You mean this one? I thought i addressed them
Robert said Of course it changes whether or not one reads the following as parallelism! When you change the text so that you can imagine that the text is speaking of one person riding two donkeys with one foot on each donkey that eliminates the parallelism of the original text. It is a drastic change to the text and context, so drastic that such a change has no relevance to the parallelism of the original text and context. If you really cannot see that, then I can’t help you. Sorry.
Yes its a change to the text – the change allows us to read both lines as separately literal.
Which is precisely the point.
The original seemingly cant have both lines read separately which is why it seemingly must be read as parallelism.
There argument is about why the original two lines are read as parallelism – its because they seemingly can be taken literally as two separate statements.
The altered version can be taken literally as two separate statements therefore is not taken as parallelism.
The other point you have neglected to address is that you still seem to be thinking that ‘reading the synonymous parallelism’ vs ‘a literal reading’ is some kind of mutually exclusive dichotomy. Reading the original text as synonymous and syntactic parallelism is certainly a literal reading. It’s not a figurative or symbolic reading, but is indeed a literal reading of the text with an awareness of typical Hebrew literary style.
I agreed with this in comment 38 “Yes “riding on a donkey” and “upon a colt the foal of a donkey” are read literally and the parallelism sees them as poetically describing the same event (one animal).“
This is an absurd point. If one needs to change the text and context to argue about whether or not the original text is an obvious example of Hebrew parallelism, you have effectively conceded the point. Do you really not see that?
No.
Here’s the point – we have the original version of Zech and the altered version. It should be noted that
1. the versions differ by a single word
2. the last two lines in the original are read as synonymous parallelism whereas in the altered version they are not.
The question is – given 1 why does 2 follow?
I do see that – thats the whole point.
The parallelism is destroyed if we’re able to imagine two separate subjects.
If we can imagine two separate subjects in Zechariah’s original the parallelism would be destroyed too.
Matthew saw two separate subjects – was he wrong to see that?
May have confused things there by two subjects. I thought you just meant the subject being applied separately to two propositional phrases – theres only one king in both the original and altered verse.
Seeing the king applied separately to two different phrases rather than one phrase poetically divided in two is what destroys the parallelism.
Robert said
No, in your rewritten version with the imagined circus performer, you are imagining one foot on the donkey and the other foot on the colt. Each of the two feet is imagined as a separate subject of a separate prepositional phrase. That is what destroys the parallelism.
Yes and no – the subject is the king in both phrases not the two feet.
Its the fact the they can be read as separate phrases with the king as subject in both that destroys the parallelism.
Robert said
brenmcg said
Just to make the point in another way – if zechariah had in fact wished to say the king would arrive riding both a donkey and a colt he would have written the verse just as is.No, if he wanted to be understood in this way, he would have written something like the following:
ועמד רגל אחת על חמור והרגלו השניהו על העיר
But it is hard to imagine why Zechariah would want to portray a humble king performing a circus stunt.
I mean Zechariahs original version – if his actual intention was, as matthew imagined, a king sitting on both a donkey and a colt, zech would still write it the same way
Robert said
No. When the king is read as the singular subject, that is part of the parallelism. You needed to change the text and at least imply two imaginary subjects to break up the parallelism. Reading the Hebrew as a singular king simultaneously riding on two donkeys is not a sensible reading.
I think the highlighted portion is the key point – if it was a sensible reading the parallelism would be gone.
Its the fact that the last to lines aren’t viewed as sensibly read separately that leads to them being read as syn parallelism.
But if Matthew thought they could be sensibly read separately his understanding of Jesus riding a donkey and a bolt would be fine.
Robert said
No, as I mentioned above, I don’t think Zechariah would write such a thing.
Nor do I think Matthew read the current Hebrew text of Zechariah. At least judging by the form of the text he reproduces, he is definitely not trying to reproduce Zechariah’s parallelism, not just with respect to the two donkeys, but also other aspects of Zechariah’s parallelism. If he tried to read the current Hebrew text, he clearly misunderstood it.
It seems much more likely that he is selectively citing elements of the standard Greek text, especially two separate word-for-word snippets (6 words and 4 words long) from some version of the text at least partially similar to our current version of Greek Zechariah, with only one element added that reflects the Hebrew text or perhaps an Aramaic or another Greek translation from the Hebrew. There are also omissions and changes from the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts of Zechariah that we possess. Bart has already alluded to the fact that the first line is taken from Isaiah 62,11 (another 4-word snippet, exactly matching the standard Greek translation of Isaiah), but the other omissions and changes cannot be attributed to Isaiah.
The only element of Matthew’s ‘citation’ that reflects the Hebrew of Zechariah (עַ֖יִר בֶּן־אֲתֹנֽוֹת) also reflects the Hebrew of Genesis 49,11 (עִירֹה … בְּנִ֣י אֲתֹנ֑וֹ) (Meyers, 130-131), a messianic text, and it is Gen 49,11 LXX (δεσμεύων … τὸν πῶλον τῆς ὄνου) that best explains the exact choice of animals used in Matthew’s version of the story (ὄνον δεδεμένην καὶ πῶλον μετ᾿ αὐτῆς): the bound colt and the female donkey, perhaps it’s mother. This lends credence to Stephen Carlson’s revival of FC Burkitt’s view of Matthew’s use of a florilegium, ie, a book of messianic testamonia, perhaps initially composed in Hebrew, as attested to by Papias. Note Stephen has previewed his book in six guest posts ** you do not have permission to see this link ** on Bart’s blog.
Interesting, hadn’t heard of this. Thank you.
Robert said
Let me simplify for you. Almost the entirety of Matthew’s citation (14 words) come word-for-word from the old Greek translations of Isaiah and Zechariah, not from the Hebrew. The only element that is even possibly inspired from the Hebrew of Zechariah (but which is not an exact match) is closely related to the messianic text of Gen 49,11 and the two animals that Matthew provides in his story and citation actually come exactly from Gen 49,11 LXX, agreeing not only in the type of animal but also in the sex of each animal. There is no clear indication that Matthew even read the Hebrew text of Zechariah. To argue backwards from Matthew’s story and Greek citation to how he supposedly read the Hebrew to how Zechariah would express this strange idea in Hebrew is just plain silly.
But nobody is arguing backwards from Matthew.
The question is, can someone who read and understood the hebrew version of Zech 9:9 produce the greek version of it found in Matthew 21:5?
Or, does the greek version found in Matthew 21:5 demonstrate that the writer either misunderstood the hebrew version of Zech 9:9 or never in fact read it?
The answer is, if the reader found the king sitting on both a donkey and colt to be a sensible reading of the hebrew version of Zech 9:9 he could have produced the greek version found in Matthew 21:5 (the slight differences or partial match to Isaiah 62:11 arent very relevant to the question at hand). And we can’t say that the writer misunderstood the intended prophecy.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)