and by the
authority of the most ancient documents of revelation (compare, besides
Gen. xxxv. 19, Gen. xlviii. 7), in order thereby to impart greater
solemnity to the discourse, and to intimate what great things he had to
say of Bethlehem. In accordance with this designation by two names, is,
then, the circumstance that the address is directed to Bethlehem.--The
word [Hebrew: ceir] forms an apposition to Bethlehem: "little to be,"
instead of, "who art too little to be." If the sense were to be, "thou
art little," the [Hebrew: ath] would not have been omitted after
[Hebrew: ceir]. The circumstance that Bethlehem is addressed as a
masculine (comp. [Hebrew: ath], [Hebrew: ceir], and [Hebrew: mmK]) may
be accounted for by the prophet's viewing the town in the image of its
_ideal_ representative; compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7. In such a case,
the gender may be neglected; compare, _e.g._, Gen. iv. 7, where sin,
[Hebrew: HTat], appears as a masculine noun, on account of the image of
a ravenous beast. Such personifications occur very frequently. Thus,
nothing is more common in the Mosaic law than that Israel is addressed
as one man. This has been frequently misunderstood, and, in
consequence, that which refers to the whole people has been applied to
the single individual. Thus it is even in the Decalogue. In Is. v. 7,
the people of Judah appear as the _man_ Judah.

The _littleness_ of Bethlehem is sufficiently evident from the
circumstance of its being left out in the catalogue of the towns of the
tribe of Judah, in Joshua (compare _Bachiene_, Sec. 192). This induced the
LXX. to insert it in Josh. xv. 60 along with several other towns which
had been omitted; and, in doing so, they were probably guided, not so
much by a regard to its outward [Pg 483] importance, as by the interest
which attached to it from the recollection of an event of former times
(compare Gen. xxxv.), from its being the birth-place of David, and
still more, from the prophecy under consideration, by which the eyes of
the whole nation were directed to this place, outwardly so unimportant.
The assertion of _Jerome_, that the Jews omitted the name in the Hebrew
text, in order that Christ might not appear as a descendant of the
tribe of Judah, has received from _Reland_ (S. 643) a more thorough
refutation than it deserved. _Keil_, in his commentary on Joshua,
has lately renewed the attempt to prove, from internal reasons, the
genuineness of the addition; but, f