A colt and a donkey at the same time?

[Amazing Rando]

6The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

:hrm:

So... Jesus comes riding in to town upon both a colt and a donkey. Does this strike anyone else as a little bizarre? Did he have one leg on the colt and one on the donkey? Were the donkey and colt tied together? I sure hope so. Otherwise, I'd bet that could have been pretty painful for Jesus. :nc:

[technomage]

It's often been assumed that the anonymous author of Matthew may have interpolated this detail to be able to include the referenced prophecy. :shrug: Even though I'm a Bible skeptic, this particular one is not a "thesis breaker," just one more piece to a very complex piece of literature.

Justin

[bar Jonah]

No, Rando, they tied our Lord between two beasts of burden, set them in opposite directions, and tore Him to pieces. (After all, He's only based on any of a number of other Middle-East, Near-East and Mediterranean pagan gods, like Bacchus, who was similarly torn apart.) :riwink:

On the other hand, perhaps the ECFs commented on this and can authoritatively declare the correct doctrine on this matter? Just thinking out loud. :rithumb:



Why can't they tie the two beasts together, put a board across their backs, and have Jesus ride on the board like a little make-shift sedan or something? I see no difficulty with the passage, per se. It's not detailed, but I kind of doubt the author would have had Jesus standing on the backs of the two animals like He's riding into the center ring of Barnum & Bailey's. :rilol:

[Amazing Rando]

It's often been assumed that the anonymous author of Matthew may have interpolated this detail to be able to include the referenced prophecy. :shrug: Even though I'm a Bible skeptic, this particular one is not a "thesis breaker," just one more piece to a very complex piece of literature.

Justin

Oh it's not for me either. It does look to me like Matthew made a mistake in interpreting the prophecy. Mark and Luke both avoid this though.

I'm taking a class in the gospel of Matthew at seminary- this would be an interesting one to bring up in class Wednesday.

[Amazing Rando]

No, Rando, they tied our Lord between two beasts of burden, set them in opposite directions, and tore Him to pieces. (After all, He's only based on any of a number of other Middle-East, Near-East and Mediterranean pagan gods, like Bacchus, who was similarly torn apart.) :riwink:

On the other hand, perhaps the ECFs commented on this and can authoritatively declare the correct doctrine on this matter? Just thinking out loud. :rithumb:

Actually that is something they did do- apologetics goes waaaay back, to the very beginning. Justin Martyr was probably the first famous apologist post NT times.

Why can't they tie the two beasts together, put a board across their backs, and have Jesus ride on the board like a little make-shift sedan or something? I see no difficulty with the passage, per se. It's not detailed, but I kind of doubt the author would have had Jesus standing on the backs of the two animals like He's riding into the center ring of Barnum & Bailey's. :rilol:

It would be amusing! But tell me- what do you make of the fact that Matthew seems to indicate that he is indeed riding on both a colt and a donkey at the same time?

[bar Jonah]

Oh it's not for me either. It does look to me like Matthew made a mistake in interpreting the prophecy. Mark and Luke both avoid this though.

I'm taking a class in the gospel of Matthew at seminary- this would be an interesting one to bring up in class Wednesday.
Be sure to let us know their divinely-inspired answer! :rithumb:



(And not just poking fun at you; the Team actually regularly jokingly asks each other what the "divinely-inspired footnotes" in our study Bibles. LOL)

[Amazing Rando]

Well what do you think Matthew was trying to do here?

[bar Jonah]

It would be amusing! But tell me- what do you make of the fact that Matthew seems to indicate that he is indeed riding on both a colt and a donkey at the same time?
Like I said, I have no problem with it... Part of what I was trying to drive at is that I really doubt Matthew would have written something that was nonsensical on its face. He wasn't an idiot or a loon. So, situations involving miracles are one thing, but a mundane matter of riding on a donkey and a colt suggests to me that he wrote that with the expectation of his audience knowing what he meant, at that time and place.

I already described what immediately lept into my mind -- tying the two beasts together at the halters (or equivelant), putting a board across their backs and Jesus rides into town on the backs of both animals. Sitting on the board between them, basically. Doesn't seem odd to me. But as I also said, it isn't specific. What I said in my first paragraph, above, is the main reason why I don't see any problem with it.

[Amazing Rando]

Like I said, I have no problem with it... Part of what I was trying to drive at is that I really doubt Matthew would have written something that was nonsensical on its face. He wasn't an idiot or a loon. So, situations involving miracles are one thing, but a mundane matter of riding on a donkey and a colt suggests to me that he wrote that with the expectation of his audience knowing what he meant, at that time and place.

Maybe. The brilliance of the gospel makes me certain that he was an incredible write.

I already described what immediately lept into my mind -- tying the two beasts together at the halters (or equivelant), putting a board across their backs and Jesus rides into town on the backs of both animals. Sitting on the board between them, basically. Doesn't seem odd to me. But as I also said, it isn't specific. What I said in my first paragraph, above, is the main reason why I don't see any problem with it.

Oh... I thought you were joking! I mean, it certainly is possible (though a little bizarre).

[bar Jonah]

Maybe. The brilliance of the gospel makes me certain that he was an incredible write.

Oh... I thought you were joking! I mean, it certainly is possible (though a little bizarre).
Why is a sedan chair bizarre?

[Amazing Rando]

Why is a sedan chair bizarre?

Because Mark and Luke insist it was just a colt?

[bar Jonah]

Because Mark and Luke insist it was just a colt?
O? They say it's "just" a colt?"

I don't have a Bible in front of me, so I'm just asking...

[Amazing Rando]

You've got BibleGateway in front of you, don'tcha?

Well, you tell me:

30"Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it.' "
32Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. 33As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?"
34They replied, "The Lord needs it."
35They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it.

1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 3If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' "
4They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, 5some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?" 6They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. 7When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.

Even John:

12The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna! "
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Blessed is the King of Israel!" 14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15"Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey's colt."

Compared to:

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."
4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
6The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

Something's fishy.

[Abigail]

The 'them' is speaking about the cloaks. They probably laid a few cloaks on each.

[mossrose]

The 'them' is speaking about the cloaks. They probably laid a few cloaks on each.
I am absolutely with Abigail on this. They put the cloaks on the foal, and Jesus sat on them.....the cloaks!

You men are trying too hard. Simplify, and remember your grammer!!

:mossrose:

[technomage]

I am absolutely with Abigail on this. They put the cloaks on the foal, and Jesus sat on them.....the cloaks!

You men are trying too hard. Simplify, and remember your grammer!!

:mossrose::ducking the rolling pin:

I'm afraid it's not that simple: here's the original Greek (provided the font comes through)

h~gagon th;n o~non kai; to;n pw'lon, kai; ejpevqhkan ejp jaujtw'n ta; iJmavtia, kai; ejpekavqisen ejpavnw aujtw'n.


[Transliteration--to get past the spacing glitches]
Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ep auton ta imana, kai epekathisen epano auton.

My own translation:
They led this ass and this colt and they laid on them these garments, and He sat upon them.

The problem is with the two separate phrases ("they laid on them these garments" and "He sat upon them"): both uses of the word auton goes back to a common antecedent--in this case, the colt and the donkey.

The phrasing goes back to Zech. 9:9:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

The anonymous author of Matthew didn't understand Hebrew: the phrasing used there ("riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass") is called an "emphatic repetition": in other words, a phrase is repeated as emphasis or clarification, not to indicate a plural.

Justin

PS: The "sedan chair" idea wouldn't work, either. Have you ever ridden in a sedan chair? For the rider to not get jostled about, you have to have two people of more-or-less equal height (within a few inches), and steady gait. They have to work to make sure that the chair doesn't tip or bounce, or else your passenger gets tossed out on their nose, or their ... whatever.

Donkey's simply don't have an even enough gait--heck, for that matter, neither do Leppizaner (sp?) stallions. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen a successful "sedan chair" arrangement with any animals.

J

[Edited to add transliteration]

[Amazing Rando]

Hmm. Perhaps I ought to open this up to debate, since it looks like it's headed in that direction anyway. To Theo 201 it goes!

[bar Jonah]

Justin's input is definitely interesting, and I agree now about the sedan chair idea. I never intended to put it forth as a positive claim, anyway; I'm sure not married to the idea. :rilol:

We obviously need some Greek folks in on this.

[Amazing Rando]

I'm not terrified by the possibility that perhaps Matthew might have misread the Zechariah prophecy. Either that... or something got lost in the translation from Hebrew to Septuagint.

[Abigail]

I'm not terrified by the possibility that perhaps Matthew might have misread the Zechariah prophecy. Either that... or something got lost in the translation from Hebrew to Septuagint.
Perhaps Jaltus could look at the greek in the Matthew reading and give us his opinion too. If it is as the Wiccan says then it has been done for a reason which I am sure will become apparent with a bit of digging.

[rhutchin]

:ducking the rolling pin:

I'm afraid it's not that simple: here's the original Greek (provided the font comes through)

h~gagon th;n o~non kai; to;n pw'lon, kai; ejpevqhkan ejp jaujtw'n ta; iJmavtia, kai; ejpekavqisen ejpavnw aujtw'n.


[Transliteration--to get past the spacing glitches]
Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ep auton ta imana, kai epekathisen epano auton.

My own translation:
They led this ass and this colt and they laid on them these garments, and He sat upon them.

The problem is with the two separate phrases ("they laid on them these garments" and "He sat upon them"): both uses of the word auton goes back to a common antecedent--in this case, the colt and the donkey.

The phrasing goes back to Zech. 9:9:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

The anonymous author of Matthew didn't understand Hebrew: the phrasing used there ("riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass") is called an "emphatic repetition": in other words, a phrase is repeated as emphasis or clarification, not to indicate a plural.

Justin

PS: The "sedan chair" idea wouldn't work, either. Have you ever ridden in a sedan chair? For the rider to not get jostled about, you have to have two people of more-or-less equal height (within a few inches), and steady gait. They have to work to make sure that the chair doesn't tip or bounce, or else your passenger gets tossed out on their nose, or their ... whatever.

Donkey's simply don't have an even enough gait--heck, for that matter, neither do Leppizaner (sp?) stallions. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen a successful "sedan chair" arrangement with any animals.

J
[Edited to add transliteration]

Antecedents in any language can be a problem. In Greek, they are more challenging because we think in English. However, the Greek language allows a word to appear anywhere in a sentence (since the ending given to the word determines its purpose), so the order of the words becomes important.

Given that the English rendition of the antecedents can lead to alternate conclusions, the issue is whether the Greek can do any better.

So, my two cents on what the Greek can mean. We have--

Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ep auton ta imana, kai epekathisen epano auton.

It would seem that any confusion could have easily been removed if the author had written--

Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ta imana ep auton, kai epekathisen epano auton. In this case, it would seem arguable that the antecedent for "auton" is "ton honon kai ton polon."

However, by reversing the order making it ep auton ta imana, it is possible that the author meant to create a cascading effect so that the sequence in action would be--

They led the ass and colt;
upon whom they laid the garments,
upon which Jesus sat.

or in reverse,

Jesus sat on the garments
Laid on the animals
Led by the disciples.

It seems reasonable that the author knew what he wanted to say even if we have trouble with what he wrote. The simplest conclusion is that the author was describing a scene that was logical and orderly and not as confusing as we might be tempted to think.

[porter]

>>>>The anonymous author of Matthew didn't understand Hebrew: the phrasing used there ("riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass") is called an "emphatic repetition": in other words, a phrase is repeated as emphasis or clarification, not to indicate a plural.>>>>
--------------------------------
I find that statement the most interesting one in this discussion.

The early church Fathers regarded Matthew as being the first Gospel written and having been written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

The Gospel of Matthew that we have is written in Greek.
And it seems to be a fairly fluent form of Greek.
I think most scholars agree that it was not merely a translation from a previous Hebrew Gospel.
If that be the case, it would appear that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written by someone other than the disciple Matthew.
Moreover, this person was probably either not a Jew or was a Hellenized Jew who did not know Hebrew.

Porter

[technomage]

>>>>The anonymous author of Matthew didn't understand Hebrew: the phrasing used there ("riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass") is called an "emphatic repetition": in other words, a phrase is repeated as emphasis or clarification, not to indicate a plural.>>>>
--------------------------------
I find that statement the most interesting one in this discussion.

The early church Fathers regarded Matthew as being the first Gospel written and having been written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

The Gospel of Matthew that we have is written in Greek.
And it seems to be a fairly fluent form of Greek.
I think most scholars agree that it was not merely a translation from a previous Hebrew Gospel.
If that be the case, it would appear that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written by someone other than the disciple Matthew.
Moreover, this person was probably either not a Jew or was a Hellenized Jew who did not know Hebrew.

Porter
That's the general assumption. The actual source for citing our current Gospel of Matthew was a Church historian named Eusebius, who quoted another historian named Papias. (If I remember correctly, Papias's book(s) are lost.) Papias stated that Matthew wrote a book of "sayings" ("logia") in Aramaic, "and the disciples interpreted them as best they could." Unfortunately, if this work existed it seems to have not survived. So I think it was Eusebius who looked at the book we currently call Matthew, saw that the logic was obviously intended for a Jewish audience (with all the references back to OT prophecies), and decided that this was the book that Papias was talking about.

It is certainly possible that the original "Sayings Gospel of Matthew" was one source for our current Gospel, but to state it thus is speculation on my part. The grammar and writing style in Matthew does not show signs of having been translated from the Aramaic, and this is not the only indication that the author knew Greek, but not Hebrew--I just can't recall any other ones off the top of my head.

Justin

[rhutchin]

That's the general assumption. The actual source for citing our current Gospel of Matthew was a Church historian named Eusebius, who quoted another historian named Papias. (If I remember correctly, Papias's book(s) are lost.) Papias stated that Matthew wrote a book of "sayings" ("logia") in Aramaic, "and the disciples interpreted them as best they could." Unfortunately, if this work existed it seems to have not survived. So I think it was Eusebius who looked at the book we currently call Matthew, saw that the logic was obviously intended for a Jewish audience (with all the references back to OT prophecies), and decided that this was the book that Papias was talking about.

It is certainly possible that the original "Sayings Gospel of Matthew" was one source for our current Gospel, but to state it thus is speculation on my part. The grammar and writing style in Matthew does not show signs of having been translated from the Aramaic, and this is not the only indication that the author knew Greek, but not Hebrew--I just can't recall any other ones off the top of my head.

Justin

With speculation abounding, we might also speculate that the Apostles of Jesus, being unlearned men, may have been more familiar with the Greek translation of the OT and would have quoted from that (but not necessarily). Someone like Paul would probably have studied the OT in Hebrew and would have been better able to comment on OT meaning.

However, it is also true that Jesus told the Apostles about the OT references to Himself, so the writer of Matthew (if it were the Apostle) may merely have cited those passages as a consequence of what Jesus said and not what he actually read. Or maybe he just remembered what the Rabbi had taught him when he attended the synagogue.

Who really knows? It seems likely that Matthew was an expansion of Mark and it does, allegedly, contain information that only an intimate of Jesus would know.

[mossrose]

However, by reversing the order making it ep auton ta imana, it is possible that the author meant to create a cascading effect so that the sequence in action would be--

They led the ass and colt;
upon whom they laid the garments,
upon which Jesus sat.

or in reverse,

Jesus sat on the garments
Laid on the animals
Led by the disciples.

It seems reasonable that the author knew what he wanted to say even if we have trouble with what he wrote. The simplest conclusion is that the author was describing a scene that was logical and orderly and not as confusing as we might be tempted to think.



Absolutely agree. We just make it too complicated sometimes!

Thanks, rhutchin!

:ducking the rolling pin:

You learn quickly, grasshopper!

:lol:

[technomage]

Antecedents in any language can be a problem. In Greek, they are more challenging because we think in English. However, the Greek language allows a word to appear anywhere in a sentence (since the ending given to the word determines its purpose), so the order of the words becomes important.

Given that the English rendition of the antecedents can lead to alternate conclusions, the issue is whether the Greek can do any better.

So, my two cents on what the Greek can mean. We have--

Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ep auton ta imana, kai epekathisen epano auton.

It would seem that any confusion could have easily been removed if the author had written--

Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ta imana ep auton, kai epekathisen epano auton. In this case, it would seem arguable that the antecedent for "auton" is "ton honon kai ton polon."

However, by reversing the order making it ep auton ta imana, it is possible that the author meant to create a cascading effect so that the sequence in action would be--

They led the ass and colt;
upon whom they laid the garments,
upon which Jesus sat.

or in reverse,

Jesus sat on the garments
Laid on the animals
Led by the disciples.

It seems reasonable that the author knew what he wanted to say even if we have trouble with what he wrote. The simplest conclusion is that the author was describing a scene that was logical and orderly and not as confusing as we might be tempted to think.
It's reasonable. It makes perfect sense. It's even coherent. The problem is, that's not what the text says.

For textual examination to make any sense whatsoever to me, I have to look at texts "as they are," or else the entire logic falls apart. If we start changing the text now without fairly strong evidence that the changes we're making are correcting errors, then we get into some really academically sloppy work.

Don't get me wrong ... if you're looking at this text from an apologetics point of view, then you may see things differently--and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm looking from a scholastic view of textual examination, and I simply cannot the tools of apologetics in that context.

Justin

[Abigail]

For those who want extra information


www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=2&itemid=595 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=2&itemid=595)

[technomage]

For those who want extra information


www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=2&itemid=595 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=2&itemid=595)
That's a good collection of the standard apologetics given for this passage. As I said, however, I am not looking at apologetics--in other words, I am not trying to defend the text. Apologetics is a completely different discipline, but frankly more than a few Christians would be quite offended if I attempted to practice Biblical Apologetics.

Even at that, there is one flaw and one comment that I wish to make on the article.

One of the fundamental principles of nearly any study or investigation is that of being “innocent until proven guilty.” Any person or historical document is to be presumed internally consistent until it can be shown conclusively that it is contradictory.
This is blatantly incorrect. Textual criticism is an academic study: if anything, new texts or interpretations are treated as "guilty until proven innocent."

Part of the reason for that is the amount of forgery, fraud, and fakery that has developed in textual and archaeological studies. Technology and knowledge have advanced to the point where people can make very convincing fakes of just about anything--a good example being the "James Ossuary" a couple of years ago. The academic world tries to be rigorous about what is accepted as genuine, and what is not.

Finally, in an attempt to leave no allegation unanswered regarding the passages discussed in this article, one more point must be made. Although Jesus and His disciples have been accused of stealing the donkeys used in the procession to Jerusalem (see Barker, 1992, pp. 165-166), the text never indicates such thievery.
At one time in my life, I was naive enough to believe that no sane person would make this assertion, and that a few Christian apologists were falling for a strawman argument. However, I have seen it made in debate. :ahem: Needless to say, this is also not academics, but tomfoolery on the part of the skeptics who make the assertion.

Justin

[porter]

The actual source for citing our current Gospel of Matthew was a Church historian named Eusebius, who quoted another historian named Papias. (If I remember correctly, Papias's book(s) are lost.) Papias stated that Matthew wrote a book of "sayings" ("logia") in Aramaic, "and the disciples interpreted them as best they could."
The following is a quote from "Against Modern Heresies":

Papias, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement and Origen all accepted the view that Matthew composed the first Gospel. Lst anyone say that Matthew's Gospel was composed in Greek, Origen wrote, "and (it) was composed in Aramaic" and Irenaeus likewise stated that it was written, "for the Hebrews in their own tongue." Papias, the most ancient witness likewise wrote, "Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language." Pantaenus (mid second century), who preceded Clement as the instructor of Alexandria, also recorded (Eusebius V:10:3) that the apostle Bartholomew carried the Gospel of Matthew to India, written in the Hebrew.

Mark Dumdei also says:

However, some of the sayings and metaphors in Matthew which are so "difficult" to understand in the Greek "make sense" IF they are translated from the Aramaic/Syriac instead...

As an aside the Acts of Barnabas stated that Barnabas and Mark had carried the scroll of Matthew wich contained "a narrative om miracles and doctrines" on their second missionary journey to Cyprus. That would have been 49 AD.

Porter

[porter]

However, it is also true that Jesus told the Apostles about the OT references to Himself, so the writer of Matthew (if it were the Apostle) may merely have cited those passages as a consequence of what Jesus said and not what he actually read. Or maybe he just remembered what the Rabbi had taught him when he attended the synagogue.

I would think that Matthew being a disciple would have been an eye witness to the event.

Who really knows? It seems likely that Matthew was an expansion of Mark and it does, allegedly, contain information that only an intimate of Jesus would know.

I think it is the other way around.
If Matthew had written his Gospel after Mark (or Luke) he would have had a correct story to compare.
Because he got it wrong he probably wrote before Mark or Luke.

I speculate that the original Matthew, written by Matthew in Aramaic, quoted Zecahrias. When the Greek author used Matthew's Aramaic version he thought there were two animals.

Porter

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Antecedents in any language can be a problem. In Greek, they are more challenging because we think in English. However, the Greek language allows a word to appear anywhere in a sentence (since the ending given to the word determines its purpose), so the order of the words becomes important.

Given that the English rendition of the antecedents can lead to alternate conclusions, the issue is whether the Greek can do any better.

So, my two cents on what the Greek can mean. We have--

Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ep auton ta imana, kai epekathisen epano auton.

It would seem that any confusion could have easily been removed if the author had written--

Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ta imana ep auton, kai epekathisen epano auton. In this case, it would seem arguable that the antecedent for "auton" is "ton honon kai ton polon."

However, by reversing the order making it ep auton ta imana, it is possible that the author meant to create a cascading effect so that the sequence in action would be--

They led the ass and colt;
upon whom they laid the garments,
upon which Jesus sat.

or in reverse,

Jesus sat on the garments
Laid on the animals
Led by the disciples.

It seems reasonable that the author knew what he wanted to say even if we have trouble with what he wrote. The simplest conclusion is that the author was describing a scene that was logical and orderly and not as confusing as we might be tempted to think.

Justin
It's reasonable. It makes perfect sense. It's even coherent. The problem is, that's not what the text says.

For textual examination to make any sense whatsoever to me, I have to look at texts "as they are," or else the entire logic falls apart. If we start changing the text now without fairly strong evidence that the changes we're making are correcting errors, then we get into some really academically sloppy work.

Don't get me wrong ... if you're looking at this text from an apologetics point of view, then you may see things differently--and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm looking from a scholastic view of textual examination, and I simply cannot the tools of apologetics in that context.

Justin

I think it would be more accurate to say that we who do not speak the language have difficulty determining what the text says. Antecedents are difficult to deal with in any language, more so in a language that is not spoken any more.

However, our basic premise is that the author knew what he was writing and if we have problems with the text, we are the problem and not the text. In this respect, we know the scene that the author was seeking to describe. The disciples brought two animals, an ass and her colt; the disciples laid garments on both; and Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one animal (the colt). There is no reason to suspect that the text is saying anything else or that the author was confused about what he saw or wrote.

[rhutchin]

For those who want extra information


www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=2&itemid=595 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=2&itemid=595)

That is the same argument that I have made with respect to the Greek. Thanks for the citation.

I don't remember reading it in this source, so I suspect the basic argument has been around for a while (and, apparently, ignored). Maybe those who object to this argument can explain why the Greek text cannot be read this way.

[hereoisreal]

6The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

:hrm:

So... Jesus comes riding in to town upon both a colt and a donkey. Does this strike anyone else as a little bizarre? Did he have one leg on the colt and one on the donkey? Were the donkey and colt tied together? I sure hope so. Otherwise, I'd bet that could have been pretty painful for Jesus. :nc:

Imo, this is the trinity (family) of God. King, Az, & foal. Rev. 12:5
It's not over till the fat lady (pregnant wife) sings.

Blessings

[Earthbound Misf]

:ducking the rolling pin:

I'm afraid it's not that simple: here's the original Greek (provided the font comes through)

h~gagon th;n o~non kai; to;n pw'lon, kai; ejpevqhkan ejp jaujtw'n ta; iJmavtia, kai; ejpekavqisen ejpavnw aujtw'n.


[Transliteration--to get past the spacing glitches]
Egagon ton honon kai ton polon, kai epethekan ep auton ta imana, kai epekathisen epano auton.

My own translation:
They led this ass and this colt and they laid on them these garments, and He sat upon them.

The problem is with the two separate phrases ("they laid on them these garments" and "He sat upon them"): both uses of the word auton goes back to a common antecedent--in this case, the colt and the donkey.

The phrasing goes back to Zech. 9:9:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

The anonymous author of Matthew didn't understand Hebrew: the phrasing used there ("riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass") is called an "emphatic repetition": in other words, a phrase is repeated as emphasis or clarification, not to indicate a plural.

Justin

PS: The "sedan chair" idea wouldn't work, either. Have you ever ridden in a sedan chair? For the rider to not get jostled about, you have to have two people of more-or-less equal height (within a few inches), and steady gait. They have to work to make sure that the chair doesn't tip or bounce, or else your passenger gets tossed out on their nose, or their ... whatever.

Donkey's simply don't have an even enough gait--heck, for that matter, neither do Leppizaner (sp?) stallions. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen a successful "sedan chair" arrangement with any animals.

J

[Edited to add transliteration] Even if one assumes that "the anonymous author of Matthew didn't understand Hebrew", that still doesn't explain how he could have possibly been stupid enough to believe that Jesus could have ridden on two donkeys at once. Why would he have written something that is so contrary to common sense? Furthermore, why would anyone have accepted a Gospel that contained such a glaring error?

[Drashi]

I think one of the main problems is that Matthew provides more of the "and he fulfilled as it was said..." than any others, and thus any pusek that was associated and commonly known to be Messianic (directly or indirectly) was either adjusted, or the events were adjusted to fit in the way that the pseudopigraphic author(s) best understood.

As a side note, there are always answers to any question, but it just depends on ones willingness to accept the answer or not.

[hereoisreal]

God is a trinity.
God is a family.
A father, mother, and child.
The Ark(right, left, and middle).
The chariot of Isreal and the horsemen thereof.
God, Jesus, God (totals first and last mathmatically).
God and 2 candlesticks.
God and 2 olive branches that pour golden oil.
.
God and 2 thieves. Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written,
My house shall be called the house of
prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

All of these have two sides and a middle,
just like every blade of grass and every leaf
Is that by accident?
It's also leaven hidden in 3 measures,by
a special woman, until the whole is leavened.
It's also 11 hidden in 111.
It's a treasure hidden in a field..
A cd on a hil can knot. Be hide. ( child)
The family of God is a king, Az (first and last ), and foal. (There shall be one fold) (paradise -pair rode Az)
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter
of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

A wise queen and a dumb king had a child they named 'Wisdom'. (Thy king dumb come.)Jhn 16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow,
because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered
of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish,
for joy that a man is born into the world.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations
with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.
Isa 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou [that] didst not bear; break
forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou [that] didst not
travail with child: for more [are] the children
of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker [is] thine husband; the LORD
of hosts [is] his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One
of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take
counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Psa 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure
Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said
unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for]
thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.

Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way,
when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him.
.
Psa 110:1 [[A Psalm of David.]] The LORD said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psa 110:2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength
out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies
Psa 110:3 Thy people [shall be] willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties
of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall
strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
.
Psa 110:6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill [the places]
with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries

Psa 110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

It's all about family.
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter
of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just,
and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass,
and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zec 9:10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim,
and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall
be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen:
and his dominion [shall be] from sea [even] to sea,
and from the river [even] to the ends of the earth
Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works
unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations
:
Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron;
as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken
to shivers: even as I received of my Father


I'm going away for 2 weeks

Blessings

[technomage]

Even if one assumes that "the anonymous author of Matthew didn't understand Hebrew", that still doesn't explain how he could have possibly been stupid enough to believe that Jesus could have ridden on two donkeys at once. Why would he have written something that is so contrary to common sense? Furthermore, why would anyone have accepted a Gospel that contained such a glaring error?
:shrug: I really can't call this particular passage "stupidity" on the part of the author of the Gospel. Yeah, it seems a bit nonsensical, but it's a heck of a lot more sensible than, say, Bacchus getting torn apart by the Maenads.

However, it does give a little bit of additional weight to my concept that Matthew was not the author of the Gospel: if such an event had occurred, Matthew would have seen this event. I'm moderately confident that the author of the Gospel had Mark's account available, as well as the LXX and possibly Matthew's "Logia book", and was trying to redact the Messianic prophecies to those accounts. In doing so, yeah, there were a few difficulties in translation--it's going to happen, but even from my standpoint as a Bible skeptic, it's no big deal.

By the same token, I also know that there are people of good faith who honestly believe that Matthew was written by Matthew ... JP Holding, a member of TWeb, being one of those people. I disagree, but I do so with respect, because the issue is simply not absolutely provable.

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

:shrug: I really can't call this particular passage "stupidity" on the part of the author of the Gospel. Yeah, it seems a bit nonsensical, but it's a heck of a lot more sensible than, say, Bacchus getting torn apart by the Maenads.

However, it does give a little bit of additional weight to my concept that Matthew was not the author of the Gospel: if such an event had occurred, Matthew would have seen this event. I'm moderately confident that the author of the Gospel had Mark's account available, as well as the LXX and possibly Matthew's "Logia book",

Ah Justin, I see you're familiar with that quote from Papias.

What do you make of it? Personally, I believe that it's not a coincidence that both the ECF's- including Papias, and modern scholars speak of an oral sayings source behind some of the material in canonical Matthew. My guess- the apostle Matthew wrote "Q." :teeth:

[/QUOTE]

[Drashi]

HEREOISRAEL,

Someone asked a question, and I see that you cut and pasted a long post of scriptures rather than directly provide a paraphrase and a reference (I see that a lot here) I got lost in trying to follow what you were answering.

Please paraphrase?

Finally, your quote:
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way,
when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him.Is a bit off. It does not say "kiss the son", but "נשקו בר" or "nesheku bar". Neshequ is a masculine plural imperative to mean "touch/caress gently or kiss", while "bor" means "a purity or transparency". Some Christians like to use the hebrew "bor" and make it into an Aramaic bar (son), but we need to remain consistant in the language - Hebrew only.

"Gently touch that which is pure, lest He be angry, and you go astray on your path..." is a far better understanding of the term.

As a side note, Psalm 1 and 2 were one one long Psalm and were much later cut into two as part of a mesorah, so you need to understand all of Psalm one which then flows through psalm 2 - Embrace all of Torah, stay to that path, and stray neither left nor right, and while the non-Jews of the world may plot (Psalm 2:1) and fret over it, stick to this.

[Ormly]

HEREOISRAEL,

Someone asked a question, and I see that you cut and pasted a long post of scriptures rather than directly provide a paraphrase and a reference (I see that a lot here) I got lost in trying to follow what you were answering.

Please paraphrase?

Finally, your quote:
Is a bit off. It does not say "kiss the son", but "נשקו בר" or "nesheku bar". Neshequ is a masculine plural imperative to mean "touch/caress gently or kiss", while "bor" means "a purity or transparency". Some Christians like to use the hebrew "bor" and make it into an Aramaic bar (son), but we need to remain consistant in the language - Hebrew only.

"Gently touch that which is pure, lest He be angry, and you go astray on your path..." is a far better understanding of the term.

As a side note, Psalm 1 and 2 were one one long Psalm and were much later cut into two as part of a mesorah, so you need to understand all of Psalm one which then flows through psalm 2 - Embrace all of Torah, stay to that path, and stray neither left nor right, and while the non-Jews of the world may plot (Psalm 2:1) and fret over it, stick to this.Are you implying this is wrong:

Psalm 2:12 (NASB-U)
*Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

*Lit Kiss; some ancient versions read Do homage purely, or, Lay hold of instruction




»NASB Dictionary Help



øa—, Hebrew 1248, NASB

bar (135a); from Hebrew 1247 (øa—, bar); son:— son(4).

I find no "bor" as you say, in the verse when running it out. I'm not arguing, just inquiring.

I like you rendering/paraphase. There's more intimacy in it especially when seeing the Son as the Pure.

[technomage]

Ah Justin, I see you're familiar with that quote from Papias.

What do you make of it? Personally, I believe that it's not a coincidence that both the ECF's- including Papias, and modern scholars speak of an oral sayings source behind some of the material in canonical Matthew. My guess- the apostle Matthew wrote "Q." :teeth:


Well, it's possible. I kind of have to wonder, unless Matthew's Logia was also translated into Greek before the author of the Gospel started his work.

As a side note: does anyone around here know enough about Aramaic to know if they also have the "Emphatic Repeat" grammar structure? If Aramaic does, then the Author of the Gospel either didn't speak Hebrew or Aramaic, or he was just having a really bad day.

Justin

[hereoisreal]

As a side note, Psalm 1 and 2 were one one long Psalm and were much later cut into two as part of a mesorah, so you need to understand all of Psalm one which then flows through psalm 2 - Embrace all of Torah, stay to that path, and stray neither left nor right, and while the non-Jews of the world may plot (Psalm 2:1) and fret over it, stick to this.

Right on Ormly
Imo, that which is written in stone twice, is written in stone and I am not a Jew.
My point in my long post is Zec. 9:9
It names the family (trinity) of God.

Blessings