Notsri

I suppose I'll say it again: the central and original topic was and is "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2, along with Jewish interpretation of that verse. The messiahship of Jesus, along with any of his qualifications for that office, disputed or otherwise, is entirely beside the point; it's certainly not "central to the point at hand." Your initial claim was that Matthew distorts the meaning of Micah by applying the verse to the town of Bethlehem. Jesus as Messiah is irrelevant to that question. Jesus doesn't even need to be mentioned here. It's about Micah and Matthew; what did the former mean in 5:2; and does the latter distort that meaning?


You're getting a bit ahead of Rashi at this point. His comments pertain only to the lemma at hand: "And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah." He wants to know the meaning of especially those last two terms. He answers that Bethlehem refers to the town from which David and his father, Jesse, emanated; and to illustrate that he cites 1Sam 17:58, where Jesse is called "the Bethlehemite." To explain the significance of especially Ephrathah, though touching also on the peculiar binomial form, Bethlehem Ephrathah, he adds: "And Bethlehem is called Ephrath, as it is said [in Gen. 48:7]: 'On the road to Ephrath, that is Bethlehem.'" Now, if you're really going to insist that Rashi does not apply the verse to the town, then you must account for the fact that both of Rashi's prooftexts do refer to the town.


Because this discussion largely turns on the meaning of "clans of Judah," I promise I will address that point, just not at this particular moment. (Obviously it shouldn't be ignored, else why are we having this discussion?) Since our focus is currently on Rashi, though, I'll simply comment on his commentary. In the excerpt above, he wants to know specifically why the verse says that Bethlehem "should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah." His answer: because Ruth the Moabitess lived there, as an alien, an outsider; someone forbidden in marriage to the sons of Israel by Law. And, again, to maintain your objection you must also account for the fact that Rashi mentions now a third inhabitant of the town of Bethlehem.


What Rashi is actually suggesting, is that the Messiah will emerge from Bethlehem: "...from you [Bethlehem] will emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel, ["the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says [in Pss 118:22]: 'The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstore.'"]"

Incidentally, if Rashi did not have our texts from the Yerushalmi and the Midrash in mind, which is entirely possible, then it's probable that his commentary derives from other midrashim—which you allude to below—or the Targum.

The Targum to Micah 5:2: "And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before me the Messiah, to excercise dominion over Israel, he [the Messiah] whose name was mentioned from of old, from ancient times."

Pirqe d'Rabbi Eliezer 3: "How do we know that the name of the Messiah [is premundane]? Because it is said...'But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are to be least among the thousands of Judah, from you shall he come forth unto me who is to be ruler over Israel; whose ancestry belongs to the past, even to the days of old.'"


See above; Rashi does not apply any part of the verse to David.


First of all, you're right, in the strictest sense the Torah does not call Bethlehem, Efratah. Only Efrat is used. So I'll give you that. I was in error. I suppose I was conflating matters: 1Chron calls Caleb's wife both Efrat (2:19) and Efratah (2:50; 4:4). On the other hand, how does the thrust of your objection conflict with my interpretation? When I suggest that Micah refers to the town of Bethlehem, I have the southern town in mind, not the northern one, located in Zebulun. Micah's oralces are addressed to Judah, Jerusalem in particular, and, north-west of there, Samaria as well. The town of Bethlehem in Judah was (and is) located south of both locales. So when Micah inidicates "a specific Beth-Lechem by saying 'near/by Efrat,'" my assumption—concerning which we both seem to now agree—is that he has the southern Bethlehem in mind, the one the Torah identifies with Efrat (Gen 35:19; 48:7).


Noah—I mentioned this last time, and alluded to it above: I am not concerned at this point whether Micah refers to Jesus. The question is: Can or does the verse refer to the town of Bethlehem? (By the way, 1Chron 2:19, 50 make evident that Ephrath/ah was a woman, Caleb's wife: Hur was her son, and Bethlehem was Hur's son [2:50; 4:4].)


Except, noah, that the Midrash does not chastize the other for taking the word of a non-Jew that the Messiah was born in Bethlehem. That's just not there. Furthermore, there is no "punchline" suggesting error on anyone's part, either. Obviously some must be wrong, while others perhaps not: the Messiah probably cannot or will not have all the many names suggested there. But the whole passage is just aggadic or, more specifically, midrashic speculation: there's no dogmatic right or wrong in context there. (And there's never, incidentally, any suggestion that the Messiah "could be anyone.")


John 7:42 suggests the expectation of a Judean Messiah. Jesus' accent would indicate nothing of a Judean birthplace; on the contrary, all indications would point toward a Galilean background. Hence their objections. Now beyond that I'm afraid I have nothing further to add. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. At this point, the subject's just become a distraction to what we're really after, so I'll leave it alone for now.


If you want to bring various texts into play that have no bearing on the subject of Micah 5:2, by all means feel free. I'm just not sure I'll follow after. I don't see how that would be constructive or conducive to our discussion.

I would assume from the above that you consider my contention—Micah’s Bethlehem Ephrathah=town—uniquely "Christian." But implicit in my claim, of course, is that such is not the case. And if I'm going to offer anything with real probative value to support that claim, does it not require me to adduce evidence from beyond the pale of Christianity, such as I've done with the Jewish texts? Or, to use your metaphor, if the "rabid capitalist" is going to suggest that he in fact shares a particular economic view with Karl Marx, isn't it then required of him to offer some corroborative evidence for that claim, something as might be found in Das Kapital? I think so. And I don't think I've done anything different here.

One point of clarification: I have never intended to suggest, that the Gospel of John depends in any way on the Talmud or Eicha Rabba; obviously, that's not possible.

Finally, perhaps you'll notice that I have not directly addressed the issue of Micah's "clans of Judah." That is the crucial issue, I think, and I would like to spend some time reflecting on that, as well as the objections you've voiced to me here, concerning that point. Right now, I'm beginning to feel like this quibbling over my use of Jewish scripture has veered us a bit off course. I should like to get back to you in a day or so, then, with further remarks on "clans of Judah." If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will accept that. But that's what I intend to find out in setting some time aside for study. Frankly, our exchange has not yet convinced me of any error.

Regards,
Notsri

TomboyMom

Please cite the bible verse to which you are referring.

noah

Nostri,

The editors of the NIV,the NIV UK, RSV, NASB, ESB, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and NAB have all translated the verse to refer to a clan not a town or a city. Nothing narrow about that. A town is one thing. A clan is quite another. They obviously thought there was a difference, a difference important enough to change the wording. Please note that the hyper literal NASB is among those that translate the word as clan.
My question to you is what do you know that the editiors of the NIV,the NIV UK, RSV, NASB, ESB, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and NAB do not?

By the way. Who cares whether Talmud says bethlehem is a city or town? How do you know it's right? How do you know the Jewish text has any real probitive value? It's not inspired. If it were such a crucial proof text do you really think it would have been excludued from the bible?


Except that you have no business going into traditions that you do not respect and that contradict your beliefs and start cherry picking. We're not talking about consulting an atlas or a phone book. You're on hostile ground when you go into a Jewish text or cite Jewish tradition . Why? Because

1) It disagrees with you.

2) It's not your scripture.

3) You don't respect it

4) You have no use for it otherwise.

You can duck these issues all you want but I'm not sure what you gain by proving that Bethlehem means the town and not the clan. It's a terribly narrow little victory if you can win it. You already know JC is not the Jewish messiah. Kinda reminds me of the old rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic analogy.
It's interesting to note that one of your "proof texts", the Talmud Bavli, says JC's boiling in a vat of excrement and I know the Yerushalmi and Midrash are not in conflict with the Bavli.

More later

noah

Nostri, I'm going to take a linguistic tact.

But first I'd like to say that since you have never studied at a Yeshiva, you should not be referencing sources you do not understand.

Now..

Rashi is only commenting on the term "Bethlehem" because the term Efratah is applied, and it is not to apply "YOU" to the town (all towns are female and the form of "YOU" is male-singular), rather he is stating which town YOU is coming from. According to Mezudat David (another commentator often cited with Rashi) "The prophet is specifying Belehem of Efratah so as to distinguish the two from the territory pf Zevulan, mentioned in Yoshuah 19:15."
Since there is no instance of a town being expressed in the incorrect gender and number, the Rashi is not saying that the direct object is the town, but he is simply specifying where the town was. The verse is speaking of a direct object that is singular and male, and is obviously not the town. "You" refers to a person, and not a place, and that the prophet is not stating that the Moshiach will be born in Bethlehem, but that the person who once dwelled there will have the Moshiach descend from him, who was David. Here are the three singular-masculine terms in the verse:

1) ×?תה = the first word, "YOU" is singular and male.
2) צעיר = it means "a small or insignificant lad, masculine and singular. Often metaphorically translated to "you should have been the lowest" or "the least likely".
3) ממך = "from you" is in the masculine and singular form.
The direct object is masculine and singular.

Please show me one place in Tanach where a town is ever referred to in the Hebrew in that way, any instance where a town is spoken of in the singular masculine form.

noah

A couple more points Notsri:

The basic problem is that in "citing" these rabbinical sources you are ignoring their context.They are aggadic -- homily. They are not meant to be taken as "gospel truth" (to use a pun).
It might help you to define midrash aggadah. Please let me know what you think the term means.

Unlike Christian thought- that every verse exists in a vacuum to be interpreted at whim- Jewish thought is one of context. It is contextual.

So while there are Oral traditions on every verse, none of them are indiscriminate of the rest of Judaism, in whatever form it appears. [Like the second and third commandment, for example.]

Since tradition is that jesus is boiling in excrement, for his life of sin and for his responsibility in every sin after him that he set in motion, there are definitely no other verses telling us he is the Messiah. They must mean something else.

Regarding Bethlehem, David and Ruth, Ruth (David's grandmother) moved to Bethlehem and became a Jew. This is the link to the "place" Bethlehem. Just as David then was tied to the place of Bethlehem, so to will his descendent (moshiach ben david) have the same link.

It doesn't mean he'll be born there. Since JC was not a descendent of David through his father he has no claim to this link (whether he was born in Bethlehem or not).

He says that the Hebrew states the messiah will come from the "House of Lehem" (using the word "clan" is just a way to different it from a tribe). Bet means house and lechem means bread.

The point is that King David was descended both from the House of Lechem (Bethlehem) and through Ruth the place of Bethlehem.

All Micah is saying is that the messiah will be descended from King David who came from the lowest of clans and towns.

As I said before, you are in over your head here and your time would be more profitably spent studying at a Yeshiva and/or taking some courses in Judaism at a non-Christian educational institution.

noah

Notsri,

I asked a Jewish associate about your Targum and Micah 5:2. Needlesss to say he found your end of this debate lacking. He said this:

Regards,

noah

Notsri

Noah:

I apologize for the long delay in getting back to you. I'd hoped to have this put together and posted last night, though I was instead compelled to spend my time removing a tree from off the top of my car—what's left of it, that is!! In any event, the following is pretty much the extent of what I was able to dig up as regards Micah's "clans of Judah." Some of it you may be familiar with already. I alluded last time we spoke to the probability that we'd have to meet somewhere in the middle on this issue, the hard line each of us having originally taken probably now having to be abandoned. What follows I think generally tends to support that claim. In all likelihood Micah did have the clan of Bethlehem in view, as per your original suggestion (well, sort of, as the text does not refer to the person Bethlehem, Caleb's grandson, which is what in point of fact had been part of your original claim—though you seem to have backed off that view since then); however, the notion of clan was so intimately and inextricably intertwined with that of the village or town that, Matthew's application of the verse to the town was entirely appropriate, as per my original suggestion.

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.

For good measure I suppose I'll add the following:

In L.G. Perdue's essay, "The Israelite and Early Jewish Family," he directs the reader's attention in the course of his brief explanation of the term mishpachah, to the "clan of David, Ephrathah, which lived in Bethlehem; Micah 5:2."

In the footnote to the Artscroll, Stone Edition Tanach's rendition of Micah 5:2, it suggests: "[Ephratah is] another name for Bethlehem of Judah (see Genesis 48:7). As the city of Ruth, a convert from Moab, Bethlehem was an unlikely source of leadership, but it produced David, the ancestor of the Messiah."

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…"

In any event I suppose the point has been belabored enough by now. Hopefully we can put to rest further debate on this subject. Though...

...In regard to a few things said in your last few posts, to which I did not respond until now; you said: I don't mean to be stubborn or evasive; but I suppose I'll ask you the same: Please define midrash aggadah. I'm familiar with the term, and it seems to me to have no bearing on the issues we've discussed so far. The fact that you think it does, unfortunately leads me to think you've still failed to grasp my point in all this, even after I've tried to clarify things so many times, noah.


Your "associate" said: This seems rather curious to me, especially since his own, personal translation of the targum says: "Bet-Lechem by Efrat." Maybe you could explain?


More from his translation: With your friend's subtle introduction of the preposition "of," the pronoun's antecedent becomes unclear, though you both suggest it's David; it's certainly no longer "Bet-Lechem." But the targum says: v'ath bayt-lacham 'afrat, i.e. it clearly mentions "Bethlehem Efrat," preceded only by the "you" with a conjunctive waw: "And you—Bethlehem Efrat…" So, unless I'm missing something, your friend's translation is somewhat arbitrary and erroneous, at least on this point; as in the Hebrew text, it's Bethlehem that's being addressed, and not David. Cf. again K.J. Cathcart's translation (the targum scholar whose translation I quoted before): "And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah…"

There's obviously more of your friend's translation to address, as well as some of your own comments, but for now I'm off to sleep.

Regards,
Notsri

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Nostri: Even if Micah 5:2 refers to a place and not to a clan, what evidence is there that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Who knew about it other than Joseph, Mary, and the magi? The magi and Joseph were never heard from again. Matthew, Luke, and John claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and by the time that those books were written decades after the supposed fact, Mary might have been long dead, making it impossible for anyone to check out the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Where did Matthew, Luke, and John get their information from? No one knows. Their information might have been second hand, third hand, fourth hand, etc. So, it is plausible that Matthew, Luke, and John might have gotten their "evidence" not from Mary, or even from someone who knew Mary, but from one single source who was mistaken, who lied, or who had an innocent but inaccurate revelation.

Notsri

If memory serves—and it may not; quite a bit of time has passed, you know—the Bethlehem Daily Herald ran a small piece that day, the day of Jesus' birth; something about a star, shepherds, the birth of a baby boy. :huh:

In all seriousness, though—outside the gospels, none, right? Wouldn't you agree?


Luke's shepherds? Or better still, Jesus?


Never heard from again within the world of the NT, yes; but, if we may assume some historicity for these people, then likely they were heard from again at some point, no? particularly Joseph?


I would agree. Maybe Matthew and Luke made it up; maybe they didn't. Maybe they had flawed sources; maybe they didn't. Like you said, "no one knows," and so we're left to speculate.

Regards,
Notsri

noah

Notsrit, why have you not addressed the gender issue, and the use of a masculine noun/pronoun when it proceeds the name of a city?

A subtle introduction of "of"?

Hardly Notsri. In Hebrew "of" is often inferred, when two nouns are together it is not unusual to do so, such as Ariel Sharon is the "Rosh HaMemshalah" or "Head - the Government" which Israelis translate as "Head of the Government". How much clearer can it be?

Also, when a personal pronoun preceeds the name of a town, it often (I would like to say always, but there is bound to be an exception) designates a resident of that town. For example in 1 Chron 2:51 we read

"Salma the father [---] Beth-Lechem, Hareph the father [---] Beth-Gader."

We use an implied "of" (which exists even in every Christian translation that I have found), but this "of" indicates residency since we have a noun associated with the name of a town. (And in this case, "father" indicates a leader of the community) and it becomes:

"Salma, the father OF Beth-Lechem, Hareph, the father OF Beth-Gader."

So no Notsri no subtle introduction of the word "of" or anything else outside of the common Hebrew grammar.

It never was.

You said here Notsri:
One more time Notsri. The Aramaic also has masculine forms which are not part of a non-masculine object.

So we can agree that they both have masculine terms, and there is a pronoun preceeding the name of a town. So therefore since that is the primary focus, let's drop this "Targum" gambit as though it shows something important that the Hebrew is missing, (it also has masculine indicators and the only real addition is the addition of the name "Moshiach", and I already accepted that this verse is Messianic) and just stick to the Hebrew verse rather than become diverted.

I already asked before: please find one instance in all of Tanach where a feminine term "Beth-Lechem" or "Efratah" or any town is ever addressed by a masculine singular pronoun. I have already indicated that there are three masculine items in there "You" "youth" and "from you", none of which are ever applied to a town.

And "of" in the position of residency has already been addressed, which you are unwilling to acknowledge.

Notsri:
No offence Notsri but I think you are missing something.It has to do with gender and number, both of which you are ignoring.

My Jewish friend would like you task this scholar to look over his translation and see if it is in error. Please do so.

But let's bring this back to the point, the issue at hand. The text has masculine terms associated with a masculine "you". And Beth-Lechem and Efrat are not masculine by any stretch of the imagination.
Please check out this diagram from my friend's site. I believe you will find it most helpful.

So Notsri,

1) Please indicate any place where a non-masculine term (a town, city, village, etc.) is ever addressed in a singular masculine.

2) Are you willing to acknowledge that when a noun/pronoun (person) proceeds a name of a place that it typically implies residency?

A simple 1 sentence response to each is more than adequate, and sticking to these two statements without lots of side-issues is appreciated.

Thanks Notsri,

noah