How many animals did Yeshu ride on?

How many animals did Yeshu ride on? - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Mistranslations (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: How many animals did Yeshu ride on? (/showthread.php?tid=3421)

How many animals did Yeshu ride on? - gregoryfl - 12-12-2014

According to the Greek witnesses (which for centuries has caused much discussion) Matthew records that Yeshu rode on a donkey and a colt:

Matt 21:7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

The Aramaic witness, on the other hand, while recording both a donkey and a colt being used, have Yeshua riding only on the colt:

Matt 21:7 and brought the ass and the colt, and laid upon the colt their clothes, and Yeshu rode upon him.

It appears as though the Greek translator missed the synonymous parallelism found in Zec 9:9, and interpreted Yeshu as riding upon two beasts, not one. Many arguments have been put forth trying to explain how this was possible (one of which has the 'them' referring to the cloaks, not the animals), yet to me, the Aramaic witness tells it perfectly.

Yeshu rode upon one animal, a young colt, and the mother was kept with it, since it was not ready to be separated yet.

Ronen

Re: How many animals did Yeshu ride on? - sestir - 12-14-2014

Being no expert on donkeys I tried to understand this...

Quote:Yeshu rode upon one animal, a young colt, and the mother was kept with it, since it was not ready to be separated yet.

All sites I found appear to agree that separating a colt from its mother is called "weaning" and happens during its first year, typically after 6 months. However this site seems to argue that riding an equine as young as 2 years would be abuse. A self-proclaimed donkey-freak on a forum suggested they can be ridden from 4 years old.

The colt couldn't possibly be less than 1 and more than 2 years old at the same time. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to presume that the colt was separated from its mother years ago and that the presence of the mare was to make sure the fulfillment of the prophecy matched any expectation the people may have had, even when they were based on a misunderstanding of Zechariah 9:9?

Re: How many animals did Yeshu ride on? - gregoryfl - 12-14-2014

Thank you so much for your reply Sestir.

I believe that is exactly the reason for it. I had read somewhere about the young colt and its mother and posted that as a possible natural reason why the two would be tied together. However, whatever the natural reason was, historically speaking, I can see why the event would have been ordained by our Father so as to have the two there, and why only Matthew is the only writer to refer to them both.

Here is what I wrote concerning this on another message board:

Quote:'Matthew also chose to record the fulfillment of Psa 69:21 in a similar fashion, different from both Luke and John

And they give for my food gall, And for my thirst cause me to drink vinegar.
(synonymous parallelism)

He records both the gall (myrrh)
Matt 27:34 they gave him to drink vinegar mixed with gall, and having tasted, he would not drink.

And also the vinegar separately
Matt 27:48 and immediately, one of them having run, and having taken a spunge, having filled [it] with vinegar, and having put [it] on a reed, was giving him to drink,

Whereas both Luke and John only record the drinking of vinegar
Luke 23:36 And mocking him also were the soldiers, coming near and offering vinegar to him,

John 19:29 a vessel, therefore, was placed full of vinegar, and they having filled a sponge with vinegar, and having put [it] around a hyssop stalk, did put [it] to his mouth;

While various understandings persist, another not so known one is that Matthew appears to be following (perhaps for the benefit of the ones he was writing to) the predominant rabbinic understanding of scripture, demonstrated by Hillel, and which lasted until around the year 70, which was the rejection of synonymous parallelism in the writings of scripture, which could explain why Matthew wrote as he did, that any who held to the rabbinic understanding of no synonymous parallelism reading his account would see Zechariah fulfilled in what Yeshua did. Those outside of this scope saw it differently, such as those as Qumran, as well as the majority of Judaism, who did acknowledge synonymous parallelism in those same writings, which could explain why the other accounts read differently than Matthew.

While many today do not understand Hebrew synonymous parallelism, rabbinic literature before 70 reflected, not an ignorance of such, but a rejection of it.'

Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://ancient-hebrew.proboards.com/thread/3130/little-story-donkeys#ixzz3LuRMxOVi">http://ancient-hebrew.proboards.com/thr ... z3LuRMxOVi</a>

In other words, as you point out Sestir, I also see it as done in such a way as to match the expectation of the rabbis who rejected synonymous parallelism. I refer to this in another response of mine:

Quote:'I see it as the faithful recording of an eyewitness who included a detail of a donkey AND her colt, which the other writers chose to leave out. The Aramaic witness clearly shows the cloaks only being laid upon the colt, and him riding only the one beast, the same colt. Could it be that YHWH already knew of the rabbinic disposition to reject synonymous parallelism, and thus ordained that there be BOTH there on that day, for Matthew to witness and record, that they may believe, whereas Mark, Luke, and John, in writing to others, left out that detail, simply because it was not needed?'

Quote:'Matthew also chose to record the fulfillment of Psa 69:21 in a similar fashion, different from both Luke and John

And they give for my food gall, And for my thirst cause me to drink vinegar.
(synonymous parallelism)

He records both the gall (myrrh)
Matt 27:34 they gave him to drink vinegar mixed with gall, and having tasted, he would not drink.

And also the vinegar separately
Matt 27:48 and immediately, one of them having run, and having taken a spunge, having filled [it] with vinegar, and having put [it] on a reed, was giving him to drink,

Whereas both Luke and John only record the drinking of vinegar
Luke 23:36 And mocking him also were the soldiers, coming near and offering vinegar to him,

John 19:29 a vessel, therefore, was placed full of vinegar, and they having filled a sponge with vinegar, and having put [it] around a hyssop stalk, did put [it] to his mouth;

While various understandings persist, another not so known one is that Matthew appears to be following (perhaps for the benefit of the ones he was writing to) the predominant rabbinic understanding of scripture, demonstrated by Hillel, and which lasted until around the year 70, which was the rejection of synonymous parallelism in the writings of scripture, which could explain why Matthew wrote as he did, that any who held to the rabbinic understanding of no synonymous parallelism reading his account would see Zechariah fulfilled in what Yeshua did. Those outside of this scope saw it differently, such as those as Qumran, as well as the majority of Judaism, who did acknowledge synonymous parallelism in those same writings, which could explain why the other accounts read differently than Matthew.

While many today do not understand Hebrew synonymous parallelism, rabbinic literature before 70 reflected, not an ignorance of such, but a rejection of it.'

Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://ancient-hebrew.proboards.com/thread/3130/little-story-donkeys#ixzz3LuRMxOVi">http://ancient-hebrew.proboards.com/thr ... z3LuRMxOVi</a>

In other words, as you point out Sestir, I also see it as done in such a way as to match the expectation (in this case, of the rabbis who rejected synonymous parallelism). I refer to this in another response of mine:

Quote:'I see it as the faithful recording of an eyewitness who included a detail of a donkey AND her colt, which the other writers chose to leave out. The Aramaic witness clearly shows the cloaks only being laid upon the colt, and him riding only the one beast, the same colt. Could it be that YHWH already knew of the rabbinic disposition to reject synonymous parallelism, and thus ordained that there be BOTH there on that day, for Matthew to witness and record, that they may believe, whereas Mark, Luke, and John, in writing to others, left out that detail, simply because it was not needed?'