An Account of My 2015 Email Debate with Two Jewish Apologists, Jared and May – Part 8 on Zechariah 9:9 and on the Virgin Birth

Jared, to me, May
Hi Pastor Randall,

Wondering what your view is on this video regarding the events of Jesus entrance into Jerusalem.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BIFHfWaZ-hM [Video on Matthew’s use of Zech 9:9 of Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11) in which a rabbi claims Matthew didn’t understand Zechariah 9:9 and it’s Hebrew parallelism, mistakenly making two donkeys out of one in Zechariah. The question is also raised as to where the Old Testament says Jesus the Messiah will be called a Nazerene, suggesting that Matthew is making up the reference (Matthew (2:23).]

Randall Johnson May 5, to Jared, May
I think the passage does pose some problems but I have much more confidence in Matthew’s knowledge of Hebrew poetry than your rabbi does. Of course he understood parallelism. Despite being “untrained” he uses typical rabbinic exegesis techniques, one of which is evident in this passage. He is not only quoting from or alluding to Zechariah 9:9 but also Genesis 49:11 and Isaiah 62:11, finding a chain of common words that link the texts together. Matthew is no dilettante.

As we have already seen with Psalm 22, there is the possibility that another Hebrew text is behind Matthew’s reference that does separate the two donkeys, though that is speculative and the reason I say this passage is a problem. We do see him crafting his translation from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text and he introduces a term for donkey that is not in the LXX text. This shows his familiarity with numerous texts of the Old Testament.

Mark doesn’t quote Zechariah 9:9 because his audience isn’t as persuaded by Old Testament prophecy as Matthew’s is. Matthew recounts two donkeys probably because the mother of the colt Jesus rode on was needed to persuade the colt to go and somehow this fits Zechariah more closely for him. Mark does not mention the mother donkey because it isn’t pertinent to his purpose.

But to say that both Matthew and Mark make up the story of Jesus and then seek a prophecy is not the most likely scenario and basically accuses the Gospel writers of making up the whole thing and being willing to face brutal persecution, even death, at the hands of fellow Jews and the Roman government over a made-up story.

More likely is that Jesus was aware of this prophecy of Messiah, an accepted understanding among the teachers of Israel (see b.Sanhedrin 98a, quoted below). Jesus purposely seeks a donkey to ride in on because it fits the prophetic purpose of Messiah in his first coming to come, not has the military victor but as the humble one whom God has given victory (“saved”). He is claiming to be the Messiah but on terms the people do not expect and don’t want to accept.

By the way, as to two comings of Messiah, it answers the confusion (they call it a contradiction) found among the rabbis in talmud referenced in Sanhedrin 98a:

R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua b. Levi pointed out a contradiction. it is written, in its time [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, I [the Lord] will hasten it! — if they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee … ] lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. King Shapur [I] said to Samuel, ‘Ye maintain that the Messiah will come upon an ass: I will rather send him a white horse of mine.’ He replied, ‘Have you a hundred-hued steed?'( Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 98a)

Israel was not meritorious at Messiah’s first coming, though I don’t believe that was the only reason he came humbly at first (he had to die, suffer death and be raised again, Isaiah 53). They will be meritorious at his second coming (Paul’s prediction in Romans 11 that all Israel will believe in Jesus as the Messiah right before his return).

YES, the Matthew 2:23 text is problematic. But it is likely again a failure on our part as readers to understand the way students of the tenach brought together its teachings. This is the only “quote” Matthew says is from the prophets (plural) rather than one prophet, indicating he knows he is not referencing one passage. The explanations that have been suggested are:

1. Nazarene is a play on words with nezer, branch, as a Messianic title used in Isaiah 11:1.
2. Nazarene is a derogatory word for country bumpkin, like Nathaniel said in John 1:46, and refers to the suffering Messiah’s rejection by his people as unattractive (Isaiah 53:2).
3. Matthew alludes to Judges 13:7 where Samson’s parents are told he should be a nazarite his whole life and she, like Mary, conceives a son miraculously.
You can see that there is lack of clarity caused by not being able to get entirely in Matthew’s mind and we assume it was much clearer to the receiving readers. There are issues like this in all interpretation. But none of the explanations derogatorily accuses Matthew of being an ignoramus about the Old Testament. He definitely was not.

Jared, to me, May
Thanks Randall, so you say:

“Mark doesn’t quote Zechariah 9:9 because his audience isn’t as persuaded by Old Testament prophecy as Matthew’s is. Matthew recounts two donkeys probably because the mother of the colt Jesus rode on was needed to persuade the colt to go and somehow this fits Zechariah more closely for him. Mark does not mention the mother donkey because it isn’t pertinent to his purpose. “

Do you apply the same logic to the Virgin birth? Mark never mentions it at all and neither do Paul’s early writings. In fact it is completely foreign in all Christian texts until Matthew wrote about it some 50 years after the first gospels. Are you suggesting they knew about it but just decided to leave it out because of their audience?

That’s a genuine question

 

Randall Johnson May 5, to Jared, May
I would say that each Gospel author’s choices of what he included or left out were determined by his purpose and his audience. Each however remained faithful to the message of Jesus. Matthew did not write 50 years after Mark, assuming Mark was the first Gospel. I date the synoptic Gospels in the 50’s and 60’s, with John probably later in the 80’s.

Every author must choose what to include and what to leave out. And when an author is seeking to represent a historical event he or she must decide what can be left out or included and still faithfully represent the real history. Again, for Mark’s readers, whom we suppose to be Romans, there is little knowledge of Genesis 3:15 or Isaiah 7:14. They do have stories of the gods birthing children through human women, however, and did he not include Jesus’ virgin birth for that reason? I don’t know what his reason was. But it was not essential to understand that he was virgin born for someone to recognize Jesus as the way of salvation and be rescued from the guilt of their rebellion.

Paul makes what must be an oblique reference to the virgin birth when he states in Galatians 4:4 that God sent forth his son in the fullness of times, born of a woman, born under the law to redeem those under the law. If he was trying to emphasize Jesus’ humanity he could have said born of earthly or human parents, but the “born of a woman” phrase recalls Genesis 3:15.

Jared, to me, May
So everything I’ve read says Thessalonians came first in 50CE (and Paul does not mention it there). Mark failed to mention it in 60 CE and Matthew introduces it some time after 70CE. You surely have to wonder why this minor detail (ok there is sarcasm in that comment) was left out? Knowing that a man who is claimed to be the Messiah was in fact the son of God through a virgin birth is a pretty big deal.

Imagine there were several accounts of the Torah written by men and when most wrote about Noah’s life they failed to mention his episode with the Ark, but one guy wrote about it later. I’m sure that would seem like an odd thing to leave out for all the other writers…

Randall Johnson May 5, to Jared
There is no surprise that individual letters, like those from Paul, might not mention the virgin birth simply because they are usually responding to particular problems the churches are experiencing and that determines their purpose and content. In all my correspondence with you to this point we have not mentioned the virgin birth (much) because that has not been the focus of our discussion.

We must also recognize that there was a body of oral teaching about Jesus that was circulating as the apostles proclaimed Jesus. Every Christian community undoubtedly could rehearse this. But as different groups were needing a written format these Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, stepped into the role of giving authoritative traditions. It would seem logical that Mark would include this, but again we are not sure what reason he might have had otherwise to not include it with this particular group. But the fact that both Matthew and Luke do include it suggests that it was indeed part of this oral tradition that was handed down by the apostles. John, writing much later, builds on what was already communicated through these Gospels, Gospels that we may assume were given wide circulation by his time. He did not need to include all the same material that was already known and accepted by the churches. He mentions Jesus, the Son, becoming flesh without describing or needing to describe the process for that involving Mary.

If there were several accounts in Scripture of Noah’s flood and escape in the ark, it might not be necessary for every author to write exactly the same account each time. They might want to emphasize some unique aspect of his life other than that, though since that is the only or main aspect of his life worth recounting it would seem odd. But there is so much to Jesus’ life worth mentioning, no single account can contain it without being obtrusively unwieldy.

Randall Johnson May 6, to Jared
Found this in the Babylon Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 99a:

R. Hillel7 said: There shall be no Messiah for Israel,8 because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah. R. Joseph said: May God forgive him [for saying so]. Now, when did Hezekiah flourish? During the first Temple. Yet Zechariah, prophesying in the days of the second, proclaimed, Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem, behold, thy king cometh unto thee! he is just, and having salvation, lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.9

Guess R. Joseph had the same ignorance about Hebrew parallelism.

Jared, to me, May
Pastor Johnson…here is the thing. You’ve read Torah… You know that G-d repetitively and excessively keeps reminding us that he is the lord our G-d and that he is one. It continuously comes up in All books of the Torah. Why so? Because it’s an important detail.

It’s just as important a detail if God has a son. You’d expect every gospel writer to mention the Virgin Birth if it were true. It’s an incredibly key fact if it actually happened. Why don’t Mark or Paul mention it before ?Because at that point they haven’t thought about it. They’re trying to recruit Jews – and they’d have a hard time selling idolatry to a Jew.

When time passes and Christianity is on a recruitment mission to everyone else – it makes sense to introduce this story because the Pagan cultures were fascinated by the Virgin birth concept. It had been in their culture for a long time with Hercules/Zeus/Perseus. It’s also no coincidence that the book of Matthew was composed in Greek.

I understand you are going to staunchly defend your text. Those beautiful stories about baby Jesus must seem incredibly hard to question. The thing is they’re important stories – they’re the stories of the origination of the man you place at the front and centre of everything in your life. But the harsh reality is they’re not mentioned at all by Mark, Paul, James, John etc.

The reasons you’ve given for this aren’t compelling – it doesn’t change the fact that this absolutely key detail was not spoken of the same way similar details would have been spoken of regularly and repetitively in the Torah.

 

Randall Johnson May 6, to Jared, May
Paul does allude to it (Galatians 4) and doesn’t have to expand on it (nor do the other epistolary writers) because it is common knowledge and not pertinent to his argument in Galatians. Matthew, who is trying to reach Jewish readers, does mention it despite knowing it will be a hard sell. Luke mentions it to Gentile readers. They could not get away with teaching this amazing fact, as you note, unless the other apostles knew it and attested to it. Yes, the virgin birth is amazing and it is what enables Jesus to be the God who takes on an additional nature, human nature, and so become the eternal sacrifice that takes away the sin of the world. I understand you are going to staunchly defend your view of the text but your explanations for why Mark is required to mention it in his Gospel are not compelling.

I know I am sounding a little harsh, here, using your words against you, but I am trying to help you see that we both have a perspective to push, if you will. I am really appreciating our interactions because it is sharpening my understanding of your perspective and helping see how our perspective stands up against it. Thank you for sharing with me, you and May.

What did you think of the selection from the talmud (99a)?

 

Jared, to me, May
I’ll take a read shortly – I believe May is writing a response to you now so I’ll reserve my responses till she has finished – however I will say that I have only scraped the surface so far. I want to delve much deeper into your views on Torah. I hope and pray for a time when you find truth and value in the words of our creator.

G-d makes it clear to us that he is here for us and we do not need an intermediary to get to him ever.