Matthew 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Matthew's variation from the other Gospels on this point raises two questions -- was there one donkey or two, and did Jesus ride one or two?

Strictly speaking, one could point out for the first question that there is no technical, logical contradiction, since the other Gospels do not say there was only the colt there -- they merely don't bother mentioning the mother. Yet her presence is likely in this context, even if it is not mentioned. Keener [Matthew commentary, 491] notes that an unbroken colt "might require the mother's presence to keep it calm amid shouting crowds" -- we know well enough from American rodeos what chaos an unbroken animal might cause.

Then comes the question, Is Jesus riding on both donkeys? The question may be varied to say, was Jesus riding them in alteration, or (if the Skeptic has a sense of humor) on both at once -- maybe one on top of the other? Not really -- this is just an amusing grammatical ambiguity; the "them" on which Jesus sat could refer back to the clothes, not the animals.

A final consideration: Some suppose that Matthew includes momma because he is wrenching out a bad meaning from Zech. 9:9: "...riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." This is unlikely. The Hebrew of Zech. 9:9 renders the "ass" in the male gender -- and Matthew's knowledge of the Hebrew text elsewhere shows that he knew this was the case [ibid.]. (For more on harmonizing, see here. For more on this subject, see below.)

And now, in horns in for his latest round of poking out of the hole, John Kesler, who says that the answer here "seem[s] plausible until we analyze Matthew 21:7 more closely: 'they {Jesus' disciples} brought the donkey and the colt, AND PUT THEIR CLOAKS ON THEM {donkey and colt}, and he sat on them.' If Jesus actually was only going to ride one animal and the second creature was simply a 'mother's presence' to calm the ridden beast, why would the disciples put cloaks on both animals?" Well, excuse me for interrupting with relevant cultural data, but as Albright and Mann note [252], the whole purpose of the cloaks was to show honor to the rider. Now please, gentleman, do step out of your social confines and think a moment; I'll try to help you by drawing a modern comparison. If the President rides to town in his limousine, and another vehicle follows him (for whatever reason), will what follows him be a beat-up jalopy? Heavens, no. Will it even be a limo that looks lousy compared to his own? Of course not. By the same token the appearance of honor could only be maintained if BOTH animals were similarly "accountremented". I do say, these fellows fail miserably with that dimensional thinking stuff, wot? Pip pip.

On Kesler rambles, arguing that "a comparison with the other synoptic accounts lends credence to the belief that Matthew meant that both animals were ridden." Quoting the parallels in Mark and Luke, he says, "Mark and Luke clearly say that Jesus sat on IT, the colt, even though both gospels, like Matthew, make mention of cloaks, plural." Yes -- so what? What's Kesler's point here? Is he thinking that Matthew was looking at Mark or Luke, and...? What? It's not clear what the heck he means here; it hardly pans over that just because Mark and Luke note the riding of the colt, that Matthew must thereby make the same referent. How about explaining that literary relationship? I don't know how Kesler stands on literary hypotheses of the Gospels (Q? Griesbach? Tea? Milk?) but if he cares to explain himself and what process is at work in his view, we'll hear about it, I'm sure. (As a side note, Mr. Kesler should be advised that the "it" in Luke is only implied -- the autos present in Mark is not found in Luke, which literally says, according to Green's Interlinear, "having thrown on of themselves the garments on the colt, they put on Jesus." Do your homework, Mr. Kesler, you know how your Leader hops on boo-boos like that. He'll never trust you again.)

In any event, then, we have no answer to the idea that it is the "garments" Matthew refers to; we then get to where Kesler tries his hand on what we said about Zech. 9:9. Kesler bends back and spits:

This is a blatant example of begging the question of Matthew's accuracy. Even conceding that Matthew shows "knowledge of the Hebrew text elsewhere," this is not proof that an error wasn't made in Matthew 21. A historian may demonstrate great knowledge of world history, but this would not preclude that person's making a historical error. Every alleged error needs to be considered and judged on its own merits, regardless of one's accuracy in other matters.

Pfft, hack -- trying for that artificial divisibility by grossly inadequate analogy, are we? World history is an enormous field with ranges of subjects over immense geographical and chronological ranges; knowledge of the Hebrew OT, in contrast, is a piece of cake, especially for one like Matt who shows clear knowledge of a variety of OT texts and rabbinical exegetical techniques. If Kesler wants to play this roundup, let him go out and find some evaluations of Matthew's knowledge of the Hebrew text and as a whole and stop playing boo games with the generalities. The question is unbegged until he gets down and dirty with specifics; otherwise it's Kesler who does the begging: "Well, we know that's true for Matt as a whole, but maybe, for the convenience of my thesis, this time it's an exception!"

As a side note, one of the other helpers quoted a commentator, Prabhu, as saying [emphasis added]: "...That Matthew (the presumed author of the formula quotations) should have misunderstood the Hebrew and given us an over-literal translation, is per se possible, specially since his translation, unlike that of the LXX does in fact correspond word for word with the Hebrew. But it is very unlikely, given that Matthew (or, for that matter, whoever is responsible for the formula quotations) shows an excellent command of Hebrew in the other quotations he presents. The hypothesis of a mistranslation, in fact, is tenable only if we are prepared to admit that Mt 21,4f has an origin different from that of the other formula quotations of the Gospel – a drastic way out, with little to recommend it." Kesler's gagging attempt to beg an exception, in short, has little to recommend it, is a drastic way out, and is very unlikely. Maybe we'll be told Prahbu begs the question as well, which is a fine thing for the Taco Bell dog to yell up to Marmaduke. I have further news for them as well: I can fully endorse what follows from the same quote as a workable solution [emphasis added], which didn't make it into Kesler's response for whatever reason:

"It is better, then, to suppose that Mt's version of the quotation is a deliberate, ad hoc, targumizing translation, in which Mt has intentionally and according to approved rabbinic techniques interpreted the w'al of the Hebrew as copulative, in order to read two animals into Zechariah's text. This is not without parallel in the NT itself. The fulfilment quotation of Din 19,24 refers… Ps 22,19, which in the Psalm are two parallel ways of saying the same thing, to two distinct actions: the partitioning of the garments (himatia) of Jesus, and the casting of lots upon his tunic (chiton). Read in this disjunctive way, the Psalm becomes an astonishingly literal prediction of the events at the Cross! As to why Matthew should have deliberately broken up the parallelism of Zech 9,9 in an even more flagrant way, it is not too difficult to guess. Michel suggest that he is thinking of a triumphal ride on an oriental throne-seat carried on two animals. Lindars, that Matthew has deduced the existence of the mother ass from Mk's reference to the "unriddenness" of the colt. But both suggestions are surely a little far-fetched, with no support whatever in the text. It is more likely, then, that Matthew has read the two animals into Zechariah's text, because his particular tradition of the event figured two animals instead of one. That this tradition may have rested on some genuine historical reminiscence is possible, but an attempt like that of Gaechter to show, through an elaborate excursion into animal psychology (!), that the mother ass must have been present if the unbroken colt (though, note that Matthew does not present it as such) was to have been ridden at all, is surely an example of fundamentalist exegesis verging on the grotesque."

I agree with all of this with one exception: Grotesque to whom, we'd like to know? The commentator cited likely knows or knew zip about "animal psychology"; but in any event, allows for a genuine historical reminiscence, and I can also accept a deliberate reworking like this in my paradigm. Let these cohorts try and figure out how.

Kesler then pops in with an ad for his leader's own take on the matter, in which that Skeptic apparently argues rather goofily that "Matthew is the only synoptic gospel writer who alleged that the 'triumphal entry' fulfilled Zechariah 9:9, making it likely that Matthew would try to force fit Jesus' donkey ride to Zechariah's prophecy." Whoops, note the hot butter in this context: McTill (or Kesler) is VERY careful to specify "the only synoptic gospel writer" because he knows darned well that John (12:15) cites the prophecy of Zechariah, in spite of knowing only one animal. So much for that accusation. (As a side note, the link Kesler gives goes to an article on prophecy which is full of the same stuff our man pulls from Thomas Paine, and which Miller has refuted here and which no Skeptic has the nerve to touch.)

Kesler dismisses the link to the demoniactale article as "addressed" in his leader's which the blinkin' heck it isn't. The writer doesn't say diddly about authorial freedom or composition constraints. But heck then, all of that stuff is addressed in the articles here. Get busy, guys.

Final note: One other commentator rang in the idea from Buchanan that, "If the colt is so small it still needed its mother, it would not be a donkey that would be ridden at all!" How curious. How big and heavy does Buchanan think people were at this time? The average height was no more than a little over 5 feet; on a diet that would make us cringe at the thought of starvation, weights were probably similarly low. Until someone load-tests a donkey over time and shows that this is any more than a wild guess, I'm not buying it as anything more than another desperate reach from the Skeptics.