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.

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.

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.

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.

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.