Does "are" mean "are not"?

[Eli G]

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.

Hi Shaul.

In fact, that difference lies in a single Greek word that does not seem to be in the Hebrew text. It is the adverb of negation οὐδαμῶς which means something like "no way".

The fact is that although Matthew adds it with his quote, he seems to do so as a personal statement, like a parenthesis, and not precisely because the text contained it.

It is not really a contradiction, because the city of Bethlehem does not seem to have been a very large or important city in an economic or political sense... but it had still been the city where David was born, whose name is used many times in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to the Messiah. So it seems that by adding that adverb Matthew is saying that it was a small city, but it was still important.

If I were to describe a city that is said to be small but that I consider important, I would most likely make a personal note to indicate what I think... What would you say: was Bethlehem a "little" city?

PS: (This is an edit note) Other aspect is that the quote was written by Matthew, but was supposed to be cited by the priests in Jerusalem. Could there have existed in first-century synagogues a Hebrew text of Micah slightly different from the one that has come down to us?

 

[Shaul]

Hi Shaul.

In fact, that difference lies in a single Greek word that does not seem to be in the Hebrew text. It is the adverb of negation οὐδαμῶς which means something like "no way".

The fact is that although Matthew adds it with his quote, he seems to do so as a personal statement, like a parenthesis, and not precisely because the text contained it.

We are told in Deuteronomy 4:2 to not add to nor delete anything from scripture. I don't find your argument that Matthew was just giving an opinion persuasive at all. This writing is putative divinely inspired, not mere ramblings.

It is not really a contradiction, because the city of Bethlehem does not seem to have been a very large or important city in an economic or political sense... but it had still been the city where David was born, whose name is used many times in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to the Messiah. So it seems that by adding that adverb Matthew is saying that it was a small city, but it was still important.

There is a contradiction. The words in Micah refer to clans, not the city.

If I were to describe a city that is said to be small but that I consider important, I would most likely make a personal note to indicate what I think... What would you say: was Bethlehem a "little" city?

PS: (This is an edit note) Other aspect is that the quote was written by Matthew, but was supposed to be cited by the priests in Jerusalem. Could there have existed in first-century synagogues a Hebrew text of Micah slightly different from the one that has come down to us?

Jewish sources explain why Micah spoke of Bethlehem this way. It is because of the Moabitess Ruth being an ancestor of David. Because ignorant people would mistakenly think that would disqualify her from becoming Jewish per Deuteronomy 23. It doesn't as shown in the context of all of TaNaKh and in the Oral Law. This actually highlights Matthew's lack of knowledge of Hebrew sources. He was trying to "fix" a problem that didn't exist. It also shows that he didn't consider Isaiah 53 relevant to Jesus. Otherwise Matthew would have pointed to Micah as fulfilling the "despised and rejected" part of Isaiah 53.

Face it, Matthew blew it here.