Fwd: Beast(s) ridden by Jesus (was: Re: EI = Since)
- For those not subscribed to B-Greek, let me just indicate that this old
clunker of a problem has just been injected into a question regarding
whether Matthew's gospel employs irony. When I was challenged on it by Jim
West, I thought it worth raising the question whether there's any
legitimate way of understanding the Greek of Matthew's account of the ass
and the colt other than that Jesus is said to have ridden on BOTH.
In my haste I wrongly implied the identity of the "Farmer-Griesbach"
hypothesis with the assumption of Matthaean priority, but that was not the
key point of my post, so I thought I would cross-post it to Syntopic L
>Mime-Version: 1.0Carl W. Conrad
>Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 05:53:30 -0400
>To: Jim West <jwest@...>
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@...>
>Subject: Beast(s) ridden by Jesus (was: Re: EI = Since)
>At 9:14 PM -0400 5/31/98, Jim West wrote:
>>At 09:06 PM 5/31/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Well ... there's 21:7--HGAGON THN ONON KAI TON PWLON KAI EPEQHKAN EP' AUTWN
>>>TA hIMATIA, KAI EPEKAQISEN EPANW AUTWN. Perhaps this is not deliberate
>>>irony, but the reader tends to perceive it as ironic.
>>>Carl W. Conrad
>>Perhaps I am in ill humor or something, but I cannot figure how you take
>>this to be ironic. The plural? I take ta himatia to be the things he rode
>>They led the ass and the foal and set garments upon them, and he rode on
>>them (the garments) (not both animals).
>That's all very fine--but it looks to me like the hIMATIA are placed upon
>both animals--whether collectively or individually, I don't know. But the
>evangelist does appear to want Jesus' action to be a LITERAL fulfilment of
>the prophetic passage cited in 21:5:
> EIPATE THi QUGATRI SIWN
> IDOU hO BASILEUS SOU ERCETAI SOI
> PRAUS KAI EPIBEBHKWS EPI ONON
> KAI EPI PWLON hUION hUPOZUGION.
>It is an awkward passage, and one that has been discussed in this forum
>before. Mark's account has only the PWLOS (Mk 11:7 KAI FEROUSIN TON PWLON
>PROS TON IHSOUN KAI EPIBALLOUSIN AUTWi TA hIMATIA AUTWN, KAI EKAQISEN EP'
>AUTON. For comparison's sake, here's Luke's version (Lk 19:35): KAI HGAGON
>AUTON [scil. TON PWLON] PROS TON IHSOUN KAI EPIhRIYANTES AUTWN TA hIMATIA
>EPI TON PWLON EPIBABASAN TON IHSOUN. Whatever one's preferences regarding
>the Synoptic problem, Matthew's two animals are unique; if one assumes
>Marcan priority, one must suppose that Matthew has added the ass and linked
>it to the prophecy (as seems most likely to me), while Luke has improved
>upon Mark's phrasing but kept Mark's content intact; if, on the other hand,
>one accepts the Farmer-Griesbach view of Matthaean priority, it would
>appear that both Luke and Mark found Matthew's version of the two animals
>awkward enough to dispense with the ass.
>Again, I don't really consider this a case of irony, nor do I really think
>Matthew intends to be funny here (but I would hardly want to make a
>sweeping statement such as that 'Matthew is totally lacking in irony unless
>you can show me an instance of it'). I think he wants to narrate the
>triumphal entry as a fulfilment of Zech 9:9, probably with an emphasis on
>the theme of PRAUS BASILEUS, but that in order to depict the event as a
>fulfilment he presents in his account a second animal and depicts Jesus as
>(apparently) riding on both. I don't really think that making the AUTWN of
>EPANW AUTWN take hIMATIA as its antecedent is an adequate resolution of the
>Would Mark Goodacre and Stephen Carlson care to comment on this one (and
>perhaps also on the question whether Matthew the evangelist is capable of
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@... OR cconrad@...
- Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> I thought it worth raising the question whether there's any legitimateHow ironic!
> way of understanding the Greek of Matthew's account of the ass and the
> colt other than that Jesus is said to have ridden on BOTH.
There was a rather lengthy discussion on this very topic under the title
"Two Donkeys" just the other day, but it was initiated on another list!
The central discussion was around Zech 9.9
O daughter of Zion!
O daughter of Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on an ass,
on a colt the foal of an ass.
We were discussing whether or not the context had Matthew either being
ignorant of the poetic structure of Zech 9.9, or whether he was overly
concerned with literalism, and excess not present in Luke.
I tenetively opted for the latter.
It seems to me that the Matthian narrative stresses a Messianic Judaism,
arguing in its telling of the narrative a sub-text which is in line with
the social setting of the ancient Matthian believers. That is, that
their community of faith was not to be outlawed as "new religion," even
though they had been expelled from the Judean synagogues. Matthew's
stress upon torah obedience and his obedience/blessing and
disobedience/cursing motif's only serve to support this understanding.
Postliberal Theology on the Web