Abstract
Many scholars regard the Bethlehem birth as a non-historical, theologically driven narrative based on Micah 5:2. According to this view, the messiah had to be born in Bethlehem. But this theologoumenon theory at best applies to Matthew, not Luke, who neither quotes nor alludes to Micah 5:2. More importantly, the messianic interpretation of Micah 5:2 derives from Christian texts, not early Jewish ones. There is scarcely any evidence that Jewish exegesis in the 1st century read Micah 5:2 as affirming that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. The five key Jewish texts that make this connection are too late and too tenuous to account for Matthew’s exegesis of Micah 5:2. The New Testament evidence faces the challenge of divining Jewish views from Christian sources. In sum, Matthew appears to be driven to Micah 5:2 rather than driven by it.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
