It is recognizable by rhythm and doublets.
But Zechariach 9:9 isn't a doublet if it's not poetry. And I'm not sure what kind of "rhythm" you think this particular verse has that qualifies it as poetry...?
Let me give you a source. earlyjewishwritings.com
click on Zechariah.
Yes, it would seem they agree with my thought: Zechariah 9 is a "massa" (or burden). Nothing about it being poetry.
Click on Bible gateway. Go to Zechariah chapter nine. You will clearly see how the prophetic procamation is divided into poetry.
I see indents. Is this your "proof", even after having studied Hebrew, that Zechariahh 9:9 is poetry...? Click on Blueletterbible or the Kings James Version. I clearly see no indents.
But for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is not poetic and that two animals are intended. Then Mark got it wrong. Now what are you going to do? The two gospels contradict each other.
How does Mark get it wrong?
I want to nominate Harvey for the annual Rube Goldberg award! I bet he could develop a 40 step process for sharpening a pencil.
Really, one ass representing the Old Testament and a second ass representing the New Testament? Come to think of it, that does seem apropos in a wierd sort of way.
Bart Willruth
Jason,
Asking me to take note that the King James Version doesn't arrange Zech 9:9 poetically is like suggesting Copernicus as a helpful read to a Nasa trajectory specialist. The KJV translators tried hard, but their product leaves a lot to be desired.
Asking me to take note that the King James Version doesn't arrange Zech 9:9 poetically is like suggesting Copernicus as a helpful read to a Nasa trajectory specialist.
Precisely my point. So how are indents in a 20th century translation "proof" that Zechariah 9:9 is poetry?
Jason,
I'm simply trying to point out to you that modern translators are more aware of the nuances of literary styles and attempt to reflect them in the translations.
I would suggest to you that you might want to go to the website
ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com
go to zechariah 9.pdf for a full discussion on the style, translation, and meaning in context of Zech 9:9. It is an excellent exegesis by John Hobbins
I'm simply trying to point out to you that modern translators are more aware of the nuances of literary styles and attempt to reflect them in the translations.
And I'm just pointing out that your proof that Zechariah 9:9 is poetry is based on your opinion of which translation is more accurate. In other words, there's nothing in the text itself that suggests we should treat this section as poetry. Matthew agreed. He took Zechariah's words as literal - and rightly so.
The distinction between Hebrew prose and poetry is notoriously difficult to make so one can't be dogmatic about this one verse being poetic. And since Matthew is innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how it can be proven he's incorrectly referenced this section of Scripture.
Jason,
I take it that you didn't go to the website I suggested to you.
Part of Matthew's problem was that he was using the LXX which mistranslated the original Hebrew text. Please go to the website I gave you. It lays out the Hebrew side by side with the Greek LXX and shows the English translation for both for those who do not have familiarity with the languages.
It shouldn't be a surprise to you that a NT writer would find himself in a problem because of his dependence on the LXX. After all, the virgin birth "fulfillment" is based on the same kind of mistranslation by the LXX.
Jason
Allow me to point out a problem. You are, because of preconceived beliefs, unable to objectively examine an issue in a way which may overturn your confidence in the authority and accuracy of Bible writers.
There is an underlying premise in your thinking that the NT Bible writer has controlling authority over the true meaning of an OT text. This presupposition makes it impossible to look at the OT text in its original form or intent. No matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, the NT writer is the final arbiter.
If the NT writer misuses an OT text, no problem, he is expressing the real intent. With this hermentutic, the most glaring problems can be interpreted away, thus keeping safe your precious doctrine of inspiration.
I don't need to study Hebrew; a concordance is a wonderful thing.
And thus Jason's "expertise" is explained fully. You just revealed yourself as a fool, Jason, if you think a concordance is a substitute for knowledge of the language.
The Jews (you know, the ones who actually speak Hebrew and wrote the OT) say Zechariah 9:9 is poetry. But you believe your concordance over them. Nice.
Shygetz,
I never said a concordance is a substitute for knowledge of the language. I also never said I believe my concordance over Jews.
The Jewish Encyclopedia (the same ones who speak Hebrew) say Zechariah "is distinguished from his contemporaries by the "gift of plain speech". The plain speech of 9:9 is that he's talking about two animals. They make no mention of Zechariah 9 containing poetry. It would seem then there's some disagreement amongst Jews about what is poetic and what isn't.
Jason
Please, just answer a simple question.
Could Matthew have been wrong about anything he wrote? Yes...no...
Bart,
I visited the website you suggested and found this:
"Whether Jesus mounted a single animal, as John has it, or two animals (in succession, one might infer), as Matthew has it, is a matter that cannot be decided by determining what the author of Zech 9:9 had in mind when he wrote what he did."
This kind of speaks for itself.
Allow me to point out a problem. You are, because of preconceived beliefs, unable to objectively examine an issue in a way which may overturn your confidence in the authority and accuracy of Bible writers.
What's the issue? Whether Zechariah was talking about two animals or one can't be decided.
And in answer to your question, I, along with the majority of Christianity, believe the Bible was inspired by God so the answer is no. But don't let that get in your way of proving otherwise :)
Jason
Thanks for reading the website I suggested. I wish only that you had understood it. The author was carefully exegeting the meaning in context of Zech 9:9. You managed to excise out part of a sentence indicating that nothing from Zechariah can be used to determine whether Jesus rode one animal or two. OF COURSE NOT! The writer of Zechariah is clearly speaking of one animal. He wasn't seeing the future. Nothing within Zechariah can determine whether Jesus rode one ass, two asses, or a Yugo. What the writer of Matthew made of Zechariah was his own creation. He misunderstood Zechariah when creating his "fulfillment" but that doesn't change the original meaning of Zech 9:9.
You have honestly stated that NO, Matthew could not have been in error because he was divinely inspired.
How did you conclude that he was inspired? The author doesn't claim this. He doesn't even identify himself.
Once you conclude that inspiration equals inerrancy, how can you ever re-examine your beliefs? How do you know they are true?
At any rate, your a priori presumption of inerrancy precludes any possibility of carrying out a meaningful discussion. But you should be aware, any proposition which does not have the potential of falsification also does not have the potential of verification. You cannot know whether or not your conclusion is correct. It is arbitrary.
Have a nice day
Bart,
I understand that the author of the site you suggested doesn't think one can determine if Zechariah is talking about one animal or two. It seems pretty straight forward to me.
You managed to excise out part of a sentence indicating that nothing from Zechariah can be used to determine whether Jesus rode one animal or two. OF COURSE NOT! The writer of Zechariah is clearly speaking of one animal.
If nothing in Zechariah can be used to determine whether Jesus rode one animal or two, how can you conclude he's "clearly" speaking of one animal?
He wasn't seeing the future.
Why not?
Nothing within Zechariah can determine whether Jesus rode one ass, two asses, or a Yugo.
Er, why wouldn't you just look at the Hebrew word for "donkey"? Does it refer to a donkey or a Yugo?
What the writer of Matthew made of Zechariah was his own creation. He misunderstood Zechariah when creating his "fulfillment" but that doesn't change the original meaning of Zech 9:9.
Matthew understood Zechariah perfectly. Two animals. It's right there in the text.
You have honestly stated that NO, Matthew could not have been in error because he was divinely inspired. How did you conclude that he was inspired? The author doesn't claim this. He doesn't even identify himself.
Because, I like I said, I believe, as most Christians do, the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Once you conclude that inspiration equals inerrancy, how can you ever re-examine your beliefs? How do you know they are true?
Because of arguments like this which try to force errancy without proof. :) I'll re-examine my beliefs when I see an argument that provides justification to do so.
At any rate, your a priori presumption of inerrancy precludes any possibility of carrying out a meaningful discussion. But you should be aware, any proposition which does not have the potential of falsification also does not have the potential of verification. You cannot know whether or not your conclusion is correct. It is arbitrary.
I'm not asking for my conclusion to be correct, I'm just asking for proof your claim is correct, that Matthew got it wrong. Something which obviously can't be found in Zechariah 9:9.
Jason,
I'll try one last time.
Zechariah was speaking of a single animal. The exegete I referred you to argued that fact very forcefully.
Zechariah had no control over what the gospel writers would make of his statement hundreds of years later. The exegete was doing what exegetes do. He was informing us of the original meaning and intent. Then he said that the text had no impact on Matthew's interpretation or on how many animals Jesus rode. That is the proper way to deal with these issues. That Matthew misinterpreted Zechariah has no impact on what Zechariah actually said.
Maybe this still isn't clear enough. The number of animals Jesus might have ridden or whatever understanding Matthew might have had do not in any way impact the original meaning and intent of Zechariah. aaaaaaagh
From your perspective Matthew could not possibly be mistaken; therefore his interpretation is correct. When the conclusion is reached and defended that he cannot be wrong, then no evidence will persuade otherwise. This is true faith; Belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.
jason said: "I never said a concordance is a substitute for knowledge of the language. I also never said I believe my concordance over Jews."
jason also said: "I don't need to study Hebrew; a concordance is a wonderful thing. So yes, I do have a clue what I'm talking about."
Same person, same thread, same day. And yet the self-contradiction didn't cause him to hesitate a bit. Stunning.
jason said: "They make no mention of Zechariah 9 containing poetry."
They also make no mention of Zechariah 9 containing bets; must mean they don't think it exists. Oh, wait, that's right--THEY CAN READ THE F*&KING HEBREW FOR THEMSELVES.
jason said: "The Jewish Encyclopedia (the same ones who speak Hebrew) say Zechariah "is distinguished from his contemporaries by the "gift of plain speech"."
Why did you not link there? Here, let me do it for you. The passage in the Jewish Encyclopedia that you so nicely quote-mine says:
"While Zechariah lacks originality, he is distinguished from his contemporaries by the "gift of plain speech" (G. A. Smith). But while some of the obscurities and repetitions which mark his visions are probably due to other hands, there remain enough of these defects that come from him to indicate that the visions were not the spontaneous outflow of ecstasy, but the labored effort of a strained and artificial imagination."
Obscurities? Defects? Artificial? It's almost as if Zechariah isn't completely plain and straightforward. But, but, that says exactly the opposite of what you say it claims, and in the exact place where you mined your quote. It's almost as if you are *gasp* arguing in bad faith!
jason said: "It would seem then there's some disagreement amongst Jews about what is poetic and what isn't"
Have you cited one Jewish source that says Zachariah 9 is NOT poetry? I have cited the Tanakh itself, which says it is poetry. Read the Tanakh. Don't try to cherry-pick quotations on commentaries on the Tanakh; go read the damn thing. Go ahead. I even provided you with a citation to a well-respected English translation of the Tanakh. Zechariah 9 is in verse, not prose. You claim to believe the Jews, then believe that. They say it is verse.
The scholars say it is verse; indeed, there is really no argument. From "Biblical Texts and Statistical Analysis: Zechariah and Beyond", Journal of Biblical Literature (1984) 103, 11-21, "Finally, the literature in (Zechariah)9-11 is in poetic form, not prose as was the case with much of Zechariah 1-8." Footnoted for this passage is the fact that the poetry is unusual, citing Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 341.
What a waste of my time.
Bart,
1. Zechariah was speaking of a single animal. The exegete I referred you to argued that fact very forcefully.
The exegete states "it cannot be decided by determining what the author of Zech 9:9 had in mind when he wrote what he did." Personally, this logically settles the issue.
2.Zechariah had no control over what the gospel writers would make of his statement hundreds of years later. The exegete was doing what exegetes do. He was informing us of the original meaning and intent. Then he said that the text had no impact on Matthew's interpretation or on how many animals Jesus rode.
I fail to see how anyone could know this other then Matthew.
3. That is the proper way to deal with these issues. That Matthew misinterpreted Zechariah has no impact on what Zechariah actually said.
I've yet to see any evidence that Matthew did misinterpret Zechariah 9:9. You're using an exegesis that clearly states it's not possible to know whether Zechariah meant one animal or two. How then are you coming to the conclusion that Matthew misinterpreted Zechariah by quoting the prophecy as mentioning two animals?
4. From your perspective Matthew could not possibly be mistaken; therefore his interpretation is correct. When the conclusion is reached and defended that he cannot be wrong, then no evidence will persuade otherwise.
The problem is I've yet to see any evidence. You're blaming me for not believing you when you've given me no reason to.
This is true faith; Belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.
What's the contrary evidence when no one can agree whether or not Zechariah 9:9 is poetic?
You're giving Jason grief over the poetry business and if it was or WASN'T the meaning is still the same. Certainly NO LESS THAN ONE donkey was used...Right???
If there were 2 Prophesied by Zech. Which I believe there was for reasons I mentioned...then what do you do BECAUSE either way HE RODE ONE.
As I said before~
The prophet wrote: “Behold, your King is coming to you…lowly and riding on a donkey [male], a colt, the foal of a donkey [female]” (Zechariah 9:9). In this verse, Zechariah used Hebrew poetic parallelism (the balancing of thought in successive lines of poetry). The terms male donkey, colt, and foal all designate the same animal—the young donkey upon which the King (Jesus) would ride into Jerusalem (Mark 11:7). Interestingly, even though the colt was the animal of primary importance, Zechariah also mentioned that this donkey was the foal of a female donkey. One might assume that Zechariah merely was stating the obvious when mentioning the mother’s existence. However, when Matthew’s gospel is taken into account, the elusive female donkey of Zechariah 9:9 is brought to light. Both the foal and the female donkey were brought to Christ at Mount Olivet, and both made the trip to Jerusalem. Since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew).
Mr. Blind Bart...The Mother mentioned WAS the Type of the OLD TESTAMENT which was brought along with Jesus as he RODE UPON THE ONE COLT..offspring of the Mother which was YOUNGER and represented the New Testament that Jesus IS IN CHARGE OF. just in case you forgot and he straddles it THE NT, just as he did the COLT upon which NO MAN HAD EVER RODE.
Whether poetry or not meaining is the same Jesus ONLY rode ONE into Jerusalem in accordance with Prophecy and in full harmony with MATTHEW's actions and THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS...
Whaaaaalaaaa!
Good job Jason...these are the most PRESUMPTUOUS people I've ever encountered and they like everyone to follow their presumptions because it sounds good to them.
The anti-Christ advocates LOOSE again!
Thank YOU!
(Thanks, Harvey Burnett :) )
They also make no mention of Zechariah 9 containing bets; must mean they don't think it exists. Oh, wait, that's right--THEY CAN READ THE F*&KING HEBREW FOR THEMSELVES.
According to Bart, the indents in modern translations are proof the text is poetic but you’re saying it’s the Hebrew text itself. Which is it?
Obscurities? Defects? Artificial? It's almost as if Zechariah isn't completely plain and straightforward. But, but, that says exactly the opposite of what you say it claims, and in the exact place where you mined your quote. It's almost as if you are *gasp* arguing in bad faith!
Er, Zechariah has the “gift of plain speech”. Is this not what the quote says?
Have you cited one Jewish source that says Zachariah 9 is NOT poetry?
Ouch. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
I have cited the Tanakh itself, which says it is poetry. Read the Tanakh.
Sorry but you’ve done nothing of the sort. Neither you nor the Tanakh says Zechariah is poetry. You said your “new translation” is “formatted” as poetry. Did the ancient Hebrew writers indent their phrases to indicate they were poetic?
Don't try to cherry-pick quotations on commentaries on the Tanakh; go read the damn thing. Go ahead. I even provided you with a citation to a well-respected English translation of the Tanakh. Zechariah 9 is in verse, not prose. You claim to believe the Jews, then believe that. They say it is verse.
Er, okay…I don’t see anything in the Tanakh saying “this is poetic”…? Here’s the chapter, in Hebrew. No indents either. Hmmmm…
The scholars say it is verse; indeed, there is really no argument. From "Biblical Texts and Statistical Analysis: Zechariah and Beyond", Journal of Biblical Literature (1984) 103, 11-21, "Finally, the literature in (Zechariah)9-11 is in poetic form, not prose as was the case with much of Zechariah 1-8." Footnoted for this passage is the fact that the poetry is unusual, citing Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 341.
Under the heading, “Division of the Poetical Portions of the Old Testament According to Their Contents:” on the Jewish Encyclopedia site, Zechariah isn’t mentioned. This is odd because if Zechariah did contain poetry, it should be listed here. Also “Although the prophets of Israel inserted poems in their prophecies (Isa. v. 1 et seq.), or adopted occasionally the rhythm of the dirge, which was well known to their readers (Amos v. 2 et seq.), their utterances, aside from the exceptions to be noted, were in the freer rhythm of prose.”
Is Zechariah noted? No. Why? Because Zechariah isn’t poetic. Ah, makes sense.
What a waste of my time.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Take a good look at the whole chapter of Zechariah and then notice in verse 9 how that (b) is a restatement of (a):
a) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
b) Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!
a) Lo, your king comes to you;
b) triumphant and victorious is he,
a)humble and riding on an ass,
b) on a colt the foal of an ass.
Hebrew parallism isn't exact. Sometimes it adds to the previous statement. But it seems pretty clear that's was we see there.
If you know a little Hebrew here's a translation:
עַיִר: male ass | BDB
noun, common, masculine, singular, absolute
Enhanced Strong's Lexicon BDB
בֶּן
4935
בֵּן: son | BDB
noun, common, masculine, singular, construct
Enhanced Strong's Lexicon BDB
אֲתֹנֹֽות
34
אָתֹון: she-ass; she-ass | BDB
noun, common, feminine, plural, absolute
Literally he will ride on a "he-ass, the son of a she-ass."
Even if this isn't poetry there is still only one ass spoken of here.
And even if we're wrong about the poetry, the context of Zechariah 9 is not about Jesus' ride into Jerusalem, so it shows nothing to those of us looking to see if there is any divine person behind these human so-called prophecies. Just think to yourself if a Muslim used his Koran in the same way to show that Mohammed was the promised child of Abraham, and you would see what we're getting at.
From the Anchor Bible Dictionary:
Zechariah 9 begins with oracles against foreign nations, a feature shared by the book of Amos. As is the case with the Amos oracles, in our literature, the states are those of Syria-Palestine: Philistia, Phoenicia, and Syria. Also similar to Amos, the cities within these territories are mentioned prominently, Yahweh’s defeat of these nations and cities will enable him to be perceived as a guardian of his “house.”
In Zechariah 9:9–13, Yahweh’s role as military victor enables him to be construed as king; a royal procession into Jerusalem is envisioned. This kingship will secure peace for Israel and universal dominion for Yahweh (vv 9–10). Moreover, good news may be proclaimed to Jerusalem; its captives will be freed (vv 11–12).
Those so liberated will function gloriously as Yahweh’s military subalterns (v 13). Nonetheless, it is Yahweh who will perform the necessary military feats (v 14). As a result, those whom he is protecting will drink the blood of those who have been slain (v 15). Such victory will result in fertility and prosperity for the people, here construed as Yahweh’s flock (vv 16–17).
...because typology is all in the eye of the beholder. Just because someone in the NT said this was a typological fulfillment about Jesus ride into Jerusalem (with complete disregard for what the prophecy actually said) does not mean we should accept what he said. You wouldn't if a Muslim used texts this way.
There was a young man from Des Moines
Who found a thin sharp edged coin
He jumped on a rocket
With the coin in his pocket
And the coin fell out onto his loin.
This is not a poem.
Correction, I forgot the conjunction. Literally it reads, "he will ride on a "he-ass, and the son of a she-ass."
The Hebrew words for asses are different, but the male ass is the son of the she-ass, so there's no problem there.
If I used this construction in a sentence you wouldn't conclude I said someone will ride on two asses, just because I used the conjunction separating them and used two different words for ass.
If I was talking about some guy and said he will ride a "he-ass, and the son of a she-ass," when speaking about one single event, riding into town, the language would have to be understood that he will ride into town on the ass of a she-ass, even if this wasn't poetry.
It's quite obvious that a person does not ride on two asses. That's not logical
For what it's worth, from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, (Revised and Updated 1988), p. 1382:
The poetic style of of chaps. 9-14 in contrast to the prosaic form of chaps. 1-8 does not necessitate a different author. Undoubtedly Zechariah penned chaps. 9-14 considerably later than chaps. 1-8, probably when he was an aged man. (s.v., 'Zechariah')
I don't know how more explicit a resource like Unger's would need to be in categorizing chapters 9ff as poetry.
Regards,
Dawson
Sorry but you’ve done nothing of the sort. Neither you nor the Tanakh says Zechariah is poetry. You said your “new translation” is “formatted” as poetry. Did the ancient Hebrew writers indent their phrases to indicate they were poetic?
Tell me who did the translation and formatting? The translation was led by Prof. Harry Orlinsky of Hebrew Union Collee-Jewish Institute of Religion, Prof. H.L. Ginsburg of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Ephraim Speiser, Prof. of Semitic and Oriental Languages at U Penn., Rabbi Max Arzt (Conservative), Rabbi Bernard Bamberger (Reform), and Rabbi Rabbi Harry Freedman (Orthodox) under the auspices of the Jewish Publication Society. I cannot find a scan of a Sefer Torah to check, verse is not always indicated by formatting but by rhythmical emphases (as the article that you quoted but probably did not read explained), and I have an impressive array of Hebraic experts that assure me that, yes, it is poetry (and nothing to indicate it is not).
But you have a concordance. Silly me.
Is Zechariah noted? No. Why? Because Zechariah isn’t poetic. Ah, makes sense.
Oh, so you're claiming that the article states that there are two and only two poetical portions in the Nevi'im (that is all he listed there). That the author said that the OT inserted "poems" (plural) in only Isaiah (singular)? And that the author used the adjective "occasionally" to describe one and only one occurrance in Amos?
Or, perhaps, you could read for comprehension, and see that the author said that besides notable exceptions (of which he listed only two examples), the rest of the Nevi'im is prose. You could also realize that this article is listing commentaries from 1902 as current, and adjust your reading appropriately to the language of the time.
“some parts about the end of his Prophecy (Zechariah 9, 10. and the beginning of 11.) are poetical and highly embellished, and that they are sufficiently perspicuous, though written by a Prophet, who of all is perhaps the most obscure.” --John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets
*sigh*
One might assume that Zechariah merely was stating the obvious when mentioning the mother’s existence.
Or following standard parallelism for Hebrew verse...which Zech. 9 was. And now we're back to the beginning.
Mr. Blind Bart...The Mother mentioned WAS the Type of the OLD TESTAMENT which was brought along with Jesus as he RODE UPON THE ONE COLT..offspring of the Mother which was YOUNGER and represented the New Testament that Jesus IS IN CHARGE OF.
The NT did not exist when Matthew wrote.
Since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew).
Have you ever been on a farm? Having the mother there would do nothing toward making an riding animal docile to ride. Additionally, there would be no need to spread garments across both animals and set Jesus upon them. Similarly, in Matthew Jesus is quoted as explicitly demanding both animals; in Mark Jesus is quoted as explicitly demanding only the colt. Which did Jesus ask for?
Honestly, don't you get cramps from that kind of twisting?
Shygetz said: The translation was led by Prof. Harry Orlinsky of Hebrew Union Collee-Jewish…
Hey, all I’m saying is the Jewish Encyclopedia disagrees. ☺
Oh, so you're claiming that the article states that there are two and only two poetical portions in the Nevi'im (that is all he listed there). That the author said that the OT inserted "poems" (plural) in only Isaiah (singular)? And that the author used the adjective "occasionally" to describe one and only one occurrance in Amos?
Actually what I’m claiming is that Zechariah isn’t mentioned under the subhead of Division of Poetical Portions of the OT. I thought I had made that clear…? And you’ll be relived to note Isaiah is listed more then once in the article. Anyhow, if Zechariah was poetic, I would have expected it to be have been mentioned here. The fact it isn’t leads me to believe it isn’t poetic.
Jason,
The Hebrew canon is divided categorically. Zechariah is included among the prophets, not the wisdom literature of the psalms. That is because the thrust of Zechariah is proclamation and hope amidst the rubble of Jerusalem. I believe all will agree that Zechariah is thus and properly categorized. That doesn't mean that Zechariah doesn't use the poetic form within his writings. He clearly does, both in 9:9 and in surrounding verses.
I attended a very conservative seminary, and one of the first things we learned when studying the OT was to recognize and appreciate the style and beauty of the poetry in the original language. In denying that Zechariah was using the poetic style of parallelism or doublets here is a lost cause.
I suggest you find an orthodox rabbi and ask him. Or continue to personally illustrate the proverb, "None are so blind as those who will not see."
Where in the text does it say Jesus RODE on two animals? Thats the important part. Matthew mentions a donkey and a colt. Mark mentions a colt. Jesus rode on the colt.
The literal meaning for "he sat on them" is κα επεκαθισεν επανω αυτων, or "he sat thereon"...you could really just say "Jesus took his seat" being that επεκαθισεν is in the ingressive aorist active. Plus the nearest antecedent for the final "them" is "garments" which need not refer to the garments on more than one animal. (Carson:64).
See Davies and Allison (1988-1997:3:120-21 for a survey of approaches to this text, and note how they conclude the utter improbability of Matthew misreading Zechariah in the drastic manner that you assert. Also see Instone-Brewer 2003.
"The sight of an unridden colt accompanying its mother has remained common in Palestine to modern times" (Gundry 1994:409, see also Lindars 1961:114).
I agree with you this is a difficult passage, but I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion you have and others have reached concerning the connection between them. The number of animals in both Zechariah and the Matthew are certainly not undisputed. As for Mark and Luke's account, it seems clear they only speak of the colt. I'm sure you know all about telescoping and why a particular author will choose details in the manner. Interesting article though, thanks.
John,
No apologies necessary. You were not incorrect in what you said. There was indeed no controversy in Paul's congregations over the divinity of Jesus. My contention is that this is in itself positive evidence that Paul was not envisioning a human Jesus. The best explanation for this phenomenon is that Paul's Jesus, knowledge of whom came to him solely through visions and interpretation, was of the nature of the descending Sophia of God (Wisdon), or the stand in for God, the Logos, not someone who had lived on earth.
The gospel Jesus is so radically different than the Pauline Jesus, that it could easily be concluded that there was no direct relation between the two. If the epistles and the gospels had not been joined in one leather bound cover we call the NT, is there any reason we would conclude that they represented the thought of the same movement?
I would be interested in comments on another related question. The gospel of John marries the pre-existent divine Logos under the name of Jesus with the Gallilean teacher named Jesus. This combination doesn't occur in the Pauline epistles and I can't think of any other place in the NT where this occurs. Can anyone offer any unequivocal statement in any first century Christian document that marries the concept of Jesus the man with Jesus the divine being?
Perhaps the lack of this combination along with the resistance of accepting the gospel of John by the early church lies behind the divergent theologies of orthodoxy and Arianism. As you are aware, the early church had a lot of difficulty knowing what to do with the gospel of John since it was so completely different than the synoptics and was a favorite of some of the heretical sects.
John,
I accidentally put a response to your comment on the Post 800 Pound Gorilla on this post. Do you have any way to transfer it to the correct post?
David,
Bart Ehrman (who has recently re-edited the two volumes of the “Apostolic Fathers” in the Loeb Classical library) feels Matt. misunderstood Zechariah and has Jesus riding on both at once (This is noted in his tapes on the “Historical Jesus” by The Teaching Company).
While it is clear that Matt. redacted Mark and Luke's single colt into two animals, the first “International Critical Commentary” on Matt., 3rd ed. 1912, by W.C Allen states: “Mt., in modifying the passage, is not quite careful to make the details harmonious. The Lord could not ride on both animals, and there was no need therefore, to place clothes on both.-- τα ιματια] … If the editor had not just said that they place clothing upon “them”, we might take επανω αυτων here to refer to the ιματια . But he may have meant it to refer to the animals, regardless of the impossibility of riding more than one at a time.” p.220.
As for as W.D Davies and Dale C. Allison go, they do review a past historical explanations form older commentaries since Allen’s 1912 edition of the ICC volume as well as Rabbinic traditions, but basically add nothing to the debate that Allen did not already cover (Allen, p.220 compare Davies & Allison p. 118) in reference to the LXX and the MT text.
What I disagree with you on is your statement: “See Davies and Allison (1988-1997:3:120-21 for a survey of approaches to this text, and note how they conclude the utter improbability of Matthew misreading Zechariah in the drastic manner that you assert.” I feel you have certianly over stated their conclusion.
To be clear on their conclusion, let me quote their final sentence: “We suspect that Matthew, just like the later rabbis, read Zech 9.9 in the light of Exod. 4.19-20, so that it was natural, given the plural in LXX Exod. 4.19-20, to find two animals in the ambiguous LXX Zech 9.9.”
From their reviews of the history of interpretation of this pericope (ICC, vol. 3, pp120-121), they leave the question open as to whether Jesus rode both; a point usually expected in most of the conservative positions both Davies and Allison take in their very comprehensive 3 volumes on Matt. in this ICC series.
This should be an interesting debate:
James White vs Bart Erhman
"Did the Bible Misquote Jesus"
http://sovereigncruises.org/AO2009/debate.htm
Jason: The exegete states "it cannot be decided by determining what the author of Zech 9:9 had in mind when he wrote what he did." Personally, this logically settles the issue.
Logically settles the issue?
There are three common approaches theists use when faced with biblical errors and conflicting evidence.
01. Deny the evidence regardless of how obvious or concrete. The Bible is the word of an all knowing God, which could never be wrong.
02. Demote the passage to a metaphor.
03. Punt and simply claim that, as human beings with limited knowledge, we simply can't understand what the author intended.
It appears that you've chosen #3.
But, regardless of the approach taken, the Bible is never corrected or considered "wrong". This sort of interpretation is unique to theism.
Clearly, this is not a logical approach as even theists do not apply it to other areas of their lives.
Jim Holman, it seems your pearl has been lost in the mire. A shame, really, the rest reminds me Don Quixote.
Harry,
My apologies, I was in error concerning the Davies and Allison citation. I will try to dig the correct one back up when I get back to the library. Oh for the day when I'll have my own :)
Post a Comment