Ship of Fools: Riding on a donkey

Thread: Riding on a donkey Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029706

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Palm Sunday has just passed. And, I had a random thought that had not occured to me before. Jesus send his disciples ahead to collect a donkey that had never been ridden before.

Now, I've ridden horses a couple of times. Gentle, older horses that had been ridden by lots of different people and were well used to having a novice on their back. But, I'm reliably informed that a horse that has never been ridden before is a completely different animal, and will require a long process of becoming used to having anything on it's back, let alone a person, before it becomes possible for an experienced horse person to ride it for the first time. Are donkeys going to be that different in that regard? Would one expect to be able to just throw some cloaks over an animal and then plonk someone who is only every recorded as walking, except on this occasion, without catastophe ocurring?

So, was the fact that Jesus (who had quite possibly never ridden before) got on the back of a donkey that had never been ridden before and didn't immediately end up sprawled on the floor as the poor animal bolted in terror at this strange event possibly the most remarkable part of this incident?

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Donkeys are gentler, smaller and less feisty, less strong than horses so riding a donkey that wasn't broken in would, I surmise be easier than an unbroken in horse. A lot of donkeys wouldn't have the size or strength to throw an adult human off their backs. That said, I can't imagine it would be easy to ride a donkey that had never been ridden before, I suspect that they wouldn't respond to instructions to stop/go etc.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Apparently they do need to be trained to tolerate being ridden even though they are more docile than horses.

But if Jesus could calm a storm on the lake . . . .

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I'd never thought about this. I whether we're meant to tie this in to prophecies about nature becoming not just benign but reverent, such as Isa 43:19-21:

quote:

19 Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.
20 The wild beasts will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people,
21 the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I suspected there was a bit more going on, given the emphasis the Mark and Luke give to the fact that the donkey the disciples will find has never been ridden. Matthew doesn't bother to mention that fact, and John only has "he found a donkey".

I suppose anyone could have gotten on a donkey to ride into Jerusalem and say "Look at me! I'm humble and gentle, riding a donkey. Just as Zechariah prophecied. I'm the Messiah!". Not everyone would be able to do that on an unbroken donkey who, by rights, should have been giving the rider considerable difficulty (and, hence not giving a particularly good impression for the crowds).

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

At least one passage has the disciples bringing the colt's mother along, which would help calm it and persuade it to walk in the right direction (I'm assuming the mother was led first). Not that this removes the challenge altogether, but it does show, er, good horse sense on Jesus' part.

I'll get my suitable-for-laying-in-the-road garment.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Some depictions of the Triumphal Entry have Jesus riding the donkey, with the colt dutifully following along behind. I would think it much more likely that he rode an adult donkey rather than a colt.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I've never understood the phrase "colt, the foal of a donkey". A colt is a young horse isn't it?

The Zechariah passage sounds like it might be poetic language referring to just one animal. Mark and Luke refer to only one animal but Matthew to two, and Matthew does make it sound literally true.

So what is going on?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

According to dictionary.com "1. a young male animal of the horse family", and under origin "Old English colt "colt," originally "young ass," ".

So, applying it to a donkey seems OK.

I'd agree that the Zechariah passage reads like standard Hebrew poetry - so one animal, a donkey, specifically a young, male donkey.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Alan Cresswell: Jesus (who had quite possibly never ridden before)

Oh, I don't know about that. I'd need to look up how many of the stories of His mother riding a donkey are Biblical (from Nazareth to Bethlehem? to Egypt?) And around Christmas, we established here in Kerygmania that the animals in the 'stable' probably belonged to Joseph's family. I can imagine a young Jesus wanting to go for a ride every once in a while.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

E V Rieu suggests in his translation of the Gospels (Penguin, 1952) that Matthew did not understand the idiom of Hebrew poetry, and so Zechariah’s prophecy ‘riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass’ is read by Matthew as referring to two animals. As Rieu says, Matthew 'narrowly escapes informing us that Jesus sat on both'.

Rieu notes the rarity in religious art of a representation of Matthew’s version of the Entry.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
E V Rieu suggests in his translation of the Gospels (Penguin, 1952) that Matthew did not understand the idiom of Hebrew poetry, and so Zechariah’s prophecy ‘riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass’ is read by Matthew as referring to two animals. As Rieu says, Matthew 'narrowly escapes informing us that Jesus sat on both'.

Though there is, I believe, at least one mediaeval representation where he achieves this. In the Hermitage of San Baudelio de Berlanga I seem to recall.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Alright, now I'm imagining Jesus like this.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I have long thought that there are 2 elements here. The donkey because it is an animal for the humble while a horse is not. Think for example of the Spanish caballero, through to English cavalier; a knight or noble rides a horse and does not demean himself by riding a donkey. Mary's travelling to Egypt on a donkey is another example of this. Next, an unbroken beast shows Christ's control of the wild as well as the tame.

The 2 donkeys, mother and foal, are more difficult. For a long time, I thought it just the one, repeated. Now far from sure.

[ 22. March 2016, 09:45: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Jesus surely was not riding a very young donkey. If it was young enough to need its mother it was not rideable. Even horses do not get ridden until they're nearly fully grown -- forcing them to bear weight before their skeletons and hooves fully mature shortens their working life and is arguably cruel. And Jesus was a grown man, surely weighing at least 130 lbs. -- a full load for a donkey. They are not big animals. This is why you cross them with horses to get mules, which are larger and sturdier, better for riding.
I like the idea that the Hebrew poetry convention of doubling is in play here. This gets you one male donkey, of rideable age but not yet broken to the saddle. It is well within Jesus's power to tame it. You have seen the poem, from the point of view of this donkey?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
from the point of view of this donkey?

"Some bloke sat on me today. However, we haven't had an earthquake lately".

"After all, one can't complain. I have my friends. Somebody rode on me only yesterday".

"I shall be having lunch directly, and don't want it ridden on just before I begin. A trifling matter, and fussy of me, but we all have our little ways."

(all quotes adapted from A.A. Milne)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Ah, here it is. By G.K. Chesterton.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

I think Brenda Clough is referring to "The Donkey" by G. K. Chesterton. This poem breaks my heart.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have long thought that there are 2 elements here. The donkey because it is an animal for the humble while a horse is not. Think for example of the Spanish caballero, through to English cavalier; a knight or noble rides a horse and does not demean himself by riding a donkey. Mary's travelling to Egypt on a donkey is another example of this. Next, an unbroken beast shows Christ's control of the wild as well as the tame.

I could be wrong, but I don't think we're ever told in Scripture that Mary rode a donkey to Bethlehem or Egypt. I think it's artists that have told us that.

In the OT, and the Palm Sunday entry is the fulfillment of an OT prophecy, donkeys were ridden by the humble and by royalty alike. The donkey-horse distinction was not, as I understand it, a rich/royal-poor/humble one. It was a war-peace distinction. Horses were for war. Donkeys were beasts of burden and were for travel, even by royalty, in times of peace. Of course, the Romans would have had horses. But the meaning of the donkey, at least in the context of the prophecy, was not humility or humbleness, but that the king came in peace.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

There are perhaps other listings. I found Donkey references in the bible good perusing on a snowy, cold day today. It made me consider that sometimes perhaps there is symbolism and other times maybe not.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Palm Sunday has just passed. And, I had a random thought that had not occured to me before. Jesus send his disciples ahead to collect a donkey that had never been ridden before.

<snip>

So, was the fact that Jesus (who had quite possibly never ridden before) got on the back of a donkey that had never been ridden before and didn't immediately end up sprawled on the floor as the poor animal bolted in terror at this strange event possibly the most remarkable part of this incident?

It should be noted that "never been ridden before" is not the same has "never had to bear a burden before". A donkey previously used exclusively as a pack animal has technically never been "ridden" before.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It made me consider that sometimes perhaps there is symbolism and other times maybe not.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."--Sigmund Freud (apocryphal)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Nick Tamen, you are of course right about the absence of any biblical reference to Mary's riding on a donkey - but it has a long tradition behind it.

As for the donkey vs horse analogy, I have very little Greek and no Hebrew. In all the Romance languages, starting with Latin, riding of horses for other than farmwork is associated with the wealthy. The link starts with the equites, the knightly class in Rome, obviously linked to equus.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
In all the Romance languages, starting with Latin, riding of horses for other than farmwork is associated with the wealthy. The link starts with the equites, the knightly class in Rome, obviously linked to equus.

You could take it back even further to the Greek hippeis (from hippus), which were an earlier equivalent of the Roman equites.

@#*% hippeis!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Crœsos: @#*% hippeis!

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Yes, Gee D, I think that is all correct. I think it's likely that horses have always been associated with wealth and power. My understanding, though, is that in the ancient Near East, donkeys (and mules) were not similarly associated with the non-wealthy. As I understand it—and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong—donkeys and mules were used by everyone, rich and poor. So while a horse might rightly be associated with a king, donkeys and mules were not just associated with the common folk. Everyone traveled on donkeys or mules. Kings and others with power, particularly in the context of war, at times used horses in addition to donkeys and mules, not instead of.

For example, in 1 Kings 1:32–39 , when David sends for Solomon so that Solomon can be anointed King, David sends his own mule for Solomon to ride in on. See also 16 Samuel 16:1–2, where donkeys are provided for David's household to ride.

That the significance of the donkey in the Palm Sunday event is peace seems to be supported by the prophecy (Zachariah 9:9–10):

quote:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
               Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
          Lo, your king comes to you;
               triumphant and victorious is he,
          humble and riding on a donkey,
               on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
               and the war-horse from Jerusalem;
           and the battle bow shall be cut off,
               and he shall command peace to the nations;
           his dominion shall be from sea to sea,
               and from the River to the ends of the earth.

[ 22. March 2016, 21:32: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

I should have added that the Zachariah prophecy does, of course, also speak to humbleness.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

And contrast that verse from Zechariah with how Matthew quotes it (Matt. 21:5):

quote:
‘Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’

Matt has slipped that pesky *and* in there. And because he uses the Zechariah verse as the basis for his narration of the Palm Sunday story, when Matthew describes Jesus' instructions to the disciples in 21:1-4, he tells them to get two animals.

I always assumed that Matt was just relying on memory and that is how he made the mistake. However, re-reading Borg and Crossan's The Last Week, (which I try to do in Holy Week), I find an interesting footnote to the Palm Sunday essay:

quote:
In a minor way that produces an almost comic result, the author of Matthew misunderstands the passage from Zechariah (perhaps because he was using the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint).

Could that be it? Could any of you familiar with the LXX comment on that?

Also, while I'm speculating on all this ... I wonder if the emphasis on a young donkey that had not been ridden was an attempt to make the donkey more -- I don't know, special? That this wasn't some nag the disciples picked up at the used-donkey lot. It was a dedicated donkey. for lack of a better word. Set apart somehow.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

We always have a donkey in our Palm Sunday procession. It is so docile that anyone could ride it, even though it doesn't usually get ridden.

One point is that Jesus is likely to have not been a large heavy individual, since people in those days were not generally that big.

Another point is that these animals were ubiquitous in Israel and it is impossible to imagine that anyone would be unfamiliar with how to handle them.

A third point is the curious one that David, Solomon, and other kings announced their kingship by riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. It seems to have been a well understood symbol, even though it could not have been unusual for people to ride donkeys.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
And contrast that verse from Zechariah with how Matthew quotes it (Matt. 21:5):

quote:
‘Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’
Matt has slipped that pesky *and* in there. And because he uses the Zechariah verse as the basis for his narration of the Palm Sunday story, when Matthew describes Jesus' instructions to the disciples in 21:1-4, he tells them to get two animals.

bleurgfhhhhh! Okay, let's talk about "kai". This is the Greek word for "and," but it's got more range than that. It can also be translated as "even" (which is sort of archaic-sounding), "a donkey, even a colt..." In modern English that would probably be "a donkey, that is, a colt...."

While ordinary English "and" works fine most of the time, there are spots here and there where "kai" is better translated as a clarifier like "that is." Or so I remember.

Hebrew "ve", which lies behind the "kai" in the Zechariah passage, is similarly more slippery than English "and." Sometimes it shows up for no other purpose apparently than to tell you that this line is yet another continuation of the same poetry or narrative. Thus all the "and he went, / and he did such-and-such, /and he said, ... and so forth all over the OT. It's there to connect the narrative together, and to ... er.... this is totally not the right place to get into tenses and the semi-lack of them in Hebrew, but it often has to do with indicating a ... shall we call it a tense-like function? [slinks away under the table]

tl;dr version: Don't build any theories on the presence of a slippery "kai"/"ve" in this passage. If you do, you're probably wrong. It isn't an English "and" in all its reassuring solidity. It just isn't.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

But the rest of Matthew's account seems very clear that there were two animals and doesn't rest on a single "and". For instance "with her colt by her".

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

No, of course I agree there were two animals in the Matthew account. (And given my position on the Scriptures, in reality too.)

All I'm doing is giving linguistic reasons why it isn't correct to say "Matthew misunderstood the Zechariah passage as we can see from his misquotation adding the 'and'." (And from that point go on to suggest that he added an animal to the story, rather than there actually being two in the event itself.)

Matthew's quote does not show a misunderstanding of Zechariah. Throwing in a "kai" in that position does not change the Zech. passage to make it about two animals. Adding an English "and" would. But not a Greek "kai". So the problem lies with the English translator, not Matthew.

I don't think the Zech passage describes two animals. I don't think Matthew thought it did either. After all, his is the most Jewish of the Gospels--for Matthew to misunderstand OT parallelism is seriously out of character.

If Matthew nevertheless reports two animals at the event (and he does), he does so because that's what happened--not because of some alleged misunderstanding which led him to falsify events.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I'd never thought about this. I whether we're meant to tie this in to prophecies about nature becoming not just benign but reverent, such as Isa 43:19-21:

quote:

19 Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.
20 The wild beasts will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people,
21 the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.

This is certainly how I read it. An untrained beast suddenly taking a rider, not spooking at the crowds closing in and the hangers-on following behind?

And then I spent some time working on a ranch that had some burros...and figured out that the crowds would be the least of anyone's problems.

Sooooo we really weren't supposed to ride the burros. They were pack animals, companions for the horses and cows, protect the herd (horses run from danger, donkeys fight back), that kind of thing. Of course we did anyway.

Older, more sedate animals? Sure, no huge problem, assuming you can catch one and hop on before they get wise to what you're doing and run off before you get your leg over. They're not always too happy about it, they'll charge fences and turn at the last minute to get you to jump off, but they'll take a rider.

The burritos? The young animals being broken to the pack? Hoooboy. I lost the video I had (it was really NSFW anyway), but, even with a pack saddle and harness, they're nearly unrideable, and don't take anything remotely resembling direction.

Well, unless where you want to go is straight through a juniper tree, sprint at the fence, and finally get bucked off while you hang on for dear life.

So yes, there's the passage Adam. referenced above. There's also the idea of a Restored Eden, of the Fall reversed, Christ like Adam having dominion over the beasts, the one who will give us all rebirth like the one who gave us all our first birth.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ariston: I lost the video I had (it was really NSFW anyway

Because it involved a lot of swearing, or because you lost a bit of clothing falling off them?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Killing me]

What a loss to the world that video was.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Ariston: I lost the video I had (it was really NSFW anyway
Because it involved a lot of swearing, or because you lost a bit of clothing falling off them?

I was shooting the video, and the only thing lost was a hat...but Words Were Used. Many, many words, and in short order.

[ 23. March 2016, 12:31: Message edited by: Ariston ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I'm having a thought after reading the recent posts.

Was Jesus perhaps was the original horse/donkey whisperer?

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
A third point is the curious one that David, Solomon, and other kings announced their kingship by riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. It seems to have been a well understood symbol, even though it could not have been unusual for people to ride donkeys.

An explanation I once heard for this is that in David's time, the late Bronze Age, nobody in the Middle East knew how to ride a horse. Horses were only used to pull chariots. Horses and chariots were expensive and difficult to control and therefore used only for war and, in the Mesopotamian empires, for kings to go hunting. Horses are much larger and stronger than donkeys and riding them required the development of new technology. As far as I can remember, the critical technological development was the bit. Apparently donkeys were successfully controlled by a rider using a rope muzzle rather than a bit in the mouth, but this wouldn't work for a horse.

The result of this was that David only ever rode a donkey or a mule (the king's mules are mentioned quite often in 1 Kings). There seems to have been a continuing tradition in Judah of the Davidic king riding a donkey. A bit like the queen of England riding around in a great, unwieldy horse-drawn coach on state occasions. It's out of date and not very practical but it's also traditional, picturesque and conveys a sense of her entitlement to be the monarch.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Croesus Hippos is something I should have picked up, that being one of the little Greek I have.

I don't see the entry by kings into Jerusalem riding a donkey by various kings as inconsistent with this. They are showing themselves as humble servants of the people they are going to rule.

[ 23. March 2016, 19:37: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
An explanation I once heard for this is that in David's time, the late Bronze Age, nobody in the Middle East knew how to ride a horse. Horses were only used to pull chariots. Horses and chariots were expensive and difficult to control and therefore used only for war and, in the Mesopotamian empires, for kings to go hunting. Horses are much larger and stronger than donkeys and riding them required the development of new technology. As far as I can remember, the critical technological development was the bit. Apparently donkeys were successfully controlled by a rider using a rope muzzle rather than a bit in the mouth, but this wouldn't work for a horse.

Interesting thought!

Native Americans seemed to have picked it up easily enough in the fifteenth century. I wonder if the Mongol hordes had bits.

Wikipedia has a fair amount of information about this kind of thing.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

That Wiki page certainly suggests that horses were ridden long before the time of David, possibly even predating the use of chariots, and that a bit is not needed (though, presumably, makes controlling the horse much easier). I always thought the use of chariots wasn't because people couldn't ride horses, or even fight from horse back, but that a chariot allowed one man to drive giving a relatively stable platform for one or more other warriors to fight from using bows, spears and other weapons.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is not very easy ti fight from horseback until you have stirrups -- certainly you can't charge with a lance without some way of affixing yourself to your mount. In Homer the heroes would take their chariots to the fields of Troy, and then get out to fight. To fight from either horseback or chariot, calls for considerable training and practice. It would be very easy to fall off and brain yourself.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Well, I think there are a few options here. First, perhaps, that the unridden donkey is supposed to show something of Christ's majesty and authority in that he can calm an animal. That seems to me to be an odd thing to be attempting in this passage - surely that would be better done by describing it wild and running about, foaming at the mouth and then the Lord would walk up to it and instantly calm it.

Second, I think, it is supposed to be emphasising the deliberate humility of the journey to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. To me, the donkey sounds old and sounds like a worn out pack or farm animal, one so placid/sick that it is basically a few steps from the grave.

So when the disciples come and ask for it, the owner is looking at them quizzically "what.. really..? That old thing? What's he doing this master of yours, ploughing a very small field?

I'm sure I've been very influenced by my recent reading of Don Quixote, but I'm imagining Sancho Panza and his beloved moth-eaten donkey/mule/ass/thingy.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

One point is that Jesus is likely to have not been a large heavy individual, since people in those days were not generally that big.

Sorry, I didn't want to let this pass without comment. It is a fallacy that people in the ancient (or any time pre-modern) world were necessarily shorter than now (thinner, maybe!). Height is determined by several things, including good nutrition and heredity.

People sometimes quote a published study of bones indicating an average 1st century height of 5'1", but other excavations have shown skeletons of up to 6'. Height varied then as it does now. The Museum of London's and other studies give an average height of around 5'9" for male Saxon Londoners - not very much different from now. In contrast, Victorian male average height is given as around 5'5", because of poor living conditions and nutrition.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Apparently there was a fairly regularly repeated mediaeval myth that Jesus Christ was a dwarf or a hunchback.

Which sounds totally made up to me. But is also a rather beautiful idea to reflect upon at Easter.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Yes, it's supposedly from a passage in Josephus, but isn't...

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Second, I think, it is supposed to be emphasising the deliberate humility of the journey to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. To me, the donkey sounds old and sounds like a worn out pack or farm animal, one so placid/sick that it is basically a few steps from the grave.

So when the disciples come and ask for it, the owner is looking at them quizzically "what.. really..? That old thing? What's he doing this master of yours, ploughing a very small field?

I'm sure I've been very influenced by my recent reading of Don Quixote, but I'm imagining Sancho Panza and his beloved moth-eaten donkey/mule/ass/thingy.

And here I was, thinking it was referred to as a "colt." A young animal, spirited, untamed.

All the talk in the passage about it being an unridden colt kinda reminds me of the Levitical sacrifice laws and their specifications on what animals were acceptable for offering to the Lord—unblemished, young but of a certain age, etc. I wonder if there aren't a few sacrificial overtones, what with the whole "the Lord has need of it" bit.

*Also, really, that line worked? "The Lord has need of it?" So if I walked up to some random car or truck on the street that had its engine running and the owner comes out, I should just say "oh, the Lord has need of it," and they'll be cool with me driving off with it and loaning it to my buds for the upcoming parade? Sure, they might see it on the evening newscast, but really? Grand Theft Burro, and everybody's cool with it?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Dorothy Sayers, inveterate mystery writer, uses this neatly in her radio play series The Man Born to be King. The Jewish revolutionary partisans are hoping Jesus is the military messiah who will lead the armed takeover of Rome. So they ask him to declare himself when he comes into Jerusalem. There are two beasts, a warhorse and a donkey -- war, and peace. Jesus has to select one.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
It is a fallacy that people in the ancient (or any time pre-modern) world were necessarily shorter than now (thinner, maybe!)... People sometimes quote a published study of bones indicating an average 1st century height of 5'1", but other excavations have shown skeletons of up to 6'. Height varied then as it does now.

Thanks for that. Yes, it is easy to find the number you quote. For example:

quote:
the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds

So that's what I was thinking. But I'm sure you are right that heights and weights varied then as they always have.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
*Also, really, that line worked? "The Lord has need of it?" So if I walked up to some random car or truck on the street that had its engine running and the owner comes out, I should just say "oh, the Lord has need of it," and they'll be cool with me driving off with it and loaning it to my buds for the upcoming parade? Sure, they might see it on the evening newscast, but really? Grand Theft Burro, and everybody's cool with it?

The whole passage has a contrived feel to it. As though Jesus has already arranged things and kept the 12 out of the loop. The same happens in Mark's account of the Last Supper - "go into Jerusalem and follow the man carrying a jar of water on his head".

Someone practical, probably one of the women in the group, has come up to him and said "Lord, we're heading to Jerusalem, where do you want to celebrate Passover? You know there won't be anywhere if we don't get it arranged soon." Jesus then responds, "You're right. Get yourself into Jerusalem and find a suitable place for us. And, let's just muck around with the disciples a bit. Arrange for a strange signal, a man carrying a water jar for instance, to lead them to a miraculously prepared room. It's going to be a hard week, I could do with laughing at them try to get their heads around that one."

"Oh, and while you're at it, find a donkey and colt and leave them at the village by the Mount of Olives. Just let the folk there know two of the disciples will be along saying 'The Lord needs it' so no one worries too much about it when I get them collected".

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The whole passage has a contrived feel to it. As though Jesus has already arranged things and kept the 12 out of the loop. The same happens in Mark's account of the Last Supper - "go into Jerusalem and follow the man carrying a jar of water on his head".

Absolutely - on both counts.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Someone practical, probably one of the women in the group, has come up to him and said "Lord, we're heading to Jerusalem, where do you want to celebrate Passover? You know there won't be anywhere if we don't get it arranged soon." Jesus then responds, "You're right. Get yourself into Jerusalem and find a suitable place for us. And, let's just muck around with the disciples a bit. Arrange for a strange signal, a man carrying a water jar for instance, to lead them to a miraculously prepared room. It's going to be a hard week, I could do with laughing at them try to get their heads around that one."

"Oh, and while you're at it, find a donkey and colt and leave them at the village by the Mount of Olives. Just let the folk there know two of the disciples will be along saying 'The Lord needs it' so no one worries too much about it when I get them collected".

Here is where I diverge from you.

I rather think that this secrecy on the part of Jesus is significant. First of all, he goes to great lengths to ensure that a donkey is available when he needs it, but his name is kept out of the conversation. To me, that shows that he wanted to make this entry into Jerusalem in this particular manner and he didn't want the Jewish authorities finding out about it beforehand. And he succeeded - the surprise was complete. He entered Jerusalem in a highly symbolic fashion and the authorities weren't in a position to stop him. And once he had entered at the head of a large group of pilgrims, they were unable to step in and arrest him publicly.

The same applies with the obscure instructions for preparing for the Passover meal. The name of Jesus is kept out of the loop and so there is little chance that the authorities will find him before he is ready. Which makes his actions after the meal all the more significant - he deliberately goes to an isolated place, with just a few followers, and waits to be arrested.

If Jesus is playing games with anyone, it isn't the disciples, it's with the authorities. He keeps himself (and his plans) hidden until the "right" moment.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ariston: Grand Theft Burro, and everybody's cool with it?

Nice term! I always interpreted it as Jesus not being a traditional king of those days, but one who has popular support. Common people spreading palm leaves for Him is testimony of that, but also this man gladly giving Him his donkey(s).

(Sorry, just had to post this.)

[ 24. March 2016, 15:26: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Actually this does sound very guy. Of course the 12 had no idea of dinner and transport arrangements. All this organizing was left to the women. A room big enough to serve 12 men lying down Roman style, plus appropriate couches, food and serveware, is not something you can just find at the last moment. Remember everyone is booking for Passover that weekend.
So Mary or Martha probably made a reservation weeks in advance; either put in the food order or began shopping for groceries the week before; ordered the lamb to be butchered and ready for cooking by the morning of the day, and so on. There's a staff in the kitchen doing the cooking, another bunch of staff hauling the food up from the kitchen out back to the Upper Room and then carrying the plates and cups back down, some other bunch of people seeing to the water for the foot washing and other reception-area tasks.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

From the words he gives the disciples to deliver, he seems to be sending a message to a follower ("Lord", "Teacher"). I don't think they just co-opted some random guy's donkey, or somebody miraculously had a free dining room that night. If it were a miracle, I would expect to be told so more clearly. This looks a bit more like planning, as others have already said.

And there were plenty of women who went along with Jesus' group. I suspect they'd been quietly putting things together all along, for this and for other meals. In consultation with Jesus, this time, as it IS Passover.

(Experience of doing similar stuff leads me to suspect that it was the women's network that did most of the prep work--Salome had a brother with a large house in town who was sympathetic, and whose sister-in-law could supply the bread and veg even though she's a bit short-handed, so cousin Mark will hang around to help with fetching and carrying (including water), and oh, doesn't her neighbor Jesse keep a donkey in town? Jesus said something cryptic about needing one on Sunday. No, I don't know, just have it ready. We'll send somebody for it at the right time, okay?)

[ 24. March 2016, 19:00: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The whole passage has a contrived feel to it.

I'm not sure that there is much about any of the gospel stories that works without the assumption of a supernatural element.

Everything about the story is miraculous and serendipitous, all wrapped up in a divine purpose. If we accept anything about the overall theological assertions of the gospels, why would we question small things such as these?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I feel that G. K.Chesterton's poem is unfair to donkeys. I do not regard them as ugly. Perhaps he was thinking of mules.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0