Jesus Enters Jerusalem - Gustave Dore 1832-1883
Triumphal Entry of the Messiah in Jerusalem
This is Zachariah’s original prophecy
Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!
Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!
Look! Your king is coming to you:
he is legitimate and bringing salvation,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey.
(Zechariah 9:9 - NET)
And this is Zachariah’s prophecy as quoted by Matthew:
"Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Look, your king is coming to you,
Lowly, and [kai] sitting on a donkey,
and [kai] on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
(Matthew 21:5 - NET)
Apparently, in his zeal, Matthew has misinterpreted the original Hebrew and/or mistranslated in Greek. And this is the disconcerting result:
EITHER a physical impossibility, OR something absurd and silly. This, much more than the discrepancy with Mark, Luke and John, all speaking ONLY of one donkey (Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14-15), is the real problem.
In fact there may be quite a straightforward explanation: Matthew did not translate Zechariah 9:9 from the original Hebrew, but cited from the Septuagint, which apparently makes exactly the same “mistake” as Matthew, viz. of mentioning two donkeys (see Zechariah 9:9 in original HEBREW and in the retative Septuagint translation in Greek LXXM).
Some may claim that there are differences between Matthew and the Septuagint, but a careful comparison of the texts shows that the differences between Matthew and the Septuagint are not relevant, and they can all be easily explained. Let’s order the two Greek texts (transliterated) by corresponding stich (source Zechariah 9:9 – NET; Matthew 21:5 – NET):
1. [LXX] Idou o basileus sou erchetai soi (See, your king comes to you)
[Matt] Idou o basileus sou erchetai soi (See, your king comes to you)
[NOTE] Identical
2. [LXX] dikaios kai sozwn autos (righteous and having salvation)
[Matt] MISSING
[NOTE] stich entirely missing in Matthew: perhaps a copying error, quite common
3. [LXX] praus kai epibebekos epi hypozygion (meek and riding on an ass [lit. “beast of burden”])
[Matt] praus kai epibebekos epi onon (meek and riding on an ass)
[NOTE] the “beast of burden” of LXX has been shifted to stich no.4 in Matthew
4. [LXX] kai pwlon neon (and a young colt)
[Matt] kai pwlon uion hypozygiou (and a colt, the foal [lit. “son”] of an ass [lit. “beast of burden”])
[NOTE] see NOTE at stich no.3
It is also possible that both Matthew and the Septuagint translators were working from a different Hebrew original than the one which made its way into the Masoretic text (this would be confirmed by similar parallel findings at Qumran). But the main point remains that LXX and Matthew closely mirror each other. This happens only with Matthew, and not with Mark and John, and also with Luke (only John, besides Matthew, briefly quotes Zachariah 9:9)
From the above analysis, the similarities between Matthew’s and the Septuagint’s rendering of Zechariah’s 9:9 far outweigh discrepancies:
i. LXX has hypozygion (“beast of burden”) in stich no.3 and Matthew in stich no.4, whereas they both have pwlon (“colt”) exactly in the same position,
ii. Only Matthew uses onon (“ass”, generic, without explicit reference to sex), but this may be Matthew’s choice to specify clearly that it is an “ass”, and not, generically a “beast of burden”. In fact, by using the Greek word for “ass”, rather than the LXX “beast of burden”, Matthew may want to underline that in fact the “beast” upon which Jesus rides, being a “young colt”, is not yet, properly speaking, a “beast of burden”.
iii. Only Matthew uses uion (lit. “son”), but that can be easily explained (it is witnessed in Greek codices as a mistaken copy of neon - “young”).
What is unique to LXX and to Matthew, with respect to the original Hebrew Zachariah 9:9, is that while Zachariah 9:9 apparently speaks of ONE donkey (“riding on an ass, on a colt, the foal of an ass”), both LXX and Matthew speak of TWO donkeys (“riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass” - a physical absurdity-impossibility). This is even more remarkable, bearing in mind that neither Mark, nor John, nor even Luke follow LXX and Matthew in the same apparent “mistake” or absurdity.
I believe that NOT ONLY my attempt at explaining the Matthean oddity (of “riding on two donkeys”) by recourse to the LXX is perfectly reasonable and satisfactory, BUT ALSO that, if one chooses not to resort to this explanation, one ends up in really deep waters as to why Matthew (and ONLY Matthew, NOT Mark, Luke and John) would have consciously reported this awkward image of the Messiah riding on TWO donkeys.
It seems reasonable to assume that Matthew drew his Zechariah 9:9 from a Hebrew text with “two steeds” similar (but perhaps not identical) to the one used as a basis for the LXX.
And it is precisely at this point that the visionary nature of Zachariah’s prophecy at Zech 9:9 appears.
Zechariah’s "gradual" Vision
Let’s suppose that the prophet Zechariah had a gradual vision of the Messiah and of two donkeys, an ass and her colt, and of the Messiah riding on the colt, possibly tied to his mother. Let’s examine again the LXX translation of Zechariah 9:9, stich by stich (ST1:ST4)
Zechariah probably, in the fuzziness of the vision, first saw the Messiah:
[ST1] “Behold, your king comes to you”
Then, like in a film, closing in on the Messiah, he had a strong impression of his majestic aspect:
[ST2] “righteous and having salvation”
Then the image “expanded” and he saw that the Messiah was humbly riding an ass:
[ST3] “meek and riding on a he-ass” [Hebrew: חֲמוֹר chamowr <H2543>, masculine (“he-ass”)]
We can perceive here that the vision is confused, that the seer “knows” there is more to the vision, and yes, he realizes that, in fact there are two animals, a colt (“young male he-ass”) [Hebrew: עַיִר ’ayir <H5895>] and its mother, a she-ass [Hebrew: אָתוֹן 'athown <H860>]:
[ST4] ”and [on] a colt, the foal [lit. “son”] of a she-ass”.
Note on the Vision
More comments on “Zechariah’s Vision”.
i. The uncertainty and “graduality” of the vision is hinted at by the Hebrew prefix conjunction we (“and”), before bkr rakab <H7392> (“riding”), which makes it appear as bkrw (we-rakab) and repeated before the conjunction le ’al <H5921> (“on”, “upon”), which makes it appear as lew (we-‘al).
ii. Also the LXX translates perfectly the Hebrew text of Zechariah 9:9, because the Greek conjunction και (kai <G2532>), in this verse, bears NOT the meaning of “and” BUT of “even”.
iii. The two English translations that are most faithful to the Hebrew text are NASB and NLT. They are the only ones that NEITHER omit the second vav/we (the one before le ’al <H5921> “on”, “upon”, which transforms it into lew - we-‘al), NOR translate it (as the KJV does) with a misleading “and”, BUT correctly express the sense of surprise proper of the vision with “even”.
Matthew's awkward verse 21:7
Now that the quotation of Zehariah's vision is dealt with, Matthew proceeds on his own, and we can safely say that what he writes at verse 7 ...
... is awkwardly phrased
There is no doubt that the Greek phrase ἐπέθηκαν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια (“[they] placed their cloaks on them”), which obviously refers to BOTH animals, is already confusing enough, even if not wrong.
But the last part of the sentence, καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν is more than just confusing, because:
1. ἐπικαθίζω (epikathizô <G1940>) is used only once in the whole NT, at Mat 21:7. And we do not fare much better considering Greek literature in general. The most authoritative Liddle-Scott A Greek-English Lexicon records only 6 (six) occurrences throughout ancient Greek Texts (approx 5 million words). Besides epikathizô can be both transitive and intransitive, and, because the 3rd person singular is identical to the 3rd plural, ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω can be translated equally as “[they] sat [him] thereon” (KJV) or as “he sat on top them [the cloaks]”: they are both equally legitimate, and the grammar does not allow to decide.
2. ἐπάνω (epano <G1883>) means “above”, “on top” as adverb, but it can be also preposition + GEN. This is certainly the case at Mat 21:7, where αὐτῶν is the GEN. plural of αὐτός (autos <G846>).
3. αὐτῶν (autos <G846>), being a pronoun, could refer to the immediate noun (more grammatically correct), therefore refer to the ἱμάτια (“cloaks”), or refer to more remote nouns (less common and also less correct), τὴν ὄνον καὶ τὸν πῶλον (“the ass and the colt”)
In conclusion, the probable meaning of καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν is ...
“and [Jesus] sat on top of them [the cloaks]”
... BUT Matthew has phrased it so awkwardly that, from a lexical-grammatical POV, it could equally well mean “they sat [him] on top of them [the ass and the colt]”. Which, of course, would be total nonsense.
(Zechariah 9:9 - NET)
And this is Zachariah’s prophecy as quoted by Matthew:
"Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Look, your king is coming to you,
Lowly, and [kai] sitting on a donkey,
and [kai] on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
(Matthew 21:5 - NET)
Apparently, in his zeal, Matthew has misinterpreted the original Hebrew and/or mistranslated in Greek. And this is the disconcerting result:
6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. (Matthew 21:6-7 - NET - emphasis by MdS)
EITHER a physical impossibility, OR something absurd and silly. This, much more than the discrepancy with Mark, Luke and John, all speaking ONLY of one donkey (Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14-15), is the real problem.
In fact there may be quite a straightforward explanation: Matthew did not translate Zechariah 9:9 from the original Hebrew, but cited from the Septuagint, which apparently makes exactly the same “mistake” as Matthew, viz. of mentioning two donkeys (see Zechariah 9:9 in original HEBREW and in the retative Septuagint translation in Greek LXXM).
Some may claim that there are differences between Matthew and the Septuagint, but a careful comparison of the texts shows that the differences between Matthew and the Septuagint are not relevant, and they can all be easily explained. Let’s order the two Greek texts (transliterated) by corresponding stich (source Zechariah 9:9 – NET; Matthew 21:5 – NET):
1. [LXX] Idou o basileus sou erchetai soi (See, your king comes to you)
[Matt] Idou o basileus sou erchetai soi (See, your king comes to you)
[NOTE] Identical
2. [LXX] dikaios kai sozwn autos (righteous and having salvation)
[Matt] MISSING
[NOTE] stich entirely missing in Matthew: perhaps a copying error, quite common
3. [LXX] praus kai epibebekos epi hypozygion (meek and riding on an ass [lit. “beast of burden”])
[Matt] praus kai epibebekos epi onon (meek and riding on an ass)
[NOTE] the “beast of burden” of LXX has been shifted to stich no.4 in Matthew
4. [LXX] kai pwlon neon (and a young colt)
[Matt] kai pwlon uion hypozygiou (and a colt, the foal [lit. “son”] of an ass [lit. “beast of burden”])
[NOTE] see NOTE at stich no.3
It is also possible that both Matthew and the Septuagint translators were working from a different Hebrew original than the one which made its way into the Masoretic text (this would be confirmed by similar parallel findings at Qumran). But the main point remains that LXX and Matthew closely mirror each other. This happens only with Matthew, and not with Mark and John, and also with Luke (only John, besides Matthew, briefly quotes Zachariah 9:9)
From the above analysis, the similarities between Matthew’s and the Septuagint’s rendering of Zechariah’s 9:9 far outweigh discrepancies:
i. LXX has hypozygion (“beast of burden”) in stich no.3 and Matthew in stich no.4, whereas they both have pwlon (“colt”) exactly in the same position,
ii. Only Matthew uses onon (“ass”, generic, without explicit reference to sex), but this may be Matthew’s choice to specify clearly that it is an “ass”, and not, generically a “beast of burden”. In fact, by using the Greek word for “ass”, rather than the LXX “beast of burden”, Matthew may want to underline that in fact the “beast” upon which Jesus rides, being a “young colt”, is not yet, properly speaking, a “beast of burden”.
iii. Only Matthew uses uion (lit. “son”), but that can be easily explained (it is witnessed in Greek codices as a mistaken copy of neon - “young”).
What is unique to LXX and to Matthew, with respect to the original Hebrew Zachariah 9:9, is that while Zachariah 9:9 apparently speaks of ONE donkey (“riding on an ass, on a colt, the foal of an ass”), both LXX and Matthew speak of TWO donkeys (“riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass” - a physical absurdity-impossibility). This is even more remarkable, bearing in mind that neither Mark, nor John, nor even Luke follow LXX and Matthew in the same apparent “mistake” or absurdity.
I believe that NOT ONLY my attempt at explaining the Matthean oddity (of “riding on two donkeys”) by recourse to the LXX is perfectly reasonable and satisfactory, BUT ALSO that, if one chooses not to resort to this explanation, one ends up in really deep waters as to why Matthew (and ONLY Matthew, NOT Mark, Luke and John) would have consciously reported this awkward image of the Messiah riding on TWO donkeys.
It seems reasonable to assume that Matthew drew his Zechariah 9:9 from a Hebrew text with “two steeds” similar (but perhaps not identical) to the one used as a basis for the LXX.
And it is precisely at this point that the visionary nature of Zachariah’s prophecy at Zech 9:9 appears.
Zechariah’s "gradual" Vision
Let’s suppose that the prophet Zechariah had a gradual vision of the Messiah and of two donkeys, an ass and her colt, and of the Messiah riding on the colt, possibly tied to his mother. Let’s examine again the LXX translation of Zechariah 9:9, stich by stich (ST1:ST4)
Zechariah probably, in the fuzziness of the vision, first saw the Messiah:
[ST1] “Behold, your king comes to you”
Then, like in a film, closing in on the Messiah, he had a strong impression of his majestic aspect:
[ST2] “righteous and having salvation”
Then the image “expanded” and he saw that the Messiah was humbly riding an ass:
[ST3] “meek and riding on a he-ass” [Hebrew: חֲמוֹר chamowr <H2543>, masculine (“he-ass”)]
We can perceive here that the vision is confused, that the seer “knows” there is more to the vision, and yes, he realizes that, in fact there are two animals, a colt (“young male he-ass”) [Hebrew: עַיִר ’ayir <H5895>] and its mother, a she-ass [Hebrew: אָתוֹן 'athown <H860>]:
[ST4] ”and [on] a colt, the foal [lit. “son”] of a she-ass”.
Note on the Vision
More comments on “Zechariah’s Vision”.
i. The uncertainty and “graduality” of the vision is hinted at by the Hebrew prefix conjunction we (“and”), before bkr rakab <H7392> (“riding”), which makes it appear as bkrw (we-rakab) and repeated before the conjunction le ’al <H5921> (“on”, “upon”), which makes it appear as lew (we-‘al).
ii. Also the LXX translates perfectly the Hebrew text of Zechariah 9:9, because the Greek conjunction και (kai <G2532>), in this verse, bears NOT the meaning of “and” BUT of “even”.
iii. The two English translations that are most faithful to the Hebrew text are NASB and NLT. They are the only ones that NEITHER omit the second vav/we (the one before le ’al <H5921> “on”, “upon”, which transforms it into lew - we-‘al), NOR translate it (as the KJV does) with a misleading “and”, BUT correctly express the sense of surprise proper of the vision with “even”.
Matthew's awkward verse 21:7
Now that the quotation of Zehariah's vision is dealt with, Matthew proceeds on his own, and we can safely say that what he writes at verse 7 ...
They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. (Matt 21:7 NET)
... is awkwardly phrased
There is no doubt that the Greek phrase ἐπέθηκαν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια (“[they] placed their cloaks on them”), which obviously refers to BOTH animals, is already confusing enough, even if not wrong.
But the last part of the sentence, καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν is more than just confusing, because:
1. ἐπικαθίζω (epikathizô <G1940>) is used only once in the whole NT, at Mat 21:7. And we do not fare much better considering Greek literature in general. The most authoritative Liddle-Scott A Greek-English Lexicon records only 6 (six) occurrences throughout ancient Greek Texts (approx 5 million words). Besides epikathizô can be both transitive and intransitive, and, because the 3rd person singular is identical to the 3rd plural, ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω can be translated equally as “[they] sat [him] thereon” (KJV) or as “he sat on top them [the cloaks]”: they are both equally legitimate, and the grammar does not allow to decide.
2. ἐπάνω (epano <G1883>) means “above”, “on top” as adverb, but it can be also preposition + GEN. This is certainly the case at Mat 21:7, where αὐτῶν is the GEN. plural of αὐτός (autos <G846>).
3. αὐτῶν (autos <G846>), being a pronoun, could refer to the immediate noun (more grammatically correct), therefore refer to the ἱμάτια (“cloaks”), or refer to more remote nouns (less common and also less correct), τὴν ὄνον καὶ τὸν πῶλον (“the ass and the colt”)
In conclusion, the probable meaning of καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν is ...
“and [Jesus] sat on top of them [the cloaks]”
... BUT Matthew has phrased it so awkwardly that, from a lexical-grammatical POV, it could equally well mean “they sat [him] on top of them [the ass and the colt]”. Which, of course, would be total nonsense.
Excellent post, thanks. If I may, this example of Matthew's heavy push toward the OT, which you seem to have accurately associated with the preponderant LXX version, including this stilted example are not early Jewish expressions of Christianity, rather of a late first century "recall" *back* to Jewish roots. I subscribe to the unpopular MPH, with the particularity that Matthew not only read Luke but Acts as well. Mt 28:19 is thus the big theological clearup of the misconstrued teachings encapsulated in Luke and Acts around baptism into Jesus. Matthew also is keen to promote Jesus over and above the understated ministry of John. Notice how he makes "the Lord's prayer" well and truly Jesus'. This is far from clear in Luke.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you enjoyed this post which, in my opinion, vindicates the importance of the prophetic argument in the Gospel of Matthew.
DeleteThe Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis is certainly a largely neglected solution to the Synoptic Problem, even without the particularity that Matthew not only read Luke but Acts as well.
I am not at all sure what you refer to with the expression "misconstrued teachings encapsulated in Luke and Acts around baptism into Jesus", and I am rather puzzled how Mt 28:19 would be "the big theological clearup" of them.
As for the Lord's Prayer in Luke (Lk 11:2-4), it is just as clearly Jesus' own as it is in Matthew, although it is just not as "perfect" as it is in Mt 6:9-13. But something similar happens with the beatitudes (Lk 6:20-26 vs Mt 5:2-12): in Matthew they are more fully articulated, although in Luke they are better "balanced" with the wows.
As for Mt 28:19, although there is not one surviving MS without the "trinitarian baptismal formula", many scholars consider it apocryphal (and I with them). In the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, it appears for the first time in his Letter to his church regarding the Nicene Creed of 325.
As for the Didache (which also contains the TBF) scholars knew of it through the writing of later church fathers. It went missing until 1873, when a copy of the Didache, written in 1056, was found in Istanbul.
Interesting reading you. From your response you sound neutral about the MPH - are you? I rejected the Trinity for a while, but it was the integrity of Matthew 28:19 and Didache evidence that made me realise that there really was something "trinitarian" going down in the Jewish sect, even if it wasn't a trinitarian God. I don't embrace what I call "Triune God Advocacy", but I do now concur with most scholars that the textual evidence of manipulation of Matt 28:19 (other than by Matthew himself of course! I don't believe Jesus said this) is wishful unitarian bias. There are *stacks* of wishful trinitarian bias out there. Unitarians hate it and should avoid it where possible. In this instance, I would urge you to grant that there is at least a *possibility* that something as formulaic as that could have emerged around the turn of the first century and also, that these reasons are connected to the misunderstandings in the previous decades of whose baptism was whose. See again Acts 18, 8, *and also, crucially* if you want to discount the Didache, 1st-2nd century Gospel of Thomas: Jesus said,
ReplyDelete44.1 "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven,
44.2 and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven,
44.3 but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit
will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."
Come, join me in my rejection of traditional trinitarian and unitarian positions, and let's find out what really might have got this Triune God thing into gear!
I am not entirely neutral about the MPH. While I am aware of all (most) hypotheses, I still prefer the Matthaean Priority (possibly with an original – and lost – Aramaic Matthew). I certainly find simply ludicrous, anyway, the ad hoc invention of Q, so as to affirm the modern "dogma" of Markan Priority.
ReplyDeleteI am baffled as to the relevance of Acts 18:8. As to your quotation from the Gospel of Thomas 44.3-3, I believe it is a (late, Gnostic, trinitarian) expansion of Matthew 12:32
It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew adopted the TBF from the Didache (which, in the case, would be very early indeed).
You invite me to join you in your "rejection of traditional trinitarian and unitarian positions". My Strict Monotheism is already something of the kind, as you can see if you browse through my blog. Probably the post that best describes my understanding of the Godhead is Word and Spirit: the "Everlasting Arms" of God.
I suspect that, IF the TBF is really ancient (end of 1st – beginning of 2nd century), then, perhaps it is the product of a Gnostic sect (Syrian?) that developed as a heresy of Judaism, independent of Christianity, but which influenced (diabolically?) very early Christianity. I am trying to find corroboration for this hypothesis, at the moment. There is no doubt that we find trinitarianism associated with Gnosticism, for instance in Valentinus, but Valentinus (ca. 100 – 160 AD), perhaps, is too late to explain the TBF in Matthew (and in the Didache).
It would certainly be the epitome of irony to discover that the "trinity" is, ultimately, a heresy of Judaism ...
Perhaps, after all, it is much simpler to assume that the TBF was retrofitted both in Didache 7:1 and in Matthew 28:19, and that all the copies without the TBF have been destroyed. A hint of inconsistency can be found in the Didache, comparing the command to "baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water" (Didache 7:1) with the restriction about those who should receive the Eucharist: "let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord" (Didache 9:5).
ReplyDeleteIt would certainly be the epitome of irony to discover that the "trinity" is, ultimately, a mutation of Judaism...
ReplyDeleteBy using the word "mutation", instead of "heresy" (your word is much more appropriate, BTW), you seem to make my comment yours :)
ReplyDelete