Triumphal entry into Jerusalem
The following comparison is primarily based on the New International Version (NIV):[1] Luke 19:36–44 John 12:16–19 All Jewish males are obliged to ascend to Jerusalem for the three pilgrimage festivals.
[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] However, according to Agnostic scholar Bart D. Ehrman, there are several reasons why it is improbable that the entry happened in such a triumphal and glorious way as transmitted by the canonical gospels, and some elements may have been invented for theological purposes.
[10]: 10:17 All four canonical Gospels contain an account of the triumphal entry, which according to Ehrman, passes the criterion of multiple attestation in order to (re)construct the historical Jesus.
[13] Osborne 2010, p. 747 stated that Jericho was traditionally a place for pilgrims to cross the Jordan River on the way to the Passover festival in Jerusalem, so the presence of many people travelling in the same direction would have been 'natural', but the texts (e.g., Matthew 20:29) specifically say that a large crowd was following Jesus, "undoubtedly as a result of his fame in Galilee".
[citation needed] The number of people who attended the event is a source of debate among historians: Marcus Borg, Tan Kim Huat, Brent Kinman and Paula Fredriksen argue that Jesus's entry was cheered by a crowd of followers and sympathizers, while according to E. P. Sanders Jesus was greeted with shouts of hosannas only from a small group of disciples.
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus sends two disciples ahead to the nearby village of Bethphage in order to retrieve a donkey and if questioned, to say that it was needed by the Lord.
[18] New Testament scholars Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan characterize this as a pre-planned "counterprocession" in contrast to that of the Roman prefect who would have traveled with his troops from Caesarea Maritima to maintain order during the festival.
[19] Professor John Bergsma says that this is widely seen as a "recapitulation" of the enthronement of Solomon, (described in 1 Kings:1) where, at David's direction, he is anointed at the Gihon Spring and rides his father's donkey into the city to the acclaim of the people.
Protestant theologian Heinrich Meyer suggests that "they spread their outer garments upon both animals, being uncertain which of them Jesus intended to mount".
According to the New American Bible, this reflects Matthew's understanding of that section in the Old Testament Book of Zechariah 9:9 which he cites, and does not take into account "…the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism", mentioning the same animal twice in different ways.
This repetition is a Hebrew poetic figure of speech which says the same thing twice in different words, but Matthew accidentally turned this into two separate animals which Jesus rode simultaneously instead of one donkey which is described twice.
[25] Ehrman argued that the triumphal entry did not pass the criterion of dissimilarity, because the king entering Jerusalem on a donkey could have been invented by Christians in order to have Jesus fulfil Old Testament prophecy.
[33] Following Sanders, Ehrman argued that the triumphal entry did not pass the criterion of contextual credibility: 'If Jesus actually did enter into the city with such fanfare, with crowds shouting their support for Him as the new ruler of the Jews, the king who fulfils all prophecies – who would therefore have to overthrow the present ruler and his armies in order for Himself to rule – it's nearly impossible to understand why the authorities didn't have Him arrested on the spot and immediately taken away, if this really happened.
[34] Some point out that it would have been unwise for the Romans to launch an attack in the city during the Passover period to arrest a single man: Pilate's approximately 1,000 soldiers would not have been sufficient against the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of Jewish pilgrims in a mood of nationalistic and religious zeal; Josephus himself writes that during the pilgrimage festivals there was a considerable potential for revolts to arise because these feasts inspired hopes of redemption among the Jews.
[40] According to Maurice Casey, the Jewish authorities did not immediately put Jesus under arrest for fear of unleashing a tumult, as underlined in the Gospels.
[41] This, of course, does not mean that the act was without consequences: Jesus was in fact arrested a few days later by the Jewish authorities and among the accusations brought against Him there was also that of having proclaimed Himself "King of the Jews" and of having incited a revolt.
[47][48] As 20th-century British scholar William Neil comments, "[O]ur Lord enacts his first messianic symbol by entering Jerusalem on the back of a donkey.
This, as Zechariah had depicted, was the means by which Messiah when he came would enter Zion, not as a conqueror upon a warhorse but as the prince of peace upon a humble beast of burden.
[46] Frederic Farrar notes that a colt "on which no one has ever sat" (Luke 19:30) is "therefore adapted for a sacred use", recalling Numbers 19:2 (a red heifer without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which a yoke has never come), Deuteronomy 21:3 and 1 Samuel 6:7.
