How many animals did Yeshu ride on?

[gregoryfl]

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:

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

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:

'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?'

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

Ronen