Freethought & Rationalism Archive

noah · 01-20-2006, 03:20 PM

Notsri, I asked Uri Yosef about your citation of his article. Recall you said:

Quote:

My position on Micah 5:2 is this: In my opinion Micah speaks to Bethlehem Ephratah: "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah ... " (so Stone Ed. Tanach). The Jewish website you cited yesterday tells us:

Quote:

Quote:
[T]he one being addressed here in Micah 5:1[2] is beit-lehem ...
In my opinion an obvious corollary of the above is that, the verse is not addressed to David (and so far I've found no dissenters among scholars).

In my opinion the verse treats Bethlehem as a clan, hence the use of the masculine atah. From the Jewish site:
Quote:
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 ...
In my opinion, in the light of the additional terminology used in Micah, as regards the 'eleph, and the relation of that terminology to the word mishpachah, which the scholars tell us "often pointed to a village consisting of several farm households," it would be erroneous to suggest the village was beyond Micah's purview—as even the Jewish website implies (despite the fact that it, too, seeks to show the error of Matthew's interpretation):

Quote:

Quote:
The one being addressed here in Micah 5:1[2] is beit-lehem, which is the name of a family, or clan, residing in the town of ... Ephratah, i.e., in the town of Bethlehem.

In my opinion Micah tells us the expected ruler would or will arise from the clan of Bethlehem, the clan whose home was the village Bethlehem, in the land of Judah: "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah, but from you someone will emerge for Me to be a ruler ... " (so Stone Ed. Tanach). Thus, when Matthew has the birth of Jesus fulfill this verse, he does so because, in his estimation, Jesus was born in the village Bethlehem, the locale in which one found or was at least established by the clan Bethlehem. Furthermore, Jesus was, in Matthew's estimation, a direct descendant of David, a member of the clan and village of Bethlehem. Matthew has therefore, so far as this point is concerned, not misused or misconstrued the verse.

Uri Yosef said to me:

Quote:

He is taking my words in that essay and twisting them to suit his own set of beliefs. Ask him to give you other examples, from his Christian "Old Testament", where a city is addressed by the name of a single family within it.

But, putting all this aside, the conclusion that Bethlehem (of Judea) was the birthplace of yeshu has already been proven to be a fabrication by the two Gospel writers - I did that in my essay O Little Town of Bethlehem ... (of Galilee), which I posted on this forum and also on the Jews for Judaism Counter-Missionary Forum. I challenged Christians to respond and refute this, and not a single one has done this. So, give him this link and let him learn.

Notsri · 01-20-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

Nostri,

First you say that rashi says "And Bethlehem is Ephrat" rather than the correct translation "And Bethlehem SHE is Ephrat" which might seem picky, but it leaves out the fact that Rashi was focusing on the gender by picking one of any other instance where "she" might not be used, but simply inferred.

You then say that "she" is beside the point." when it is the point.

Noah, it is certainly not the point.

Why don't we take a quick moment, to review just the relevant part of Rashi's commentary; and we'll do it using a Jewish translation of both Micah and Rashi, the version of the Judaica Press (in boldface), so that you won't cry foul. I'll even retain the pronoun's feminine gender from Genesis. OK?

Rashi's lemma: "And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah."

(Rashi's question: Which Bethlehem?)

Rashi's answer: "Whence David emanated,"

(Rashi's subquestion: How do we know David came from Bethlehem?)

Rashi's answer: "as it is stated (I Sam. 17:58): 'The son of your bondsman, Jesse the Bethlehemite.'"

(Rashi's question: What's the relation of Bethlehem to Ephrath?)

Rashi's answer: "Bethlehem is called Ephrath,"

(Rashi's subquestion: How do we know Bethlehem is called Ephrath?)

Rashi's answer: "as it is said (Gen. 48:7): 'On the road to Ephrath, [she] is Bethlehem.'"

He then goes on to consider the portion: "you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah."

So Rashi has manifestly sought to answer two basic questions: To which Bethlehem is the verse speaking? and what's its relation to Ephrath? He apparently asks no questions of, and certainly gives no answers to, the occurence of the feminine pronoun in Gen 48:7 (which is no doubt why the Judaica Press felt at liberty to neuterize the translation: "that is Bethlehem.") To suggest that the pronoun's gender is not only of interest but central to his concern ("it is the point"), misreads and misrepresents his comments. Of that there can be no doubt.

Perhaps you might counter (again):

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

Rashi was focusing on the gender by picking one of any other instance where "she" might not be used, but simply inferred" (emphasis added)

Put simply: the significance you attach to Rashi's supposedly deliberate selection of a verse with a feminine pronoun, is rendered void by the fact that he had essentially no option but choose a verse with a feminine pronoun. Quite obviously Rashi sought to prove the premise, "Bethlehem is called Ephrath," with his fairly routine brevity, and in so doing he had one of only two options: cite Genesis 35:19, or Genesis 48:7; but both contain the feminine pronoun; he could not avoid it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

The funny thing is you say

Quote:

Second, my limited knowledge of Hebrew notwithstanding, your treatment of the word tza'ir seems doubtful

and then proceed to use a Christian lexicon as a proof, while a simple secular Hebrew-English dictionary with no religious Agenda (Like the one from Bantam) would be very enlightening. (Please bring it to this debate Nostri).

The BDB is a "Christian" lexicon, with a "religious agenda"? On what basis do you make such claims? Besides, let's not forget that I was quick to add to my "Christian" lexicon's definition of tza'ir, two corroborative excerpts from a Jewish Bible version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

You then quote Rabbi Artscroll who renders is as "too small", which is still in line with the meaning, that tza'ir is a youth, one of limited capabilites, one of non-important stature, and it is a noun! But you missed that.

Noah, Sherman's ("Rabbi Artscroll's") "small" is (as should go without saying) an adjective. So I'm perplexed that you think it supports your contention here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

You says

Quote:

Doubtless Rashi has the clan in mind...

Which means you missed the point of the Rashi, the 4 points which I outlined above. You see, he indicates that Bet-Lechem, She who is Efrat is feminine. He indicates that this object of "YOU" has a Moabite ancestry. He speaks of Bet-Lechem as the place where David came from. All of these add up to DAVID.

I'd sort of like to go over the rest of Rashi in a little more detail, like above, but perhaps we should wait for another time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

So, if Beth-Lechem is not the direct object, how can it be speaking of Beth-Lechem? Most likely you are speaking of the error which turns tza'ir followed by a verb into an adjective and then attaches it to Bet-Lechem, which is an error (wrong gender and type) making Bet-Lechem "small", "little", etc when the spelling is a boy. And, as I have shown, one Christian states that the verb "to be" needs to be thrown away to make it an adjective, and then respell Efrat to attach it, but forgets about the gender and tza'ir needs to become tza'irah, and so a heh needs to be added.

"Bethlehem Ephratah" is being used vocatively; it identifies atah, "you," the subject of the clause. The masculine atah, "you," is being modified by the masculine tza'ir, which is used adjectively, "small," or "little". Hence the Stone Ed. Tanach's translation: "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small ... "

Switching gears: I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

In my opinion Micah speaks to Bethlehem Ephratah ...

Uri Yosef said:

Quote:

[T]he one being addressed here in Micah 5:1[2] is beit-lehem ...

I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

In my opinion the verse treats Bethlehem as a clan, hence the use of the masculine atah.

Uri Yosef said:

Quote:

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 ... Therefore, the one being addressed here in Micah 5:1 is beit-lehem, which is the name of a family, or clan, residing in the town of ... Ephratah, i.e., in the town of Bethlehem

Now I would invite you, noah, to show me where I in my statements contradict or warp Yosef's, so as to justify his comment:

Quote:

He is taking my words in that essay and twisting them ...

P.S. I find it unfortunate, though perhaps understandable under the circumstances, that you would first encourage me to use Jewish sources, even sending me the link to Yusef's site in one of your last posts, and now have begun to try and disenfranchise me of that privilege. Please make up your mind: should I use them or not? (Though, so long as they continue to conflict with your interpretations, I think I know the answer to that question already.)

Regards (truly),
Notsri

noah · 01-21-2006, 05:43 AM

Quote:

So to begin, then, I'd like to briefly discuss the biblical Hebrew word mishpachah. The lexicon of Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB), 1046b-1047a, offers several definitions, the first of which, "clan," being the one I'd like to focus on here. Carol Meyers, "The Family in Early Israel," Families in Ancient Israel, p. 37, notes: "For ancient Israel, the suprahousehold social unit was the mishpachah, for which the descriptive rendering 'protective association of families' is appropriate. The mishpachah—with its sense of being bound by a common heritage, by kinship ties, and by shared subsistence concerns—represented a solidarity of nearby family units that interacted with and sustained one another." Additionally: "the term mishpachah is generally understood to be coterminous with the inhabitants of a village," comprising "related farm families [in a broader, not necessarily nuclear sense,] sharing common settled space and earning their livelihoods in the fields, orchards, and vineyards surrounding the village site" (p. 13). In a similar vein, L.G. Perdue, "The Israelite and Early Jewish Family," ibid., p. 177, has this to say: "[Mishpachah's] most specific meaning is 'a residential kinship group of several families,' or, more commonly, a 'clan.' The mishpachah often pointed to a village consisting of several farm households related by kinship and marriage…Most villages were quite small, occupying from less than an acre to several acres…[M]ost early Israelite villages consisted of less than one hundred members and this would also have been true of later Israel, even though Israelite occupation of towns and cities emerged during state formation, leading to increasing urbanization." Perdue also notes that the mishpachah was situated between the larger social unit on the one hand, the tribe—the shebet, or matteh—and the smaller unit on the other hand, the family household, the bet 'ab (p. 174).

Now in connection to the mishpachah, Carol Meyers (p. 13) directs the readers attention to another word, 'eleph. The literal meaning of 'eleph is "thousand," in the strict numerical sense, though it can also be used more loosely, to mean "family" in the extended sense, or "clan" (cf. BDB 48b-49a). Meyers suggests that 'eleph is "a related term that preserves the idea of military cooperation." C.F. Keil, in his commentary on the Minor Prophets also links these two terms, suggesting the former is an "epithet used as early as Num. i.16; x.4, to denote the families, mishpachoth, i.e. larger sections into which the twelve tribes of Israel were divided." To examine Keil's claim a little more carefully, we notice in his first example, Num. 1:16, that reference is made in apparently descending hierarchical order, to, first, the "congregation" ('edah), second, the "tribes" (mattoth), and then, third and right below the tribes, the "thousands" ('alphey—pl. of 'eleph). This obviously hearkens back to L.G. Perdue's suggestion, mentioned above, that the mishpachah was placed in the familial hierarchy immediately below the tribe—Keil seems to be correct.

Now the importance of the foregoing to our discussion is of course found in the fact that Micah 5:2 employs this same terminology, particularly the word 'eleph. An implication there, is that Bethlehem is one "b'alphey yehudah"—one "among the thousands of Judah" (so JPS), or, "among the clans of Judah" (so RSV). And a further implication, in the light now of what's been said above, is that when the verse has in mind Bethlehem's clan—"a 'residential kinship group' of several families"—no less is the "village consisting of several farm households" in view as well. And, of course, that village was Bethlehem Judah. So, in conclusion, Matthew's interpretation of the verse on this point seems justified.

An avalanche of assumptions based assumptions and so-called implications. You have established nothing as fact. In fact, if we were to remove all your assumptions we wouldn't have much of a post at all. Note not one mention of any scholar who says either eleph or mishpachah mean a town, Bethlehem in particular. Instead we are taken through a series of speculations and guesstimates that add up to nothing. Facts establish arguments not inter-dependent assumptions.

First of all, let's clear up the terminology because that's the basis of your post here and let's do it not with asumptions but factual definitions

Mishpachah does not carry with it the implication of village. It means family and/or clan and a couple other things but not a town. Just because the mishpachah lives in or near or composes a town or village does not mean the town or village is named after the clan. There is no instance of that anywhere in the Old Testament.

You don't understand this phrase here and you assume a lot from it and try to build a lot on it:

Quote:

The mishpachah often pointed to a village consisting of several farm households

This establishes nothing. It does not mean that the village or town was named after the family. The village or town would have gone by another name. You still haven't proven that a town or village went by that clan's name.

From this online the dfiniton of mishpachah:dictionary

Quote:

[noun] (Yiddish) the entire family network of relatives by blood or marriage (and sometimes close friends); "she invited the whole mishpocha"

and this one (a christian website):
1. clan, family
1. clan
1. family
2. tribe
3. people, nation
2. guild
3. species, kind
4. aristocrats

and here:

Quote:

mishpachah "family" in a more technical sense one of the divisions of the tribes of Israel ("clan") larger than a household, but used more widely hence the translation "family" in Am 3:1,2.

This Torah forum member uses mishpachah in the same way.

As for eleph, it means a thousand and not a village or town as this Christian site makes clear:

1. a thousand
1. as numeral
2. a thousand, company
1. as a company of men under one leader, troops

Note no mention made of

Quote:

village consisting of several farm households

Please note from this Christian site:

Quote:

The Hebrew word here is "eleph" and it used in 391 verses and ALWAYS means "thousands."

this Christian site says it means a thousand

And from Uri Yosef's article:

Quote:

there are instances in the Hebrew Bible where (eleph) is used in reference to a portion of a tribe, i.e., a clan or family. Micah 5:1 is one of these cases, and others are found at Numbers 31:5, Deuteronomy 33:17, Joshua 22:14, Judges 6:15, and 1 Samuel 10:19, 23:23.

again no mention of a town.

Moreover, you can't find an instance in the Old Testament where a town is identified by the family living there. Remember?

noah · 01-21-2006, 06:05 AM

I'll get after the Rashi thing later.

More points to consider before you respond to me.

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?

7) The archaeological evidence makes clear that Bethelehem of Judah was deserted during the period we are discussing here.

8) You still haven't gotten back to me with responses to your points from Rabbis and other Jewish experts.

9) You have not told me whether you are going to take Uri Yosef up on his challenge to you to debate him regarding the archaeology that contradicts your position(s).

10) I do not pose this question glibly. Why if it's god's word are we spending all this time and effort debating this issue? Why would God allow his word to become so ambiguous and open to question?
Can it really be God's word Notsri if you have to go rummaging around looking for evidence to support your version of his word?
Going into translations and lexicons is what you do with texts that are not God's word. You can't treat the bile as though it were a normal piece of literature subject to the normal rules of analysis and then at the same time declare it to be inspired by God.
It has to be one or the other.

Amaleq13 · 01-21-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

Now I would invite you, noah, to show me where I in my statements contradict or warp Yosef's, so as to justify his comment:

I thought he was pretty clear in identifying what he considered to be an unjustified conclusion from his words when he wrote:

Ask him to give you other examples, from his Christian "Old Testament", where a city is addressed by the name of a single family within it.

I don't know if there are others but this one appears to be plainly stated in the offered quote.

noah · 01-21-2006, 02:40 PM

Notsri I am still waiting to see how you attach a male noun, which you decided to make into a male adjective, to a female town.

Quote:

At one point in his commentary on Micah, John Gill cites the words of Abarbanel, whom I'm sure you know of: "(I)t is said: 'O thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah,' which was a small city, in the midst of the cities of Judah…"

Regarding John Gills, I agree 100% with the words of the Abrabanel. Is Gill a respected scholar.? Is he a Christian apologist?
Which book did you get this quote from?
Did you check to see whether he was accurate in his citation?

noah · 01-21-2006, 09:55 PM

Just an additonal note regarding your sourcews Notsri. Your use of the BDB is completely irrelevant, since that is a Christian source, just as is the Strong's Concordance - both are significant works which were compiled by Christian scholars to "prove" Christianity. They contain many errors. You also reference other works by Christian scholars who, in all likelihood, did not have the required proficiency to comment on the use of Hebrew grammar and vocabulary. Please let me know what their qualifications are and what steps you have taken to ensure their legitimacy and acurracy.

BTW, the word mishpahah is used in the Hebrew Bible 303 times, but it does not appear in Micah 5:1. However, Micah knew about this word, since he used in in Micah 2:3. Your are grasping at a straw here. But the real point is not whether the reference is to a clan on the city, since it is actually irrelevant to the point you're trying to prove. Simply stated, this verse, Micah 5:1, does not say that the promised Jewish Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. All it says that his genealogy will lead to an ancestor who was from Bethlehem, and we know who that is - King David. Rashi, whom you quote, says, it is referring to King David. So enjoy your re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

noah · 01-26-2006, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Bethlehem Ephratah" is being used vocatively; it identifies atah, "you," the subject of the clause. The masculine atah, "you," is being modified by the masculine tza'ir, which is used adjectively, "small," or "little". Hence the Stone Ed. Tanach's translation: "Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small ... "

Yes but waht do you think tza'ir is attached to? It sounds vague. But it is a problem
Even Keil stated so concerning this verse (when a Christian grammarian saw the problem with forcing the Hebrew into the commonly accepted English, which Keil refused to accept:
Keil wrote:

Quote:

The omission of the article before צעיר, and the use of להיות instead of מהיות, do not warrant the alteration in the text which Hitzig proposes, viz., to strike out להיות as erroneous, and to separate the ה from �?פרתה and connect it with צעיר = �?פרת הצּעיר; for the assertion that צעיר, if used in apposition, must have the article, is just as unfounded as the still further remark, that “to say that Bethlehem was too small to be among the 'ălaphīm of Judah is incorrect and at variance with 1Sa_20:6, 1Sa_20:29,�? since these passages by no means prove that Bethlehem formed an 'eleph by itself.

That one pesky word really messes things up, causing to force male to join with female (which is bad for grammar) or to drop a word or to chop off a letter (which doesn't change the gender, which adds more problems).

Keep in mind:

If "atah" is masculine, and "tz'air" is a masculine adjective, as you sre arguing, then what is "tz'air" attached to since it cannot be Beth-lechem/Efratah since they are feminine, and it cannot be the adjective of "clans" since the "adjective" is separated by a verb (to be) which is prefacing "clans". And there is no such thing as having an adjective of a pronoun.

Tell me this Notsri:
Is tza'ir a noun? If it is not, what is this masculine adjective attached to?

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.

TomboyMom · 01-26-2006, 07:04 AM

To me this thread typifies this forum, which I find in general not very accessible to relatively unsophisticated non-Christians like myself. It swings from crude, unsubstantiated and frankly rather ignorant assertions by the OP to the fine points of issues so esoteric that none but the PhD level can follow them. Sigh. Anytime anyone wants to come into the middle and help me learn the basics of this or anything else in this field, you have my appreciation.

Julian · 01-26-2006, 07:07 AM

You could start a thread containing some questions you might have and indicate your level of knowledge so that the answers could be appropriately framed.

I am sure that you would find people willing to give you helpful answers. Such a thread might also be helpful many other people.

If it is any consolation, I am not an OT person and do not speak Hebrew. I don't follow this thread particularly well, either.

Julian

01-26-2006, 07:04 AM	#139
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	kvetch To me this thread typifies this forum, which I find in general not very accessible to relatively unsophisticated non-Christians like myself. It swings from crude, unsubstantiated and frankly rather ignorant assertions by the OP to the fine points of issues so esoteric that none but the PhD level can follow them. Sigh. Anytime anyone wants to come into the middle and help me learn the basics of this or anything else in this field, you have my appreciation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-21-2006, 09:55 PM	#137
noah Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 287	Just an additonal note regarding your sourcews Notsri. Your use of the BDB is completely irrelevant, since that is a Christian source, just as is the Strong's Concordance - both are significant works which were compiled by Christian scholars to "prove" Christianity. They contain many errors. You also reference other works by Christian scholars who, in all likelihood, did not have the required proficiency to comment on the use of Hebrew grammar and vocabulary. Please let me know what their qualifications are and what steps you have taken to ensure their legitimacy and acurracy. BTW, the word mishpahah is used in the Hebrew Bible 303 times, but it does not appear in Micah 5:1. However, Micah knew about this word, since he used in in Micah 2:3. Your are grasping at a straw here. But the real point is not whether the reference is to a clan on the city, since it is actually irrelevant to the point you're trying to prove. Simply stated, this verse, Micah 5:1, does not say that the promised Jewish Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. All it says that his genealogy will lead to an ancestor who was from Bethlehem, and we know who that is - King David. Rashi, whom you quote, says, it is referring to King David. So enjoy your re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

01-26-2006, 07:07 AM	#140
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	You could start a thread containing some questions you might have and indicate your level of knowledge so that the answers could be appropriately framed. I am sure that you would find people willing to give you helpful answers. Such a thread might also be helpful many other people. If it is any consolation, I am not an OT person and do not speak Hebrew. I don't follow this thread particularly well, either. Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.