Steven Avery

Nobody "messed up".

John 12:12-15
On the next day much people that were come to the feast,
when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him,
and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel
that cometh in the name of the Lord.
And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon;
as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion:
behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

The significant difference is that Matthew tells us that the
ass accompanied her colt. Why do you see a problem ?

Pharoah raised a different issue, about the precise language
used. Did the authors modify the pronoun to match the
context ? Did Jesus speak twice to different folks going to
get the donkeys ? This is an interesting question but a far
more general one (precise language quotes in the synoptics)
than the triumphal entry.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Malachi151

Ted Hoffman

Malachi, thanks for your responses. I find them very useful. Let me ponder the following question:
Let me just cite a few differences. Not conceptual ones: just differences.

Of course, in Josephus, you talk about incidents or actors trying to re-enact out certain events narrated in the OT. They do not do that as a way of life. In addition, Josephus doesnt engulf his characters from birth to death. The non-Mark gospels encapsulate (or attempt to do so) and build Jesus entire life using the OT. If Jesus spits at a clucking chicken, check the OT. There is likely to be a parallel. If he reads Newsweek and keeps it in his loins, and people make faces and he tells them he doesnt give a rats ass how they feel, check the OT. Of course, how "parallel" the parallels are is another matter. But I can see that NT scholars agree that the parallels are there.
The question is who the originator of the parallels is: Jesus or the evangelist?

1. Josephus was an eyewitness to a number of the events he talks about. We dont know that the anonymous evangelists were eyewitnesses to Jesus' alleged life on earth. They dont claim they are. As such, we have little reason to believe they were eyewitnesses and as such are likely to have made them up.
2. The gospel authors were writing religious material and would have had motive to engage in "prophecy sluting" (for lack of a better term) to legitimate Jesus as a messiah.
3. The density of OT parallels in Mark is heavier than in Josephus.
4. Theological interests in the gospels (adoptionist Christology in Mark, Jesus being a Nazarene in Matthew etc) and seeking to underpin them using the OT. Conformity with the OT being the touchstone for the true gospel.
5. Realism of the events being re-enacted and number and nature of participants. The crown of thorns, sceptre, purple robes and mocking Jesus as King of the Jews (Philo's Against Flaccus comes to mind).
6. General tenor of the text/author - literary themes (Markan irony, stupid disciples, reversal of expectations etc), literary borrowings (e.g. hydropatesis from Homer). If there is a theme, or clearly discernible themes throughout the material, it is likely not history but a literary creation. Because real life doesnt follow themes. If it is established to be a work of art (deus ex machina characters like Joseph of Arimathea and names with meanings), parallels to the OT are likely literary borrowings.

It needs more thought and that was a good question. I will give it some more time.

Steven Avery

However, Malachi, I am really curious. Why do you see Matthew including (or John omitting) the mother of the foal as a difficulty ?

Jesus rode on the foal, so it is easy to see the omission. On the other hand Jewish historical prophetic exegesis has included the Zechariah verse mom so it is easy to see the inclusion as well, especially by Matthew.

Perhaps you are still locked into the 'circus' grammatical misunderstanding (based on the errant versions) ?

Shalom,
Steven

gstafleu

In which situations is the question meaningful?

Let us start by distinguishing two mutually exclusive logical possibilities: 1) the event is a historical one (it "really" happened), and 2) it is not, it is an imaginary, or fictional (feel free to supply another term) event. In the latter case, I suspect we agree, the question is not meaningful--at most the issue is if the author was aware of the scripture and was cribbing from it.

That leaves us with historical events. We then have the following two possibilities.

1a) The author has correctly portrayed the event. The concept of literary borrowing is then irrelevant, because the author is simply describing "what he saw." There is an analogue of the event in scripture (or we wouldn't be asking the question), so the only remaining issue is: was the historical actor aware of the scriptural analogy. If so, there is a possibility of "acting out." In order to establish "acting out" you would then have to establish that the event in all likelihood would not have occurred without the actor being aware of the scripture. Not easy.

1b) The author has not portrayed the event correctly, at least with respect to the analogue. In this case we are essentially back at scenario 2: "fiction." Jesus e.g. may have made a triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but he didn't use any donkeys. The question then is if the author just made up the alleged analogue part of the event, or if he borrowed it from scripture. Acting out does not enter the picture.

So we have acting out only in case of an accurately portrayed historical event where the actor was aware of the scriptural analogue and would probably not have acted in that way if he wasn't aware of the analogue. In all other cases the issue is at most if the author borrowed from scripture.

The question then is meaningful only in a subset of cases. For the Jesus case, one would have to start with establishing that the donkey parade for example was indeed historical. It is only after one has established this that one can consider any acting out. I emphasize this, because I have the impression that the OP did not consider this.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

I would say that the second step would be to determine how naturally the OT allusion fits the event in question. If the event was composed precisely in order to match the OT, then it should fit fairly well (gambling for clothes, for example). If the event is written up in a certain manner, and the OT is being shoehorned into it, then perhaps the event was already part of the tradition (the crucifixion itself, for example; even Psalm 22 is a dead end as a prediction of a Roman crucifixion).

Now, an event being already part of the tradition does not, of course, prove that it happened. But we are now stepping in the right direction.

Ben.

Rick Sumner

You'd be on solid ground to say the same about the execution of John the Baptist.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

mountainman

Constantine "acted out" or "fulfils" some of the predictions
in the book of Revelations, according to Eusebius' Vita
Constantini.

neilgodfrey

Have only skimmed responses so far so forgive if redundant here --

People "act out scriptures" all the time. But I don't think they intend their actions are meant to be seen as fulfilments of prophecies. People on street corners and in parks preaching the word of god out load to passersby, imitating the prophets and apostles shouting out to the people in the cities. Sects that have all things in common etc are acting out bible passages. I once belonged to a cult that "acted out" an exodus every year by leaving our homes and going to a festival.

One of the crusades, the children's crusade in the middle ages, failed because their expectation that the mediterranean did not open for them to get to the holy land was not opened up for them as per moses and the red sea. They saw themselves acting out the exodus and moses thing. So I have no problem imaging Theudas et all acting out a Moses or Joshua thing.

And there are the stigmata types who act out Christ's wounds. Some act out Christ's temple violence by sneaking into military bases and violently smashing military equipment.

Most acting out though is done theatrically. Pantomines and religious dramas.

Anyone can act out Zech 9.9 too by getting on a donkey and riding into Jerusalem I suppose. But it would be meaningless because "anyone" is not the "king of Jerusalem". If you had a cult following who did think you were a king then that would be awesome, however.

It shouldn't be too hard for at least someone to 'act out' zech 9.6, either: "a bastard shall live in ashdod".

And millions of fundies think that world events right now are in the process of "acting out" biblical prophecies.

The point is, it's not the acting out that carries any significance. It's the narrative and meaning given to the acting out by certain storytellers or followers that is what it's all about.

So even if a Jesus did act out things like donkey rides to Jerusalem and crying out a verse of the psalm from the cross it would have meant nothing to anyone who did not already -- beforehand -- believe he was fulfilling the true allegorical meaning of the entire Jewish scriptures.

In other words, acting out never generates belief. Acting out scriptures is imputed and given meaning because of belief.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Ben C Smith

Wow, Neil. You wrote an entire post with which I almost completely agree.

In other news, this last Friday (the thirteenth, as it happens) generated an unseasonably late snowstorm out my way.

And I think I just now saw one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse galloping by my window....

Ben.