Why do you think the author of Matthew had Jesus take certain actions ‘so that it would fulfill prophecy’, indicating that there was a premeditation behind it, versus wording it as more of a divine happenstance, like for example: “and this fulfilled the prophecy ‘X’”, which would weaken the potential argument that the alleged fulfillment was forced for purposes of convincing the masses?
It’s puzzling to me why someone who works so hard to convince readers that Jesus is the Messiah would choose to word the reasons for the prophecy fulfillments in a way that implies that they could have been fulfilled by anyone of the other alleged messiahs had they been so inclined to simply choose to, say, ride in on a donkey.
Thoughts?
I’m not entirely certain I see the paradox here–or at least no more so than in any of the zillion other stories (many of them extremely recent) about ‘Chosen Ones’. Matthew does not believe Jesus is God Incarnate. He does believe Jesus is God’s Begotten Son, but what that actually means is a bit nebulous, since obviously God does not take a physical form and have intercourse with Mary, as would happen in pagan mythology.
My understanding is that Matthew is trying to find passages in the OT that he believes prefigure the Messiah (the current scholarly consensus is that none of them do), and then have Jesus fulfill them all. Sometimes through a quirk of fate–the census that makes Joseph take Mary to Bethlehem (in this case, he’s appealing to something many Jews did believe about the Messiah)–and sometimes by Jesus consciously fulfilling the prophecy, such as by entering Jerusalem on a donkey (except that Matthew misunderstood that passage, and thought it referred to both an adult donkey and a colt).
There are equivalent stories in pagan mythology, that Matthew might have known in one form or another.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Joel_1 said
Why do you think the author of Matthew had Jesus take certain actions ‘so that it would fulfill prophecy’, indicating that there was a premeditation behind it, versus wording it as more of a divine happenstance, like for example: “and this fulfilled the prophecy ‘X’”, which would weaken the potential argument that the alleged fulfillment was forced for purposes of convincing the masses?It’s puzzling to me why someone who works so hard to convince readers that Jesus is the Messiah would choose to word the reasons for the prophecy fulfillments in a way that implies that they could have been fulfilled by anyone of the other alleged messiahs had they been so inclined to simply choose to, say, ride in on a donkey.
Thoughts?
I guess it depends on the translation – but the words Matthew normally choses are “this came to pass in order that X might be fulfilled”.
which I think is the way you thought Matthew should have written it?
godspell said
–and sometimes by Jesus consciously fulfilling the prophecy, such as by entering Jerusalem on a donkey (except that Matthew misunderstood that passage, and thought it referred to both an adult donkey and a colt).
but the prophecy does refer to both a donkey and a colt.
It’s Mark Luke and John that change it to just a colt because they think riding on a donkey and a colt doesn’t make sense.
Also notice that Matthew send two disciples to get the donkey and colt. These two disciples put their coats (two) on the donkey and colt for Jesus to sit on.
Mark and Luke keep the two disciples but now they’re sent to get just one animal. Still they throw their coats (plural) on the one animal for Jesus to sit on.
Indicating quite clearly that Mark and Luke are editing Matthews original version.
According to Bart (whose Hebrew is presumably better than yours), it refers to one animal. But it uses additional descriptive language that can be confusing, and make it sound like the writer means two donkeys instead of one.
It’s like if I said I’m going to walk my dog, a puppy, the offspring of a dog. (Which I am, very shortly.) It means that the donkey has to be young, perhaps because it must be an animal no one has ridden before.
What it proves is that Matthew didn’t know Hebrew well enough, and had a very literal mind, and that tracks.
Mark was probably using an earlier source, but in any event, he doesn’t quote the OT passage–he does say the point is that it has to be an animal never ridden before. Matthew, obsessed with finding OT sources to verify Jesus’ Messiahdom, went back to the original, with inadequate Hebrew, thought he’d caught Mark in a mistake, so he ‘fixed’ it. Obviously it makes no sense in Matthew’s version, so obviously Matthew isn’t the original.
godspell said
According to Bart (whose Hebrew is presumably better than yours), it refers to one animal. But it uses additional descriptive language that can be confusing, and make it sound like the writer means two donkeys instead of one.It’s like if I said I’m going to walk my dog, a puppy, the offspring of a dog. (Which I am, very shortly.) It means that the donkey has to be young, perhaps because it must be an animal no one has ridden before.
What it proves is that Matthew didn’t know Hebrew well enough, and had a very literal mind, and that tracks.
Mark was probably using an earlier source, but in any event, he doesn’t quote the OT passage–he does say the point is that it has to be an animal never ridden before. Matthew, obsessed with finding OT sources to verify Jesus’ Messiahdom, went back to the original, with inadequate Hebrew, thought he’d caught Mark in a mistake, so he ‘fixed’ it. Obviously it makes no sense in Matthew’s version, so obviously Matthew isn’t the original.
It might make more sense to translate as one animal but its not what is actually written.
No matter – Matthew and Mark have a different version of the event. One is copying from the other, but the words common to both match Matthew’s version better. Two disciples are sent and they lay their coats on the two animals (one animal).
Fortunately, the main blog has a good search engine, and I can find the post from this past January where Bart explained the confusion–
The prophecy near the end of Matthew that gets fulfilled in a rather strange way is when Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey at the Triumphal Entry in 21:1-10. Or does he ride on a donkey? He does in the other Gospels, but in Matthew we are given a fulfillment citation “This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble and mounted on a donkey
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Anyone familiar with how Hebrew poetry works would understand this passage from ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (the OT prophets usually wrote in poetic verse). In Hebrew poetry, two lines are given in relation to one another. They rhyme not in sound but in sense. The second line can contrast with the first line; or it can fill out what is found in the first line; or it can repeat the sense of the first line in different words. This final kind of “parallelism,” between the lines – called “synonymous parallelism” – is what is found in the Zechariah passage, so that the one coming is mounted on a donkey, that is, a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Matthew, for some very odd reason, did not see that this was a synonymous parallelism, and took Zechariah literally, thinking that the prophecy must refer to two animals: a donkey and a colt. And so in order that Jesus might literally fulfil what the prophet predicted, the disciples of Jesus acquisition *two* animals, a donkey and a colt. They spread their cloaks on them, and Jesus rides into Jerusalem straddling the two. It’s a rather humorous sight.
Some scholars have argued that Matthew’s failure to understand how the Hebrew poetry worked shows that he could not have been Jewish. Any Jew would understand synonymous parallelism in poetic texts! But that’s probably taking the matter too far. We know of instances in Jewish texts where interpreters press the logic of a poetic passage in similar ways. This odd interpretation doesn’t show that Matthew was a gentile, but simply that he sometimes was a bit literalistic in his understanding of how Jesus fulfilled scripture.
So it’s a fact. The passage does not refer to two animals. Matthew thought it did. Mark and Luke did not. How to explain this? Matthew’s obsession with finding Old Testament passages to prove Jesus was the prophesied Jewish messiah. But if Matthew had been the first, Mark and Luke would have followed his lead, not knowing any better. Mark wrote first, relating a story that was well known, that Jesus had entered Jerusalem on a donkey. And probably a young donkey. Because Jesus was not averse to making OT references himself, and there was a symbolic resonance to riding a beast no one had ridden before–but not a horse, symbol of wealth and armed might, but rather a donkey–symbolic of humility and servitude, bearing the burdens of humanity. Not an earthly king, but a servant.
Mark isn’t forcing the symbolism, because it doesn’t need forcing, and he is referring to a previous story, either in written or oral form. Luke follows Mark. Matthew wants to be explicitly clear that Jesus is fulfilling what he wrongly thinks is a prophecy that the messiah will enter Jerusalem astride a donkey and her colt (which is of course just about impossible to do in reality, but what’s your point?)
There is no way to explain this if Matthew came first, and the following synoptic authors were copying him. Matthew got the story from Mark, but thought Mark had failed to understand the passage from Zechariah, when in fact he’d failed to understand it.
Q.E.D.
godspell
as Bart says above the literal translation of Zech 9:9 is a donkey and a colt. The only reason to read it poetically as a single animal is the literal meaning doesn’t make realistic sense.
But when it comes to prophecies should they be read literally or poetically? Matthew thought literally in this instance.
However the question is how to explain this if Matthew came first, and the following synoptic authors were copying him.
Matthew made up a story about Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey and a colt in order to fulfill a literal prophecy from Zechariah.
Mark and Luke, thinking either that the prophecy shouldn’t be taken literally or that Jesus riding upon two animals at the same time was ridiculous, changed the account to one colt.
However the words following and common to all three match Matthew’s version better. If one about is to be brought send one disciple and if two animals are to be brought send two. Matthew Mark and Luke all have Jesus send *two* disciples. Someone’s editing someone else here and the *two* disciples being sent fit Mattew’s version better. The two disciple’s then lay their two coats on the animal(s) – again fitting better if Matthew is the original.
brenmcg said
godspellas Bart says above the literal translation of Zech 9:9 is a donkey and a colt. The only reason to read it poetically as a single animal is the literal meaning doesn’t make realistic sense.
But when it comes to prophecies should they be read literally or poetically? Matthew thought literally in this instance.
However the question is how to explain this if Matthew came first, and the following synoptic authors were copying him.
Matthew made up a story about Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey and a colt in order to fulfill a literal prophecy from Zechariah.
Mark and Luke, thinking either that the prophecy shouldn’t be taken literally or that Jesus riding upon two animals at the same time was ridiculous, changed the account to one colt.
However the words following and common to all three match Matthew’s version better. If one about is to be brought send one disciple and if two animals are to be brought send two. Matthew Mark and Luke all have Jesus send *two* disciples. Someone’s editing someone else here and the *two* disciples being sent fit Mattew’s version better. The two disciple’s then lay their two coats on the animal(s) – again fitting better if Matthew is the original.
Why should we assume Matthew made up the story? Doesn’t that sound very much like what Jesus might have done? He did have to attact the attention of the authorities at some point. If all he did was show up and have Passover supper, kind of hard to explain why he was crucified. They didn’t have that much wood.
Your obsession with Matthean priority really is out in full force here. You start always with that assumption, and anything that conflicts with it goes out the window.
Why should anyone take you seriously when you never for one moment question an assumption that is quite secondary (tertiary?) to the real question–who was Jesus of Nazareth?
According to you, Matthew neither knew nor cared. He read something in the OT, thought it sounded good, threw it in. He didn’t adapt existing sources, he IS the source.
Are you a Mythicist? If not, this is getting increasingly hard to explain. Do you think Matthew invented Jesus? That would be the next logical link in the tangled chain of your thought processes.
You don’t know Hebrew. You don’t know the literary tradition Zechariah was written in. Bart gave you a credible explanation for something that otherwise makes no sense. You chose to ignore it. Because you would rather it not make sense.
Robert said
No. The main reason not to read it in an overly literal manner is that this is obviously an example of Hebrew poetic parallelism, which is extremely common, easily the most prevalent aspect of Hebrew literary style in non-narrative texts.
I dont think its an obvious example. If Zechariah had said the King and the High Priest are coming to you riding upon a donkey and a colt the foal of a donkey, everyone would understand this as the king on the donkey and the high priest on the colt.
Nobody would say this is obvious example of poetic parallelism and must mean both the king and high priest are riding upon the same colt.
If “riding upon a donkey and upon a colt the foal of a donkey” is an example of poetic parallelism its one of the weaker ones in the bible.
godspell said
Why should we assume Matthew made up the story? Doesn’t that sound very much like what Jesus might have done? He did have to attact the attention of the authorities at some point. If all he did was show up and have Passover supper, kind of hard to explain why he was crucified. They didn’t have that much wood.
Your obsession with Matthean priority really is out in full force here. You start always with that assumption, and anything that conflicts with it goes out the window.
Why should anyone take you seriously when you never for one moment question an assumption that is quite secondary (tertiary?) to the real question–who was Jesus of Nazareth?
According to you, Matthew neither knew nor cared. He read something in the OT, thought it sounded good, threw it in. He didn’t adapt existing sources, he IS the source.
Are you a Mythicist? If not, this is getting increasingly hard to explain. Do you think Matthew invented Jesus? That would be the next logical link in the tangled chain of your thought processes.
You don’t know Hebrew. You don’t know the literary tradition Zechariah was written in. Bart gave you a credible explanation for something that otherwise makes no sense. You chose to ignore it. Because you would rather it not make sense.
I think Matthew knew the historic Jesus and believed he was the messiah. I think in his telling of Jesus’ story he’ll add in fulfillments of what he believes to be messianic prophecies. I don’t believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem for example – and where Matthew has Jesus fulfilling messianic prophecies the assumption should be that he’s making it up, even if its quite possible Jesus actually did it.
Also I’m not ignoring Bart – he agrees the literal meaning of Zechariah is as Matthew took it.
Well, at least I got a straight answer out of you for once. You think Matthew actually was Matthew the disciple of Jesus (and former tax collector), was physically present when Jesus entered Jerusalem, and that he substituted a made-up story for what really happened.
Do you believe Mark was John Mark? Do you believe Luke was Luke, the physician and companion of Paul? If not, can you explain why they would directly contradict one of The Twelve? Even if they were those people, that would be pretty ballsy.
And you believe Bart Ehrman can’t correctly understand poetry written in a language and tradition he knows and you don’t.
The passage from Zechariah is referring to one king, riding one young equine. If you have to twist scripture around that much to make your point, you don’t have one.
So when you read “The fog crept in on little cat feet”, do you believe Carl Sandburg is literally saying the fog had four-toed paws with retractible claws? Ouch!
Robert said
Provide your example in Hebrew and I’ll let you know how obvious it is. Also, which king are you speaking of? An Hasmonean king might have also served as high priest.
מַלְכֵּך
וְכֹהֵֽן
יָבֹ֜אוּ
לָ֔ךְ
וְרֹכֵ֣בוּ
עַל־
חֲמ֔וֹר
וְעַל־
עַ֖יִר
בֶּן־
אֲתֹנֽוֹת׃
A hasmonean king who didnt happen to also be the high priest.
godspell said
Well, at least I got a straight answer out of you for once. You think Matthew actually was Matthew the disciple of Jesus (and former tax collector), was physically present when Jesus entered Jerusalem, and that he substituted a made-up story for what really happened.Do you believe Mark was John Mark? Do you believe Luke was Luke, the physician and companion of Paul? If not, can you explain why they would directly contradict one of The Twelve? Even if they were those people, that would be pretty ballsy.
And you believe Bart Ehrman can’t correctly understand poetry written in a language and tradition he knows and you don’t.
The passage from Zechariah is referring to one king, riding one young equine. If you have to twist scripture around that much to make your point, you don’t have one.
So when you read “The fog crept in on little cat feet”, do you believe Carl Sandburg is literally saying the fog had four-toed paws with retractible claws? Ouch!
he was present for the entry to jerusalem but spruced it up a bit – were the adoring crowds and palm branches and shouts of “Hosanna blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord” all true? I doubt it – but its a rose tinted remembrance of a real event.
I’d guess Mark was John Mark and Luke was the physician companion of Paul. Mark knew peter and Luke talked to other eyewitnesses so no problem with them changing matthew where they were told he’d got it wrong.
I think Bart only identifies it as poetry because the literal version (which matches Matthew) doesnt make realistic sense.
The passage in Zechariah literally means one king riding upon a donkey and upon the colt the foal of a donkey.
I think figurative language is obvious from context – Zech 9:9 is not obviously not to be taken literally
Robert said
Do you need me to point out to the two biggest ways in which your example is fatally flawed as an attempt elucidate or dispute the parallelism of Zech 9,9, or are already aware of this subterfuge?
And why are you writing Hebrew vertically?
I need you to point out the two ways in which its flawed.
Sorry, I tried to paste in word by word but couldnt get it to go in correctly on one line.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)