الرد على شبهة: "راكِبًا على أتانٍ وجَحشٍ اَبنِ أتانٍ"

راكِبًا على أتانٍ وجَحشٍ اَبنِ أتانٍ
هل ركب الرب يسوع علي اتان وجحش ابن اتان في نفس الوقت؟
رد سيدنا الانبا اغريغوريوس علي الشبهة
اضغط هنا
رد عماد حنا
السؤال: 22

( هل معقول ) كيف يركب رجل على حمار وجحش معاً في نفس الوقت ؟
جاء في إنجيل متى 21عدد7 : وأتيا بالأتان والجحش ووضعا عليهما ثيابهما فجلس عليهما. (svd)

الإجابة
لفهم هذه المُعضِلة الظاهرية
ينبغي الاستعانة بإنجيل مرقس 11: 2 "وَقَالَ لَهُمَا:«اذْهَبَا إِلَى
الْقَرْيَةِ الَّتِي أَمَامَكُمَا، فَلِلْوَقْتِ وَأَنْتُمَا دَاخِلاَنِ
إِلَيْهَا تَجِدَانِ جَحْشًا مَرْبُوطًا لَمْ يَجْلِسْ عَلَيْهِ أَحَدٌ
مِنَ النَّاسِ. فَحُلاََّهُ وَأْتِيَا بِه" (قارن لوقا 19: 30).
العبارة الأخيرة (جَحْشًا
مَرْبُوطًا لَمْ يَجْلِسْ عَلَيْهِ أَحَدٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ.) هي مفتاح الحل
لفهم هذا الأمر. وبحسب متى 21: 7 "وَأَتَيَا بِالأَتَانِ وَالْجَحْشِ،
وَوَضَعَا عَلَيْهِمَا ثِيَابَهُمَا فَجَلَسَ عَلَيْهِمَا." وزكريا 9: 9
حيث الاقتباس الذي اقتبسه متى "اِبْتَهِجِي جِدًّا يَا ابْنَةَ
صِهْيَوْنَ، اهْتِفِي يَا بِنْتَ أُورُشَلِيمَ. هُوَذَا مَلِكُكِ يَأْتِي
إِلَيْكِ. هُوَ عَادِلٌ وَمَنْصُورٌ وَدِيعٌ، وَرَاكِبٌ عَلَى حِمَارٍ
وَعَلَى جَحْشٍ ابْنِ أَتَانٍ." يتضح التالي:
أن الجحش لم يجلس عليه أحد من
الناس من قبل، ولكي يهدأ ينبغي أن يؤتى بأحد الوالدين (إما الحمار أو
الإتان)، وهنا قد جيء بالإتان مع الجحش. فمن المعروف أيضاً أن تقديم الجحش
إلى الخدمة (سواء للحراثة أو للحمل أو للركوب)، ينبغي أن يتم برفقة الحمار
أو الإتان (أحد الأبوين) لكي يهدأ الجحش.
الأمر الآخر الذي هو بحاجة إلى
الانتباه ومن خلال الاستعانة بالنص اليوناني لما جاء في متى يتضح أن
البشير استخدم ضميرين شخصيين في العدد الجمع وللشخص الغائب (عادة يتم
استخدام هذا الضمير للدلالة على الملكية). يستخدم البشير متى الضمير الأول
ليقول أن الناس وضعوا الثياب عليهما (حرفيّاً عليهم لأن اللغة اليونانية
ليس فيها مثنى لذلك يتم اللجوء إلى العدد الجمع) أي على الإتان وعلى
الجحش. أما الضمير الثاني فيستخدمه البشير متى مع الثياب (وجلس عليهم) أي
جلس على الثياب. علماً أن كلمة الثياب وردت في العدد الجمع وليس المفرد أو
المثنى. كذلك الضمير الأول أقرب إلى الحيوانين، والضمير الثاني أقرب إلى
الثياب من جهة ترتيب الكلمات في الجملة اليونانية، مما يؤكد من الناحية
القواعدية جلوس يسوع على الثياب التي على الجحش وليس على الجحش والإتان.
الأمر الآخر هو أن الجحش والإتان
يسيران جنباً إلى جنب مما يعني الوحدة الجامعة. فحتى إن كان النص العربي
يقول جلس عليهما فهذا لا يعني بشكلٍ حرفي، لأنهما كانا يسيران جنباً إلى
جنب، كما أن النص اليوناني واضح جداً.
يتضح هذا الأمر أكثر من خلال
الاستعانة بالترجمة السريانية لهذا النص، وهي الترجمة المعروفة باسم
(البشيتطا) أي البسيطة. حيث فهم المترجم النص اليوناني تماماً ولكي يُزيل
سوء الفهم قام بترجمتها بالشكل التالي: "وأتو بالحمار والجحش ووضعوا على
الجحش ملابسهم فركب عليه يسوع."
والرد علي الشبهة من موقع انجليزي

Were there two donkeys or one?

Matthew 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

الرد على شبهة: "راكِبًا على أتانٍ وجَحشٍ اَبنِ أتانٍ" Donkey

Matthew's variation from the
other Gospels on this point raises two questions -- was there one
donkey or two, and did Jesus ride one or two?
Strictly speaking, one could
point out for the first question that there is no technical, logical
contradiction, since the other Gospels do not say there was only
the colt there -- they merely don't bother mentioning the mother. Yet
her presence is likely in this context, even if it is not mentioned.
Keener [Matthew commentary, 491] notes that an unbroken colt "might
require the mother's presence to keep it calm amid shouting crowds" --
we know well enough from American rodeos what chaos an unbroken animal
might cause.

Then comes the question, Is Jesus riding on both donkeys?
The question may be varied to
say, was Jesus riding them in alteration, or (if the Skeptic has a
sense of humor) on both at once -- maybe one on top of the other? Not
really -- this is just an amusing grammatical ambiguity; the "them" on
which Jesus sat could refer back to the clothes, not the animals.

A final consideration: Some
suppose that Matthew includes momma because he is wrenching out a bad
meaning from Zech. 9:9: "...riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the
foal of an ass."
This is unlikely. The Hebrew of Zech. 9:9 renders the "ass" in the male gender
-- and Matthew's knowledge of the Hebrew text elsewhere shows that he
knew this was the case [ibid.]. For more on harmonizing, see here.
Objection: If Jesus actually
was only going to ride one animal and the second creature was simply a
'mother's presence' to calm the ridden beast, why would the disciples
put cloaks on both animals?
As Albright and Mann note [252], the whole purpose of the cloaks was to show honor
to the rider. To use a modern comparison. If the President rides to
town in his limousine, and another vehicle follows him (for whatever
reason), will what follows him be a beat-up jalopy? Will it even be a
limouseine that looks bad compared to his own?
Of course not. By the same
token the appearance of honor could only be maintained if BOTH animals
were similarly "accountremented".
Even conceding that Matthew
shows "knowledge of the Hebrew text elsewhere," this is not proof that
an error wasn't made in Matthew 21. A historian may demonstrate great
knowledge of world history, but this would not preclude that person's
making a historical error.
World history is an enormous
field with ranges of subjects over immense geographical and
chronological ranges; knowledge of the Hebrew OT, in contrast, is a
minor thing, especially for one like Matthew who shows clear knowledge
of a variety of OT texts and rabbinical exegetical techniques. To
make this objection work, the arguer needs to find some evaluations of
Matthew's knowledge of the Hebrew text and as a whole and not merely
pursue generalities. Otherwise it is like saying, "Well, we know that's
true for Matt as a whole, but maybe, for the convenience of this
thesis, this time it's an exception."

Indeed, one commentator, Prabhu, puts it this way:
"...That Matthew (the presumed
author of the formula quotations) should have misunderstood the Hebrew
and given us an over-literal translation, is per se possible, specially
since his translation, unlike that of the LXX does in fact correspond
word for word with the Hebrew. But it is very unlikely, given that Matthew (or, for that matter, whoever is responsible for the formula quotations) shows an excellent command of Hebrew in the other quotations he presents.
The hypothesis of a mistranslation, in fact, is tenable only if we are
prepared to admit that Mt 21,4f has an origin different from that of
the other formula quotations of the Gospel – a drastic way out, with little to recommend it." "It is better, then, to suppose that Mt's version of the quotation is a deliberate, ad hoc, targumizing translation, in which Mt has intentionally and according to approved rabbinic techniques
interpreted the w'al of the Hebrew as copulative, in order to read two
animals into Zechariah's text. This is not without parallel in the NT
itself. The fulfilment quotation of Din 19,24 refers...Ps 22,19, which
in the Psalm are two parallel ways of saying the same thing, to two
distinct actions: the partitioning of the garments (himatia) of Jesus,
and the casting of lots upon his tunic (chiton). Read in this
disjunctive way, the Psalm becomes an astonishingly literal prediction
of the events at the Cross! As to why Matthew should have deliberately
broken up the parallelism of Zech 9,9 in an even more flagrant way, it
is not too difficult to guess. Michel suggest that he is thinking of a
triumphal ride on an oriental throne-seat carried on two animals.
Lindars, that Matthew has deduced the existence of the mother ass from
Mk's reference to the "unriddenness" of the colt. But both suggestions
are surely a little far-fetched, with no support whatever in the text.
It is more likely, then, that Matthew has read the two animals into
Zechariah's text, because his particular tradition of the event figured
two animals instead of one. That this tradition may have rested on some
genuine historical reminiscence is possible, but an attempt
like that of Gaechter to show, through an elaborate excursion into
animal psychology (!), that the mother ass must have been present if
the unbroken colt (though, note that Matthew does not present it as
such) was to have been ridden at all, is surely an example of
fundamentalist exegesis verging on the grotesque."
I agree with all of this with
one exception: Grotesque to whom, we'd like to know? Prahbu likely
knows or knew little about "animal psychology"; but in any event,
allows for a genuine historical reminiscence, and I can also accept a
deliberate reworking like this in my paradigm.

The commentator Buchana says
that if the colt is so small it still needed its mother, it would not
be a donkey that would be ridden at all. How
big and heavy does Buchanan think people were at this time? The average
height was no more than a little over 5 feet; on a diet that would make
us cringe at the thought of starvation, weights were probably similarly
low. Until someone load-tests a donkey over time and shows that this is
any more than a wild guess, it cannot be given consideration.
-JPH
رد رائع
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/twodonkeys.html

» الرد على شبهة: الفرق في عدد شعب يهوذا
» الرد على شبهة: كم عدد سنوات الجوع ؟
» الرد على شبهة: الصلب والقيامة في النبوات
» الرد على شبهة: هل امر الله هوشع ان يتخذ امراة زانية؟
» فهرس قسم الرد على الشبهات