Discrepency between Mathhew 21 and Mark 11?

[m4dc4p]

A friend pointed this discrepency out to me this weekend, and I wonder what your take is on it. In Matthew 21, Jesus sends his disciples into town to get an *** and a colt, which they return with for him to ride into Jerusalem. In Mark 11, he sends them only for a colt, and he rides that animal alone into Jerusalem. Personally, I think the simplest explanation is that we are hearing different eyewitness accounts, and it really means nothing at all. How do others feel about it?

p.s. This was brought up as an argument against Biblical infallibility. I responded If you take the Bible as a literalist, its hard to reconcile, but if you just read the Bible literally - i.e. allowing for interpretation, writing style, etc - its not a big deal.

 

[Todd_Easton]

There are many such apparent discrepencies in the Gospels. The Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to address the matter in paragraph 126:126. We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.”
2. The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.”
3. The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”

So, in this instance, Matthew chose to mention both a colt and a** while Mark simply chose to mention only the colt.

 

[Elijon]

The issue between these two verses could be considered an inerrancy issue. But I don’t think that it is an issue of literal vs. nonliteral interpretation. I think that the problem lay in the “Inspiration” issue of the Bible in general. We commonly accept that the Bible is an “inspired” text from God. We cannot then look at the text as just being from a human witness perspective. It is easy for us to formulate from the “eye witness” perspective that the accounts work together, because they do not conflict with one another. But what of inspirational authority then?
For instance: In Matthew 21:2 we find that Jesus says, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt; untie them, and bring them to Me.” Now in Mark 11:2 we find that Jesus says, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.”
We must take into consideration that both accounts of the words Jesus spoke are from “eye witness” accounts “inspired” by the Holy Spirit. The question that begs an answer is: why did the Holy Spirit allow two different accounts to be made? The answer must be found in the way in which the Spirit of God inspires and interacts with those that do His will. God does not over power His servants, but works in cooperation with them. God uses the gifts and abilities of each of His servants to fullfill the work He has allotted to them. If God overtook His servants, wouldn’t this be tyrannical? Evil seeks to dominate, thus good must work in conjuction. Man submits to God and God works through Man. Thus a person’s testimony concerning God is only as good as his ability to submit to God ( look at all the non-canonical epistles which have given a poor witness of God!). Each account can then differ based on personal perceptions of events, while still transmitting in truth the essential information God desires us to know.
Only if we accept freedom in our interaction with God’s will, can we then see the true “Inspiration” of these two Gospel accounts working in conjuction with each other on both the human and Superhuman level.

 

[Ric]

Matthew 21:2 mentions two animals involved in Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem: the mother donkey and her foal. In the parallel accounts in Mark 11:2 and Luke 19:30 only the male foal is referred to; nothing is said about the mother. But this does not constitute a contradiction, because all three gospels agree that Jesus rode on a young donkey foal (polos) that had not been ridden before. Only the mother donkey is at issue. Rather than being guilty of embellishing the narrative, however, Matthew was simply pointing out that the prediction in Zechariah 9:9 was fulfilled to the letter by this symbolic action of Christ. Zechariah 9:9 closes with the words “humble, and mounted on a donkey [hamor], even on a foal ayir], the son of a she-*** (a-tono-t).” Matthew goes on to record that the mother donkey went on ahead of Jesus as He rode on her young foal.

What was the point of involving the she-*** in this transaction? A moment’s reflection will bring out the fact that if the foal had never yet been ridden (and that was an important factor for the sake of the symbolism), then he probably was still dependent on his mother psychologically or sentimentally, even though he may have been completely weaned by this time. It simply made it an easier operation if the mother donkey were led along down the road towards the city gate; then the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway.

The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it is simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-***” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitness as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here again, then there is no real contradiction between the synoptic accounts but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.

 

[m4dc4p]

I think that the Zechariah passage really makes it clear what happened. It refers the colt in the singular (especially clear in the NASB translation), which makes the passage a little clearer. Why Matthew chose to use the confusing plural when talking about Jesus sitting upon “them,” I don’t know. Possibly he was referring to the disciples coats. Regardless, the Zechariah passage really makes it clear whats going on.

Thanks to everyone for their replies on this one!

 

[Ric]

m4dc4p:

I think that the Zechariah passage really makes it clear what happened. It refers the colt in the singular (especially clear in the NASB translation), which makes the passage a little clearer. Why Matthew chose to use the confusing plural when talking about Jesus sitting upon “them,” I don’t know. Possibly he was referring to the disciples coats. Regardless, the Zechariah passage really makes it clear whats going on.

Thanks to everyone for their replies on this one!

No problem!