Matthew's rendering of this passage (Zechariah ix, 9) arises from a misunderstanding of the meaning of its words. The prophet, or poet, does not mean two asses, but one; the clause "a colt the foal of an ass," is merely a poetical repetition or qualification of the preceding clause. This blunder of Matthew is significant. It exposes the fictitious character of this so-called Gospel history. It proves that Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem is not a historical event--that this story is a pure fabrication, suggested by this alleged prophecy. 240 When did Jesus purge the temple? Synoptics: At the close of his ministry, a few days before his death (Matthew xxi, 12-16; Mark xi, 15-18; Luke xix, 45-48). John: At the beginning of his ministry, three years before his death (ii, 13-22). Origen doubted the occurrence of this event, believing it to be a mere allegory. 241 When did he curse the fig tree? Matthew: After he purged the temple (xxi, 12-19). Mark: Before he purged the temple (xi, 12-15). 242 When was the tree discovered by his disciples to be withered? Matthew: As soon as cursed (19). Mark: Not until the next morning (13-20). 243 Mark says that he visited the tree for the purpose of obtaining figs. Why did the tree contain no fruit? Mark: "Because the time of figs was not yet" (13). This was before the Passover which occurred in March or April. In that part of Palestine where the miracle is said to have been performed the bocore, or early fig, ripened its first crop during the latter part of June; while the kermus, or fig proper, ripened in August. What a spectacle! An omniscient God searching for figs in March, and disappointed at not finding them--creating a tree to bear fruit in the summer and cursing it for not bearing in the spring! 244 What did Jesus accuse the Jews of doing? Matthew: Of having slain prophets and wise men, among them "Zacharias son of Barachias" (xxiii, 35). The Zacharias mentioned was slain in Jerusalem, 69 A. D.; so that Matthew makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years after his death. Referring to this passage, the Catholic scholar, Dr. Hug, says: "There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its circumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the same Zacharias Barouchos, who, according to Josephus, a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple." Commenting on this passage, Prof. Newman says: "There is no other man known in history to whom the verse can allude. If so, it shows how late, how ignorant, how rash, is the composer of a text passed off on us as sacred truth" (Religion not History, p. 46). 245 Repeat his lamentation concerning Jerusalem's rejection of him.