Born At Bethelem Or At Jerusalem?

[Bernard Gui]

Here are some of my thought regarding the old chestnut

criticism of the BoM ... Jesus was born in Jerusalem.

If you have any comments or if someone has already

done this, I would appreciate your contribution...

Bernard

The bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

The BOM says Jerusalem.

Actually, the text says

"He shall be born at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers..."

This verse is strong evidence that Joseph Smith translated an ancient

record.

1. The Lehites never referred to their homeland as Israel or Judea.

2. Whenever Lehites referred to their place of origin they called it Jerusalem

or the land of Jerusalem. There are over 100 references to their homeland as Jerusalem

or the land of Jerusalem. This usage is consistent throughout the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 1:4 "Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days..."

1 Nephi 10:4 "...600 years from the time that my father left Jerusalem..."

2 Nephi 5:28 "30 years had passed away from the time we left Jerusalem..."

Jacob 7:26 "We being...wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem"

Omni 1:15 "the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem..."

Mosiah 1:6 "From the time that they left Jerusalem until now..."

Alma 3:11 "...those records [the brass plates] which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem..."

3 Nephi 4:11 "...there never was known so great a slaughter among all the people of Lehi since he let Jerusalem.

3 Nephi 16:1 "...I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem..."

Mormon 3:18 "I write...unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged...by the twelve whom Jesus chose...in the land of Jerusalem"

3. When referring to Israel, Judea or the area around Jerusalem, the Book of Mormon

writers always refer to it as "the land of Jerusalem."

4. The only Lehite references to any city or town in their homeland other

than Jerusalem are made by Nephi, who was familiar with it because

he lived there.

1 Nephi 10:9 "He should baptize in Bethabary beyond Jordan..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02532a.htm

1 Nephi 11:13 "and I beheld the city of Nazareth...and I beheld a virgin..."

Given the above, it would have been incongruous for Alma to name the

birthplace of the Savior anything other than "at Jerusalem which is the

land of our forefathers." This would be the only location that would be

meaningful to the Lehites 500 years after they left their homeland.

To call the birthplace Bethlehem would have had no meaning to them.

The only way they would have recognized it would be if they had kept

track of the geography of their homeland, and the evidence says they

did not. It would be like me telling my children that their great-grandfather

came to America from Gawłuszowice or Żuławka Sztumska.

Often, when people ask me where I live I will say Seattle because

few people have heard of the little berg in which I live. It saves time

having to explain that it is near Seattle. Also, my grandfather was

born in Poland. Family lore says he was born in Warsaw, but indications

are that he was born in a village outside of Warsaw whose name no

one except Poles can pronounce. Again, for convenience.

It is wholly consistent with common sense that a people moving to

a distant land would rapidly loose geographic ties with their homeland and

thereafter refer to it by a generic name.

Had Joseph Smith invented the Book of Mormon he would have called

the birthplace of Jesus Bethelem, and all of the above could be used

as an argument against him. Instead, it is a strong witness for him.

In the case of "the land of Jerusalem" the internal evidence of the Book of

Mormon is overwhelmingly in favor of Joseph Smith as translator of an

ancient record.

Bernard

[Log]

What would be even more interesting is to find other Israelites ca. 600 BC referring to the land of Israel as Jerusalem. Any of our resident scholars know anything about this?

[cjcampbell]

What would be even more interesting is to find other Israelites ca. 600 BC referring to the land of Israel as Jerusalem. Any of our resident scholars know anything about this?

It would be interesting to find anything written by other Israelites ca. 600 BC.

[Billy]

Had Joseph Smith invented the Book of Mormon he would have called

the birthplace of Jesus Bethelem, and all of the above could be used

as an argument against him. Instead, it is a strong witness for him.

I wouldn't say that it is a strong witness for him. I think that he just made a mistake.

Matthew 2

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

Clearly a distinction is made between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, as noted in the first verse where the wise men first came to find out the birthplace of the King of Jews. Herod then called the chief priests together to find out where Christ was to be born, and he was told Bethlehem. The reason that the chief priests knew Christ was to be born in Bethlehem is that it was an OT prophecy, namely Micah 5:2 (quoted below). To say he was to be born in Jerusalem is incorrect, and goes against fulfilled Biblical prophecy.

Micah 5:2 2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

[urroner]

Billy, the scriptures you quoted were written how many years after Nephi left Jerusalem?

[cksalmon]

Here are some of my thought regarding the old chestnut

criticism of the BoM ... Jesus was born in Jerusalem.

If you have any comments or if someone has already

done this, I would appreciate your contribution...

Bernard

The bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

The BOM says Jerusalem.

Actually, the text says

"He shall be born at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers..."

This verse is strong evidence that Joseph Smith translated an ancient

record.

1. The Lehites never referred to their homeland as Israel or Judea.

2. Whenever Lehites referred to their place of origin they called it Jerusalem

or the land of Jerusalem. There are over 100 references to their homeland as Jerusalem

or the land of Jerusalem. This usage is consistent throughout the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 1:4 "Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days..."

1 Nephi 10:4 "...600 years from the time that my father left Jerusalem..."

2 Nephi 5:28 "30 years had passed away from the time we left Jerusalem..."

Jacob 7:26 "We being...wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem"

Omni 1:15 "the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem..."

Mosiah 1:6 "From the time that they left Jerusalem until now..."

Alma 3:11 "...those records [the brass plates] which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem..."

3 Nephi 4:11 "...there never was known so great a slaughter among all the people of Lehi since he let Jerusalem.

3 Nephi 16:1 "...I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem..."

Mormon 3:18 "I write...unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged...by the twelve whom Jesus chose...in the land of Jerusalem"

3. When referring to Israel, Judea or the area around Jerusalem, the Book of Mormon

writers always refer to it as "the land of Jerusalem."

4. The only Lehite references to any city or town in their homeland other

than Jerusalem are made by Nephi, who was familiar with it because

he lived there.

1 Nephi 10:9 "He should baptize in Bethabary beyond Jordan..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02532a.htm

1 Nephi 11:13 "and I beheld the city of Nazareth...and I beheld a virgin..."

Given the above, it would have been incongruous for Alma to name the

birthplace of the Savior anything other than "at Jerusalem which is the

land of our forefathers." This would be the only location that would be

meaningful to the Lehites 500 years after they left their homeland.

To call the birthplace Bethlehem would have had no meaning to them.

The only way they would have recognized it would be if they had kept

track of the geography of their homeland, and the evidence says they

did not. It would be like me telling my children that their great-grandfather

came to America from Gawłuszowice or Żuławka Sztumska.

Often, when people ask me where I live I will say Seattle because

few people have heard of the little berg in which I live. It saves time

having to explain that it is near Seattle. Also, my grandfather was

born in Poland. Family lore says he was born in Warsaw, but indications

are that he was born in a village outside of Warsaw whose name no

one except Poles can pronounce. Again, for convenience.

It is wholly consistent with common sense that a people moving to

a distant land would rapidly loose geographic ties with their homeland and

thereafter refer to it by a generic name.

Had Joseph Smith invented the Book of Mormon he would have called

the birthplace of Jesus Bethelem, and all of the above could be used

as an argument against him. Instead, it is a strong witness for him.

In the case of "the land of Jerusalem" the internal evidence of the Book of

Mormon is overwhelmingly in favor of Joseph Smith as translator of an

ancient record.

Bernard

I don't have much of an opinion on this issue either way (I'm much more interested in LDS theology than BoM historicity), but you're arguing here in support of BoM's antiquity by appealing to BoM (as an ancient text).

It's circular.

[cdowis]

It would be extremely interesting to look in the dictionary for the word "at".

PS, it does not mean "in".

[urroner]

I don't have much of an opinion on this issue either way (I'm much more interested in LDS theology than BoM historicity), but you're arguing here in support of BoM's antiquity by appealing to BoM (as an ancient text).

It's circular.

Kind of like arguing that the Bible is the word of God and using the Bible to prove that. Good catch there CKS.

[jadams_4242]

It would be extremely interesting to look in the dictionary for the word "at".

PS, it does not mean "in".

Facts are facts, bernard is correct; and there is no legitamate arguement hear against the b.o.m.

[Billy]

Billy, the scriptures you quoted were written how many years after Nephi left Jerusalem?

Book of Micah written 742-687 BC

Book of Isaiah written 700-681 BC (added Isaiah because extensively quoted in B of M and written around the same time as Micah)

Nephi left Jerusalem 600 BC

"Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Greek in the third century BC" 'Wikipedia

But Joseph's translation of the Golden Plates was direct revelation, not really a translation, so any errors in the Golden Plates could of been corrected at that point.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,16485

[urroner]

Book of Micah written 742-687 BC

Book of Isaiah written 700-681 BC (added Isaiah because extensively quoted in B of M and written around the same time as Micah)

Nephi left Jerusalem 600 BC

"Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Greek in the third century BC" 'Wikipedia

But Joseph's translation of the Golden Plates was direct revelation, not really a translation, so any errors in the Golden Plates could of been corrected at that point.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,16485

WHen I saw Micah, I thought it said Malachi, but Matthew was still written years afterwards and which version of the OT did Matthew quote from?

[cksalmon]

Kind of like arguing that the Bible is the word of God and using the Bible to prove that. Good catch there CKS.

I haven't done that here, I don't think. And, I believe it would more properly be termed evidence, rather than proof.

But, you're right, circular arguments are unavoidable at a certain level.

My point is that Bernard is using as evidence that BoM is ancient citations from BoM. The issue in this thread, I believe, is not the veracity of certain scriptures, but their antiquity.

Whether or not the "Bible" is true, it is obviously ancient. So, I think the analogy fails at that point.

Chris

[Billy]

WHen I saw Micah, I thought it said Malachi, but Matthew was still written years afterwards and which version of the OT did Matthew quote from?

"Sources of Old Testament Quotations Since the New Testament was written in Greek for predominantly Greek readers, it is not surprising that a large majority of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are drawn from the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). Of Paul's 93 quotes, 51 are in absolute or virtual agreement with the LXX, while only 4 agree with the Hebrew text. This means that 38 diverge from all known Greek or Hebrew Old Testament texts. Of Matthew's 43 quotes, 11 agree with the LXX, while the other 32 differ from all known sources. How then are these quotes to be explained? The New Testament writers may have used a version of the Old Testament which is unknown to us, or they may have been quoting from memory. It is also possible that the New Testament writers were more concerned with meaning and interpretation. It has also been suggested that the Old Testament quotations may have been drawn from â??testimony books,â? collections of selected, combined, and interpreted Old Testament texts gathered by the early Christian community for proclamation and apologetics."

1. We know that Nephi had access to Isaiah because of the extensive quotes in the B of M, especially 2 Nephi. Because Micah and Isaiah were written roughly the same time, Nephi should of had access to both Micah and Isaiah. Nephi went back to get the Plates of Brass which includes records that contain history down to the reign of Zedekiah, which is after the time of Micah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laban_(Book_of_Mormon)

"The content of the brass plates

Lehi determined that the plates contained:

The Five Books of Moses (the Jewish Torah);[11]

A history of the Jewish people, down to the reign of [then current] King Zedekiah;[12]

The prophecies of the Israelite prophets down to Jeremiah, seen in the Book of Mormon as a contemporary of Lehi;[13] and

A genealogy of Lehi's own ancestors, revealing him to be a descendant of Joseph, son of the patriarch Jacob.[14]

After reading the contents of the brass plates, Lehi prophesied that they would "never be dimmed any more by time,"[15] and that they would ultimately "go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his seed."[16]"

". . .the reign of Zedekiah to 597-587 BC E" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zedekiah (reigns at the time and after the time that they recieve the plates that contain his reign?)

2. A separate point that I don't think that has been brought up thus far, Alma in verse 9 receives revelation from the spirit and the revelation appears to continue into at least verse 10. If this is direct revelation, don't you think that the spirit would give Alma the correct city?

Alma 7

9 But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me, saying: Cry unto this people, sayingâ??aRepent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God bcometh upon the face of the earth.

10 And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the cland of our forefathers, she being a dvirgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

[Lachoneus]

If this is direct revelation, don't you think that the spirit would give Alma the correct city?

Alma 7

9 But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me, saying: Cry unto this people, sayingâ??Repent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth.

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

If he were speaking of a city.

[JAHS]

Refering to Bethlehem as the land of Jerusalem would have been consistant with how locations of cities were identified in the Book of Mormon. Many times smaller cities were identified as being within the land of another major city:

"And it came to pass that Amalickiah marched with his armies to the land of Nephi, to the city of Nephi, which was the chief city."(Alma 47:20)

Here the armies marched to the city of Nephi which was the chief city within the Land of Nephi.

"And it came to pass that Moroni had thus gained a victory over one of the greatest of the armies of the Lamanites, and had obtained possession of the city of Mulek, which was one of the strongest holds of the Lamanites in the land of Nephi; and thus he had also built a stronghold to retain his prisoners.(Alma 53:6)

Here it talks about the city of Mulek being in the Land of Nephi.

This also happens within the Bible where it says, for example, that "king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee." (1 Kings 9:11,26, See also Gen 33:18, 2 Kings 23:33, 1 Chron. 2:22, 6:55)

Some time ago the so-called Amarna letters were found and in them is a reference to a place that W. F. Albright, probably the greatest American archaeologist of the twentieth century, has identified as Bethlehem. And it's referred to as being in the land of Jerusalem. So here's a reference to Bethlehem as being in the land of Jerusalem, just as the Book of Mormon describes it. (Walter Harrelson, "Shechem in Extra- Biblical References," The Biblical Archaeologist 20 (1957): 4, 6-7)

[Bernard Gui]

I wouldn't say that it is a strong witness for him. I think that he just made a mistake.

Micah 5:2 2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

You've missed the whole point.

Bernard

[Kate]

I remember reading something about this that made sense, so I did a search. Perhaps this will enlighten some of you.

Source: F.A.R.M.S. Update No. 93, March 1994

Note: The following brief passage of text is quoted from the March 1994 F.A.R.M.S. Update, Number 93, by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, P.O. Box 7113, University Station, Provo, Utah 84602 (phone: 1-800-327-6715). This reproduction is in accordance with the fair use statement published by F.A.R.M.S. The notes at the end have been added by Jeff Lindsay for completeness. And be sure to read the Feb. 2001 update at the end, offering even more support from the Dead Sea Scrolls - support which greatly adds to the "sense of historicity" of the Book of Mormon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisiting the Land of Jerusalem

via the Dead Sea Scrolls

For over 160 years, beginning at least with the 1833 publication of Alexander Campbell's Delusions, countless critics have claimed that the Book of Mormon's use of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" was a major error and proof that the Book of Mormon was false. They especially criticized the use of this phrase in reference to the place where Christ would be born. That phrase was not used in the Bible nor in the Apocrypha. Therefore, the critics concluded, it was an example of Joseph Smith's ignorance and evidence that he had tried to perpetrate a fraud. (For a thorough overview of this argument, see the essay by Daniel Peterson in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:62-78.)

For anyone honestly concerned with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, there was little to argue about after Hugh Nibley showed in 1957 that one of the Amarna letters, written in the 13th century B.C. and discovered in 1887, recounted the capture of "a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib" (CWHN 6:101 [Note from J.L.: CWHN = The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. Volume 6 is An Approach to the Book of Mormon]). Predictably, this evidence, along with further evidence of the general usage of this type of terminology in the Old World (see John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 170-72) has been ignored by critics of the Book of Mormon.

Now from the Dead Sea Scrolls comes an even more specific occurrence of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" that gives insight into its usage and meaning - in a text that indirectly links the phrase to the Jerusalem of Lehi's time.

Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993), discuss one document that they have provisionally named "Pseudo-Jeremiah" (scroll 4Q385). The beginning of the damaged text reads as follows:

...Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord

[...w]ho were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem [Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2] (p. 58).

In their discussion of this text, Eisenmann and Wise elaborate on the significance of the phrase "land of Jerusalem," which they see as an equivalent for Judah (Yehud):

"Another interesting reference is to the 'land of Jerusalem' in Line 2 of Fragment 1. This greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs." (p. 57)

Based on the evidence from Qumran, and in the words of Eisenmann and Wise, we can conclude that consistent usage of such language among a people of Israel who fled Jerusalem at the time of Jeremiah also "greatly enhances the sense of historicity" of the Book of Mormon.

Critics of the Book of Mormon will not likely give up this argument, despite the evidence. This is not surprising, after all, because the part of their argument that the phrase was not known in Joseph Smith's day was correct. Virtually all opponents of the Book of Mormon have to assume, a priori, that the text is a purely human 19th-century document in order to justify their rejection of the text. In the case of "land of Jerusalem," since the phrase could not be explained as being part of Joseph's learning environment and since it was not known in biblical literature, they incorrectly concluded that Joseph must have been wrong. Trying to prove a negative, they argued from silence and puffed this supposed error into what they believed was one of their highest polemical mountains of evidence against the Book of Mormon.

The phrase was not current in Joseph's day, but, unknown to him, it was an accurate usage for the day in which he claimed the book was written. Thus, despite the critics' best efforts, Joseph's supposed "error" becomes one more evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

Based on research by Gordon C. Thomasson.

[Bernard Gui]

It would be interesting to find anything written by other Israelites ca. 600 BC.

Is anyone aware of quotes from Micah in the BoM?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

It would be extremely interesting to look in the dictionary for the word "at".

PS, it does not mean "in".

I always like to look in my old favorite 1828 Websters, but it requires at

least 3 letters in a word.

Bernard

[Kate]

Daniel Peterson also wrote a paper about it. You can find it on the FARMS site. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=37

~Kate

[Calm]

If this is direct revelation, don't you think that the spirit would give Alma the correct city?

And if the city was unknown to the Nephites, what good would knowing the correct name do for Alma and those he taught? However, from the scriptures there appears that there was at least an awareness of Jerusalem as the place of their origin and this would make sense to them as a reference point.

[Calm]

I always like to look in my old favorite 1828 Websters, but it requires at

least 3 letters in a word.

Bernard

Not if you use the browser: http://1828.mshaffer.com/ (click on the letter you want to browse in the line of letters below the preface quote, in this case "A")

at:

at

AT, prep. [L. ad. At, ad and to, if not radically the same word often coincide in signification; Heb to come, to a approach. Hence it primarily denotes presence, meeting, nearness, direction towards.]

In general, at denotes nearness, or presents; as at the ninth hour, at the house; but it is less definite than in or on; at the house, may be in or near the house. It denotes also towards, versus; as, to aim an arrow at a mark.From this original import are derived all the various uses of at. At the sight, is with, present, or coming the sight; at this news, present the news, on or with the approach or arrival of this news. At peace, at war, in a state of peace or war, peace or war, in a state of peace or war, peace or war existing, being present; at ease, at play, at a loss, &c. convey the like idea. At arms, furnished with arms, bearing arms present with arms; at hand, within reach of the hand, and therefore near; at my cost, with my cost; at his suit, by or with his suit; at this declaration, he rose from his seat, that is present, or coming this declaration; whence results the idea in consequence of it. At his command, is either under his command, that is, literally, coming or being come his command, in the power of, or in consequence of it. He is good at engraving, at husbandry; that is, in performing that business. He deserves well at our hands; that is, from us. The peculiar phrases in which this word occurs, with appropriate significations, are numerous. At first, at last, at least, at best, at the worst, at the highest or lowest, are phrases in which some noun is implied; as, at the first time or beginning; at the last time, or point of time; at the least or best degree, &c.; all denoting an extreme point or superlative degree. At all, is in any manner or degree.At is sometimes used for to, or towards, noting progression or direction; as, he aims at perfection; he makes or runs at him, or points at him. In this phrase, he longs to be at him, at has its general sense of approaching, or present, or with, in contest or attack.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/at

[Calm]

Is anyone aware of quotes from Micah in the BoM?

Bernard

Micah 5:8 at least: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/micah/5/8a

[Billy]

And if the city was unknown to the Nephites, what good would knowing the correct name do for Alma and those he taught? However, from the scriptures there appears that there was at least an awareness of Jerusalem as the place of their origin and this would make sense to them as a reference point.

I can see your point.

However, it was noted in the OP that other cities were mentioned in the B of M, these also were probably unknown to the Nephites, but these were not said to occur at Jerusalem. (Although I will note that these cities are further from Jerusalem than Bethlehem).

1 Nephi 10:9 "He should baptize in Bethabary beyond Jordan..."

1 Nephi 11:13 "and I beheld the city of Nazareth...and I beheld a virgin..."

[Bernard Gui]

I haven't done that here, I don't think. And, I believe it would more properly be termed evidence, rather than proof.

But, you're right, circular arguments are unavoidable at a certain level.

My point is that Bernard is using as evidence that BoM is ancient citations from BoM. The issue in this thread, I believe, is not the veracity of certain scriptures, but their antiquity.

Critics point to this verse as evidence that Joseph Smith was not a translator but

a total idiot for muffing the birthplace of Jesus. I believe my explanation lends

support to his claim to be a translator. Or else extremely clever.

Bernard