GPLindsey

I'm debating some Christians on another web site and could use help with how a specific Bible word was translated from the original. Matthew 2, vs. 11 said the Magi visited the "child" and Mary in a house. In pointing out the inconsistencies with the Matthew and Luke nativity accounts, some Christians argue that the Matthew account occurred at a later time, perhaps a year or two after Jesus's birth, when Joseph and Mary returned to Jerusalem for Passover or Hannukah or whatever.

Here's the thing. In 2 Kings Ch. 2, vs. 23, there is that well known story of the prophet Elisha cursing the "little children" (KJV) for calling him baldy, and he sent she-bears to maul them. In getting around this apparent outrage, many apologists say the KJV mistranslated the word for "children" and that the original word really meant to say youths or young adults. They were therefore accountable and mauling them with she-bears was justified. Nonsense, but that is there argument.

My question: Do the source documents for Matthew 2, vs. 11 and 2 Kings Ch. 2, vs. 23, have the same word or root word for "child" or "children"? If so, there are two possibilities:

1) Both verses are meant to convey small children, in which case the mauling by the she-bears goes back to being an outrage against some teasing little ones, rather than justice against some dangerous teenagers.

OR

2) Both verses are meant to convey young adults, in which case the Magi followed their star for a decade or more, and the whole notion that Matthew is a nativity story surrounding the birth of Jesus becomes nonsensical (not that it isn't already for other reasons).

My facination with the Bible never extended so far as to learn the original source languages and study how they were translated, so I am ignorant of this whole area. Any help with this question, and whether this might be another "gotcha" to use in sparring with Christians on the Bible, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Tim Holt

Wouldn't the source for Matthew be in Greek, but the source for 2 Kings be in Hebrew?

Lugubert

The Greek paidion in GMt seems to mean "a child, still in its mother's care". That should exclude teenagers.

Kings has Hebrew na`ar, which can apply up to a young man as well as to quite young children.

Cege

Others have already answered about the language of the source documents, but I want to pick up on the star part of the story.

In a recent sermon I heard, gMatthew's story of the magi following a star to the messiah child was asserted as the fulfillment of a prophecy of a star to appear, from Numbers 24.

Here's the star passage, in context:

17 "I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near.
A star will come out of Jacob;
a scepter will rise out of Israel.
He will crush the foreheads of Moab,
the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.

18 Edom will be conquered;
Seir, his enemy, will be conquered,
but Israel will grow strong.

Clearly there is a star mentioned in Numbers and a star in Matthew, but only if the Numbers passage is taken in small part can it apply to Matthew. There's no scepter, no crushed foreheads and skulls of enemies, no conquering of Edom, and no Israel growing strong in the story of the NT's Jesus' birth.

Solitary Man

Do you think that Matthew thought that the Numbers passage about scepters and crushed heads was to be taken literally? Or did his star signify the Jesus was in fact the Messiah, his proclamation of royalty fulfilling the scepter requirement, and the fact that he conquered death and has a new kingdom figuratively interprets what he thinks Numbers is saying?

aa5874

Matthew 1.18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost".

Jesus was not literally born, perhaps symbolically. Matthew 18.1 is all allergoric, totally unreal.

Cege

What I think is that the Numbers passage can only apply to what Matthew wrote if one is willing to take only the "star" portion as being a prophecy about the Jewish messiah. I don't think it's reasonable to take one section as literal and the rest to be figurative.

Solitary Man

Why not? Are all authors either strictly literal or strictly figurative?