noah

Notsri,
I see you have posted elsewhere here in these forums so I will assume you are back and ready to continue this discussion and are working on a response to me so I want now to elaborate on my previous questions to you regarding Gill and Abaranel. Your citation of Gill is exhibit A as to why Christians should not be poking around in ewish texts and citing Christian commentaries about them. I really suggest that you start double and triple checking your sources before you quote them here in this debate.

Notsri said:
Notsri, here is what the the Abrabanel's position on Bethlehem really is. Please send this on to your man Gill.
In Pirush Abrabanel (Katuvim) he comments on the prophets of trei aser. Among them, on Micha HaNavi. In his commentary on Chapter 5 (pp. 143), this takes about a third of a page.
He begins by telling us that Micha 5:1 cannot be understood as one specific time frame, but it speaks of the present as well as the future. He then states that the first sentence speaks of King David, who was a descendant of Yehudah and King David came from Bethlehem. However, he continues that Bethlehem relates to king David, despite what you may perceive commentators writing. He then quotes the Radak's rewrite of Micah 5:1, which I have seen mangled on Christian sites. I will show you the tail end of the actual quote.

Keep in mind that the Abrabanel is not saying this from his own commentary, but he is giving an example of how some commentators may use a particular euphemism:
So the idea of a small place, or the focus of a quote concerning a place, or the reference of Bethlehem in a quote by the Redak or Rashi or anyone else would seem to refer to that the Moshiach must come from this place. And typically that is where the quote ends. Let's continue (I will use bold type to emphasize. There is no upper case in Hebrew anyhow!
I think that is pretty straightforward.

Here is the original text:
In other words, your "citing" of the Abrabanel that he believed that the Moshiach would be born in Bethlahem is not only the reverse of what was said, but that the Abrabanel will then show you that every instance where you perceive that the Moshiach comes from Bethlehem, you are in error!

He continues. The next important bit is highlighted:
...RATHER, he will simply be formed from and be part of the family that descended from there. From ancient days, and the core of this is really that he will come from the seed of David who was born in Bethlehem, and from the house of Yishai who was called the Bethlehemi, and thus this is only a euphemism and it is simply saying that he would be formed from this specific ruler and king who was from Bethlehem, [as was promised] 'from ancient days.'

At the end, he tells use what "ancient days" really means
He also adds that if you see any reference about being "from Bethlehem" from any commentator that it has always been a euphamism, when relating to something messianic, soley as being "from David" and nothing more.

This is one of the problems with taking a quote from a Jewish commentator and never bothering to check it or even look at the context.

It is something to learn from.

Notsri

Noah, I just got home today, only a short time ago. I'll give all your most recent posts a read, and see what I can do to respond (probably) tomorrow.

By the way, I had a chance to look over the Bethlehem texts from 1Chron. yesterday, again, and realized that the two of us have likely misread them. They don't seem to refer to a person named Bethlehem at all.

Take for example the referenence in 1Chron. 2:51 to "Salma the father of Bethlehem". Notice its mediate position between a mention of "Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim," and "Hareph the father of Beth-gader". Of course, Kiriath-jearim and Beth-gader were towns in Judah; they were not people. So it seems likely to me, then, that the text has the village of Bethlehem in view as well; and "Salma the father of" probably means something like "Salma the founder," or, perhaps, "Salma the chief elder"--something along those lines, though I'll have to look into it a little more. Anyway, I thought I'd just give you that to think about til we next speak.

Regards,
Notsri

Notsri

Noah:

To clarify, when I cited Abarbanel (vial Gill) before, my single purpose was to adduce yet another commentator who had applied Micah's "Bethlehem Ephratah" to the village in Judah. In other words, I only wanted to know and then show what Abarbanel thought of "Bethlehem Ephratah". His views on the Messiah and particularly the place of his birth were not my concerns. I'm afraid then that the materials you've marshaled from Abarbanel's commentary, showing as they do that he, or at least the Radak, did not expect a Bethlehem birth for the Messiah, are irrelevant to my purpose; for, on my part, there was simply never any:
With regard to the term tza'ir : your objections to its adjectival use in Micah are noted. I'll continue to give them further consideration. As of right now, though, I have no further arguments to add. I realize that you would very much like me to accept your treatment of the word, but the fact that it conflicts with virtually every English Bible version, Jewish and Christian alike, as well as at least one commentator that we've reviewed, plus the BDB, is surely cause for suspicion. On the one hand there's evidently a host of biblical scholars, on the other, you and a friend—as of right now, I don't think I really have much of a choice who to go with.

Your attempt to undermine my argument concerning the word tza'ir by discrediting my sources, such as the BDB, on the basis of their authors' or compilers' affiliation with Christianity, is inappropriate. We're supposed to be evaluating the various evidences brought to this debate based on their own merits, not on the religion(s) of their first tradents. Furthermore, if you're going to reject all supposedly Christian materials out of hand, then there is no point in our having this discussion; obviously it would be for you a foregone conclusion that anything I have to say, since I am a Christian, is wrong as well!

The BDB apparently continues to be widely used by scholars and students alike, and, to my knowledge, is surpassed in use, or soon will be, only by Brill Academic Pub.'s more recent The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, by L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm. To be sure, there are places in BDB that need updating. If you would like to demonstrate that its entry for tza'ir is one such place, I'm all ears. But dismissing the lexicon's definition of tza'ir simply because a Christian made the entry, is, again, inappropriate.

Regarding my use of Uri Yosef's article: I used it for the sake of corroborating that (a) from a grammatical perspective, Micah speaks to not David but "Bethlehem"; (b) Bethlehem is addressed as a clan in Judah; (c) therefore the town of Bethlehem is no less in view as well. I continue to stand by (a). Yosef's statement agrees exactly, if not in word than certainly in sense, with my own. The same is true for (b) as well, insofar as my statement agrees with his. However, I am nevertheless beginning to suspect that (b) might need some revision, though not because of anything Yosef had to say (but more on that later). After further consideration—partly because of Amaleq13's challenge (thanks for that, if you're reading)—I do think that (c) fairly misrepresents Yosef, though it was not deliberate. I failed to pick up on the fact that Yosef regards the ancient Israelite town or village as consisting of several clans, and that Micah supposedly speaks to but one clan (Lehem) in the town of Bethlehem. I thought he was speaking in a vein similar to the scholars I had previously quoted, where "clan" "pointed to a village" (i.e., one village=one clan). In any case, he of course does not accept that the verse situates the ruler's (Messiah's) birth in the village of Bethlehem, for that person could be born anywhere, according to him, so long as they were a member of the clan of Lehem. I therefore retract my use of Yosef to corroborate (c).

Also with regard to Yosef, you said: First, I was unaware that Yosef had made such a challenge. You never posted it if he did. Second, since my "position" concerns the correct exegesis of Micah, along with Matthew's exegetical treatment of that text, archaeology is a non-issue. Third, I'm not in any position anyway to debate the question of archaeology in any thorough sense. I am, however, a bit skeptical of his claim, namely that the relevant archaeology of the site suggests Bethlehem's virtual non-existence early in the 1st c. BCE. L.F. DeVries notes, in his Cities of the Biblical World, that the "remains of ancient Bethlehem most certainly lie under the surface of the modern town of fifteen thousand people, beyond the reach of archaeologists … There has never been a major excavation of the material remains of Bethlehem; the exploration of the site has been limited to surveys and minor investigations."

I alluded above to the possibility that my argument with respect to Bethlehem's being addressed as a clan, and not directly as a village, may need some revision. I've criticized you several times for disregarding the opinions of actual scholars, and it seems that perhaps I'm guilty of the same in this case. In searching through a couple Hebrew lexicons, numerous commentaries both Christian and Jewish, and so on, I've been unable to find one accredited scholar that thinks Micah had a clan called Bethlehem in view; every single one says it's the village. I'm going to have to give this point more consideration, then; and I'll be sure to post whatever conclusions I may reach.

Finally, if you wouldn't mind, Noah, would you post a (preferably brief) statement of your own views on Micah 5:2. Your opinion of the text has obviously morphed a bit since your first post, and I'd like it if you would just clarify where you're at in your own thinking right now. Thanks.

Regards,
Notsri

noah

Simply stated my position is that Mathew misquotes Micah 5:2. Micah 5:2 does not refer to the town of Bethelehem but rather a clan or a house.

Well, well, well. They were relevant to prove that you believed in Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Moshiach, but now that it proves the opposite , they are now irrelevant? You sidestepped the fact that your source lied by the way Notsri. Care to comment on that?
The point (one of the points anyway) of elaborating on the Abarbanel is to show that there was no ancient tradition for Mathew to draw on in his citation of Beth-lehem as the birthlace of the Moshiach.

Why did I know that you go back to your english translations and avoid the grammar? Also, you omit that you too have retranslated nearly every version the English translations by agreeing that "AND YOU OF BETHLEHEM" is correct. You have no problem with that. Cute Notsri.

As an academic Notsri I can tell you that in debates and presentations and essays etc., sources do matter. In order to be credible you must use sources that are objective and non-apologetic, non-agenda. That is first year universitry basics. So-called Christian scholars are biased. They have to be. Their faith depends on it. I have already shown you how Gill can not be trusted. You simply must cite sources that are credible. Has it not coccurred to you that a) your scholars know that Judaism and Christianity are squarely at odds with each other and that b) they must somehow work to cover that up or the whole house of cards comes crashing down? On that basis alone your sources become suspect. They have a vested interest in preserving their religion. Would you cite only Marx in a debate where you were trying to prove the virtues of Marxism? If you did you would be laughed out of the forum. How you miss this is something to wonder at.

Until you commit to this there is no point in continuing the grammatical debate. No translations or commentary. Just pick one of the following. A simple 1-digit answer is sufficient unless you choose #5.

1) Tza'ir is an adjective that is attached to Bethlehem-Efratah
2) Tza'ir is an adjective that is attached to "clans"
3) Tza'ir is an adjective attached to "You"
4) Tza'ir is a noun.
5) Other (has not even been touched upon in this entire thread)

It's just basic Hebrew.

In addition you still have not answered these points despite your mention of several, in fact many scholars:

1)The RSV, NRSV, NAS, NAB, NEB, REB, the Amplified Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, and others agree that Micah was referring to a family clan rather than a town. As I said before why are they wrong and you right? You can bet they were more knowledgeable and deliberate in their translations than you are and have been.
2) Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible refers to the Bethlehem Ephrathah in this passage as something that is "little to be among the chiefs of Judah," which also suggests (quite strongly) that Micah is referring to people and not a town.

3) The Septuagint refers to the house of Ephrathah not town.
Quote:
And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah: yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel

4) The language of the verse mitigates against just one town's being mentioned. Please note that the verses says "art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah"
a) You don't refer to one as few. The two words are almost opposites.
b) There were not thousands of towns in Judah. The area was too small.

5) And rather obviously, we always read "House of so and so" to be referring to people and not geographical areas.

6) Where in the Old Testament is a city addressed by the name of a single family within it?

I have sent your comment citing DeVries along to Uri Y. along with your revised explanation of your mention of his article to support your position.

Johnny Skeptic

I would certainly like to know where that evidence is in the Old Testament. Can we be reasonably certain that the supposedly risen Jesus was not an advanced alien imposter? I don't think so.
2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." Mark 13:22 says "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." Why do Christians believe that the elect can't be deceived?

sharon45

None with respect to the expected Messiah.

Thomas II

I don't know if it has been said already but, have you all seen this?

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rophecies.html

Among other things there was something that always called my attention ,the issue about the name of the messiah being IMMANUEL
Jesus might have been Yeshu,Yeshua,etc,but I never heard of anyone calling him Immanuel.
Nobody ever said:
"Tell Immanuel to bring that table here"
or "Immanuel, have you done your homework today?"
or "Immanuel,could you pass me the jelly?"

And that is just one thing...

sharon45

Well that part of Isaiah doesn't have to do with the true expected Messiah.

Thomas II

And who's the true expected Messiah?
Mr. Immanuel?

sharon45

It is the christians that believe Isaiah 7:14 is speaking about the expected Messiah. With careful reading though, it is clear that it is not about the Messiah and certainly not about jesus.

Isaiah 7:14 KJV
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Concerning Isaiah 7:14, there is the christian bias towards the woman being a virgin, but in Hebrew, it can be either a young woman or a virgin. Besides, it is still talking about an event that is to occur in the future. Even with a quote from the KJV, the woman can be a virgin now and is going to bear a child later, as opposed to remaining a virgin and childless forever, but that does not have to mean that a virgin is actually bearing a child at the same time.