Did Israel's Leader come from Bethlehem?

by Doug Mason 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Doug Mason

  The July 2012 issue of Awake! states that the narratives of Jesus’ birth show that the Bible is “A Book of Accurate Prophecy.”

  The aim of this Study is to find out what the birth narratives do reveal about the nature of the Bible.

  What does investigation of the writings of Micah, Matthew, and Luke reveal about the way that the Bible should be read and applied?

  Does this investigation open the door to a better comprehension of the nature of Scripture?

  My Study is available at:

  http://www.jwstudies.com/Did_Israel_s_ruler_come_from_Bethlehem.pdf

  Doug
• 

  Leolaia

  I have Gundry's discussion on the passage.

  
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hey folks, Doug I appreciate the time it took to compile and summarize all that material. The sum of it all appears to be that the author of Mich 5 was simply reasserting the standard "Return to glory through a Davidic King" anticipation, not making a new prophecy of a location of a King's birth. The verse reads much better when understood as referring to a clan then it does a city. This is not to say there was no village named Bethlehem by the time the author wrote, of course there was, but that the author was not referencing the village but rather the clan of Bethlehem son of Ephratha.

  David was said to be of the tribe or clan of Bethlehem son of Ephratha in 1 Samuel 17:12.

  The author of the Mathean birth narative was, like so many others, trolling the OT and other writings for gems to flesh out the Jesus stories and felt free to use poetic license to make it fit.

  Leolaia, you have a meesage.
• 

  peacefulpete

  There were many variants of the Jesus story in circulation during the first 100 years or so of the birth of Christianity. Aparently the Johannine Christians were unfamiliar with, or disavowed, a Bethlehem birthplace prophecy. John 7:26-27 has the experts on the Prophets assert that noone would know where the Messiah was born or was raised; a bit odd if everyone was anticipating the arrival of the Messaiah from Bethlehem as Matthew 2:4-5 alleges.
• 

  Leolaia

  PP!!! You're sorely missed around these parts. :) Good to see you, thanks for the notice about the PM.
• 

  cofty

  It's also odd that Mark, the oldest synoptic gospel shows no knowledge of Jesus' birth.

  The moment that marks Jesus of Nazareth as special gets gradually pushed further back from the resurrection in Paul to his baptism in Mark to the conception/birth narratives in Matthew & Luke to "the beginning" in John.
• 

  peacefulpete

  The legend building process can be perceived in passages like these. The Nazareth element itself is another example, likely teased from an association with the ancient Jewish Nazarene sect and painfully reshaped fom the Hebrew word nester. Someone from Nazareth would have been called a cognate of Nazarethite not Nazarene. The Nazarenes were basically an antiestablishment sect of Judaism. Ironically, that small detail might represent some small kernal of historicity. Some of the views expressed in the NT might well befit a Nazarene.
• 

  cofty

  Interesting peacefulpete. Matthew's (I think) reference to the Nazerene does seem painfully clumsy.

  Ehrman suggests that the convoluted birth narratives tend to suggest there was a Jesus of history who was likely from Nazareth. If he was invented from "whole cloth" the stories would not be so tortured.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Tim Callahan shares that view but really to me the opposite makes far more sense. The parts I feel they are dismissing is that the word first used, "Nazarene", (Mark 1:24 "Jesus you Nazarene")is not properly referring to a person from Nazareth but rather a sect of Judaism and the very questionable fact of Nazareth even existing as a town that early. I'm of the opinion that Mark 1:9 is an interpolation since both Matt (3:13) and Luke (3:21) do not use Nazareth when using him. Anyway, I understand th logic of historical Jesus researchers on this point but can't find any reason to recommend their conclusion. The reasons for the attribution to Nazareth seem quite simply the misunderstanding or dislike of the word Nazarene in Mark and the need to find OT prophecy. And the fact that "nester"/ "sprout" messianism was huge in many quarters and use of the word, however strained, would be tempting.
• 

  Diest

  It is fun to see posters who started in 2002 with a 4k post count that I havent seen before. Shows how much this site has helped people.