Johnny Skeptic

Other than "the Bible says so," what evidence is there that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

Duke Leto

Personally, I think we need to take into account how the Vortigaunts knew that Gordon Freeman would return and defeat the Combine.

(Yes, I am following Half-Life around and making fun of his name. Obviously nobody with a screen name derived from a SciFi franchise can ever have anything useful to say.)

Notsri

An oversight.


Fair enough. :notworthy


OK.


The reason the targum was initially mentioned, was to name a possible source of Rashi's exegesis. It didn't have anything to do then or now with any notion that the targum "shows something important that the Hebrew is missing."


Not ignoring...


I'm sure Dr. Cathcart has better things to do than field such questions from me.

Please be advised, questioning my competence of Hebrew or Aramaic is one thing—I'm pretty much just a beginner. But doubting Dr. Cathcart's is another thing entirely, as he is—or at least was some sixteen or so years ago, when his translation of the targum was first published—Professor of Semitic Languages at University College, Dublin. You're going after big fish now.


That I'd have to look into.


Perhaps.

To (finally) comment on the gender issue, to the extend that I'm able: I can only tell you that C.F. Keil, the only commentator I've found so far that addresses the issue, suggests the masculines are used because the verse is addressed to the clan (the 'eleph) of—though he literally says, "the inhabitants of"—Bethlehem.

Noah, I don't doubt that your knowledge of Hebrew or your friend's is superior to my own. But the fact that the two of you have challenged both the usual translation of Micah 5:2, used in both Christian and Jewish versions, as well as the Jewish exegesis of the verse thus far adduced, causes some concern for me. I hope you can understand that.

Regards,
Notsri

noah

Notsri, did you not read my earlier post where I showed you that at least seven Christian bible versions, the NIV ,the NIV UK, RSV, NASB, ESB, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the NAB have all translated the verse to refer to a clan and not a town or a city?

Jewish versions? Jewish exegesis? Notsri, you're kidding right? Did you not read my earlier post how I showed you that the Hebrew translates it as clan?
Here it is again:
Please show me Notsri these Jewish "versions" and examples of Jewish exegesis. I will be most interested to look at the Jewish "versions" and Jewsish exegesis of the Micah 5:2.

C.F. Keil is wrong. Do you suppose he's a Christian apologist?

So? Big fish can be, and are, wrong sometimes. In this case Cathcart is wrong.

I'm going to make the same suggestion to you that I made to ynquirer. I suggest you take some courses about Judaism at a non-Christian educational institution. If that is too much of an undertaking then register in some Jewish forums and ask the Rabbis and other experts in these forums questions. Also, enroll in some online Judaic study programs. Many Jewish websites offer fine online Judaic study programs, usually for free. I would be happy to recommend a few to you.

The Targum issue is beside the point for now. Let's discuss that later.

Notsri

Noah, you've misunderstood me. I of course realize that you've suggested "Bethlehem" is a clan, and adduced all those English translations to prove that. My remarks above were in reference to the fact that you've also suggested the verse is addressed to David, that the referent of the pronoun "you" in the verse is King David. In your words (emphasis my own): Your friend's words: When I complained of your friend's personal translation of the targum, that the pronoun's referent there is no longer Bethlehem—"you of Bet-lechem by Efrat"— what did you reply? But does this agree with Jewish English translations? or Jewish exegesis? No. Hence my remarks above.

Have a quick glance again at the version you've just cited above, from the Messiah Truth website; or the Stone Edition Tanach: "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small to be among the thousands, etc."; or the JPS Tanakh: "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands, etc." The antecedent of "you" in every version there is Bethlehem Ephrathah, in every one! Notice what else the Messiah Truth site has to say (which, by the way, agrees entirely with C.F. Keil's comments): "In the Hebrew Bible, singular pronouns, such as atah, you, are often used interchangeably in both the singular and plural context. In the case of Micah 5:1[2], atah is a singular compound entity, a specific clan, so that the context is the [plural, masculine] you ... According to this analysis, perhaps a more accurate version of ... Micah 5:1[2] would be: ... And you, House of Lehem [from] Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah ... "

Do you see, then?

As for the Jewish exegesis—when Rashi considers the portion "you should have been the lowest, etc.," he, too, clearly applies the pronoun to not David but Bethlehem: "You should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah because of the stigma of Ruth the Moabitess in you."

Do you understand now?


Cathcart's translation, though a translation of the targum, agrees entirely with the Jewish versions of the Tanakh that I've mentioned above.


I've tried that once before. Because I am not Jewish, I was denied. On the one hand, that's rather understandable. I suppose they were intending to simply thwart any potential debate. For my part, though, I had no interest whatsoever in proselytizing.


I'd be interested.

Regards,
Notsri

noah

I just want to clarify things here Notsri.
Do you agree then that Micah 5 is refering to a clan and not a town?
That's the original point. We can discuss these other issues after we agree on this point.

noah

Now that we can come from the point that there is this gender problem, something you did not know, we can look at the Rashi in a new light (or my original one that you missed):

Rashi wrote:
This is why I think Matthew dropped "Efratah", because of the "SHE" association in the Torah, which would cause a problem with "You" in the masculine.

Rashi is commenting on the term "Efratah". Why include it at all?

1) Why is Efratah significant? It is in the Torah and address as SHE and that atah does not refer to her.
2) Why would David, whom atah speaks of be called a Tza'ir? Because of the question of Moabites and Jews.
3) Where do we know that David called himself a Tza'ir? In Psalm 119:141 - "I am a Tza'ir and dispised..."
4) Which Bet-Lechem is in the text?? The one from which David came from (there were more than one).

If you think that Rashi is saying that "You" is speaking of Beth-Lechem, you missed the nuances. To see otherwise is based on a predisposition imposed by Matthew, who hid the name that has a SHE associated with it, which Rashi was kind enough to point out.

Notsri stated:
My friend had this to say:
Notsri stated:
Hold on a minute Notsri. So now you are saying that "YOU" is not being addressed to a town, but to a "clan" and is saying:

.

So now, after all of this, you're saying that "OF" or "A RESIDENT OF" that he accused my friend of taking liberties with is actually correct, but you wantsto just use a different direct object to make it masculine?


If C. F. Keil did say this, he has less than a leg to stand upon. One of the problems is that "YOU" is obviously addressing "tza'ir", which is the ineffectual youth, which is followed by the infinitive of "to be" followed a prefix of what is being translated as "clan" which is "within, or among". ("a youth who was to be among")

Also, C.F. Keil in his commentary (Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 480.) states that "He who is to be born in time at Bethlehem hath an eternal existence.". Obviously, this commentator (about 100 years ago) believed that this verse was speaking of Beth-Lehem, and not of a collection of groups.

Furthermore, he also says in his commentary of the "12 minor prophets" (Volume 2, pages 480-481):

Keil wrote:
In other words, he believes in the pre-incarnate Christ ("angel of the Lord) as well as holding that "You" refers to Beth-Lechem in Micah 5:2, and not to a collection of groupings of people in Yehudah. I cannot find the reference where he says that the direct object of "You" is "al'phei", but I might have missed it. If he does say it, then he is trying to do a shotgun shoot - stating contradictory statements in hopes of hitting a target.

Nice try though.

Now, let's take the smichut of al'fiyim which becomes al'fey which is still a plural (the Christian texts usually call it "princes" or "chiefs" in the plural, which isn't bad). The smichut form only appears in the Tanach less than 2 dozen times. And the rare instances when it speaks of them directly it uses the plural term ("they"), but when it speaks of a membership, it speaks of the singular ("you of")

The direct object here is "a youth (male) who was to be among" and the direct object is not "the myriad of groupings within Yehuda". How do you attach "you" to that which the direct object is to be part of?

You can't.

Then you have tza'ir. As I have said repeatedly, it is male, singular, and indicates something young, semi-capable, and so forth. It is certainly never translated by Jew or Christian as being attached to a collection of groups within a tribe. And that is one big BIG problem: it cannot be a town because of the gender, and it is not a collection of clans. It is a term that David applied to himself, and Rashi applies David back to it by giving a reason for the term.

So here is what we need to nail down Notsri:

1) Do you still believe that Bethlehem is the direct object? If so then there is nothing more say since you are just being stubborn.

2) But if you don't believe that anymore, and you do believe now that it is actually the so called "clan of Judah" which is the direct object, then please comit yourself to it. Please declare without ambiguity that you now hold that "YOU" is 100% absolutely speaking of the clan of Judah of Beth-Lehem". If he refuse to do so, then you're just being being stubborn. If you are willing, then we can keep going and address some related issues.

BTW, my Jewish friend who has been helping me with this discussion had this to say:

Manakin

Still haven't seen that crucifixion prophesy citation. I was kind of looking forward to it, too.

TomboyMom

Since, as is his pattern, Half-Life seems to have scarpered once again, can anyone else tell me what the hell he may have been referring to? Is there some passage somewhere in the OT that some Christians allege predicted that Jesus would be crucified?

Julian

Psalm 22 is generally cited by christians as a prediction of the crucifiction. Especially,

Psalm 22:16-17: Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me."

I have seen a Jewish website, and I have forgotten the name, where that translation was disputed.

Julian