The critics have such disrespect and low regard for the Gospels that they believe Matthew actually wrote that Jesus straddled two animals during his triumphal entry. But maybe a Greek noun and a pronoun can clarify the problem for openminded readers,

I’m not confident that this article will convince hostile readers, but maybe the data will explain things to reasonable seekers and semi-friendly readers. The explanation may also help the brittle reader whose faith snaps in two when these differences emerge in various accounts or when an ambiguity crops up in this one account in Matthew’s Gospel.

I quote published commentators because I learn a lot from them. They are a community of teachers I respect because they first respect the book they are commenting on. They are fair and reasonable, not hostile. I place friendly scholars on the same or higher level than hostile critics. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars.

The translation is mine, unless otherwise noted. If you don’t read Greek, skip the left column. For more translations, go to biblegateway.com.

The ambiguity is in v. 7.

Now let’s begin.

Comments:

The whole episode refers to Zechariah’s prophecy:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zech. 9:9, ESV)

Commentator David Turner has a simple table about Matthew citing Zechariah (p. 495):

Matt. 21:4-9 …… Zech. 9:9

Matt. 21:12-13 … Zech. 14:21

Matt. 26:15-16 … Zech. 11:12

Matt. 26:26-29 … Zech. 9:11

Matt. 26:30-35 … Zech. 13:7

Matt. 27:3-10 …. Zech. 11:12-13

Matt. 27: 51-53 … Zech. 14:4-5

Matthew never names Zechariah, but he does name Jeremiah and Isaiah, following a rabbinic tradition of the “weightier” prophet or passage. In any case, Jesus is fulfilling biblical prophecy, and Matthew sees this and records it.

Messianic Prophecies

Jesus not only fulfills the list of quoted verses in the table at that link, he also fulfills the types and shadows and patterns of the OT. For example, he fulfills the Aaronic priesthood (Heb. 7-10) and the kingship of David (Matt. 22:41-45).

“two disciples”: we don’t know who they were. Neither Luke 19:28 nor Mark 11:1 name them. Luke 22:8 says that Jesus commissioned Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal, so maybe Jesus asked them also to carry out this mission. But we don’t know that, either.

A theological sidebar comment: Jesus referred to himself as “Lord.” He was claiming authority for himself that normal or average people don’t claim. He was self-aware of his special divine status. He has repeatedly been called Lord: (8:2, 6, 8, 25; 9:28; 14:28, 30; 15:22, 25, 27; 17:4, 15).

Again Matthew likes to speak in “twos” (4:18, 21; 8:28; 9:27; 20:30). Mark and Luke simply omit these details because they say one animal. Yes, the authors of the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were inspired by the Spirit and gave themselves permission to omit or keep whichever details suited their purposes.

I nicknamed Matthew the Trimmer, because he trims or edits out data points, except in instances like these. Matthew mentions the two animals to literally fulfill the prophecy in Zech. 9:9. Perhaps the colt needed its mother to keep it calm in a shouting crowd. Mark says that no one had ever ridden on the colt (11:2). Matthew knew from first-hand knowledge of the event of two animals, and he says that Jesus rode on the colt, implying that no one had ridden it before, and thus agreeing with Mark. Its mother was with the young animal. (Yes, I take Matthean authorship seriously.)

Matthew may have also had in mind this royal prophecy about Judah all the way back in Genesis:

¹⁰ The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
¹¹ Binding his foal to the vine
and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine,
he has washed his garments in wine
and his vesture in the blood of grapes. (Gen. 49:10-11, ESV)

Another apologetics issue: Mark’s Gospel says “leafy branches” (11:8). The NIV says “branches from the fields” (11:8). Matthew’s Gospel says that others cut branches from the trees (21:8). (Luke’s Gospel is silent.) So we can conclude that some pilgrims brought palm branches from Jericho (available year round because it is at a lower elevation than Jerusalem), while others got branches here and there, like the Garden of Gethsemane. Also, we are not required to believe that “the very large crowd” = thousands who lifted up branches. A few hundred (if that many), some from Galilee and others from Judea and Jerusalem, are enough to send the message that the king is entering Jerusalem.

Now we come to the answer to the question. Did Jesus straddle two animals? Did Matthew expect his readers to be reasonable and judge by the context when he wrote his Greek text?

They–probably disciples–draped garments on both animals, though Jesus sat on one—the colt. “Sat on them” refers to the garments, because this noun is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun “them.”

Now let’s see what the published commentators say.

Grant Osborne writes:

The image of garments placed on both donkeys with Jesus sitting on them (hardly on both at the same time but on the colt [Mark 11:7] with the donkey accompanying) is royal imagery alluding to Solomon’s riding a mule to his coronation at Gibon in 1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 44. Since pilgrims were expected to walk into Jerusalem, this is a powerful image indeed. (Osborne, comment on 21:7)

I have not read all the commentaries on Matthew’s Gospel, but R. T. France has to be numbered as the best among the other excellent ones.

He writes about the Greek shortage of words for donkey, compared to Hebrew:

Greek, like English, is not so well supplied with terms for donkeys as Hebrew. Matthew’s version, even though not following the LXX (which oddly does not use the standard Greek term [onos] at all in the verse), uses its word [hupozugion], a more general term for beast of burden, to represent the second of two Hebrew terms for donkey in this verse (in this case more specifically a female donkey), which in the poetic parallelism function as synonyms. (p. 772, note 11)

I insert the above paragraph to answer any criticism about Greek terms and which kind of donkey it is. Matthew did not misunderstand the parallelism in Zech. 9:9. Greek is ambiguous and general about a donkey, so the context must decide.

Speaking of the context, France goes to what Jesus sat on in v. 6.

“Literally, “the cloaks / cloths”; the definite article probably indicates “the (expected) riding cloths,” but the use of [himation] may indicate the disciples’ own cloaks were used for the purpose (they are unlikely to have been carrying saddle cloths!). (p. 772, note 12)

In other words, the cloths were personal, not specialized for riding a horse or donkey. And so the disciples probably threw their own cloaks on the two animals. Or maybe more perceptive members of the crowd did this too.

Now for v. 7 and the antecedent to “them.” What is its noun? France writes:

Literally, “he sat on top of them.” Common sense rather than Greek syntax requires that the “them” must refer to the cloths (the most recent antecedent) rather than the two animals. My free translation [the disciples “brought the donkey and the foal and put cloths on them for Jesus to sit on”] (p. 772, note 13, emphasis added)

So the nearest antecedent to the pronoun “them” is “cloths.”

David Turner, after giving interpretive options for riding on cloths or two beasts of burden (yes, a few scholars try to argue for Jesus riding two animals), more reasonably concludes:

More likely, Matthew understands the parallelism [in Zech. 9:9] sitting on the garments spread on the colt (cf. Mark 1:17; Luke 19:35; John 12:14), although the garments have been spread on both mother and colt. Only Matthew mentions two donkeys; Mark and Luke state that Jesus rode a colt that had never been ridden previously. Matthew’s mention of the colt’s mother stresses its youth and implies that it had not been ridden before. (p. 496)

And of course Craig Blomberg sensibly concludes, along with the others in this post, the following:

Even though the text in the table goes longer than v. 7, I end my comments here because the puzzle has been solved–reasonably.

Conclusion and Recommendation 

This is a short post (for me!) because the issue is easily answered. Jesus rode on the garments, but on only one animal, the colt. The garments were spread on both animals, probably to keep the animals together. Or maybe each animal had its own cloths.

In the broader picture, Matthew, Mark and Luke have differences in their three accounts about the triumphal entry. For example Mark and Luke omit the second animal.

Here’s my standard reminder:

An account having information, while another account covering the same broad topic does not have the same information in the details do not add up to a contradiction. A difference, yes, but not a contradiction, particularly when the differences can possibly be reconciled or at least reasonably explained.

Contradictions are not found in these simple equations:

Information in one account + Silence in another account ≠ Contradiction

Boiled down:

Information + Silence ≠ A Contradiction

But

Information + Silence = A Difference

Or

Information + An omission = A Difference

A Difference ≠ A Contradiction ≠ An Error

Here are examples of contradictions:

1.. Matthew says there were two animals and not less or more than two.

2.. Mark and Luke say there was only one animal, not two or more.

But that’s not what’s happening here. They never wrote those two points. The three Synoptic writers are not as fussy and picky as hostile critics are. Differences are guided by the purpose of the biblical authors. Or we may not know why an author omits or includes bits of information. Whatever the case, we should not get panicky about them or deny the truthfulness of the accounts. This mindset is too fussy and demanding, not recognizing the texts as they present themselves. We unwisely impose our modern concerns on them.

As hinted at, just above, the Gospel writers wrote their true and historically reliable Gospels for theological purposes. Call it the narrative art of the story teller, particularly the story teller who has his own theology and other purposes in mind about the most significant story in history: the life of Christ.

To emphasize the point, call the Gospel writers theological story tellers of true events and not story tellers of pious fictions. Being reasonable like this still places you within orthodox Christianity.

God did not inspire androids or professional logicians. He inspired story tellers who wrote true accounts, from different angles. .

Postmodern critics read these ancient documents in bad faith, believing that the authors were liars and plagiarists (I have heard them on youtube and in various comment sections.) The critics employ no subtlety or finesse and look for ways to put these ancient texts down. It seems they belong to their own hyper-skeptical age and may not even know it. I also detect a sneering attitude in them.

What Is Postmodernism?

The Skeptical Sneering Age

For you, the Christian, in contrast, you should not drink too deeply of the Postmodern Age. Be reasonable in your reading of the Gospels and the entire Bible. Your faith should not be so brittle that it snaps in two when you read the differences in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (and John). You can grasp the gist–the main truth–of the story even in light of the small differences between the three accounts. God inerrantly inspired men, not androids.

They were also following OT precedence:

Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels

On the other side, fiery fundamentalists or more restrictive Christian philosophers and theologians put too many unrealistic demands on Scripture. They seem to believe that “if there are differences, then the whole Bible is flawed and unreliable! No inspiration! No inerrancy!” That’s an overreaction.

The Bible is not brittle, and nor should our faith be. We can still learn wonderful truths from the Bible about God and his redemptive plan of salvation in Christ, from Genesis to Revelation,  and how we can live our lives in him. We can learn great things about the life and ministry and resurrection and exaltation of Christ. The American church of the more restrictive variety needs to relax a lot more.

Don’t turn little molehills into unclimbable mountains. And don’t allow hostile critics of the Gospels who are the ones who build mountains out of nothing to influence you. Either look for answers (at this website or elsewhere) or ignore the critics, if you are not ready for them.

I choose to be a reasonable, friendly reader. I choose to glean the central truths of each passage under examination. I don’t panic when differences emerge.

Finally, I’m glad the Gutenberg printing press was invented only in the mid-1400s, long after the NT documents were eventually written down. Now we can read the oral traditions behind the Gospels. They live and breathe and pulsate with the truth of the main storyline. Jesus’s interaction with all sorts of people and the Gospel writers’ narratives about this interaction feel authentic to me. I celebrate these stories and their differences and similarities.

Authentic and true and inerrant.

Recommendations

My view of Scripture: It’s very high, but I don’t believe in “total inerrancy” or “hyper-inerrancy”:

‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility?

Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:

15.. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective:

13..  Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:

14.. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

Celebrate them, as well.

SOURCES

For the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom:

Matthew 21