20. Redundancy Factor
Of the Genesis account of Rachel's birthing of Benjamin and her subsequent
death, it has been seemingly editorially clarified that Ephrath spoken of
by Jacob in recounting the event when later transcribed from the first book
of Moses was of that later date, perhaps as a part of the Babylonian
captivity compilation of the book as to the 'fact' that 'Ephrath was the
same as Bethlehem' (Genesis 35:19). But the real facts of the matter seem
but to effectively substaniate though the otherwise redundancy of language
and the referring to both Bethlehem and Ephrath, that while they were
closely associated, they were in fact of separately and distinctly separate.
There is a certain redundancy of language, which seems quite inappropriate in
referring to Ephrath, Ephrathite, Bethlehem, and Bethlehemite if they are but
the 'same'. If I was to say that I was an Ogdenite of Ogden that would
basically be saying the same thing twice.
When an English will of the age of the King James translation states that a
person is 'of' a place, it means that is where they were born. I have several
wills of my ancestors and even though the will is in a differing parish or
place, when it states that a person was of 'Altarnun' in the opening lines of
the will, it meant that they were originally from or born in Altarnun. After
all we are dealing with an English translation of the contents when looking
at the King James version. Thus when the King James version states that a
certain person was an Ephrathite of Bethlehem, if Ephrathite
means being born in Ephrath and Ephrath is the same as Bethlehem, it is the
same as saying that person is of Bethlehem of
Bethlehem in an English context. And that is repeated over
and over in relation to the family of David and no where else in the Bible.
I will present each of the instances.
"And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and
the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of
Beth-lehem-judah. And they came into the country of Moab, and
continued there." ~ Ruth 1:2
Now if Ephrath and Bethlehem are the same, one might as well say a Bethlemite
of Bethlehem. But since the term means one who was native born of Bethlehem,
it would be like redundantly stating 'one native/born of Bethlehem of
Bethlehem.' And the same redundancy would would be found in 'Ephrathites of
Ephrath.' And if Bethlehem and Ephrath are but the same, then that redundancy
still exists in stating 'Ephrathites of Bethlehem' or 'Bethlehemites born
of Ephrath. But they are not the same and there is no such reduncancy. And
yet, it should be pointed out that often because of this redundancy caused if the term
Ephrathite is interpreted as being an inhabitant of Bethlehem, some have
concluded that Ephrathite does refer to 'clan' memebership rather than
being residence of Bethlehem. Otherwise, Elimelech's family is
of Bethlehem of Bethlehem, according to
what has been the most common considered
translations of Ehprathite in relation to the family of Elimelech and the
house of David. Again it must be stressed that in all other uses of the
word Ephrathite other than in conjuction with the house of David, the word
means belonging to the tribe or 'clan' of Ephraim. And I would suggest, as
suggested in the Book of Jasher 81, that they are a part of the house of
Joshua the son of Nun the Ephrathite therein stated as such.
"¶ Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of
Beth-lehem-judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons:
and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul." ~ 1
Samuel 17:12
Again the redundancy occurs if Ephrathite means being of Bethlehem. Yet it
is of interest that if Ephrathite is a 'clan' and a 'clan' is but a 'tribal'
distinction, then what is really being set out here is that Jesse is of the
same tribal 'clan' as was Elimelech and Mahlon. This is entirely consistant
with the fact that Boaz did but perform the surrogate parenting of raiseing
up seed unto the dead, the house of Mahlon and Elimelech, Ephrathites. This
is the much more logical interpretation and conclusion upon the matter. That
is calling Jesse, the son of Obed, an Ephrathite, has refence back to that
'clan' from which Obed legally springs. And that is the seed of Mahlon the
first husband of Ruth who was also called an Ephrathite. This removes the
aukward and improper redunancy of saying of Bethlehem
of Bethlehem.
It seems significant at this point to set out that in the previous chapter 16
nad in the same chapter 17 of 1 Samuel where the 'redundancy' seems to
appear under the one forced interpretation, that other such reference to
jesse are not so incumbered. In fact rather than say what would amount to
of Bethelem of Bethelem, the use of the
single word 'Bethlehemite' is used.
Thus the reduncancy cannot simplely be attributed to the composer of the
text. It has to be considered a forced statement beyond merely stating that
Jesse was of Bethlehem.
"And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I
have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and
go, I will send thee to Jesse the
Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons."
1 Samuel 16:1
"Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of
Jesse the Bethlehemite, that
is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a
man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely
person, and the LORD is with him." ~ 1 Samuel 16:18
"And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David
answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse
the Bethlehemite." ~ 1 Samuel 17:58
With the three (1 Samuel 16:1, 18; 17:58) surrounding verse references to
Jesse all stating Jesse the Behtlehemite,
there is absolutely no logical reason to redundantly state
Jesse of Bethlehem of Bethlehem in 1 Samuel 17:12. The
only logical consideration is to accept that more information is being
conveyed in the statement of Jesse the Ephrathite of
Bethlehem than just to repeat redundantly twice that Jesse is
of Bethlehem. The only truly logical conclusion is that Ephrathite means
something other than being an inhabitant of Bethlehem. And as previously
set out, all other references, both Biblical and otherwise, to the word
Ephrathite would mean that of being of the clan or family of Ephraimite
descent, that is being of the house and tribe of Ephraim.
With this previous logical deduction and conclusion, one can come to
understand that when 1 Samuel 17:12 states that Jesse is an
Ephrathite of Bethlehem, it is
reporting that he is of the tribal clan of Ephrathites or Ephraimites
inhabiting Behtlehem, the site of Rachel their ancestor's burial. And this
is what it must also be taken to mean in terms of Elimelech and Mahlon as
stated in Ruth 1:2. They are all of the tribe of Ephraim. That same tribe
or clan as was Joshua the son of Nun the Ephrathite. This would make the
word mean but one consistent meaning and solve all the problems of
redundancy which the other 'popular' consideration does casue to exist.
The Form of Usage
Before we leave the 'Redundancy Factor', there is one more matter to consider
and review. And that is the form of usage or context of usage of each of
the 5 Old Testament occurances of the word Ephrathite. In all but the first
usage of 'Ephrathite', the form and context of usage of the word is the same.
And the first such usage is so clearly meaning Ephraimite, that it seems of
no value to compare it here. But the other four forms and contexts of usage
are virtually idententical and seem worth comparing and commenting upon.
First each of the four identical forms of usage will be set forth from their
scriptural references.
" . . . Elimelech . . . Naomi . . . Mahlon and Chilion,
Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah . . . "
~ Ruth 1:2
" . . . Elkanah . . . an Ephraphite . . . of
Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim . . ." ~ 1 Samuel 1:1
" . . . Jesse . . . that Ephrathite of
Bethlehemjudah . . . " ~ 1 Samuel 17:12
" . . . Jaroboam . . . an Ephrathite of
Zereda . . . "
~ 1 Kings 11:26
With the understandable sentence order rearangement placing each usage into
a comparable state, the form of usage is exactly the same in all four cases.
Each states a person or group of persons, itentifies them as being Ephrathite,
and then states of what land of original habitation they are. Stated in
summary form, the common contextual usage in all cases is
'so and so' an Ephrathite (or Ephrathites) 'of such and such a place'
. In the case of Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon and Chilion, we have
them being identified as being Ephrathites of the land of Bethlehemjudah as
opposed to Bethlehem-Rueben. In the case of Elkanah, the father of Samuel, we
have him being identified as being 'an Ephrathite' of the location of
Ramathaimzophin of mount Ephraim. And though the family of Samuel are Levites
it is of common practice to identify such Levites with the family tribe within
which they so reside, of mount Ephraim. Then we have Jesse the father of
David also being identified as being an Ephrathite like unto his legal and
rightful grandparents of Mahlon, Elimelech and Naomi of the location of
Bethlehemjudah. And finally in that same form of 'person an Ephrathite of
such and such a place', we have Jeroboam idenditified as being an Ephrathite
of the habitation origin of Zereda. In such a contextual comparative form, it
is obvious that the word Ephrathite is not just a redundant restatement
of the location of habitation of the person or persons being so identified as
of the label of being 'Ephrathite'.
Only a contrived selective bias setout to conceal the true meaning of the word
Ephrathite would so manipulate an interpretation which would forcably make
the usage of the common contextual form redundantly mean of
Behtlehem of Bethlehem in two of the caparative cases and not in
the other two basically identical contextual uses. Such subjectively biased
interpretation should be obviously inconsistent to any truely objective
obverver of the matter.
Thus Ephrathite does not mean being an inhabitant of Behtlehem. It means
something else. And the only consistent meaning otherwise straight forwardly
established by the scriptures themselves, is that
Ephrathite means the same as Ephraimite
in all cases of the usage of the word in the Old Testament and
even in other informed outside usages of the word such as exhibitied by the
creator(s) of the independent Book of Jasher.
Now further in consideration of the usage of the word 'Ephrathite' in the
Book of Jasher, chapter 81 verse 54. There seems to be an 'implied' location
which could be added in to make that verse report the birth place of original
citizenry of Nun which would confirm further the true meaning of being an
Ephrathite. In the case of Nun, it would have been stated that Nun was an
'Ephrathite of Egypt'. Clearly Nun was not a citizen of Ephrath, having never
set foot in the place. And just as clearly Ephrathite meant that Nun, as well
as his son Joshua where 'Ephraimites' because they could not have been born
or citizens of Ephrath (Bethlehem). Both Nun's and Josphua's land of birth
was Egypt, not Ephrath, thus the term Ephrathite denotes the 'clan' or
tribal linage and nothing else, as is the consistent case in all other uses
of the word Ephrathite.