Entry into Jerusalem

[Augustine3]

“”This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: “Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ***(donkey), and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ***(donkey) and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.””. – Matthew 21:4-7

In the American Bible commentary it says St Matthew misunderstood the prophecy from Zec 9:9 to be to two beasts when in fact it was actually just one. The commentary takes the extra step by saying that Jesus sitting on two beasts would be hard to picture once again due St Matthew’s misunderstanding. Can anyone explain it?

God bless,

 

[Dave_Noonan]

“”This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: “Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ***(donkey), and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ***(donkey) and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.””. – Matthew 21:4-7

In the American Bible commentary it says St Matthew misunderstood the prophecy from Zec 9:9 to be to two beasts when in fact it was actually just one. The commentary takes the extra step by saying that Jesus sitting on two beasts would be hard to picture once again due St Matthew’s misunderstanding. Can anyone explain it?

God bless,

One of the prominent features of Biblical Hebrew poetry is its use of parallelisms. The way this usually works is that a relatively common word for something, in this case, “donkey” (חמור) is re-described in the following line in a more elaborate way using less common words or more words: (עיר בן אתנות). This is reinforced and supported by the repeated use of the same preposition translated “upon” (על). So, a plain reading of the Hebrew text of Zechariah 9:9 would say that only one animal is being referred to in that particular text.

Further, you can also see this parallelism operating in the first part of the same same verse: “rejoice greatly” = “shout aloud”; “daughter Zion” = “daughter Jerusalem.”

To make things even more interesting, compare the Matthew text to John 12:14-15, where the number of animals does agree with the Zechariah text, but where the quote doesn’t quite agree with either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint.

 

[Augustine3]

One of the prominent features of Biblical Hebrew poetry is its use of parallelisms. The way this usually works is that a relatively common word for something, in this case, “donkey” (חמור) is re-described in the following line in a more elaborate way using less common words or more words: (עיר בן אתנות). This is reinforced and supported by the repeated use of the same preposition translated “upon” (על). So, a plain reading of the Hebrew text of Zechariah 9:9 would say that only one animal is being referred to in that particular text.

Further, you can also see this parallelism operating in the first part of the same same verse: “rejoice greatly” = “shout aloud”; “daughter Zion” = “daughter Jerusalem.”

To make things even more interesting, compare the Matthew text to John 12:14-15, where the number of animals does agree with the Zechariah text, but where the quote doesn’t quite agree with either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint.

Thanks for your response but you’ve totally lost me…

I was hoping for a simpler explanation.

God bless,

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thanks for your response but you’ve totally lost me…

I was hoping for a simpler explanation.

God bless,

Sorry! How about:

The Gospel according to John is right (except for the fact he messes up the Zechariah quote big-time) and The Gospel according to Matthew is wrong because he misunderstands the Zechariah text as referring to two animals when it actually only refers to one–which I think is what your footnote says. I hope this is simpler!

 

[Augustine3]

Sorry! How about:

The Gospel according to John is right (except for the fact he messes up the Zechariah quote big-time) and The Gospel according to Matthew is wrong because he misunderstands the Zechariah text as referring to two animals when it actually only refers to one–which I think is what your footnote says. I hope this is simpler!

OK – but since we both believe the Bible to be inerrant how do we harmonize the two accounts?

God bless,

 

[Dave_Noonan]

OK – but since we both believe the Bible to be inerrant how do we harmonize the two accounts?

God bless,

Oh OK. I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant (at least not at this level of detail), so you’ve got me there. It seems to me that there’s an abundantly clear difference between John and Matthew.