Let's pretend ...

Let's pretend that the notion of "trinity" makes some sense, and is not just a "toy for theologians" (as Kant must have said, somewhere).

Let's assume that God subsists as a "Trinity of Persons", and that, in the Incarnation in Jesus, human nature has been united to the divine nature of the "Eternal Son" so as to constitute one Person.

How is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, posited with respect to this Trinity?

Two only are the possibilities:

a. either the divinity of the Son has been changed and somehow “enriched” by the humanity of Jesus,

b. or the humanity of Jesus has been entirely “absorbed” into the divinity of the Son.

(Sorry, no third option, I am afraid ...)

In the former case (a.) it is God’s immutability which is questioned; in the latter case (b.) it is the very reality, value and meaning of Resurrection which dissolve into a haze. (Sorry, no third option, I am afraid ...)

This is what a highly respected theologian says:

“To say that Jesus is “before” him [Abraham] is not to lift him out of the ranks of  humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such  statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do  that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth  before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who  understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second  time (3:4).” -- J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John, 1987, p. 384.

Jesus certainly existed “before Abraham came into existence”. The question is, HOW?

w. Some claim "in the Father's mind", from eternity;

x. Some claim, before creation, even before the beginning of time, BUT as an "inferior deity" (deutheros theos);

y. Trinitarians claims, as a "pre-existing, co-eternal, co-equal person".

z. I claim, as God's Eternal Logos, an Essential Attribute of God.

w and x are, respectively, inadequate (w) and incompatible with scriptural monotheism (x).

I do not agree with y, because I don't think it is objectively attested in the Scripture, but, even more so, because I believe, and I have amply argued, that it is incompatible EITHER with the reality of the Resurrection, OR with the unchangeability of God.

Jesus Enters Jerusalem - Gustave Dore 1832-1883

Triumphal Entry of the Messiah in Jerusalem

This is Zachariah’s original prophecy

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
(Zechariah 9:9 - NIV)

And this is Zachariah’s prophecy as quoted by Matthew:

This took place to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet:
"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and [Greek: kai] riding on a donkey,
and [kai] on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
(Matthew 21:5 - NIV)

Apparently, in his zeal, Matthew has misinterpreted the original Hebrew and/or mistranslated in Greek. And this is the disconcerting result:

₆ The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. ₇ They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. (Matthew 21:6-7 - NIV - emphasis by MdS)

EITHER a physical impossibility, OR something absurd and silly. This, much more than the discrepancy with Mark, Luke and John, all speaking ONLY of one donkey (Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14-15), is the real problem.

In fact there is quite a straightforward explanation: Matthew did not translate Zechariah 9:9 from the original Hebrew, but cited from the Septuagint, which apparently makes exactly the same “mistake” as Matthew, viz. of mentioning two donkeys (see Zechariah 9:9 in original HEBREW and in the Septuagint translation in Greek LXXM).

Some may claim that there are differences between Matthew and the Septuagint, but a careful comparison of the texts shows that the differences between Matthew and the Septuagint are not so relevant, and they can all be easily explained. Let’s order the two Greek texts (transliterated) by corresponding stich (source Zechariah 9:9 – NET; Matthew 21:5 – NET):

1. [LXX] Idou o basileus sou erchetai soi (See, your king comes to you)
[Matt] Idou o basileus sou erchetai soi (See, your king comes to you)
[NOTE] Identical

2. [LXX] dikaios kai sozwn autos (righteous and having salvation)
[Matt] MISSING
[NOTE] stich entirely missing in Matthew: perhaps a copying error, quite common

3. [LXX] praus kai epibebekos epi hypozygion (meek and riding on an ass [lit. “beast of burden”])
[Matt] praus kai epibebekos epi onon (meek and riding on an ass)
[NOTE] the “beast of burden” of LXX has been shifted to stich no.4 in Matthew

4. [LXX] kai pwlon neon (and a young colt)
[Matt] kai pwlon uion hypozygiou (and a colt, the foal [lit. “son”] of an ass [lit. “beast of burden”])
[NOTE] see NOTE at stich no.3

It is also possible that both Matthew and the Septuagint translators were working from a different Hebrew original than the one which made its way into the Masoretic text (this would be confirmed by similar parallel findings at Qumran). But the main point remains that LXX and Matthew closely mirror each other. This happens only with Matthew, and not with Mark and John, and also with Luke (only John, besides Matthew, quotes Zachariah 9:9)

From the above analysis, the similarities between Matthew’s and the Septuagint’s rendering of Zechariah’s 9:9 far outweigh discrepancies:

i. LXX has hypozygion (“beast of burden”) in stich no.3 and Matthew in stich no.4, whereas they both have pwlon (“colt”) exactly in the same position,

ii. Only Matthew uses onon (“ass”, generic, without explicit reference to sex), but this may be Matthew’s choice to specify clearly that it is an “ass”, and not, generically a “beast of burden”. In fact, by not using the Greek word for “ass”, rather than the LXX “beast of burden”, Matthew may want to underline that in fact the “beast” upon which Jesus rides, being a “young colt”, is not yet, properly speaking, a “beast of burden”.

iii. Only Matthew uses uion (lit. “son”), but that can be easily explained (it is witnessed in Greek codices as a mistaken copy of neon - “young”).

What is unique to LXX and to Matthew, with respect to the original Hebrew Zachariah 9:9, is that while Zachariah 9:9 apparently speaks of ONE donkey (“riding on an ass, on a colt, the foal of an ass”), both LXX and Matthew speak of TWO donkeys (“riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass” - a physical absurdity-impossibility). This is even more remarkable, bearing in mind that neither Mark, nor John, nor even Luke follow LXX and Matthew in the same apparent “mistake” or absurdity.

I believe that NOT ONLY my attempt to explain the Matthean oddity (of “riding on two donkeys”) by recourse to the LXX is perfectly reasonable and satisfactory, BUT ALSO that, if one chooses not to resort to this explanation, one ends up in really deep waters as to why Matthew (and ONLY Matthew, NOT Mark, Luke and John) would have consciously reported this awkward image of the Messiah riding on TWO donkeys.

It seems reasonable to assume that Matthew drew his Zechariah 9:9 from a Hebrew text with “two steeds” similar (but perhaps not identical) to the one used as a basis for the LXX.

And it is precisely at this point that the visionary nature of Zachariah’s prophecy at Zech 9:9 appears.

Zechariah’s "gradual" Vision

Let’s suppose that the prophet Zechariah had a gradual vision of the Messiah and of two donkeys, an ass and her colt, and of the Messiah riding on the colt, possibly tied to his mother. Let’s examine again the LXX translation of Zechariah 9:9, stich by stich (ST1:ST4)

Zechariah probably, in the fuzziness of the vision, first saw the Messiah:

[ST1] “Behold, your king comes to you”

Then, like in a film, closing in on the Messiah, he had a strong impression of his majestic aspect:

[ST2] “righteous and having salvation”

Then the image “expanded” and he saw that the Messiah was humbly riding an ass:

[ST3] “meek and riding on a he-ass” [Hebrew: rwmx chamowr <H2543>, masculine (“he-ass”)]

We can perceive here that the vision is confused, that the seer “knows” there is more to the vision, and yes, he realizes that, in fact there are two animals, a colt (“young male he-ass”) [Hebrew: rye ’ayir <H5895> and its mother, a she-ass [Hebrew: Nwta 'athown <H860>]:

[ST4] ”and [on] a colt, the foal [lit. “son”] of a she-ass”.

Note on the Vision

More comments on “Zechariah’s Vision”.

i. The uncertainty and “graduality” of the vision is hinted at by the Hebrew prefix conjunction we (“and”), before bkr rakab <H7392> (“riding”), which makes it appear as bkrw (we-rakab) and repeated before the conjunction rye ’al <H5921> (“on”, “upon”), which makes it appear as lew (we-‘al).

ii. Also the LXX translates perfectly the Hebrew text of Zechariah 9:9, because the Greek conjunction και (kai <G2532>), in this verse, bears NOT the meaning of “and” BUT of “even”.

iii. The two English translations that are most faithful to the Hebrew text are NASB and NLT. They are the only ones that NEITHER omit the second vav/we (the one before rye ’al <H5921> “on”, “upon”, which transforms it into lew - we-‘al), NOR translate it (as the KJV does) with a misleading “and”, BUT correctly express the sense of surprise proper of the vision with “even”.

Matthew's awkward verse 21:7

Now that the quotation of Zehariah's vision is over, Matthew proceeds on his own, and we can safely say that what he writes at verse 7 ...

They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. (Matt 21:7)

... is awkwardly phrased

There is no doubt that the Greek phrase epeyhkan ep autwn ta imatia (“[they] placed their cloaks on them”), which obviously refers to BOTH animals, is already misleading enough, even if not wrong.

But the last part of the sentence, kai epekaqisen epanw autwn is more than just misleading, because:

1. epikayizw (epikathizo <G1940>) is used only once in the whole NT, at Mat 21:7. And we do not fare much better considering Greek literature in general. The most authoritative Liddle-Scott A Greek-English Lexicon records only 6 (six) occurrences throughout ancient Greek Texts (approx 5 million words). Besides epikathizô can be both transitive and intransitive, and, because the 3rd person singular is identical to the 3rd plural, epekayisen epanw can be translated equally as “[they] sat [him] thereon” (KJV) or as “he sat on top”: they are both equally legitimate, and the grammar does not allow to decide.

2. epanw (epano <G1883>) means “above”, “on top” as adverb, but occasionally it can be also preposition + GEN. This is certainly the case at Mat 21:7, where autwn is the GEN. plural of autoV (autos <G846>).

3. autwn (autos <G846>), being a pronoun, could refer to the immediate noun (more grammatically correct), therefore refer to the imatia (“cloaks”), or refer to more remote nouns (less common and also less correct), thn onon kai ton pwlon (“the ass and the colt”)

In conclusion, the probable meaning is ...

“[Jesus] sat on top of them [the cloaks]”

... BUT Matthew has phrased it so awkwardly that, from a lexical-grammatical POV, it could equally well mean “they sat [him] on top of them [the ass and the colt]”. Which, of course, would be total nonsense.

Image purporting to show the 'hands of God' in a cloud formation associated with 2004's Hurricane Charley

In the OT we find what may seem an obscure reference to the "eternal arms" of God:

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath [you] are [his] eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)

I have already amply argued, in a remote thread ("The Everlasting Arms of God") that the "eternal arms" of God are His Word and His Spirit.

If there was any doubt on this, a verse in Psalms makes perfectly clear what God's "arms" are: 

“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (+ c. 202 AD) took up this image of the Word/Logos/Dabar an of the Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach as the two arms (or hands) of God over and over and over ...

"Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit ..." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, IV, pref. 4)

"For God did not stand in need of these [beings, the angels], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things ..." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, IV, 20.1)

"For never at any time did Adam escape the hands [Viz., the Son and the Spirit.] of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” And for this reason in the last times (fine), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, [John i. 13] His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, V, 1.3)

"For by means of the very same hands through which they were moulded at the beginning, did they receive this translation and assumption. For in Adam the hands of God had become accustomed to set in order, to rule, and to sustain His own workmanship, and to bring it and place it where they pleased." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, V, 5.1)

"And therefore throughout all time, man, having been moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God ..." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, V, 28.4)

"And, since God is rational [logikos], therefore by (the) Word [Logos] He created the things that were made; and God is Spirit [Pneuma], and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet says: By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by his spirit all their power. [Ps. 33:6 LXX]" (Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 5)

"But man He formed with His own hands, taking from the earth that which was purest and finest, and mingling in measure His own power with the earth. For He traced His own form on the formation, that that which should be seen should be of divine form: for (as) the image of God was man formed and set on the earth. And that he might become living, He breathed on his face the breath of life; that both for the breath and for the formation man should be like unto God." (Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 11)

... then, unfortunately, Origen (184/5–253/4), with his "three hypostases" and with his "eternal generation of the Son" started the abominable distortion ... 

... and the Cappadocian scoundrels (active in the 2^nd half of the 4^th century AD) completed the job with their abominable trinitarian idol ...

“A man pours fragrance or water on Jesus’ body”(above)
and “An angel points to Jesus’empty shroud” (below),
illustrations in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, 1192–1195,
National Szechenyi Library, Budapest.

The scriptural puzzle of Burial and Resurrection

(see The only possible "harmony" between Luke's and John's account of Jesus Burial)

John clearly speaks of the "face cloth" [soudarion], "which had been around Jesus’ head", and which has nothing to do with —and is clearly distinct from— the "strips of linen cloth" [othonia] (John 20:7).

There is no doubt, from the Synoptics, that the "Pious Women", followed Joseph of Arimathea, "saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it", BUT DID NOT anoint it, because “It was the day of preparation and the Sabbath was beginning”, so there was no time. “Then they returned [to their accommodations] and prepared aromatic spices and perfumes”, with the plan of returning to anoint Jesus “on the first day of the week”. There is also no doubt that no woman is mentioned in John's Gospel, where ONLY Joseph and Nicodemus took part in the cleaning, anointing and wrapping of Jesus' body in "strips of linen cloth" [othonia].

Nicodemus certainly took part in the cleaning, anointing and wrapping of Jesus' body in "strips of linen cloth" [othonia], BUT there is no evidence that he arrived at the same time as Joseph, nor that that "Pious Women" were present at the procedure. Why would they have wanted to come back to the tomb with the "aromatic spices" (Luke 23:56-24:1), if they had attended to what Joseph and Nicodemus had already (and thoroughly) done?

It is hard to believe that there is no intentional reason for Luke to use the word sindon before the tomb was closed (Luke 23:53 — BTW, the ONLY word used in Matthew and Mark), and then to use the word othonia after the tomb was found open (Luke 24:12 — ³ tn In the NT this term is used only for strips of cloth used to wrap a body for burial — LN 6.154; BDAG 693 s.v. ὀθόνιον — BTW, the ONLY word used in John). It is hard to believe that Luke casually used those two words (sindon and othonia) as though they were interchangeable.

Luke says explicitly that Peter was puzzled ("wondered what had happened"), going home after he'd seen in the tomb "only the strips of linen cloth [othonia]" (Luke 24:12). There is no suggestion whatsoever that he took the absence of Jesus' body as "evidence of the glorious resurrection of his Lord itself".

Historical and scientific clarifications

(see The Shroud of Turin: authenticity and image formation)

Some people, so as to exclude Raymond Rogers' (non miraculous) theory of the image formation by means of the Maillard Reaction (see The Shroud of Turin: An Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) may explain the Image Formation, by  Raymond N. Rogers & Anna Arnoldi, ©2003), opposes to it the "radiation theory". See, for instance,  the article, "The Shroud is not a fake" - Vatican Insider (Dec 12, 2011), produced by a faithful "Vaticanate" like Marco Tosatti, in turn providing the "evidence" of the Italian agency ENEA. The later article Radiation could have created Holy Shroud image - Vatican Insider, (March 9, 2012), by another faithful "Vaticanate", Andrea Tornielli, is of the same "quality" ...

Why would the Vatican oppose the "Maillard reaction theory"? For (at least) two reasons:

1) the Maillard reaction theory would imply an (at least incipient) corruption of Jesus' body, which is obviously felt as "theologically embarrassing" for a strict and literal interpretation of Acts 2:27; 13:35 (cp. Ps 16:10), especially if applied to one who would be not just Messiah, Son of God, Incarnation nof God's Word, but even "god-the-son";

2) the "energy burst" theory (while totally incompatible with scientific evidence — see Raymond Rogers' "Frequently Asked Questions"‚ 2004‚ PDF @ shroud.com, no. 3) is, of course, felt as much more "theologically appropriate": nothing, of course, would suit the Resurrection better than a suggestion of Jesus' body turning into "pure light"!

The Turin Shroud is special precisely because (while not necessarily miraculous, in the sense of "unexplainable by the ordinary behaviour of nature" — although even Raymond Rogers admitted that the clarity and resolution of the image is uncanny) it provides support for the conclusion that a severely brutalized body was only temporarily in contact with it.

It is clear that (at least after 1978) we have become SURE (pace dishonest "scientists" and various quacks) that NOBODY can reproduce ALL the characteristics of the Shroud image, that we have a realistic hypothesis of image formation, viz. the "Maillard reaction theory" (albeit insufficient to explain the uncanny clarity and resolution of the image), and that we have a plausible route of the Shroud (at least from Edessa, to Constantinople 944, to Athens 1204, to Lirey 1356), the Shroud may indeed be a silent attestation to the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.

So, far from appealing to the "marvellous", the Shroud of Turin is indeed a "silent Gospel" ...

• those who DO NOT believe in the Resurrection, will affirm, at most (if they consider the Gospel accounts at all reliable ... up to the Resurrection — excluded, of course) that the body of Jesus was transferred elsewhere (“They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”);

• those who DO believe in the Gospel accounts of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus, and, most of all, in the uninterrupted Apostolic witness to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, will consider it as a ... "Fifth Gospel" ...

... that helps fill the gaps of the Four Canonical Gospels, and, in particular, the manifest discrepancies between Luke and John ...