Diogenes the Cynic

Micah 5:2;

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."

Micah 5:2 refers to a place name. It doesn't say "clans," it says elaph, which literally means "thousands," (though it can also refer military companies under one leader).

The Hebrew Bible refers multiple times to Ephrathah (or Ephrath) as a place either close to or synonymous with Bethlehem in Judah:

(Genesis 35:16) Then they moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty.

(Genesis 35:19) So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem).


(Genesis 48:7) "As I was returning from Paddan, [a] to my sorrow Rachel died in the land of Canaan while we were still on the way, a little distance from Ephrath. So I buried her there beside the road to Ephrath" (that is, Bethlehem).


(Ruth 4:11) Then the elders and all those at the gate said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem."


Bethlehem was the traditional birthplace of David, and in popular Jewish belief was the expected birthplace of his Messianic heir. There is no real question that Micah is referring to a place (probably calling it "Bethlehem Ephrathah" to distinguish it from another town called Bethlehem in Galilee), nor is there any doubt that popular Jewish expectation at the time was that the Messiah would come from the same birthplace as David.

Toto

Could you identify the "face of the text" in Matthew that makes clans/thousands a city? It looks to me as if Herod asks the priests and teachers where the Savior will be born, and they come up with a reference that clearly refers to a person (a prince), not a city. Is this an indication that Matthew operated on a symbolic level?

And why is the Adonis connection any more bizarre than a twisted reading of Hebrew Scripture?

Toto

Go to the archives:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/index.php

You can search each forum, although the search function does not work quite the same way.

TedM

Thanks! IF you are right, and it sure sounds like you are, then I think the references in the NT which try to explain why Jesus was not raised in Bethlehem are fairly strong evidence that the earliest tradition was that he was not born where the Messiah was expected to be born. Where would that position come from? Seems to me that Mark (who was very aware of the David-Messiah connection) and the other writers could have 'made up' the Bethlehem story without any need for embarrassment--have him be born there, and grow up there--thus CREATING the 'proper' tradition. And, if Mark WAS silent (ie never mentioned Nazareth), why would a later interpolator have put in Nazareth when the expectation was stronger(surely) for Bethlehem? What better explanation for a contrary tradition about the Messiah's birth than that it was based on factual knowledge that he was raised elsewhere?

Argument to the best explanation.

Toto

Vridar seems have a lot of doubt as to whether there was any expectation that a Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. (Link.)

ApostateAbe

Because twisted readings of Hebrew scripture happened all of the time and that is, again, what is on the face of the text of Matthew.

Here is the face of the text that has Matthew making Bethlehem of Micah 2:5 a city:

Matthew 2:4-6

and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet:
“And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who is to shepherd my people Israel.” ’

aa5874

Please, we have been through this so many times. You appear to be going around in circles.

Any argument that Jesus was born in Nazareth is totally CONTRADICTED by apologetic sources.

One cannot make arguments of history from ad-hoc IMAGINATION you MUST have a source of antiquity that shows Jesus was born in Nazareth. You have NO source.

Origen claimed that the birthplace of Jesus was FOUND in Bethlehem and even acknowledged by ENEMIES of the Faith as the place where Jesus was born.

"Against Celsus" 1.51 How many times are we going to go over the same thing?

There is ZERO source of antiquity that Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels was born in Nazareth.

You simply cannot continue to make claims about Jesus that have NO source at all.

What is the basis to argue Jesus of Nazareth was born in Nazareth when NO one ever made such a claim in the EXTANT history of antiquity?

Jesus of Nazareth is claimed to be BORN in Bethlehem and LIVED in Nazareth.

This is so basic.

Obama lived in Chicago but was born in Hawaii.

McCain lives in Arizona and was born in Panama.

A person does NOT have to be born where they supposedly lived.

TedM

I think 'any' is not the right word. He says he has doubt that there was a consensus of expectation. Very very different than saying he doubts there was any expectation. If he had said that I'd say he is way off just on a common sense level.

In any case, who is Vridar and why should we pay any attention to him?

Steven Carr

I would be interested in seeing which documents from before 30 AD discuss the way scripture prophesied the Messiah being born in Bethlehem.

Did you volunteer to track down these references? I don't know where to look, myself.

TedM

The FACT that they contradict themselves out of what appears to be embarrassment is what lends some credence to the idea that he was born in Nazareth. Why make your Messiah-God be born in Nazareth, aa?

You just supported the Christian argument that he WAS born in Bethlehem.

Are you a Christian now aa?