Does "are" mean "are not"?

[Shaul]

In Micah 5:2 its says "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days."

In Matthew 2:6 it says "And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel." Note that it says "by no means". In other words in no sense or manner whatsoever.

So in Micah it says Bethlehem is too little. But in Matthew it says Bethlehem is not. The TaNaKh says "are", the Christian "New Testament" says "are not". Matthew is flatly misquoting Micah and saying it says the opposite of what it actually says. Therefore the Christian "New Testament" directly contradicts the TaNaKh and can be rejected as in error on that basis.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In Micah 5:2 its says "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days."

Micah 5:1 from Sefaria

וְאַתָּ֞ה בֵּֽית־לֶ֣חֶם אֶפְרָ֗תָה צָעִיר֙ לִֽהְיוֹת֙ בְּאַלְפֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֔ה מִמְּךָ֙ לִ֣י יֵצֵ֔א לִֽהְי֥וֹת מוֹשֵׁ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּמוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃

And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath,​

Least among the clans of Judah,​

From you one shall come forth​

To rule Israel for Me—​

One whose origin is from of old,​

From ancient times.​

From Robert Alter ...

And you, Bethlehem or Ephrath,​

the least of Judah's clans.​

from you shall come forth for Me​

to be a ruler of Israel​

whose origins are from ancient times,​

from days of yore.​

So, it's 5:1, not 5:2, and there is no "who are too little to be ...," but, otherwise, great post.

 

[Shaul]

Micah 5:1 from Sefaria

וְאַתָּ֞ה בֵּֽית־לֶ֣חֶם אֶפְרָ֗תָה צָעִיר֙ לִֽהְיוֹת֙ בְּאַלְפֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֔ה מִמְּךָ֙ לִ֣י יֵצֵ֔א לִֽהְי֥וֹת מוֹשֵׁ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּמוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃

And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath,​

Least among the clans of Judah,​

From you one shall come forth​

To rule Israel for Me—​

One whose origin is from of old,​

From ancient times.​

From Robert Alter ...

And you, Bethlehem or Ephrath,​

the least of Judah's clans.​

from you shall come forth for Me​

to be a ruler of Israel​

whose origins are from ancient times,​

from days of yore.​

So, it's 5:1, not 5:2, and there is no "who are too little to be ...," but, otherwise, great post.

The discrepancy between 5:1 and 5:2 is a due to Christian and Jewish sources using different numbering. "There is a difference in verse numbering between English Bibles and Hebrew texts, with Micah 4:14 in Hebrew texts being Micah 5:1 in English Bibles, and the Hebrew 5:1 etc. being numbered 5:2 etc. in English Bibles." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Micah#:~:text=There is a difference in,2 etc. in English Bibles. I referenced the Christian numbering for ease of the larger number of RF audience being familiar with that one.

Likewise I used a Christian translation of Micah for similar reasons.

 

[jimb]

From the excellent NET translation...

Micah 5:2 (or 5:1, depending on the versification) "As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
seemingly insignificant [literally "being small"] among the clans of Judah—
from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf,
one whose origins are in the distant past."

Matthew 2:6,
'‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are in no way least among the rulers of Judah,
for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

There is no contradiction here. "... seemingly insignificant among the clans" implies an error in judgement. Matthew says it differently: "are in no way least among the rulers of Judah".

The first is from the Hebrew, the second is from the Septuagint

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The discrepancy between 5:1 and 5:2 is a due to Christian and Jewish sources using different numbering.

OK.

Likewise I used a Christian translation of Micah for similar reasons.

May I ask which translations you chose and why?

 

[Shaul]

From the excellent NET translation...

Micah 5:2 (or 5:1, depending on the versification) "As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
seemingly insignificant [literally "being small"] among the clans of Judah—
from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf,
one whose origins are in the distant past."

Matthew 2:6,
'‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are in no way least among the rulers of Judah,
for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

There is no contradiction here. "... seemingly insignificant among the clans" implies an error in judgement. Matthew says it differently: "are in no way least among the rulers of Judah".

The first is from the Hebrew, the second is from the Septuagint

I find the NET translation you quote to not be excellent at all. Indeed it is awful. The Hebrew text reads,

וְאַתָּה בֵּית-לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָהi

The Hebrew word "צָעִיר" which your NET translates as "seemingly insignificant" does not contain the "seemingly". It simply means young(est), smallest or littlest. Sin ce it doesn't contain the inference it adds (we do not add to the words of TaNaKh nor take them away) we can reject this translation. The rest of your position fails on that.

There is no evidence that the author of the gospel according to Matthew was relying on the Greek Septuagint. Furthermore the Greek Septuagint sources have Micah saying Bethlehem is the "צָעִיר" of the clans of Judah. The author of Matthew simply misquotes Micah.

 

[jimb]

I find the NET translation you quote to not be excellent at all. Indeed it is awful. The Hebrew text reads,

The Hebrew word "צָעִיר" which your NET translates as "seemingly insignificant" does not contain the "seemingly". It simply means young(est), smallest or littlest. Sin ce it doesn't contain the inference it adds (we do not add to the words of TaNaKh nor take them away) we can reject this translation. The rest of your position fails on that.

There is no evidence that the author of the gospel according to Matthew was relying on the Greek Septuagint. Furthermore the Greek Septuagint sources have Micah saying Bethlehem is the "צָעִיר" of the clans of Judah. The author of Matthew simply misquotes Micah.

It is irrelevant that you think the (excellent) NET is awful.

Why should I or anyone accept your personal opinion over that of a committee of qualified scholars? Clearly you have no understanding of the principles of Bible translation.

Especially when you make a truly absurd statement such as "The author of Matthew simply misquotes Micah".

BTW, when you refer to "we" do you suffer from multiple personalities?

 

[Shaul]

May I ask which translations you chose and why?

For the translations I quoted the English Standard Version for no particular reason. It is in harmony with the consensus of translations as can be seen here,
Micah 5:2 - A Ruler from Bethlehem
Matthew 2:6 - The Pilgrimage of the Magi
The Hebrew and Greek original texts support my post, so the translation is non-issue.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no evidence that the author of the gospel according to Matthew was relying on the Greek Septuagint. Furthermore the Greek Septuagint sources have Micah saying Bethlehem is the "צָעִיר" of the clans of Judah. The author of Matthew simply misquotes Micah.

Stop the disingenuous dance and tell us which translations you've chose and why.

 

[Ebionite]

Matthew is flatly misquoting Micah and saying it says the opposite of what it actually says.

It's not saying the opposite because Matthew agrees with Micah that a ruler will come forth from Bethlehem.

Bethlehem = bet lechem = house of bread.

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6:33-35

"Star of Bethelem"

I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.
Numbers 24:17

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For the translations I quoted the English Standard Version for no particular reason.

That pretty much characterizes your polemic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Bethlehem = bet lechem = house of bread.

You try so hard.

 

[Ebionite]

You try so hard.

You fail so badly.

 

[Shaul]

It is irrelevant that you think the (excellent) NET is awful.

Why should I or anyone accept your personal opinion over that of a committee of qualified scholars? Clearly you have no understanding of the principles of Bible translation.

Especially when you make a truly absurd statement such as "The author of Matthew simply misquotes Micah".

BTW, when you refer to "we" do you suffer from multiple personalities?

It isn't a matter of an opinion of translations. My arguments are based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts, not any translation.
Micah reads,

וְאַתָּה בֵּית-לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה

It clearly states what Bethlehem is unambiguously.

 

[jimb]

It isn't a matter of an opinion of translations. My arguments are based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts, not any translation.
Micah reads,

It clearly states what Bethlehem is unambiguously.

You're joking!

There are no "original Hebrew and Greek" texts; there are only copies and they differ, sometimes significantly. Unlike yourself, serious scholars consider the available texts and how to translate them into English while best retaining the meaning.

Unless I'm mistaken, you are simply an amateur. You think more highly of yourself than you ought.

 

[Shaul]

You're joking!

There are no "original Hebrew and Greek" texts; there are only copies and they differ, sometimes significantly. Unlike yourself, serious scholars consider the available texts and how to translate them into English while best retaining the meaning.

Unless I'm mistaken, you are simply an amateur. You think more highly of yourself than you ought.

Now you are just being sophistic. Yes there are original texts. The original Hebrew and Greek refer to the original content, not an original copy. We do have the original content as faithfully transmitted and passed down to us. The content is independent of a specific copy. It is scripture. Which by definition means it is Holy Writ and faithful in its original languages. Those languages are Hebrew and, for those that accept the Christian "New Testament", Koine Greek. All translations are inferior to the original language versions. It is upon the original language version that my post rely.

It would also be refreshing if you ceased with the useless ad hominem attacks. They are futile, boring, and sophomoric.

 

[Shaul]

Stop the disingenuous dance and tell us which translations you've chose and why.

Golly! I wasn't delaying in answering your request asking which translation I used. I was simply answering other replies to me first. As you probably already know I have replied to your earlier request. Have more patience. Maybe switch to decaf.

 

[jimb]

Now you are just being sophistic. Yes there are original texts. The original Hebrew and Greek refer to the original content, not an original copy. We do have the original content as faithfully transmitted and passed down to us. The content is independent of a specific copy. It is scripture. Which by definition means it is Holy Writ and faithful in its original languages. Those languages are Hebrew and, for those that accept the Christian "New Testament", Koine Greek. All translations are inferior to the original language versions. It is upon the original language version that my post rely.

It would also be refreshing if you ceased with the useless ad hominem attacks. They are futile, boring, and sophomoric.

Seriously??? You're joking! THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL TEXTS! THERE ARE ONLY COPIES. MANY OF THEM PARTIAL. The content has been transmitted by (flawed) human beings who a) made copying errors and b) sometimes deliberately altered the text. "Faithful in its original languages" is fantasy!

Clearly you don't understand translation principles. Scholars must decide on, not only the most accurate words, but also the meaning in context, and how the early listeners -- most were illiterate -- understood the message. Then they must choose the best way to clearly transmit that meaning to the target audience. THAT IS WHAT MAKES A GOOD TRANSLATION. (There is a reason that the NET Bible has more than 65,000(!) translator's notes).

Your last paragraph is ABSURD! GROW UP!

 

[blü 2]

In Micah 5:2 its says "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days."

In Matthew 2:6 it says "And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel." Note that it says "by no means". In other words in no sense or manner whatsoever.

So in Micah it says Bethlehem is too little. But in Matthew it says Bethlehem is not. The TaNaKh says "are", the Christian "New Testament" says "are not". Matthew is flatly misquoting Micah and saying it says the opposite of what it actually says. Therefore the Christian "New Testament" directly contradicts the TaNaKh and can be rejected as in error on that basis.

Having no Hebrew, I rely on translations, and the latest version of the RSV ─ the NRSVue or New Revised Standard Version, updated edition ─ is apparently highly regarded by many who might claim to know as the best translation yet in that series of the (Christian) bible into English.

Here, simply as a matter of interest, is their interpretation of Micah 5:2 (with a footnote saying it's 5:1 in Hebrew) ─

2 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.​

Btw, who if anyone is said to have fulfilled this prediction?

 

[Shaul]

Having no Hebrew, I rely on translations, and the latest version of the RSV ─ the NRSVue or New Revised Standard Version, updated edition ─ is apparently highly regarded by many who might claim to know as the best translation yet in that series of the (Christian) bible into English.

Here, simply as a matter of interest, is their interpretation of Micah 5:2 (with a footnote saying it's 5:1 in Hebrew) ─

2 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.​

Btw, who if anyone is said to have fulfilled this prediction?

Which agrees with my OP that what it states is contradicted by Matthew.

Who fulfills Micah 5:2 is a separate issue. One for a separate thread, not this one.