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

J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

Since 1881 most editors display an incorrect and misleading text at

Mk 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 the
reading(s) of Mk 11,3, to which I did not attend (nor to Is 32,20) in my
earlier study of the Ass (1971). In determining to follow Tischendorf and
then Westcott and Hort, editors (Nestle, Souter, Kilpatrick, Aland,
Metzger) have been swayed (as is normal) by the sense they imputed to the
passage. I new opine (as will appear) that they were mistaken, and the sense
of 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 relate
to reminiscence. 1 Enquiry into that is confused by the question of Jesus’
prescience vibrant in the Passion story (Mk 14,13 ajpanthvsei) which
does not aid commentators’ reconstruction of the event. Perhaps it is bet-
ter to find Jesus’ followers colluding in a charade to bring ancient prophets
to life. Many will now believe that miracles were staged (I do not mean
«fabricated») in order to prove to an unsophisticated audience that the old
prophecies were taking effect. And to impress such an audience it would
not 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 of
ajpostevllei or ajpostelei' (2) as between ajpostevllei and ajpostelei'
admittedly virtually synonymous 2, which is right; (3) if pavlin is reliable
what does it mean; and (4) what is meant by w|de? These problems are not
present in Matthew, who at 21,3 reads eujqu;" de; ajpostevllei (or
ajpostelei') 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, «Der
Einzug Jesu in Jerusalem», ZTK 68, 1971, 1-26. Whether the popular acclamation was
a 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 Josh
1,11 diabaivnete. B.M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
(London & New York, 1976), 108-109 takes the future to be a scribal «correction».

Filología Neotestamentaria - Vol. XIV - 2001, pp. 121-129

Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de Córdoba (España)
122 J. Duncan M. Derrett

Further we must go back to a passage about which all synoptics are agreed:
in OJ kuvrio~ aujtou' (aujtw'n) creivan e[cei who is the kuvrio", does the
word govern aujtou', and in that case what is the meaning of creivan e[cei 3.

2. Palv in
The Textus Receptus does not have the word pavlin, and that version
is supported by a very substantial apparatus 4. The mss. vacillate between
ajpostevllei and ajpostelei'; and aujto;n ajpostevllei rather than
ajpostevllei aujtovn (versions) is regarded as correctly presenting the TR.
The TR was followed universally until WH 5. The former is the reading
of the Vulgata and a part of the Syriac tradition. It not only agrees with
Matthew (surely not a mere coincidence? 6 ), but makes sense. Why
should 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 hoc custodian, 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 in
Mark. If this was the original text of Mark, as argued by P.-L. Couchoud 8 and
F. 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 even
NRSV 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, ExpT
64, 1952-3, 93. On creiva 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). On
pavlin 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 the
Elzevir text of 1633. Benj. Wilson’s 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», JTS 34, 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, with
whom 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 of pavlin may have had this in mind.
Pavlin: The Ass Again (Mk 11,3d) 123

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 q
ajpostevllei pavlin D Origen

A conspectus of this chaos suggests that pavlin has been inserted at

different times, or if inserted once only, has been shifted for stylistic rea-
sons. If indeed pavlin has been inserted news of the consequent shift of
sense may have reached Luke, who whilst otherwise keeping pace here
with Mark 11, perhaps for this reason omits the troublesome clause alto-
gether (l9,3l).
Pavlin itself creates difficulties. From the context it should mean
«back again», confirmed by w|de which then means «back here», i.e. to
the street 12 in which the animal was found tied up. That this is possible
goes without saying, or so much testimony would not have convinced so
many 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.’» These
words can evidently mislead (a possibility overlooked by V. Taylor). True
eujquv~ 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 mean
Master 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-ma–s#i$ah≥, the king
Messiah. There is a further difficulty. ∆Apostevllein is not the natural
verb for «to send back». Greek has such a word, ajnapevmpein (Lk
23,7.11.15; Phlm 12; 1 Clem 65,1), which, though it can also mean «to
send on» 15, fits the imagined scenario with pavlin very much better than
ajpostevllein does 16.
11
On Luke’s improving on Mark’s style up to v. 36 see T. Schramm, Der Markus-Stoff
bei 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 New
Testament: The Palm Sunday colt», NT 13, 1971, 241-258; id. Studies in the New
Testament 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).
124 J. Duncan M. Derrett

Let us consider pavlin 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 a
return; e.g. «He went back again» implies not that he traversed the same
path a second time but that his return took place. However pavlin at Mk
11,3 can indeed mean «(send it) back (hither)», on those four models
above. Cf. Xenophon, Anab. IV.2,13 (retake a position).
It is of some interest that lectionaries at 8,13 - where the same problem
occurs of order (between pavlin ejmbav~ and ejmbav~ pavlin) read ajph'lqe
pavlin which implies a return, whereas the mss., however much they dif-
fer as between pavlin ejmbav~ and ejmbav~ pavlin do not express 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 «without
delay» (REB), or «right back here» (Johnson)? As we see from the story
with its suggestion of controversy, the animal was not returned «immedi-
ately» (see 11,11b). If Mark used several sources he cannot have overlook
this. One distrusts such «prescience». The WH text tenders an inducement
to the custodian(s), or loungers (eJsthkovte"), who behaved as if they pos-
sessed the animal, to agree (ajfh'kan) to the colt’s being taken away .
No doubt it removes a suspicion that the ass, brusquely seized, was not
being stolen (Dt 28,31; cf. Num 16,15!). On the other hand the possible
insertors of pavlin knew that a disturbance, the «acclamation», followed the
descent into Jerusalem, so that a promise of such a character would have
been 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 the
insertion 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 of pavlin. 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, Spirit
of Jewish Law (New York 1973) §§279-281, few of which details concern us. Jesus’
righteousness is handled by Harvey, ubi cit., and by C.S. Mann, Mark (AB; Garden City
NY, 1986), 434-458.
Pavlin: The Ass Again (Mk 11,3d) 125

stony path. Such would not have been the case if the animal had been
accompanied 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 been
hired. In our case there was no hire nor was any pledge offered. We are
deliberately given every detail of the transaction, and it has naturally
been guessed that the loungers, or however they are to be described, were
in 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, «tied
up») 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 can
demand its use, at a time when no riot was expected. As has been noticed
by several commentators, rabbis in later periods did commandeer trans-
port 23, and someone called oJ kuvrio" may claim this privilege. Did that
happen?
We come to JO kuvrio~ aujtou' creivan e[cei. Unlike old translators
we must take aujtou' with kuvrio" «his master». This leaves creivan
e[cei absolute, «he is in need». This is entirely possible 24. It would rep-
resent Heb. nis≥ra–k, Aram. s≥a–rik. Of what is he in need? Transport. By
some suitable beast. Why should no one have ridden on the animal? A
female in menstruation, a male with a «flux» were to be feared. The
religious leader is supposed to be fussy. A «king’s mount» must never
have been ridden by another 25. Honour must be shown to him to
whom it is due 26. It is claimed that ancient kings rode on asses, except
to 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 «Benefactor»
or «Saviour» would look odd on an ass. Had Jesus ever mounted a
horse? There were more than one reason why he should seek an ass’s
colt: Zech 9,9 (at which commentators turn up their noses) says the
Messiah 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. Yoma 55b (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 ready
for sacrifice (a strange notion in the light of Lev 27,11; Ex 13,15).
27
M. Rehm, Der König Messias (Kevelaer, 1968), 333-338, esp. 335n.352.
126 J. Duncan M. Derrett

4. «The Messiah’s Colt»

The critic of today (deplored by A. Farrer in 1951 [see his Study in St
Mark, 347]) views with displeasure the idea that the Church could have
framed the story of Salvation in terms of allusions to scripture, especially
trivial passages. The «proof texts» are regarded as deplorable. The position
is not improved if rabbis once or more than once took the alleged scrip-
tural «authority» in «Christian» senses. Objections appear to the use of
rabbinical material 28, where passages of interest to us appear amongst
much that is not. Nevertheless evidence for the view that Zech 9,9 will be
fulfilled when the Messiah comes is abundant, in material of various ages:
the idea is traditional, what Billerbeck called «gang und gäbe» 29. We may
hesitate 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 Zech
9,9, 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 the
LXX can be read that way 30. Reiteration in different words (exergasia) is
characteristic 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. This
cannot be attributed to rabbinic fantasy of «late» emergence, since not
only does Matthew use it himself in this place (Mt 21,4-5), but John takes
the idea from another source, a midrash, not a quotation (Jn 12,14-15).
According to John the charade was not contrived, for the disciples grasped
the point afterwards -early Christians were expected to do so.

28
Lou H. Silberman, «Anent the use of rabbinic material», NTS 24/3, 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 at J. 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, Horae
Hebraicae (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 21,5 ejpibebhkw;~ ejpi; o[non
kai; ejpi; pw'lon, uiJon; uJpozugivou. The provision of an alternative mount made sense
granted 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, Markus II, 179.
Pavlin: The Ass Again (Mk 11,3d) 127

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 and
Balaam’s mount. Of particular interest is the ass of Is 32,20. Is 32 is about
the messianic age: a king shall reign in righteousness, etc., the eyes of the
blind shall be opened, etc., the poor shall be protected against those who plot
against 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 justice
and 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 a
footnote they write, «Lit. ‘let lose the feet of cattle and asses’, cf. 7,25
end». In fact the Hebrew reads mes#aleh≥ey regel has#o$r weha-h≥amo$r, «sending
forth the foot of the ox and the ass.» In context this may mean that
ploughing will take place and harvests will be transported; for the definite
article in Hebrew often stands for a class 34, whereas an anarthrous noun
can denominate a class or individual concurrently (Gen 32,5).
The ox and the ass, a cliché in biblical terms 35, came to be associat-
ed in an anonymous midrash 36, which, referring to clemency to living
beings (Dt 22,6-7), says that he who observes this hastens the coming
of 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 recalls
the Son of David 37.
In the messianic age, the age of righteousness, the sending of the foot
of the ass is, virtually, hastening the coming of the king Messiah, our
kuvrio" as well as the animal’s (Ps 8, 7-8; Dan 7,14). Mark’s use of the title
kuvrio" is not disturbed by this, and the phrase Cristov~ Kuvrio~ at Lk
2,11; 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 asses
to 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 the
edn. 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#ît 2a 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...»,
NTS 31/4, 1985, 620-627.
128 J. Duncan M. Derrett

∆Apostelei' comes from Is 32,20 mes#aleh≥ey regel, not indicating so

much 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 is
doing the work for which it was created.

5. The Solution40
Pavlin is an intrusion derived from a misunderstanding. Jesus tenders
no inducement to the custodian(s), no misrepresentation. He predicts
that 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 Messiah’s mount from as far back
as Gen 49,10-11 41:
«Until Shiloh come; And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.
Binding his foal to the vine, and his ass’s colt to the choice vine».

The LXX renders both ‘ i$ro$, his foal, and beni$ ’ atono$, his colt, with
pw'lon, another example of exergasia, for it is one animal only. The bind-
ing of the foal is noted by Mark with his tiv poiei'te luvonte~ to;n pw'l' on
at 11,5 42. Targum Onqelos speaks of the Messiah and of his people’s
building the Temple, with righteousness round about him and doers of
the Law through his doctrine. The pseudo-Jonathan Targum speaks of the
Messiah 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 to
war 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.
Turner’s opinion that the clause «and he will at once send it back here» was part of the
disciples’ 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 (ad Mt 21,5); IV/1, 877. Pesch, Markus II, 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 they drew the animal and so accepted liability in
regard 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).
Pavlin: The Ass Again (Mk 11,3d) 129

most impressive: that is what the Synagogue heard 43 on the Sabbath.

From ancient times the «colt tied to the vine» symbolized the Messiah’s
style of warfare, and we can surmise that anyone tying up a colt, if he is
addicted to messianism, hopes that the Messiah’s outriders will come and
untie 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. Creivan
e[cei means he is needy (of help). He commandeers (cf. 1 Sam 8,16)
something from a virtual supporter, who himself ajpostelei'. 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 is
a 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 than
Matthew’s kaqw;~ sunevtaxen. Luke’s oiJ kuvrioi is interesting, since it rep-
resents be‘lyw, the animal’s master(s). Luke impresses on us that the pos-
sessors of the ass had legal rights; but these were little compared with
those 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. DERRETT
Half Way House, High Street
Blockley, Moreton in Marsh
Glos., GL56 9EX (ENGLAND)

43
A. Díez 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”, EQ 73, 2001, 195-205.
46
On the pedigree of pavlin 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.