How many donkeys?
Enoch
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
It is Palm Sunday today and the readings in the Church of England this year are from Matthew. In Matthew 21:2 Jesus tells the disciples - this is the WEB Bible to avoid issues about copyright -
“Go into the village that is opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them, and bring them to me."
Then at vvv 4-5 there is,
" All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying,
“Tell the daughter of Zion,
Behold, your King comes to you,
Humble, and riding on a donkey,
On a colt, the foal of a donkey.”
That comes from Zech 9:9. It looks to me like conventional Hebrew parallelism, i.e. on a donkey which is a colt and the foal of a donkey, i.e. one donkey.
The next verses in Matthew's account though are,
"6 The disciples went, and did just as Jesus commanded them, 7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their clothes on them; and he sat on them."
That appears to be describing two donkeys, and Jesus doing something impossible, riding on two animals at once.
The other three gospels all include this event, Mk 11: 1-10, Lk 19:28-40 and Jn 12:12-16 but make no mention of any second donkey.
Most of the commentaries seem to ignore this incongruity altogether.
Something especially odd about it, though, is that of all the gospel writers, Matthew with his Jewish background and interest in the Old Testament should be the one who should most be expected to know about parallelism, and therefore least likely to see any need to doctor the record so as get it to fit in with the passage from Zechariah. Only one commentary of those I have access to addresses any of this, suggesting that perhaps there really were two donkeys, that as Mark and Luke record that Jesus rode a colt that no one had ridden before - i.e. unbroken - Matthew is recording a memory that its mother was brought along to keep it steady.
What do shipmates think about this? Have any of you ever noticed this, puzzled about it or heard some over-literalist preacher try to explain it away? Do most commentaries ignore this because they are embarrassed by the possible implications for their pet take on scriptural authority, or because only the over-picky would bother about it? Or did somebody else in the immediate post-apostolic era who did not know about parallelism doctor the text to try to make it fit what he or she thought it ought to be saying? Or what?
By the way, I have quite a high view on the overall authority of scripture but am not terribly bothered about literalism.
“Go into the village that is opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them, and bring them to me."
Then at vvv 4-5 there is,
" All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying,
“Tell the daughter of Zion,
Behold, your King comes to you,
Humble, and riding on a donkey,
On a colt, the foal of a donkey.”
That comes from Zech 9:9. It looks to me like conventional Hebrew parallelism, i.e. on a donkey which is a colt and the foal of a donkey, i.e. one donkey.
The next verses in Matthew's account though are,
"6 The disciples went, and did just as Jesus commanded them, 7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their clothes on them; and he sat on them."
That appears to be describing two donkeys, and Jesus doing something impossible, riding on two animals at once.
The other three gospels all include this event, Mk 11: 1-10, Lk 19:28-40 and Jn 12:12-16 but make no mention of any second donkey.
Most of the commentaries seem to ignore this incongruity altogether.
Something especially odd about it, though, is that of all the gospel writers, Matthew with his Jewish background and interest in the Old Testament should be the one who should most be expected to know about parallelism, and therefore least likely to see any need to doctor the record so as get it to fit in with the passage from Zechariah. Only one commentary of those I have access to addresses any of this, suggesting that perhaps there really were two donkeys, that as Mark and Luke record that Jesus rode a colt that no one had ridden before - i.e. unbroken - Matthew is recording a memory that its mother was brought along to keep it steady.
What do shipmates think about this? Have any of you ever noticed this, puzzled about it or heard some over-literalist preacher try to explain it away? Do most commentaries ignore this because they are embarrassed by the possible implications for their pet take on scriptural authority, or because only the over-picky would bother about it? Or did somebody else in the immediate post-apostolic era who did not know about parallelism doctor the text to try to make it fit what he or she thought it ought to be saying? Or what?
By the way, I have quite a high view on the overall authority of scripture but am not terribly bothered about literalism.
Comments
Only John mentions the use of palms when Jesus entered Jerusalem. Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention the people spread their cloaks before Jesus. So, happy Cloak Sunday.
I'd still like to know how many people had to explain themselves to the person in charge of laundry when they got home that evening--"Dear, is that a HOOF PRINT I see on your good cloak?!"
We had Mark as our reading, it's a bit more nuanced.
Only John has explicit Palms. And he has no coats. (The prophecy is given.)
And Luke only has cloaks.
But...
Matthew has tree branches (and the prophecy given) and cloaks
Mark leafy branches from the fields and cloaks.
(Leafy branches from fields doesn't sound like palms to me)
--
I thought it sounded very familiar thread title.
Between seeing the thread and details, I did wonder if his mother Mary needed a bit of help. In the one hand I can see it ruin the symbolism, on the other hand, it seems a bit visibly undutiful.
Silly thought from that, is this little donkey carrying Jesus the inspiration for the nativity song? (With most of the details changed).
Jesus was not a warrior Messiah, come to vanquish the Roman occupiers. Warriors and conquerors rode horses.
Why screwed up? None of these are mutually exclusive with each other.
@Enoch said
I don’t believe any of the Gospel writers saw any need to, nor did, “doctor the record.” I thought that ought to be mentioned.