Most scholars conclude that Zech 9:9–10 has informed the scene of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem in Mark 11:1–10.9 A major difference of opinion among scholars lies in whether Mark (the author) was aware of the influence of Zech 9. Ironically, some of those who do not think Mark was aware of the tradition nonetheless argue that the historical Jesus “had it in mind.”10 The irony lies in their ability to ascertain what Jesus had in mind through the text of Mark, which is the only access to the alleged “mind” of Jesus, while simultaneously arguing that Mark did not have it in mind. Additionally, the notion that Mark is unaware of the correspondence with Zech 9 typically results from privileging Matthew’s characteristic style of explicitly alerting the reader to the reference text, which simply is not Mark’s style.11 Ultimately the question is outside this study’s scope, and the present argument seeks to demonstrate the influence of Zech 9:9–10 on the text of Mark 11 as presented.
In Mark 11:1–10, Jesus, mounted on a donkey, enters Jerusalem amidst shouts of acclamation. The story is widely considered to be modeled after Gen 49:10–12 and Zech 9:9.12 In Mark 11:1, Jesus and the disciples are said to be “nearing Jerusalem,” where the reader knows that Jesus faces rejection and suffering.13 By this point in the narrative, Jesus has been hailed “Messiah” by Peter, and presumably the other eleven agree with Peter’s claim.14 Thus though Jesus will suffer, he is nonetheless the Messiah.15 The latter is notable as both Gen 49:11 and Zech 9:9 were regarded as messianic oracles in some
9 Each of the isolated studies discussed in Section 1.5, with the exception of Moo 1983 and Hübenthal 2006, agree
on this point. Moo does not argue against it; he simply does not address the passage.
10 Gundry 1993, 628. So also Dodd 1952, 64.
11 So Kee 1975, 165–88; Morna Hooker 1988, 220–30; Hays 2016, 79. These scholars argue that Mark
characteristically weaves his allusions into the fabric of the speech and narrative. Mark’s use of Zech 13:7 is noteworthy in this regard. In Mark 14:27 he introduces the quotation with a citation formula (ὅτι γέγραπται), but in his narration of its fulfilment, no single word from the reference text is repeated. Thus Mark presents us with a case where he explicitly relates the event to a prophecy, and even still the narration is not colored with a single word from Zech 13:7. Therefore, the lack of specific, unique words from a reference text provides no certainty
regarding Mark’s knowledge and/or use of it.
12 See e.g. Joseph Blenkinsopp 1961, 55–64; Deborah Krause 1997, 141–53. Furthermore, David Catchpole adduces
many Second Temple and historical texts that similarly describe a triumphal entry of a victor/leader into a city followed by activity in a temple, such as occurs in Mark 11. Catchpole assumes that Zech 9:9 undergirds Mark 11:1–10, and argues that Mark presents Jesus as a victor enacting a triumphal entry. See Catchpole 1984, 319–34.
13 See e.g. Mark 8:31 for Jesus’ prediction of suffering at the hands of “chief priests.” Mark 10:33 makes explicit
that the suffering will take place in Jerusalem.
14 In Mark 8:29, Jesus’ question about his own identity is addressed to all the disciples. Only Peter answers in 8:29,
but the statement in 8:30, “He warned them not to tell anyone about him,” suggests that all the disciples agreed with Peter.
15 Indeed it is as Messiah that he will suffer. Jesus apparently teaches from scripture the necessity of the Messiah’s
50 contemporary Jewish exegesis.16 Thus if Mark already presents Jesus as Messiah, then modeling Jesus’ entry on the basis of oracles that were regarded as “messianic” would make good sense. Six features of the Markan text suggest an allusion to Zech 9:9.
First, the “rejoicing” and “proclaiming” of Zech 9:9 are matched by the “crying out” (ἔκραζον) of the crowds in Mark 11:9. Second, “Jerusalem” is labeled as the destination of the coming king in Zech 9:9 and Mark 11:1, 11. Third, both passages proclaim the arrival of a king. In Zech 9:9 the content of the proclamation is that Jerusalem’s “king” (βασιλεύς) “comes/is coming” (ἔρχεται). In Mark 11:9–10, the shouts from Ps 118 acclaim “the one coming” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) and “the coming kingdom” (ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία), thereby hailing Jesus as the king.17 Fourth, the coming king/kingdom in each passage is Davidic.18 Zechariah 9:10 describes the dominion of the coming king with Davidic terminology derived from Ps 72:8, which describes the ideal reign of the Davidic king.19 Similarly, in Mark 11:10 the crowds bless the coming kingdom “of our father, David” explicitly identifying the kingdom as Davidic. Fifth, in each passage the king comes mounted on a donkey. The term for “donkey” in Zech 9:9 and Mark 11:2, 4, 5, and 7 is πῶλος. In Zech 9:9 the animal is a “new donkey” (πῶλον νέον), which may explain Jesus’ description of the donkey in Mark 11:2 as one “on which no one has ever sat.”20 Sixth and finally, the use of Ps 118:26 in Mark 11:9 may have resulted from an attraction between it and Zech 9:9 by catchword association.21 Each employs a form of the verb “save.” In Zech 9:9 the coming king is “saving” (σῴζων) or “endowed with salvation,”22 and in Ps 118:25, the Lord is petitioned to “save!” (σῶσον), which is the translation of the Aramaic “Hosanna!” that the crowds shout in Mark 11:9.
These six intertextual parallels suggest that Mark 11:1–10 is influenced by Zech 9:9–10.23 Within Mark’s Gospel, the allusion to Zech 9 indicates that Jesus is in fact the king. The latter is significant given
16 Regarding Gen 49:10–12, see Blenkinsopp 1961, 55–64. For its messianic interpretation, see 4QCommGenA
[4Q252] 5:1–5; Tg. Neofiti Gen 49:10–12; Tg. Onqelos Gen 49:10–12. Regarding Zech 9:9, see Black 2008, 97–104. He argues that 1 En. 71:14–15; Pss. Sol. 17:33; T. Dan. 6:2, 9; T. Jud. 24:1; Sib. Or. 8:324 (regarded as a Christian interpolation) describe their respective messiah figure with terms likely informed by Zech 9:9 such as, “lowly,” “humble,” “righteous,” or “peaceful,” or some combination of more than one.
17 So Lindars 1961, 112; Krause 1997, 147–51.
18 This view is widespread among scholars. See e.g. Evans 2001, 772–73.
19 Carol Meyers and Eric Meyers 1993, 172–73; Mark Boda 2016, 564–74.
20 So A.Y. Collins 2007, 518; Marcus 2009, 772.
21 So Evans 2001, 147.
22 NASB’s translation of MT’s niphal עשונ.
23 Paul Duff argues that Mark 11’s entry is modeled after the divine warrior myth of Zech 14, and that Jesus’ entry
into Jerusalem fulfills the Lord’s “coming with his holy ones” therein described. On Duff’s interpretation, the reference to “the Mount of Olives” in Mark 11:1 alludes to the prophecy in Zech 14:4, and the subsequent event in Mark 11 corresponds to the events described in Zech 14. I do not follow Duff’s arguments for the following
Jesus’ persistent explanation that the Messiah must suffer24 and “give his life as a ransom for many.”25 As Peter demonstrates in Mark 8:32, one might reasonably take the experience of rejection and suffering as a sign that Jesus is not the king. On the contrary, the Markan Jesus does not separate kingship and suffering, but presents his task to suffer as intrinsically related to his being the expected Davidic king. The allusions to Zech 9 facilitate the fusion between the seemingly disparate categories of “he who must suffer,” on the one hand, and “the expected king,” on the other. He who must suffer rejection is no other than he who comes as the awaited king.