Duncan, J. & Derrett, M.

7/27/2019 Duncan, J. & Derrett, M.

1/9

PALIN: THE ASS AGAIN (Mk 11,3d)

J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

Since 1881 most editors display an incorrect and misleading text atMk 11,3d. Pavlin is an intrusion. The TR is corroborated by Is 32,20,

whence we learn that the righteous speedily send an ass to the Messiah.

1. Introduction

Here we are concerned with coagulated conundrums inherent in thereading(s) of Mk 11,3, to which I did not attend (nor to Is 32,20) in myearlier study of the Ass (1971). In determining to follow Tischendorf andthen Westcott and Hort, editors (Nestle, Souter, Kilpatrick, Aland,Metzger) have been swayed (as is normal) by the sense they imputed to thepassage. I new opine (as will appear) that they were mistaken, and the senseof Mark is as good as lost so long as the post-1881 reading is relied on.

In reality Mark is making a somewhat fanciful point, which may relateto reminiscence. 1 Enquiry into that is confused by the question of Jesusprescience vibrant in the Passion story (Mk 14,13 ajpanthvsei) whichdoes not aid commentators reconstruction of the event. Perhaps it is bet-ter to find Jesus followers colluding in a charade to bring ancient prophetsto life. Many will now believe that miracles were staged (I do notmeanfabricated) in order to prove to an unsophisticated audience that the oldprophecies were taking effect. And to impress such an audience it wouldnot be necessary to use only simple and transparent techniques.

Mk 11,3 offers several problems. Assuming for the moment that WH(now 26 UBS3 and NA26) were to be reliable, (1) who is the subject ofajpostevllei or ajpostelei' (2) as between ajpostevllei and ajpostelei'admittedly virtually synonymous 2, which is right; (3) ifpavlin is reliablewhat does it mean; and (4) what is meant byw|de? These problems are not

present in Matthew, who at 21,3 reads eujqu;" de; ajpostevllei (orajpostelei') aujtouv" (according to Matthew two animals are involved).Yet even in Matthew some ambiguity was detected in the past.

1 Is Jesus foreknowledge a notion of Hellenistic-Jewish circles? H. Patsch, DerEinzug Jesu in Jerusalem,ZTK68, 1971, 1-26. Whether the popular acclamation wasa separate story is not our immediate concern.

2 Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Cambridge &Chicago, 1961), 323(1). In prophecies it is very frequent in the NT. Cf. LXX Josh1,11 diabaivnete. B.M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(London & New York, 1976), 108-109 takes thefutureto be a scribal correction.

Filologa Neotestamentaria- Vol. XIV - 2001, pp. 121-129Facultad de Filosofa y Letras de Crdoba (Espaa)


2/9

Further we must go back to a passage about which all synoptics are agreed:in JO kuvrio~ aujtou' (aujtw'n) creivan e[cei who is the kuvrio", does the

word governaujtou',

and in that case what is the meaning ofcreivan e[cei 3

.

2. Pavlin

The Textus Receptus does not have the wordpavlin, and that versionis supported by a very substantial apparatus 4. The mss. vacillate betweenajpostevllei and ajpostelei'; and aujto;n ajpostevllei rather thanajpostevllei aujtovn (versions) is regarded as correctly presenting the TR.The TR was followed universally until WH 5. The former is the readingof the Vulgata and a part of the Syriac tradition. It not only agrees with

Matthew (surely not a mere coincidence?6

), but makes sense. Whyshould anyone disturb it?The meaning of Mk 11,3d would then be, And he will at once send it

(the colt) here. He is the ad hoccustodian, according to v. 3a-b, who is pre-dicted to agree to release the animal into the disciples care (lit. let them go),and w|de then means the place where Jesus stands 7. Jesus is predicting (cf.14,3) and we learn the outcome (kai; ajfh'kan aujtouv~ 11,6b), words only inMark. If this was the original text of Mark, as argued by P.-L. Couchoud 8 andF. Field 9, there is nothing to complain about. About a gratuitous commoda-tum the law has much to say, but none of it implausible in context10.

3 Kilpatrick insisted, Pesch confirmed, and the NEB margin had Marcan usage identi-fied. So the Diglot (1961). But traditional translators, including REB, NJB, NIV, and evenNRSV render The Lord needs it or the like. Even Schonfield (The Master needs him)and Cassirer (The master has need of it) make this mistake. A case of great minds agree-ing in error. Cf. R.G. Bratcher, A note on Mark xi.3: oJ kuvrio~ aujtou' creivan e[cei, ExpT64, 1952-3, 93. Oncreiva see also Moulton-Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, s.v.

4 More impressively at H. B. Swete,Mark(1902), 248 and Aland, Synopsis(1964),366 and UBS3, 169 than at Huck-Greeven, Synopse(1981), 210 or NA26 (1979). Onpavlin in Mark see E.J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel(Cambridge, 1978)96-99: a link.

5 Scholz and Griesbach agree using the TR as printed by Stephanus (3rd edn.) and theElzevir text of 1633. Benj. Wilsons Emphatic Diaglott(1864) retained the TR reading

up to his last edition (1942).6 Could one seriously claim that the vast apparatus was influenced by Matthew (Swete)?7 That this was the natural impression from both Matthew and Mark was the opin-

ion of the celebrated linguist, Ludovicus de Dieu (b. 1590), In quatuor Evangelia(Leiden, 1623, 1631, 1646). See nn. 8 and 9 below.

8 Couchoud, Notes de critique verbale sur St Marc et St Mattieu,JTS34, 1953,113-138 at pp. 125-126. V. Taylor,Mark, 454.

9 Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament(Cambridge 1899), 34-35, withwhom I entirely agree.

10 On the plausibility of the tale see A. E. Harvey,Jesus and the Constraints of History(Bampton Lectures 1980; London, 1982), 120-124 (Jesus was eccentric in not entering

Jerusalem on foot - but did he not dismount?). For purposes of comparison Justinian, Inst.III.14.2 is not without interest. The interpolator ofpavlin may have had this in mind.

122 J. Duncan M. Derrett


3/9

However this may be, editors report alternative readings as follows:aujto;n ajpostevllei pavlin a D L a curious company.

ajpostevllei pavlin aujtovn B, etc.aujto;n pavlin apostevllei C*vid, etc.

pavlin ajpostevllei aujtovn qajpostevllei pavlin D Origen

A conspectus of this chaos suggests thatpavlin has been inserted atdifferent times, or if inserted once only, has been shifted for stylistic rea-sons. If indeedpavlin has been inserted news of the consequent shift ofsense may have reached Luke, who whilst otherwise keeping pace herewith Mark11, perhaps for this reason omits the troublesome clause alto-

gether (l9,3l).Pavlin itself creates difficulties. From the context it should meanback again, confirmed byw|de which then means back here, i.e. tothe street 12 in which the animal was found tied up. That this is possiblegoes without saying, or so much testimony would not have convinced somany editors, and therefore all commentators. The 1881 text is translat-ed in the Greek-English Diglot (BFBS, 1961) as follows: its owner(kuvrio") needs it and then will send it back here. Pesch partly agrees 13:Sein Herr bedarf (seiner), und gleich schicht er ihn wieder her. Thesewords can evidently mislead (a possibility overlooked by V. Taylor). Trueeujquv~ does not mean then, and the Greek has no it as the object of

need; but this will serve to represent the WH text. But it is embarrass-ing. What right had the disciples to claim that the ass owner needed it?None whatever!

But the word kuvrio~ though it can indeed mean owner 14 can also meanMaster in the general sense of Lord, in this case the Messiah (Midr. R.Gen 89 referring to Is 30,33) who is called melek ha-mas#i$ah, the kingMessiah. There is a further difficulty. Apostevllein is not the naturalverb for to send back. Greek has such a word, ajnapevmpein (Lk23,7.11.15; Phlm 12; 1 Clem 65,1), which, though it can also mean tosend on 15, fits the imagined scenario withpavlin very much better thanajpostevllein does 16.

11 On Lukes improving on Marks style up to v. 36see T. Schramm, Der Markus-Stoffbei Lukas(Cambridge, 1971), 146. The omission of Mk 11,3d is not mentioned.

12 Babylonian Talmud (hereafter b.) B.M. 94b, 118a. Derrett, Law in the NewTestament: The Palm Sunday colt, NT 13, 1971, 241-258; id. Studies in the NewTestament II(Leiden, 1978), 165-182 at p. 175 and n. 4.

13 R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium II (Freiburg, 1977), 176, so 180 (verspricht).14 Ex 21,28-29.54; Jdg 10,22-23; Lk 19,35; Mt 20,8; Mk 15,35; Gal 4,1, and espe-

cially Is 1,3.15 Plutarch, Solon 4,3.16 Samuelis Bochartus (b. 1599), Hierozoicum seu de animalibus S. Scripturae

(London, 1664) 1.2, 17 (p. 211).

Pavlin: The Ass Again (Mk 11,3d) 123


4/9

Let us considerpavlin itself. It is very common in Mark, where it usu-ally means iteration 17 excepting four possible places (2,1; 5,21; 11,27;

14,39), where it could well imply a return (cf. Jn 4,3; 6,15; Acts 11,10)18. English is unfortunate, since again is used both of iteration and of areturn; e.g. He went back again implies not that he traversed the samepath a second time but that his return took place. Howeverpavlin at Mk11,3 can indeed mean (send it) back (hither), on those four modelsabove. Cf. Xenophon,Anab. IV.2,13 (retake a position).

It is of some interest that lectionariesat 8,13 - where the same problemoccurs of order (betweenpavlin ejmbav~ andejmbav~ pavlin) read ajph'lqe

pavlin which implies a return, whereas the mss., however much they dif-fer as betweenpavlin ejmbav~ andejmbav~ pavlin do notexpress a return.Therefore the Church could alter the text to clarify an imputed meaning,

and it is possible that has happened at 11,3.What is the point of the alleged promise to return the animal withoutdelay (REB), or right back here (Johnson)? As we see from the storywith its suggestion of controversy, the animal was not returned immedi-ately (see 11,11b). If Mark used several sources he cannot have overlookthis. One distrusts such prescience. The WH text tenders an inducementto the custodian(s), or loungers (eJsthkovte"), who behaved as if they pos-sessed the animal, to agree (ajfh'kan) to the colts being taken away .

No doubt it removes a suspicion that the ass, brusquely seized, was notbeing stolen (Dt 28,31; cf. Num 16,15!). On the other hand the possibleinsertors ofpavlin knew that a disturbance, the acclamation, followed thedescent into Jerusalem, so that a promise of such a character would havebeen apposite if Jesus prescience was to be believed. So motives to insert

pavlin are not too hard to conjecture. Metzger asks why, in that case, was theinsertion not made into Matthew? But Matthew, being clear, needed none.

3. Loans and animals19

We need not repeat trite learning. Where an animal is loaned for use,but gratuitously the borrowers are liable absolutely for mishaps 20, such

as might well occur with an unaccustomed load (ou[pw ejkavqisen) on a

17 Twentyone instances, possibly including 15,13. [Bauer] -Arndt-Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. 2.

18 [Bauer] Arndt-Gingrich,pavlin 1.19 Derrett, op. cit., 165-182. Many points are covered, not the question ofpavlin. I

was deceived by WH.20 Mishnah (hereafter m.) B.M. VII.8-10 (H. Danby, 560); b. B.M. 93a-b.

Maimonides, Code, XIII. II. i (trans. J.J. Rabinowitz, 1949, 52ff.). G. Horowitz, Spiritof Jewish Law (New York 1973) 279-281, few of which details concern us. Jesusrighteousness is handled by Harvey, ubi cit., and by C.S. Mann,Mark(AB; Garden CityNY, 1986), 434-458.



5/9

stony path. Such would not have been the case if the animal had beenaccompanied by his owner or his agent (to lead or drive it) (Ex 22,14-

15)

21

, and the liability would have been less if the animal had beenhired. In our case there was no hire nor was any pledge offered. We aredeliberately given every detail of the transaction, and it has naturallybeen guessed that the loungers, or however they are to be described, werein previous communication with Jesus 22. The point of the alleged prom-ise seems to be that the ass is needed for so short a time (it was idle, tiedup) that risk to the owner would be small.

The position is otherwise if, all previous communication ignored,Jesus is requisitioning a mount for a solemn occasion, where he candemand its use

,at a time when no riot was expected. As has been noticed

by several commentators, rabbis in later periods did commandeer trans-

port23

, and someone called oJ kuvrio" may claim this privilege. Did thathappen?We come toJO kuvrio~ aujtou' creivan e[cei. Unlike old translators

we must take aujtou' with kuvrio" his master. This leaves creivane[cei absolute, he is in need. This is entirely possible 24. It would rep-resent Heb. nisrak, Aram. sarik. Of what is he in need? Transport. Bysome suitable beast. Why should no one have ridden on the animal? Afemale in menstruation, a male with a flux were to be feared. Thereligious leader is supposed to be fussy. A kings mount must neverhave been ridden by another 25. Honour must be shown to him towhom it is due 26. It is claimed that ancient kings rode on asses, exceptto war. Whatever a prophet might be prepared to do (Num 22,21-22),and whatever Jdg 5,10; 10,4 might suggest 27, a Seleucid Benefactoror Saviour would look odd on an ass. Had Jesus ever mounted ahorse? There were more than one reason why he should seek an assscolt: Zech 9,9 (at which commentators turn up their noses) says theMessiah will.

21 Taken somewhat broadly: m. B.M. VIII.1; b. B.M. 94b-97a. Maimonides, ubi cit.,ii (trans., 55f).

22

So Bengel and Taylor (Mark, 1952). I. H. Marshall, Luke(Exeter, 1978), 710 rais-es the question. Derrett, ubi cit., at 170 n.2. A. Farrer, Study in St Mark(Westminster,1951), 176 took them to be strangers. They may have been righteous, unknown mes-sianists. See below.

23 b. Yoma55b (Soncino trans.,163-4); b. Ned. 52a (Sonc., 97); b. Sot. 10a (Sonc. 46).Patsch (1971) was aware that rabbis rode asses.

24 Bengel. Cf. Mk 2,25; Acts 2,45; 4,35; Rom 12,13; Eph 4,28; 1 Jn 3,17.25 m. Sanh. 11.5 (Danby, 385).26 Num 19,2; Dt 21,3; 1 Sam 6,7; 2 Sam 6,3; Mt 27,59; Lk 23,53; And cf. Euripides,

Phoen. 639-642; Horace, Epod. 9.21-22; Ovid, Met. 3.8-13; Seneca, Oed. 719-724.Sherman E. Johnson,Mark(London, 1960), 185 suggests that the animal was as if readyfor sacrifice (a strange notion in the light of Lev 27,11; Ex 13,15).

27 M. Rehm, Der Knig Messias(Kevelaer, 1968), 333-338, esp. 335n.352.



6/9

4. The Messiahs Colt

The critic of today (deplored by A. Farrer in 1951 [see his Study in StMark, 347]) views with displeasure the idea that the Church could haveframed the story of Salvation in terms of allusions to scripture, especiallytrivial passages. The proof texts are regarded as deplorable. The positionis not improved if rabbis once or more than once took the alleged scrip-tural authority in Christian senses. Objections appear to the use ofrabbinical material 28, where passages of interest to us appear amongstmuch that is not. Nevertheless evidence for the view that Zech 9,9 will befulfilled when the Messiah comes is abundant, in material of various ages:the idea is traditional, what Billerbeck called gang und gbe 29. We mayhesitate to go all the way with the rabbis who find the ass of Zech 9,9 the

same used by Abraham and Moses (Gen 22,5; Tgg Ex 4,20; Yalqut Reub.on Ex 4,20; Pirqe de R. Eliezer 31)! The JPS translation (1985) of Zech9,9, uninfluenced by any midrash, reads:

Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion; Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem!Lo, your king is coming to you. He is victorious, triumphant,yet humble, riding on an ass, On a donkey foaled by a she-ass.

As is known, this does not mean two separate animals, though theLXX can be read that way30. Reiteration in different words (exergasia) ischaracteristic of biblical style. The coming on an ass of a king (Mk 11,8-

10) would be a messianic scene, portending the messianic age 31. Thiscannot be attributed to rabbinic fantasy of late emergence, since notonly does Matthew use it himself in this place (Mt 21,4-5), but John takesthe idea from another source, a midrash, not a quotation (Jn 12,14-15).According to John the charade was not contrived, for the disciples graspedthe point afterwards -early Christians were expected to do so.

28 Lou H. Silberman, Anent the use of rabbinic material, NTS24/3, 1978, 415-417(quizzing this writer); Derrett, New Resolutions of Old Conundrums(Shipston-on-Stour,1986), Conclusion; J. Neusner, Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament(Valiey Forge

PA, 1994), reviewed by Derrett atJ. Higher Criticism 4/2, 1997, 151-154.29 Midr. R. Dt IV.11 (Sonc. 101); Midr R. Gen 75.6, 98.9, 99.8 (Sonc. 698, 957,983). Midr. R. Qoh. 1,9 1 (Sonc. 33); b. Sanh 98a, 99a (Sonc 664, 669). b. Ber. 56b(Sonc. 350). Midr. R. S.S.II,4 (Sonc. 48,50); Pesiqta Rabbati 34.1,2 (trans. Braude II,665f); Pirqe de R. Eliezer 31 (trans. Friedlander, 225). C. Schoettgenius, HoraeHebraicae(Dresden & Leipzig, 1733), 169; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar I. 842-4; IV.786 (b), 907 (w), 923 (xx).

30 ejpibebhkw;~ ejpi; uJpozuvgion kai; pw'lon nevon, cf. Mt 21,5ejpibebhkw;~ ejpi; o[nonkai; ejpi; pw'lon, uiJo;n uJpozugivou. The provision of an alternative mount made sensegranted the terrain.

31 F.F. Bruce, The book of Zechariah and the passion narrative, BJRL 43, 1961,336, 339, 346-347. R. H. Gundry, The Use of The Old Testament in St Matthew s Gospel(London, 196?), 120, 197-199. Pesch,MarkusII, 179.



7/9

It may be urged that Zech 9,9 is not only cited by rabbis in late texts 32

but avoided by Mark and Luke. But Zech 9,9 does not stand alone. There

are numerous asses in the Hebrew bible, even if we exclude Ex 23,4 andBalaams mount. Of particular interest is the ass of Is 32,20. Is 32 is aboutthe messianic age: a king shall reign in righteousness, etc., the eyes of theblind shall be opened, etc., the poor shall be protected against those who plotagainst them; the rich will lament, citadels and towers will be deserted; even-tually a spirit from on high will be poured out, fertility will return as justiceand righteousness prevail; and confidence will be established. In sum:

Happy shall you be who sow by all waters,Who send out cattle and asses to pasture.

This (the JPS translation)33

makes sense of an obscure line, but in afootnote they write, Lit. let lose the feet of cattle and asses, cf. 7,25end. In fact the Hebrew reads mes#alehey regel has#o$r weha-hamo$r, sendingforth the foot of the ox and the ass. In context this may mean thatploughing will take place and harvests will be transported; for the definitearticle in Hebrew often stands for a class 34, whereas an anarthrous nouncan denominate a class or individual concurrently (Gen 32,5).

The ox and the ass, a clich in biblical terms 35, came to be associat-ed in an anonymous midrash 36, which, referring to clemency to livingbeings (Dt 22,6-7), says that he who observes this hastens the comingof the Messiah, because whether or not the ox represents the son of

Joseph or the priest anointed for war (Dt 20,2-4;33,17), the ass recallsthe Son of David 37.In the messianic age, the age of righteousness, the sendingof the foot

of the ass is, virtually, hastening the coming of the king Messiah, ourkuvrio" as well as the animals (Ps 8, 7-8; Dan 7,14). Marks use of the titlekuvrio" is not disturbed by this, and the phrase Cristov~ Kuvrio~ at Lk2,11; mss. LXX Lam 4,20; mss. Ps Sol 17,32 is not relevant 38.

32 Harvey, Constraints, 122.33 The targum says, O ye righteous; ye have wrought good works; for ye are like them

that sow on a well-watered (field), that send forth oxen to tread out the corn and assesto gather it. J.F. Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford, 1953) 106.34 As at Gen 2,11; 11,3; 13,2; 1 Kgs 10,27; 2 Chr 2,13.14; Is 28,7; Am 2,6.35 Ex 20,17; 21,33; 22,4.10; 23, 4.12; Dt 22,4.10; 28,31; 1 Sam 12,3; Is 1,3; Lk 14,5.36 Midr. R. Dt VI.7 (Sonc. 125). J. Rabbinowitz, editor of the Soncino translation,

says (125n.) ,Tanhuma, wayis#lah on Gen 32,6 refers this verse to the Messiah. See theedn. of Tanhuma from Frankfurt on the Oder 1701, fol. 12b. Further parallels given by

A. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah (London, 1906), II, 725.37 Because of Zech 9,9. See last note, also Tanhuma, bare s#t2a as cited by Strack-

Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 843, referring to Is 32,20; 55,1; Dt 33,17.38 D. R. Catchpole at E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (edd.)Jesus and the Politics of

His Day(Cambridge, 1984), 323-324. R. R. Hann, Christos Kyrios in Ps Sol 17.32...,NTS31/4, 1985, 620-627.



8/9

Apostelei' comes from Is 32,20 mes#alehey regel, not indicating somuch immediacy (Bengel) as prophecy. Mk 4,29 (q.v.) illustrates the for-

mer, not the latter. The righteous, when called upon, will send the ass.They do not fear for it. If it miscarries 39, it is all in a good cause - it isdoing the work for which it was created.

5. The Solution40

Pavlin is an intrusion derived from a misunderstanding. Jesus tendersno inducement to the custodian(s), no misrepresentation. He predictsthat when they hear the Master is in need they will not hinder his disci-ples initiative. People can be presumed to know that a tied-up colt

(pw'lon dedemevnon 11,2) was to be the Messiahs mount from as far backas Gen 49,10-11 41:

Until Shiloh come; And unto him shall the obedienceof the peoples be.Binding his foal to the vine, and his asss colt to the choice vine.

The LXX renders both i$ro$, his foal, and beni$ atono$, his colt, withpw'lon, another example ofexergasia, for it is one animal only. The bind-ing of the foal is noted by Mark with histiv poiei'te luvonte~to;n pw''lonat 11,5 42. Targum Onqelos speaks of the Messiah and of his peoplesbuilding the Temple, with righteousness round about him and doers ofthe Law through his doctrine. The pseudo-Jonathan Targum speaks of theMessiah who girds his loins and arrays the battle against his adversaries.Improbably the ass is his war-horse, as it were. He cannot look at any-thing unclean... The Neofiti Targum is similarly un-Christian. The frag-mentary Targum says the king Messiah will bind his loins and go forth towar against those that hate him. The targumic evidence is no doubt the

39 Mishna at B.M. 98a-b.40

I am at variance with Vincent Taylor,Mark(London, 1952), 454-455. I acknowl-edge a letter (24.09.98) from Prof. J. K. Elliott (Leeds), who drew my attention to C.H.Turners opinion that the clause and he will at once send it back here was part of thedisciples message. See J.K. Elliott (ed.) The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark(Leiden, 1993), 111ff. Turner concurs with the conventional understanding of the pas-sage, in which the infaustum pavlin is taken for granted.

41 Justin,Apol. 32,6. b. Sanh. 98b. Midr. R. Gen 98.9, 99.8. (Sonc. 957, 983). b. Ber.56b-57a (Sonc. 350). Pesiqta Rabbati 33.13 (trans. Braude II, 659 [49,12]). Strack-Billerbeck, I, 842 (adMt 21,5); IV/1, 877. Pesch,MarkusII, 179. J. Blenkinsopp, The ora-cles of Judah and the messianic Entry,JBL 80, 1981, 55-64; Harvey, Constraints

,124 n.18.

42 Luvonte~ significant as it shows theydrewthe animal and so accepted liability inregard to it. b. B.M. 94b (Sonc. 544); m. B.M. VIII.3; b. B.M. 98b-99a. Maimonides,ubi cit. i,5 (trans. 53); iii.1-3 (trans. 58-60).



9/9

most impressive: that is what the Synagogue heard 43 on the Sabbath.From ancient times the colt tied to the vine symbolized the Messiahs

style of warfare, and we can surmise that anyone tying up a colt, if he isaddicted to messianism, hopes that the Messiahs outriders will come anduntie it -no casual event for them, as Burkitt and Lightfoot imagined.

So our kuvrio" is not the owner of the ass, but the Messiah 44. Creivane[cei means he is needy (of help). He commandeers (cf. 1 Sam 8,16)something from a virtual supporter, who himselfajpostelei'. The word

eujquv" is correct, for the custodian will indeed consent promptly. His con-sent is sending within the meaning of Is 32,20.

Midrash can be relied on to explain Mark, and not only here. There isa similar case at Mk 4,1, where exaggerated detail lets in a string of allu-sions to Isaiah 45. To return to 11,3, the passage 11,4-5 confirms the

appropriate procedure was followed. This detail is more impressive thanMatthews kaqw;~ sunevtaxen. Lukes oiJ kuvrioi is interesting, since it rep-resents belyw, the animals master(s). Luke impresses on us that the pos-sessors of the ass had legal rights; but these were little compared withthose of the true Master, the Messiah. The WH text with its chaotic back-ground 46 should be abolished and the TR reading restored.

J. DUNCAN M. DERRETTHalf Way House, High Street

Blockley, Moreton in MarshGlos., GL56 9EX (ENGLAND)

43 A. Dez Macho, Neofiti I(1968), 635. J. Bowker, Targums and Rabbinic Literature(Cambridge, 1969), 278-279, 284-285.

44 W. Hendriksen,Mark(Edinburgh, 1976), 434 (contradicting Taylor).45 In particular Is 42,4; 51,5; 60,9; 66,19. See Midr. Ps. on Ps 2; Yalqut Sim.II, p.

104d. See Derrett, Preaching to the Coast, EQ73, 2001, 195-205.46 On the pedigree ofpavlin in the light of uncials and minuscules see B.H. Streeter,

Four Gospels(London, 1926), 93, 318n, and post-Streeter developments at V. Taylor,The Text of the New Testament(London, 1961), 56-75.


Duncan, J. & Derrett, M.

Documents

Transcript of Duncan, J. & Derrett, M.