He tells them to bring both in Matthew just as Matthew states/implies.
And now to you, firstly, you have admitted my understanding of Mat 21:7:
But you say that Matthew is in error because of your understanding of Zec 9:9, (which I have highlighted with bold red in the second quote from above herein, "The writers of Matthew, mostly likely the Apostle Matthew’s students, wrote the version with two animals", "The writers misread Zech 9.9 and revised the story to match the prophecy. They made an error, and we still have the error in the text"). However you have not proven that Matthew is in error just because he notes that it was actually two donkeys that were brought, (which I have now explained in my commentary at the end of the post immediately above).
Moreover you have made your position clear in the following posts:
It is agreed that the Master only sat upon one donkey, that is, the colt or foal, the son of the mother she-donkey: but again that does not prove anything because Matthew is expounding that the mother of the colt was either along side it or walking in front of it. The Matthew text does not mean that the Master rode upon both of them, and no one says that he did in any of the other texts: therefore they all agree that the Master rode upon the colt, but the other accounts simply do not mention the mother she-donkey being present. You have not proven anything: just because they did not mention the fact that the mother donkey was present does not mean it is not true. Neither does it discount or contradict what Matthew says.
Definitive version or not, Matthew does not contradict it but rather supplements the fact that the mother donkey was brought along side the colt: that fact is logically acceptable because the colt had never been ridden. If you cannot see it now I will try to come back to the translation from this author, whom you yourself chose to quote, and I will use his translation, (your very own choice, unless you have another), and with the Matthew passage and the other passages it can be shown that they do not contradict. The truth appears to be that Matthew simply expounded on the passage, and you have taken issue with that because you cannot imagine that the mother donkey would need to be present, even if merely for the fact that the young colt had never been sat upon or ridden by anyone. You do not take a young donkey colt or foal away from its mother, saddle it with garments, and then try to ride it for the first time in its life, (since you want to see all these things as natural and physical). It is you who have not thought this through:
1) she-donkey - "accustomed to the yoke" - Jerusalem (mother-covenant)
2) colt or foal - "son of the she-donkey" - "son of Zion" (Lam 4:2, 7) - the Groom
So the Master rides upon the colt, the son of the she-donkey, and the she-donkey represents the mother-covenant, which walks along either in front of the colt or beside it as they enter into Jerusalem. The colt, (upon which no man ever sat), represents the Groom, the son of Zion, (Lam 4:2, and her Nazarites are purer than snow, Lam 4:7), and that implies that the colt itself represents the Messiah, the Groom, the King, (Zec 9:9), coming to meet his bride, (the daughter of Zion), with his mother-covenant, (the she-donkey), walking along in front or beside. It is a perfect allegory-analogy for the covenants when you take into account all of the other things that have been posted herein, (especially the statements from the Last Supper).
