[B-Greek] Matthew 21:5

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 8 13:00:57 EDT 2006


Since I had finished my previous message before reading these last two, let me briefly comment again:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
To: "Sara Edwards" <sltj77 at gmail.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Matthew 21:5


>
> On Oct 8, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Sara Edwards wrote:
>
>> That's why I asked if the Accusative Singular Feminine used with
>> ONON was meant to denote the gender of the donkey.  Is that the case?

I have the Friberg grammatical tags on my computer file, and they have wrongly tagged ONON in 21:5 as accusative, 
singular feminine. As has already been said the word ONOS is not specified for gender. So, it is an interpretation 
whether the word refers to a masculine or feminine donkey. Since it is clear from the OT quote and Hebrew style that 
this ONON is co-referential with the PWLON, the correct marking of ONON is either "no gender" or masculine gender from 
context. It is a problem with these tags that they do not allow for "no gender". The Friberg tags had exatly the same 
problem with PARQENOS as we discussed earlier for 1 Cor 7:25. They wrongly tagged PARQENWN as feminine, although it 
should be "no gender specified".

>
> HGAGON THN ONON (again the gender is clear from THN) KAI TON
> PWLON KAI EPEQHKAN EP' AUTWN TA hIMATIA, KAI
> EPEKAQISEN EPANW AUTWN.

It is clear from the modifiers that the ONON is verse 2 and 7 is feminine, but the problem is the wrong assumption that 
the ONOS in v. 5 has the same reference as in v. 2 and 7.

> They put the hIMATIA upon AUTWN -- both animals -- and he sat
> upon AUTWN. The second AUTWN could have either the hIMATIA
> or the animals as its antecedent, But one must ask why the hIMATIA
> would be put upon both animals if Jesus mounted only upon one of
> them.

We must also ask why people spread their clothes on the road. The clothes on the back of the donkeys were probably not 
intended to function as a saddle, but were meant to show honour to the coming "king". I assume that the colt would find 
it easier to accept being "clothed" and follow the mother donkey if both were given the clothes, but that is sheer 
speculation. Some questions cannot be answered with certainly with the limited information we are given. But we can 
reasonably assume that Jesus did not ride on both donkeys.

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list