Originally Posted by spin

Mt 21:2 ass & colt
Mt 21:3 bring them
Mt 21:5 mounted on an ass and on a colt
Mt 21:7 ass and colt... sat him upon them

Mk 11:3 colt
Mk 11:4 colt... loosed it
Mk 11:5 loosing colt
Mk 11:7 colt... sat him upon it

Zech 9:9 king... riding on an ass and on a colt


spin

Originally Posted by dog-on

Doesn't Zech say, the colt of a donkey, or something to that effect?

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Because the entire story is cohesive, has a complex narrative, uses the same types of literary allusions throughout, builds on distinctive patterns and shows a consistent style from beginning to end.

To use the Mark Twain reference again, its like asking why you would think that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was the product of a single author who created the narrative himself.

The reason to think that is because the narrative is cohesive and builds upon itself, which each of the scenes containing symbolism that has relevance throughout the narrative such that it is not likely that the narrative is simply a strung together collection of anecdotes.

This is even stronger in the Gospel of Mark because not only do you have a cohesive and complex narrative that fits together from beginning to end and builds upon itself, but you also have a pattern of literary allusion.

The same types of literary allusions are used throughout the work from beginning to end. The allusions are drawn from a relatively small collection of scriptural sources.

Also take some specific examples. Again, the cursing of the fig tree and the disruption at the temple.

I'm saying that this scene is directly based on Hosea 9.

If its based on Hosea 9 then its obviously not an anecdote that the author is writing down from a secondary source.

Furthermore, the reference itself fits into a larger pattern, so even the idea that it could be a third party anecdote that was itself based on a literary reference doesn't make sense, plus the language is too close to the scripture so the author would have to have been working directly from the scripture itself, not a second hand account.

My view is that the Gospel of Mark has a singular cohesive underlying theme, and this can only be accounted for by a story that was developed in the mind of a single person who crafted all of these elements in a purposeful manner.

My view is that its an allegorical story about the destruction of Jerusalem, and the symbolism and literary allusions is too complex and well fitted together for it to be a random collection of second hand accounts and traditions.

Originally Posted by spin

Zechariah is using a standard technique in Hebrew poetry in which the same thing is referred to in parallel. Hebrew has very few conjunctions, so they overuse the Hebrew equivalent to "and", so yes it does say "on an ass and on a colt...", but it doesn't mean what we might understand. It's just giving different angles of the one reference.


spin

Originally Posted by Solo

Actually, I find, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani somewhat more momentous but that's beside the point.

Originally Posted by Solo

I am not arguing that Mark had Aramaic background. It may very well be that he never heard bar enash but already received it as ho huios tou anthropou which he might have found confusing because the LXX usage ,and Daniel 7:13 specifically, was dropping the article.

Originally Posted by Solo

More importantly: when the saying was translated into Greek, the idiomatic contexts were missing and the Paulinist Greek speakers might have thought the translated circumlocutions of son of man with apocalyptic content signified Jesus (HJ) had messianic self-consciousness a la Paul.

Originally Posted by dog-on

If I understand you correctly, it's the way I always read it. As a clarification; that the king would ride on a donkey, but not just a donkey, in fact he would ride on the colt of a donkey.

Originally Posted by spin

Zechariah is using a standard technique in Hebrew poetry in which the same thing is referred to in parallel. Hebrew has very few conjunctions, so they overuse the Hebrew equivalent to "and", so yes it does say "on an ass and on a colt...", but it doesn't mean what we might understand. It's just giving different angles of the one reference.


spin

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

So is what we are seeing in Matt 21 a doublet or a pleonasm?
Jesus Christ! I Just reread Matthew and it says Jesus sat on them? What were the translators thinking? What is that supposed to mean?

Anyways spin, whats the answer to what you are asking Malachi?

Originally Posted by spin

He obviously "corrected" Mk to reflect what he "knew" the text said, ie we can see he believed the veracity of the text of Zechariah and its ability to represent how things must have been despite the fact that he didn't understand the Hebrew poetic device that makes him erroneously add a second animal. Why else make the change? (This is one of those "dig it?" moments.)


spin