Bible Error: Triumphal Entry

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Mark quotes Jesus as telling two disciples to fetch ONE animal from the village:

[Jesus] sendeth forth two of his disciples, And saith unto them, "Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose HIM, and bring HIM." (Mark 11:1-7)

However, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying something quite different: Matthew says that Jesus told the two disciples to bring TWO animals to him:

[Jesus] sent two disciples, Saying unto them, "Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose THEM, and bring THEM " (Matthew 21:1-5)

One or other of these two writers must be wrong, for one of them quotes a Jesus who asked for ONE animal, while the second quotes a Jesus who asked for TWO animals. Jesus could not have given two different sets of instructions, could he? If not, then the Bible is in error.

[$cirisme]

If you have two of something, you have one of something, don't you?

[$cirisme]

Not to mention the fact that there are two animals...

... "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

"Go your way into the village that is opposite you. Immediately as you enter into it, you will find a colt tied, on which no one has sat. Untie him, and bring him.

Notice that it does not say "you will only find a colt tied..."

No error.

(both verses quoted above are in the WEB)

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Cirisme, did Jesus say, "untie THEM and bring THEM"?

Or, did Jesus say, "untie HIM and bring HIM"?

Matthew quotes Jesus as saying the former, while Mark quotes him as saying the latter. They both cannot be correct, can they?

[$cirisme]

They, obviously, did not have tape recorders back then.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Cirisme, do you agree that Jesus either said "untie THEM and bring THEM," or else he said "untie HIM and bring HIM," but he could not have said both things?

[$cirisme]

You just don't get it, do you?

[Joseph Alward]

CIRISME
You just don't get it, do you?

JOE ALWARD
You mean your argument about the tape recorder? I think I get it. You were saying that nobody can be sure what Jesus said, because there was no way to preserve Jesus' precise words. I certainly don't dispute that. My point, however, is that Mark and Matthew disagree about what Jesus said to his disciples.

Mark QUOTED Jesus saying to his disciples, "loose him, bring him."

Matthew QUOTED Jesus saying to his disciples, "loose them, bring them."

Only one of these quotes--at most--can be correct, don't you agree? If not, why not?

[Bartholomew]

(btw, nice to meet you)

...but if there is indeed a contradiction, what are the consequences?



~Matt

[Robyn Banks]

cirisme:
Not to mention the fact that there are two animals...

Notice that it does not say "you will only find a colt tied..."

The aim of good interpretation is not to provide a tendentious answer which meets with your preconceived doctrine. In your case, your preconceived doctrine is 'inerrancy', and you tendentiously arrive at an inerrant interpretation of the text. In others' case their preconceived doctrine may be errancy, and they come up with an errant interpretation of the text. Each type of person needs to actually read the text for what it says. The better interpretation may be that the text contradicts another text, or that it is consistent with another text. But this should never be the reason for coming to that conclusion in the first place. Let the text speak for itself.

And so to Matthew's two donkeys as an illustration. Note particularly the context of the prophetic words.

In talking about two donkeys, Matthew clearly made an unusual application of the Hebrew parallelism in Zechariah Chapter 9. That is why he introduced two donkeys, not because he knew of the trivial detail of a second donkey being ridden into Jerusalem by 'disciples' (which may or may not in fact have been the case).

• - the original "prophecy" (in Zechariah) refers to synonymously paralleled animals ("a donkey, and a colt" - Matt 21:5). This is a Hebraism (a Hebrew figure of speech) which actually refers to a single animal. It is very common, and occurs right throughout the poetic and prophetic books.
  
  - whereas the 'fulfillment' is literal in having "a donkey" AND "a colt" as two *separate* animals (Matt 21:7).

Therefore, there is no fulfillment at all.

Matthew's rendition of a "donkey AND a colt" is a clear reference, albeit mistakenly, to Zechariah's single donkey.

Synonymous parallelism is a constant feature of Hebrew poetry. It's right throughout the Old Testament. And Zechariah's reference to "riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey" is a typical example of this particular feature of Hebrew Poetry.

Yet, the writer of Matthew fails to appreciate that Zechariah originally referred to "one animal" utilising poetic parallel designations. Matthew failed to appreciate Zechariah's meaning! Matthew misinterpreted Zechariah. And in misinterpreting Zechariah, Matthew revealed that he had CREATED this account of Jesus entering into Jerusalem. Matthew's error reveals not only Matthew's ignorance or eisoteric interpretation of Hebrew, but it reveals that this is not a 'fulfilment' of prophecy. This is merely one writer's creative telling of a story by using / misinterpreting prophecy.

The failure to recognise synonymous parallelism is actually fairly frequent in the New Testament, and therefore provides contextual support for this interpretation of Matthew. Here's another couple of examples:

1. In John 19:23-24 "garments" (himatia) and "clothing" (himatismon) are taken as two different items. The "clothing" (himatismon) is narrated as being divided into four parts - one for each soldier.
YET, the "garments" (himatia) are narrated as being apportioned by taking lots.

The 'prophecy' is taken from Psalm 22 (an infamously miscontrued Psalm by many Christians, since the days of the 4 Evangelists). Psalm 22:18 (being a poem) is a clear example of parallelism. Psalm 22:18 reads "they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots". Each of the two parallel descriptions tells EXACTLY
THE SAME THING: The enemies:
(a) took the Psalmist's clothes, and
(b) divided them between them.

Yet, 'John' failed to realise this fact. So, he narrates the taking of clothes and dividing of them between them TWICE!

2. In Acts 4:25-27 "kings" and "rulers" are treated as different people! The "king" is named as "Herod", and the "ruler" as Pontius Pilate. Yet, the 'prophecy' turns out to be another piece of Hebrew
parallelism, this time in Psalm 2:1.

Parallelism runs right the way through the Psalms, yet both the writer of Acts, and 'John' simply fail to appreciate this.

And, in their ignorance, they misinterpret the Psalms by making a literal translation out of a poetic trope.

Now, add to this that Matthew quoted from the (Greek) Septuagint without appreciating the context of the Hebrew text (as is shown at least in the famous example of the "virgin" / pregnant "young woman" of Isaiah 7.14), and there is compelling inductive evidence for our interpretation of Matthew as having misunderstood Zechariah.

Of course, you still have a "possible" explanation to the contrary (if you wish). But texts are first and foremost explained by the central hermeneutical rule of 'establishing the better explanation' - not by offering up some tenuous and tendentious possible harmonization.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

InquisitorKind:
...but if there is indeed a contradiction, what are the consequences?

Hi Matt - I know the question wasn't direclty addressed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

Most modern commentaries on the Scriptures regularly note where there are contradictions and errors in the text. There are many such examples. However, the "consequences" depend on one's use of the Scriptures in the first place.

If you can only conceive of an inerrant Bible as the foundation for belief, then proof of an errant Bible will 'shake that foundation'. This is the case for fundamentalist inerrantists and also for some fundamentalist skeptics.

If you believe in the Christian narrative on some other basis, then the proof of an errant Bible will not affect the foundation of your belief.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 09:36 PM post located here
Robyn Banks:


Hi Matt - I know the question wasn't direclty addressed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

If you can only conceive of an inerrant Bible as the foundation for belief, then proof of an errant Bible will 'shake that foundation'. This is the case for fundamentalist inerrantists and also for some fundamentalist skeptics.

If you believe in the Christian narrative on some other basis, then the proof of an errant Bible will not affect the foundation of your belief.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

It does.



Thanks,
~Matt

[Robyn Banks]

cirisme:
If you have two of something, you have one of something, don't you?

Another way to approach the text is to take note of the thrice-repeated formuation "ass and colt". This demonstrates that the author has literalized the Hebraism of Zechariah, AND changed the sex of the donkey!

1. Matthew Literalizes the Hebrew Trope

In verse two we have "onon... kai polos me autos" ('an ass... and a colt with her/it').

In verse five the same two creatures are referred to: "onon kai... polos" ('an ass... and a colt').

In verse seven the same formulation is used a third time: "ton onon kai ton polon" ('the ass and the colt').

Clearly the same two animals are being referred to by Matthew in each of the three same formulations. There is also the reference to "auton" ('of them') in verse 3. The disciples later put their cloaks "en auton" ('on them'). Significantly, the middle formulation of the three in Matthew is the quote from Zechariah, which demonstrates that Matthew thought that this referred to the same two animals in exactly the same way.

The terms 'onos' and 'polos' from the citation should for these reasons be viewed in the light of verses 2-3 & 7. It is consistent that the author must also have had two animals in mind in 21.5. This view is also to be preferred since the word epi is mentioned twice in the citation - ie. Jesus rides on an ass, and on a colt - not on an ass which is a colt. And also worth noting is that the narrator attaches a great deal of importance to words of Scripture literally being fulfilled in Jesus' activities.

2. Matthew changes the sex of the donkey!

If you note the Hebrew and Greek used, you will note that an ambiguity occurs in the translation from Hebrew to Greek. The 'ass' of Zechariah 9.9 is "chmowr" - which can only apply to a male animal. An "athown" is a female ass. However, when translated to Greek, the anarthrous "onos" applies to both a male and a female ass.

So in Matthew, the male donkey of Zechariah becomes the mother of the colt!

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

"Such insistence by Mt on his ass and colt is the more surprising in that Zech 9.9 does not really mention two animals at all. The... Mesoretic text is an obvious instance of synonymous parallelism, with both half-verses referring to the same young male ass. Rabbinic exegesis has always understood the text in this way; and the well-known rapproachement of Midrash Qoheleth 1,9, in which the "last redeemer", "humble and riding on an ass" (Zech 9,9), is compared to the "first redeemer", Moses, who "took his wife and sons and set them on an ass" (Ex 4,20), is only one of several such messianic interpretations of Zech 9,9, which know of only a single animal to be ridden by the Messiah.... But the epibebekos epi utozugion kai polos neon of the LXX is ambiguous, while Mt's version with its double epi... refers unmistakably to two different animals."
- George M Soares Prabhu The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976)

[mattbballman19]

One or other of these two writers must be wrong, for one of them quotes a Jesus who asked for ONE animal, while the second quotes a Jesus who asked for TWO animals. Jesus could not have given two different sets of instructions, could he? If not, then the Bible is in error.

There are two solutions to this problem, which I find relatively sufficient. One has to do with logical exclusivity and the other relates to animal-related fact of nature.

The solution having to do with logical exclusivity says that the naming of one ass, does not mean that there was only one ass that was there. For example; Let's say that I tell my brother to go fetch me some bread. Within an informed context, my brother would grab the whole loaf of bread which is located inside a bag carrying the bread. While it is true that I asked for the bread, I did not make it clear that it was only the bread that I wanted. The other item which was brought to me, was the bag carrying the bread. So, while I asked for the bread, that does not seem to mean that that logically excludes the possibility that more items might be included within the context of the situation.

This leads us to the second reason. The second reason gives notice to a animal-related fact that when a mother ass is with her colt son, then she is able to keep the young colt from being frightened and also to keep it calm while being surrounded by the loud shouting that was immediately subsequent to Jesus' arrival. While it is not stated explicitly, it seems to be socially implied; just as in the above analagous situation of my brother fetching me the bread, and within the informed context, knew to get the whole bag of bread, even though my words never actually said the words 'bag of bread'.

matt