3

NEW ASPECTS OF MICAH RESEARCH

/1/

Knud Jeppesen Institut for Gammel Testamente Aarhus Universitet 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.

an article entitled &dquo;Fundamental in Contemporary Micah Studies&dquo;/2/, in which he accounted for the results which have been obtained by application of the methods of literary-historical criticism, form-criticism, and traditiohistorical criticism of the Book of Micah. In his article, Willis held that the three most significant concerns of current Micah research were (and remain) &dquo;the present arrangement of the book and the process by which it reached its final form&dquo;, &dquo;the authenticity of the hope oracles&dquo;, and &dquo;the nature and the interpretation of difficult passages&dquo;. Moreover, he cited examples of suggested solutions to these problems.

In 1970 John Willis wrote

Issues

Willis had himself in previous years contributed to this discussion through a series of articles which arose from his dissertation, &dquo;The Structure, Setting and Interrelationships of the Pericopes in the Book of Micah&dquo; (1966) /3/. The author here confronted a research tradition which largely agreed that the subdivision of the book must in some way be contingent on the fact that the thrust of ch. 1-3 lies in the pronouncement of judgement, that of ch.4-5 in words of salvation, 6.1-7.6 again in judgement, while 7.7-20 clearly again contain an optimistic and promissory note. Willis objected to this form of analysis, since he maintained that it generally underestimated the words of promise contained in ch. 2.12-13 and their bearing on the structure of the rest of the Book of Micah. As an alternative, Willis proposed that the work consists of three principal sections, ch. 1.2-2.13, which contains a lengthy proclamation of judgement followed by a (very) short proclamation of salvation; 3.1-5.14, which consists of a short judgement and a

long prophecy of salvation; 6.1-7.20, consisting of a long proclamation of judgement and a short proclamation of salvation. Willis calls our attention to the fact that all three sections are introduced by an injunction to give ear (lynv, 1.2; 3.1; 6.1) /4/, and

he points to a sizeable number of common features which connect the main sections with each other, while they at the same time reveal the importance of the individual elements in their context. Willis dates this composition to the time of the Exile but holds that it evidences powerful connective lines reaching back to Micah himself; it was thus a product of disciples of the prophet who

remained in Judah after 587 B.C.

/5/.

In the years which have elapsed since Willis published his review of the views which were then current, a number of works have appeared in which the above-mentioned problematical topics concerning the Book of Micah receive a variety of treatments; the past two years have been especially fruitful in this respect. The present article will attempt to deal with these most recent developments. In the following discussion, the various analyses are ranged and

of Micah

presented according to how much of the existing text of the Book they contend can be traced back to Micah of Moresheth, we acknowledge that this is only one among a number of posthough sible criteria for differentiating Micah scholars. We hold, however, that it is both a useful and profitable criterion.
Those scholars who maintain that only a small part of the Book of Micah can with certainty be assigned to Micah himself are in agreement that the true kernel of the work is to be found in ch.1-3 (with the very definite exception of ch. 2.12f), with the possible additions of 5.9ff and/or 6.9ff to the &dquo;original&dquo; part.

hold that

group of scholars are opposed to the above view, and should be more cautious in denying an 8th century provenance to the rest of the Book of Micah.
A second
we

a) Authentic Micah Material is only present in ch. 1-3

In a series of articles which were published in the first numbers of Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft /6/,

Bernard Stade asserted that only the first three chapters of the Book of Micah contain material which can be traced back to Micah of Moresheth himself. This hypothesis has been of decisive importance for the greater part of Micah research in this century. At first Karl Marti, followed by e.g. J.M.P. Smith, W. Nowack, Th. H. Robinson, and S. Mowinckel supported Stades contention to such a degree that it has long been treated as a virtually indisputable presupposition in a long series of scientific monographs on the subject of the Old Testament. It has achieved currency in encyclopaedia articles and popular commentaries of recent date /8/, while

/7/~

in his introduction to the prophets G. Fohrer assumes as a matter of course that only Micah 1.2-3.12 (with the exception of 1.16 and 2.12f) deserve consideration in the section dealing with 8th century prophecy; the greater part of the remaining Micah material is dealt with in diverse contexts having to do with prophecy of the 5th and 6th centuries /9/.

Additionally, at least one of the new commentaries which is still in the process of preparation may be presumed to accept the above-named point of view. H.W. Wolff, who as we know is writing on the minor prophets in Biblischer Kommentar, revealed in an address to the international congress for the study of the Old Testament (G6ttingen, August 1977) his view of the way Micah regarded his prophetic calling /10/; in this address Wolff limited his remarks to the first three chapters of the Book of Micah. If we omit the clause mrp nn nrc , which Wolff and a host of others regard as a gloss, the author asserts that the pericope approaches the character of a&dquo;boast word&dquo; (Prahlwort). On the basis of this insight he holds that Micahs office was that of zdqen from Moresheth. In support of this thesis Wolff cites seven pieces of evidence, of which the fourth is by far the most interesting; by the same token it will surely in future be the object of considerable discussion. In the &dquo;authentic&dquo; parts of the Book of Micah, according to Wolff, &dquo;Yahweh&dquo; plays only a very modest role, and the prophetic messenger formula appears on only two occasions /11/. We are therefore eager to discover what emphasis Wolff will place upon this theory in his commentary, and how he will attempt to solve the difficult problems which arise from attempting to describe the evolution of the work if it is seen as originating in a crushing judgement upon Jerusalem by a country elder and culminating in the present prophetic book.

JAMES L. MAYS commentary /12/ must also be accounted among those which find &dquo;authentic&dquo; Micah material only in the first three chapters. He recounts in a footnote that when he initiated his programme of study for his commentary on Micah he largely shared Weisers point of view as to what was genuine and what was not in the book /13/. However, he was subsequently &dquo;forced away from that position by his examination of the material and its redaction&dquo; (p.13). He has ultimately arrived at a position which is reminiscent of that of Stade and his successors.

Mays
ters

that

we

thus maintains that it is only in the first three chapfind genuine oracles of Micah, in 1.3-5a, 3.1-4, 5-8,
stratum in

9-12, plus the original

1.8-15, 2.1-5, 6-11. Mays arguto that with

mentation for these divisions

largely corresponds

we meet in older research. He refers to the fact that in Jeremiahs time /14/ Micah was known only as the prophet who proclaimed the total destruction of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah. The prophecies in the Book of Micah which are not on the above list contradict this report, as well as Micahs own rather precise definition of his task (3.8). This is stressed even more by the fact that Micahs task is identical to the purpose of Yahwehs intervention (1.3-5a): &dquo;All this is for the transgression of Jacob, and for the sins of the house of Israel~~(v.Sa, RSV). Mays holds that the above-named prophecies only have a common historical and social provenance; they are uncompromising and bear no shadow of a suggestion that Yahweh will intervene when the punishment comes. The author recognizes that there are other expressions of judgement in the work, but maintains that 1.6f and 5.10-14 have a completely different vocabulary and deal with idolatry, where Micah otherwise mainly addresses himself to the problem of social injustice. The passages above can thus not be assigned to Micah,

which

to the late pre-exilic period, when there was need of a broader construction of the transgressions which could provoke the wrath of Yahweh.

Mays holds; rather, they belong

confidence

Mays suggests that Micahs opponents express a certain self(e.g. 3.11), perhaps a result of the fact that already

quite early

Hezekiah had initiated efforts at reformation. On the other hand, Mays feels, the persons who stand accused in ch. 6 and 7 express a more obvious desire to satisfy Yahweh, and he assumes that this too would be more appropriate to the late pre-exilic or early exilic period. Chapter 6.9ff approximates closest to the same tone that we find in the genuine Micah passages, but since they entirely lack connection to chapters 1-3 Mays believes them to be the words of another prophet.

On the basis of the passages which are clearly genuine, Mays describes Micah as a prophet who opposed the leaders of the people, who had elevated riches to lordship instead of Yahweh. He was a man who laid weight on the old Israelite concept of U~Un , righteousness. In this connection, Mays adds, we should recall that Micah bore the surname &dquo;from Moresheth&dquo;, and points out that one ordinarily was called by the name of his home town only if one worked outside of ones home territory. Micah therefore appears as a man who grew up untouched by the traditions of Temple and Court. Presumably, Micah regarded the king as but one among the many leaders whose task it was to preserve Israels traditions. On the other hand, as the author admits, it was probably of significance that Micah himself came from an administrative city. Moresheth was one of Rehoboams defenseworks in the Shephelah on the line between

Lachish and Azekah. Micah

was therefore not completely unfamiliar with the methods employed by both military and civilian leaders. It was also they who were the objects of his proclamation when he preached in Jerusalem in the months prior to the siege of Sennacherib in 701 B.C.

Mays does not stop at this description of Micah, followed by detailed exegesis of the remaining pericopes in the book with a determination of their age and milieu for each. Rather, he attempts to continue the story from the collection of the genuine Micah passages up to the present finished work. Thus he suggests that the original collection was possibly an oral collection which was reactualized and expanded during the Babylonian crisis. Subsequently during the period of the Exile a collection of Zion promises (principally 4.8-5.4, with certain exceptions) was added to stress the fact that Jerusalems destruction did not nullify the divine promises for the future. Finally, Mays says, a redaction of the various material took place during the post-exilic period after the rebuilding of the temple (515 B.C.); the purpose of this redaction was to demonstrate the importance of the role played by the divine rejection of Israel, and by the subsequent re-acceptance of her, for the relationship between Yahweh and his people. At this time a new complex of traditions was coupled to the work, consisting of 6.2-7.6, which, as we have seen, is traced by Mays back to the period of the Babylonian crisis shortly before the Exile. A hint of deuteronomistic overtones can be detected in 6.2ff, Mays holds, and he also maintains that a post-exilic composition has been added on at 7.8-20. In the context of the work as a whole, Mays asserts that the function of the latter section is to show Israel that Gods judgement is ineluctable if one does not pray
a

for

forgiveness,

and if Yahweh does not

intervene/15/.

The most important and original aspect of Mays commentary is his analysis of the finished work. Against Willis,Mays maintains a twofold division of the book into sections 1-5 and 6-7. He feels that if the Book of Micah is seen in this light it appears to be harmonically composed, in fact, as well composed as a work can well be that is not an original composition but rather an interwoven tapestry of older material. Mays emphasizes the point that every single unit has had to be hand-tailored in order for the principal theme of the work to shine through; he is therefore forced to allow for a relatively complex process of redaction.

Mays points out that the editor employs formulae (which demand the attention of their audience) r_o help to identify the audience of the two main sections (1.2; 6.1). In the former section, it is

&dquo;all nations&dquo; who

may be allowed to

to bear witness to the fate of Israel; they in the coming salvation (4.1-4), but they may equally well be subjected to the judgement (5.14). In 1.2 and 5.14 Israels historical fate appears as universal history, as the world in the view of an impression of Gods intention towards
are

participate

the

final

tradent.

Mays suggests that we do not stress too heavily the fact that this section is divided into one part consisting of judgements (1-3) /16/ and one of salvation pronouncements (4-5); he feels that they stand in dialectical relation to one another and thus represent two aspects of the activity of Yahweh. This is not

thought of as a course of development, but a description of the different destinies which Yahweh ordains for disobedient and obedient people respectively. Sections 3.12 and 4.lff are in so clear opposition to one another that it practically takes ones breath away, but according to Mays they merely express the point that both lots, destruction and restoration, are works of Yahweh, where 3.12 is motivated by chapters 1-3 and 4.1-4 by chapters 4-5. Nor should we believe, Mays insists, that the different aspects of Zions role in the future and of Israels significance in the
world,
as depicted by chapters 4-5, are to be understood as representing a historical development /17/. At the time indicated, the only power will be that which comes from Yahweh; all other powers

will be withdrawn. There is,

out in

This

is summarized in 5.9-13.

on the other hand, a sort of development sketched ch.1-3, which Mays calls the &dquo;Samaria-Jerusalem programme&dquo;,

and which he holds to correspond to the superscription of the Book of Micah. He holds that historically it belongs to the period shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. The section begins with the intervention of Yahweh by means of which Samaria is destroyed. This action is motivated by the sin of Samaria, as exemplified by the Samaritan cult. The way in which disaster approaches Jerusalem is subsequently described (1,8-16), as is the magnitude of sin among the leaders of the people, which is especially heavily concentrated in Jerusalem (2-3). Ultimately, everything points in the direction of exile (2.5,10,12f)and climaxes with the destruction of Jerusalem (3.12).

The second principal division of the Book of Micah, chapters 6-7, deals with Israels punishment and forgiveness. In its present form the individual sections are divided up into a system of &dquo;voices&dquo;, in which Yahweh first speaks to the people (6.2-5), who then respond as a collective &dquo;I&dquo;, according to Mays (6.6f). They in turn receive their answer in the form of a &dquo;one&dquo; (6.8). In 6.9ff

city (which Mays assumes to be Jerusalem) is subjected to an attack, and in 7.1-10 another &dquo;I&dquo; appears which in 7.11 is revealed
the
as

feminine personality, when it is addressed in the second perMays insists that we must understand this &dquo;I&dquo; as Jerusalem, who acknowledges her own sin, expresses her hope and her desire for salvation from the impending disasters. The promise of salvation is forthcoming in v.llf, and v.13 states the consequences of this for the rest of the world.
a

son.

Mays interprets the conclusion of the book as a congregational &dquo;we&dquo;, who pray that Yahweh will effectuate his salvation, and they
conclude with praise for the being of Yahweh as he has revealed himself through the composition of the Book of Micah and its proclamation. In this way Mays achieves room for both the prophecy of Micah himself as well as the preaching of the finished work.

In 1964 B. RENAUD published a monograph on Micah 4-5/18/ which was in some respects an extension of Eduard Nie7_sens demonstration of the validity of the tradition-historical method when applied to the prophetic literature /19/. Renaud observed that Micah 2.12f and 4.6f belong together in a wider context (ch.4-5), which he understood as a re-reading (relecture) of prophetic and psalm texts which was undertaken by priestly circles in the 5th century. In company with Mays commentary on Micah, the works of Renaud and Nielsen, with their view of the existing prophetic literature as a &dquo;re-reading&dquo;, must be seen as a reaction against the discounting (as secondary) of considerable amounts of material which has been characteristic of much of modern research on prophetism. A similar reaction to this tendency all too sharply to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic prophecy has also been prominent among other researchers. It is clear that the so-called &dquo;authentic&dquo; logia are not only of interest if seen against the background of their original historical situation, but also if we understand them to be integral parts of the existing prophetic books, understood as prophetic preaching addressed to a later period in time. In the field of Micah research it is possible to refer to a number of German language treatments, such as the investigation by Ina Wi7.li-Plein of the development of the books of Amos, Hosea and Micah /20/, ibrg Jeremias application of the principle of &dquo;Nachinterpretation&dquo; to the Book of Micah/21/, and to Th. Lescows redaction-critical efforts /22/. In spite of the possible merits of these works individually, we could conceivably wish that they stood at a greater remove from the tradition of Stade and his followers than is the case /23/.

10

Renaud has only quite recently followed up on his new approach in a compendious and thorough work in French on the evolution of the Book of Micah /24/;in the course of 450 relatively large pages he examines every single detail in the existing book with reference
to

possible

time - and milieu -of

origin

in order to determine which

phases the prophecy

ceived its final only the alteration of 1J?TMn1 (a parallel to lynv ) to D?JnMfl1 in Micah 6.2, a change which presumably intends to demythologize the formula (p. 291f and 420), for which Renaud does not feel able to identify the place of origin. Renaud maintains that by comparing and systematizing the changes which he feels have been made in the text since Micahs original proclamation in the 8th century down to the final touches which (he holds) were applied in the 2nd century, he is able to demonstrate four stages in the evolution of the text of the work. Renaud sees the first stage in this process as having taken place in Micahs own period, since he holds that the main structure of the text of ch. 1 and 2-3 comes from the prophet himself or from his closest disciples. Micah is thus understood as a prophet of judgement; unlike Mays, but in accord with (among others) Ina Willi-Plein, Renaud follows this insight to its logical conclusion and holds Micah 6.9-15 to be authentic. However, Renaud also maintains that the prophecies of judgement which introduce ch. 6 and 7 had their origin in a milieu other than that of the

of Micah underwent before it form. In the entire work, it is

eventually

re-

prophet.
On the other hand, Renaud finds nothing among the oracles of salvation which can be traced back to Micah himself. He does not

categorically deny
so

the

possibility

of Micahs

having proclaimed

salvation, but refuses

little susceptible that some researchers have, in reaction to the thesis that one and the same prophet cannot have proclaimed both salvation and judgement, maintained the no less problematical assertion that every prophet must have proclaimed both messages.
The author holds that Micahs oldest

to express an opinion on something which is of demonstration. Moreover, Renaud observes

prophecy

is

contained in

1.3-7, minus a few later additions; the pericope predicts the fall of Samaria, which is motivated by its religious degeneration, a point of view related to that of Amos and Hosea /25/. Renaud feels
that Micah himself revived this oracle at a later time in order to tie it together with his prediction of the fall of Jerusalem; it was thus Micah himself who created what Mays has called the &dquo;Samaria-Jerusalem-program&dquo;, the theme which governs ch. 1 independently, and ch.1-3 in broad outline. Thus according to Renaud the cul-

11

mination of Micahs prophecy is found in his pronouncements

on the fall of Jerusalem which called him to the attention of his contemporaries (3.12). Here the responsibility for the disaster is placed on the shoulders of the leading circles of the city, while the king is held blameless /26/. Renaud dates this part of Micahs preaching to the time of Hezekiah, 1.8ff, around either 711 or 701; he feels that the rest cannot be dated with more accuracy. He also refers to Jer. 26 and concludes that this collection of Micah prophecies was probably preserved among the elders of Judah, perhaps in Micahs own city and by his own kin.

The author sees the next two stages as decisively important &dquo;re-readings&dquo; of the preserved message of Micah, readings which brought the material much closer to its final form. Renaud

suggests that after the first of these, 1.3-3.12 and 6.2-7.7 existed largely in their present form, and that after the second the Book
of Micah had found its modern structure, with the exception of the fact that 2.12f was still connected to 4.6f at this time /27/. During the exilic period it was presumably a tradent who assembled the units of ch. 6.2-8, a pre-exilic Rtb (lawsuit) text of deuteronomistic origin, the authentic Micah text 6.9ff, and 7.1-6, a lament with Jeremianic overtones, into a complex and bound it to Micah 1-3, a text group with which the above-named units bore some resemblance. Both groups of texts contained accusations against the city and the people as well as laments. Both were provided with glosses of varying aesthetic value; some resemble tumours on the text, as for example 1.13bcand mrf nn nH in 3.8, while others, such as 1.5bc, are cleverly accommodated to the text. A special technique to which Renaud calls our attention is the so-called &dquo;grafting&dquo; (la greffe), in which the gloss takes the form of a play on a root which is present in the text itself, as in 2.4f and 6.14f. He holds that an analysis of the Book of Micah as it appeared at that time shows it to contain an understanding of the relationship between prophecy and history which is related to that which is present in the deuteronomistic royal history /28/. As this view is summarized by Renaud, the prophets (in this case Micah) predicted far in advance and under the influence of divine inspiration /29/ the events which were experienced by the tradent himself. Thus with the aid of minor additions he actualized the material which showed the people to be worthy of punishment, and the form in which the punishment was described /30/. By this means the tradent was able to retain the character of the Book of Micah as judgement-prophecy, though with a more obvious intention to urge repentance than was originally the case. Renaud believes that the tradent expressed his own hopes for a happier conclusion of events by ending his version at Micah 7.7; also, he holds that the milieu of the tradent was Judah during

12

the time of the Exile,

though

not without

some

reservations.

This deuteronomistic version of the Book of Micah is thought the author to have been &dquo;re-read&dquo; again during the Persian peby riod (5-4th centuries) by priests who stood in close relation to those who undertook the final collection of the Book of Isaiah/31/. This time the goal of the &dquo;re-reading&dquo; was to re-kindle the hope
a final end to Israels sufferings which was originally prompted by Deutero-Isaiah. Renaud believes that this occurred by preserving the judgement-texts more or less in their original form /32/, while they were given a new measure of perspective by altering their original context. Thus by means of new introductory verses (1.2 and 6.1), the addition of the textual mosaic 4-5 (including 2.12f), plus the psalm 7.8-10, 14-20,the Book of Micah became a work which depicted the scheme of judgement and salvation in two phases: 1-3

of

&

4-5; 6.1-7.6

&

7.7-20.

Renaud maintains that themes which penetrate the entire work such as those which are present only in isolated pericopes, Zion, the shepherd image, the period of Messianic peace, the Remnant, and the peoples were employed to raise the plane of Israelite history up from the level of the merely national to a universalisti~ eschatological perspective which contained the notions not only of
or

divine omnipotence but also of a Messiah of human origin, though endowed with divine powers. This two-fold perspective made it possible for the reader to feel that through Exile and Return Israel had entered upon a cosmic drama powerful in contrasts (for example 3.12, as opposed to 4.1). In this connection, it was possible to appeal to the expectation that the people would experience their &dquo;now&dquo; in a new light /33/, seen in relief against a far more promising future (for example, 4.14 against 5.1). This eschatological event, however, was seen as the final conclusion through which the nations would be cleansed of impure elements (5.14), while the people and the city would appear in that relationship to the world which was theirs of right (4.1-4; 5.6-8). The determinative gesture which in this event would mark the transition from misery to happiness is seen as a serious admission of the worthiness of the people for punishment (7.1-4a,14-20).

Against the insistence of Willis and others, Renaud holds the final structure of the Book of Micah to represent a degradation of the artistic construction of the work. Thus he asserts that circles related to &dquo;Deutero-Zechariah&dquo; /34/ &dquo;re-read&dquo; and altered the position of 2.12-13 in order to underline the fact that Yahweh was a good shepherd, in contradistinction to the unworthy leaders of the

people/35/.

13

Finally, Renaud suggests, a few minute changes were added to Micah 1.5 and 6.16 (and possibly 3.12), which can be construed as representing an anti-Samaritan attitude /36/. The author points out that since these changes are not found in the LXX they can scarcely be dated to a period earlier than the second century. It was therefore at this late date that the Book of Micah reached its ultimate form, though Renaud holds that these few touches of the brush do not represent a really new edition of the work, so that it is possible to speculate that they may have taken place after the book was included in the collection of the twelve pro-

phe ts .

b)

Most of the Book of Micah is authentic

The line of development from Stade to Renaud has not been one of smooth continuation; it was not without significance that E. Sellin, among others, in the two editions of his commentary on the

twelve minor prophets /37/ was more reserved than was then common with reference to the identification of inauthentic parts of the Book of Micah. As we have seen above, the same applies to A. Weiser, who has been followed closely by W. Beyerlin in his monograph on the traditio-historical background of Micahs preaching /38/; also, the commentary on Micah in the French series Commentaire de lAncien Testament can be said to be relatively free of ties to the traditional understanding of Micah and the Book of Micah /39/.
E. Hammershaimb has long been one of the researchers most hesitant to divide the book into authentic and inauthentic parts. In a visitors lecture in Vienna in 1961 he described two aspects of the problem under the rubrics &dquo;Micah as a Prophet of Doom&dquo; and &dquo;Micah as a Prophet of Happiness&dquo;; Hammershaimb declared that &dquo;my guiding rule will be to accept the tradition for those parts of the book where no compelling reasons can be urged against their authenticity, and I shall assume that the ideas appearing in them are an expression of the views of the prophet Micah himself&dquo;/40/. Hammershaimb did not deny the possibility that prophecies were added to the work in exilic or post-exilic times, for example in ch. 7, but he felt that on the whole the book contains Micahs own thoughts.

Seen against the above background, it is not a breach with academic tradition that two or three of the most recent commentaries have asserted the authenticity of practically the entirety of the Book of Micah. The significant aspecq to our way of thinking,

14

lies in the fact that for the first time there are several scholars who maintain this point of view at the same time.

In his

Like

commentary on Micah, W.RUDOLPH/41/is considerably restrained. Willis, he divides the Book of Micah into three units: 1-2;

3-5; 6-7. Rudolph is more reluctant than were the authors of older as secondary; morecommentaries to excise individual pericopes is presented in the entire scheme which utilizes he dating over, the superscription (&dquo;in the days of the kings of Judah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah&dquo;, 1.1, RSV), to help date the work. Again, in the works of commentators who like Mays limit the ipsissima verba of the prophet to chapters 1-3 one often finds his prophetic activities reduced to a few months at the time of Sennacheribs siege of Jerusalem in 701. According to Rudolph, however, Micahs activities spanned a number of years, so that his prophecies thus represent more than just a single episode in the career of the prophet.
If, however, Rudolph regards only pericopes

4.1-4, 5.6-8,

and 7.8-20 as additions, he nevertheless appears as a researcher whose views bear in a number of ways witness to the same academic traditions as the more radical commentators. This is apparent not only in the traditional form in which the commentary is constructed, comprised of a translation, thorough textual notes, and commentary, all of which reflect the constraints of the tradition to which the particular series of commentaries belongs. It is also evident in the way Rudolph treats the text itself, and ultimately in his conclusions concerning Micahs proclamation.
The question of the evolution of the Hebrew text of the Book of Micah is probably a mystery which will never be unravelled. For the greater part of the work it seems as if the text has been well

preserved; it is, after all, intelligible Hebrew. However,

four

or

five times in the course of the work the text is so impenetrable that it is reasonable to suppose that it has been corrupted at an early stage of transmission. None of the classic translations con-. tains the key to an explanation of how this has come about /42/.
uneven quality of the text has made the Book favourite target of those scholars who regard it as their special task to reconstruct the original Vorlage of a text. As we suggested above, it is necessary to make such attempts, but we note that these efforts are not confined only to the problematical passages. On the basis of a general impression of the prophets message, scholars have undertaken &dquo;free conjectures&dquo; also in those areas of the text which are intelligible as they stand.

The of Micah

demonstrably
a

15

Rudolph
does not

is

representative
to conceal

of this tradition,

fact which he

attempt

/43/.

Rudolph shares the common opinion that the cunclusion of Micah(7.8-20)is a liturgical text of post-exilic date, but a date which is nonetheless prior to the commencement of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem /44/. The text has been compounded with an already-existing Micah text which originally ended at 7.7. Here the prophets hope is expressed that Yahweh will intervene salvifically, though the manner of salvation is not specified.
In the text which immediately precedes this (7.1-6), the proexpresses a sharp critique of conditions in his society, in the form of a lament. It is here Rudolph sees Micahs own mission, that is, a mission of the same type that one would infer if one concentrated on ch. 1-3 alone: Micah was sent with a proclamation of judgement, and on the basis of Jer. 26.19 we can conclude that this proclamation made so powerful an impression that both king and people were compelled to conversion. However, it is important to recognize that Micah was not a preacher of conversion, in Rudolphs view, but of judgement; to those who nurture evil intentions towards their fellowmen he has not been sent to urge repentance, but to announce that Yahweh has equally evil intentions towards them (2.1,3). Repentance might revoke Yahwehs ultimatum to Micahs contemporaries, but according to Rudolph it did not remove the divine burden which the prophet was obliged to bear: to preach Jacobs transgression and the sin of Israel (3.8). Regardless of whatever reforms Hezekiah undertook /45/, Micah strove to reveal each and every discrepancy that had arisen between the faith of the people in the divine promises and their observance of those obligations which the promises entailed. Thus Micah was and remained a prophet of judgement.

phet

Rudolph admits that the book does contain authentic hope for the future, but he holds that it does not dominate Micahs preaching, and moreover, that it is very much a product of tradition. Also, he rejects the thesis that Micah is only a simple man from the country, as he also rejects the possibility of Micahs having been dependent on Isaiah, or that he might have been a cultic prophet. Rather, Micah is seen as an y1T~~ Dy , the resident country nobility ; as such, he is not concerned with Israels mastery over the world, but with the restoration of Davidic rule on Zion (4.8) under the direction of the Messiah who will be called by Yahweh and come from Bethlehem (5.1). Only the Messiah would be able to establish peace inwardly as well as outwardly (5.3f).

16

Rudolph, what Micah desired was the reunification of the kingdoms, the return of those who were driven out of the northern kingdom, and ultimately a numerous and powerful people (2.12, among others). History showed him that this was a possibility (6.4f), but one which, because of the sin of the people could only be realized after a catastrophe. It was Micahs opponents who proclaimed peace without a prior catastrophe. Rudolph not only finds Micahs opponents in the background of 2.6f, as has been widely recognized but, in company with van der Woude, he detects their presence again in some of the promises in chapter 4, namely vv. 9,11-13 /46/.
According
to

two Israelite

Rudolphs view, whereas Micah himself was a prophet of judgement who merely hinted at his hope for the future, it was
In

the

tradents of the Book of Micah who were concerned with the future after the catastrophe. They wished to say, &dquo;dass selbst ein so strenger Prophet wie Micha... vom Wirklichwerden der kommenden Gottesherrschaft reden durfte&dquo; (p.25). Moreover, they naturally emphasized that Micah spoke thus with a warrant from Yahweh. To have been woven various glosses and pericopes into the text in the course of the tradition, primarily 4.1-4 and 5.6-8. Eventually, Rudolph holds, ch. 4.9, 11-13 were also understood as Micahs own words.

emphasize this,

Rudolph does not represent the book as the product of an artistic mind, as e.g. Willis does. The Book of Micah falls into three principal divisions, and there appears to be an alteration between judgement and salvation, but this did not arise as a result of a tradents desire to convey some particular message to his contemporaries, at a time subsequent to that of Micah. Rudolph adheres to the tradition of criticism: he feels that the most important elements in the composition of the work were the various catchwords (Stichw6rter) and associations. Thus, if the alleged redactor had any personal intention to express, it was to temper the message whose original content was Micahs own uncompromising proclamation of judgement.

literary

ALLEN published a commentary on Micah /47/ which is consciously conservative and designed to be read by the lay as well as the professional reader. Serious academic discussion is, however, brought directly into the main body of the text.

In 1976 LESLIE C.

If

one

were

to choose

as

criterion

just

how much of

work

17

particular commentary accepts as &dquo;genuine&dquo;, one would arrive at the conclusion that the commentaries of Allen and Rudolph are as alike as two peas in a pod. Both reject equal amounts of material, with the noteworthy difference being that Allen does not accept 4.6-8 as a Micah prophecy, whereas he does accept 5.6-8 as genuine They subdivide the book in the same way, and even their datings differ very little from each other. But these superficial resemblances do not hold if the two commentaries are subjected to more thorough analysis. The decisive difference between them lies in the fact that Allen notes that the Book of Micah contains words of judgement and of salvation, and draws the conclusion that the prophet intends to proclaim both judgement and salvation. Like Micah himself, Allen enjoys playing with the language, so that he is able to express the ambivalence of his proclamation by saying that the prophet intended not only to &dquo;afflict the comfortable&dquo;, but also to &dquo;comfort the afflicted&dquo; (p.243).
a

With this in mind, it is not surprising that Allen cannot accept that 4.1-4 may be a later and perhaps tendentious addition. On the contrary, he feels that the passage, which he admits does from the hand of the prophet, expresses the centrality of the role of Zion in the same way Micah would have done. Allen admits the possibility that the passage could have been added by a later tradent, but he asserts that the central role of Zion in some of the Psalms antedates 701, and that Micah could plausibly have been influenced by this source. Thus he maintains that all of ch. 4 is related to such Psalms as 46, 48, and 76.
not come

Of the two remaining additions to the book, the first is 4.6-8, which contains a concept of the &dquo;remnant&dquo; which Allen feels scarcely to be credible unless it is dated at some point after 597 (cf. Jer. 32.3). The other addition is 7.8-20 (cf. f.n.44), which

Allen dates to the post-exilic period; it was added, he feels, not to develop new sides to Micahs prophecy, but on the contrary to attempt to maintain the essentials of Micahs message under new historical circumstances.
Allen does not, however, see a complicated process of redaction behind the Book of Micah, as is claimed by the scholars previously discussed in section a). Allen describes Micah as a religious commentator of the development of the Jerusalem of his time. As we have seen, he shared the expectations of the cult concerning Zion; the same is true of his view of the royal line (5.llff), and of his use of the motif of the battle of the peoples (4.11 among others). Additionally,

18

Micah used other cultic themes such as that of the theophany (1.2f). It is from this traditionalistic background that Micah arose as a fervent proponent of righteousness, and for this reason his proclamation was barbed against the upper classes who, not least in the prosperous period of Jeroboam the Great in the Northern Kingdom and of Uzziah in the South had arrogated considerable economic power to themselves. They began to use this power for their own purposes, whereby the righteous commandments of Yahweh were ig-

nored.

Allens

rally

does not differ

describe him ters 1-3. What distinguishes these commentaries from each other is the fact that according to Allen there is no reason why Micah could not have proclaimed salvation to another group while at the same time proclaiming judgement in the pointed form with which we have traditionally been concerned. Thus Allen dates ch. 2.12-13, which in most commentaries is placed in exilic or post-exilic times /48/ to the period around 701, where the proclamation of judgement thus becomes barbed indeed. Allen maintains that it was directed at those refugees from Judah who had just come to Jerusalem, and it promises them that with Yahwehs help they will in time be able to return to their homes. It is necessary to date each pericope in isolation. Allen, for example, avoids the difficulties which arise from the fact that there are differences between the situations which underlie 4.10 and 4.11 by reference to Brights theory /49/ of two major Assyrian campaigns, namely besides the also a subsequent campaign some time in one which we know, in 701, the 680s. Allen thus holds that an editor compounded the abovementioned verses with the intention of achieving an especially desired effect in the final version of Micah. He adds that it was likewise the editor who moved ch. 4.1-4, concerning the brilliant future of Zion, so that it succeeds the well known prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (3.12); and, finally, that it was again the editor who brought 2.12 to its present location as the conclusion of the first section of the Book of Micah.

representation of this side of Micahs activity natusignificantly from those commentaries which as a prophet of judgement alone on the basis of chap-

Thus, according to Allen, Micah compelled the attention of his audience with a proclamation which balanced between the poles of consolation and judgement, as we can determine from the tradition that Hezekiah and the people eventually arrived at repentance, as it is preserved in Jer. 26. Allen does not, however, go so far as to connect Micahs work with the reform of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18.4, but he emphasizes that it was a proclamation which achieved importance. Moreover, the significance of Micahs preaching did not end

19

with his death. During the following centuries, in which the people &dquo;tottered&dquo; between judgement and salvation, Micahs message was re-actualized time and again /50/. The capstone of this evolution, in Allens view, is the present text of the Book of Micah, which was composed at the same time ch. 7.8-20 was written, that porary with
Ezra and Nehemiah but contemand Zechariah. Allen affirms that 7.8-20 is not an &dquo;addition&dquo;, but rather a theological-poetical composition which completes the Book of Micah as the poetical work of art it is.

is, in the post-exilic period before

Haggai

In his description of the artistic pattern which determines the structure of the Book of Micah, Allen acknowledges (and stresses) his debt to Eduard Nielsens analysis of Micah 4-5 (f.n.19), and John Willis various studies in the Book of Micah (f.n.3). With Willis, Allen feels that the key to understanding the book lies in the tempo with which prophecies of judgement and hope alternate with each other as short and long prophecies. Allen asserts that the entire Book of Micah is chiastically constructed, since both the introduction and the conclusion of the work consist of passages which contain a long prophecy of judgement and a short prophecy of hope (1-2 and 6-7). The centremost section (ch. 3-5) is constructed such that its middle part strongly emphasizes hope, while both its beginning and conclusion are characterized by a section which contains a long prophecy of judgement and a short prophecy of hope, namely 3.1-12 and 4.1-5 in the one case, and 5.10-14 and 5.15 in the other. Ch. 4.6-8 and 5.7-9 deal with the &dquo;remnant&dquo; and contain references to disasters. Thus we are led into the centre, which is composed of three independent sections: 4.9f, 4.11-13, and 5.1-6. There is a rhetorical and stylistic progression from one section to another, each begins with a description of the catastrophe and subsequently commences to speak of hope. However, the section on hope grows longer in each subsequent

passage.

This
E.

analysis

of ch.

4-5 bears clear similarities to that of

Nielsen, with the difference in emphasis residing in the fact that in Allens work ch. 3 has also been drawn into the pattern. Among other things, the connection between the three principal
sections in the book becomes evident lowing common themes: the remnant

through

the

use

of the fol-

&dquo;sin and

transgression&dquo;
and the

(2.12; 4.6; 5.7; 7.18), (1.5; 3.8; 7.18f), and the motif of the

sheep, used of relationship between Yahweh and Israel (2.12f; 4.6-8; 7.14). Thus, according to Allen, there is no doubt that we ought to treat the Book of Micah as it stands as a work of art; it is clearly not a result of literary serendipity or peripatetic prophetic ways of thinking. And while at the same time

shepherd

20

Allen does

neglect

to

justice to the work as give clear indications

a finished product he does not of what the historical Micah may

have intended with it.

The Micah commentary of A. S. VAN DER WOUDE /51/ goes its own way, and is therefore difficult to subsume under any particular classification. We nonetheless include his work in group b), since he assigns the entire Book of Micah to the 8th century; van der Woudes is in our opinion the most original of the works here discussed, and it is most regrettable that it is only available in the

it certainly deserves Dutch language the major languages /52/.

publication

in

one

of

The distinctive difference between this commentary and the others under discussion is that where the others attempt to offer a more or less tradition(or redaction-) historical explanation of the development of the Book of Micah, van der Woude proposes a historical explanation. Moreover, with the aid of only a very few conjectural emendations he presents a text which could plausibly represent the situation in which Micahs proclamation originally sounded, as far as the first five chapters are concerned,
at least. Van der Woude divides the Book like e.g. Mays and Th. Lescow sections, 1-5 and 6-7. He maintains that these sections

into two

originally had nothing to do with each other. However, van der Woude stresses that they have in common the fact that both stem from prophets who were active in the second half of the eighth century, and as far as he is concerned they might both have been called Micah. However, both their respective backgrounds and affiliation-groups were different. Van der Woude holds that &dquo;protoMicah&dquo; was Micah of Moresheth, who preached in Judah during the reign of Hezekiah (cf. Jer. 26.18), whereas &dquo;Deutero-Micah&dquo; was active in the Northern Kingdom somewhat earlier (&dquo;in the days of Jotham and Ahaz&dquo;, 1.1, RSV). The author suggests that it was the deuteronomistic redactor and tradent who eventually identified the two prophets as a single figure. The editor is seen as having prefaced the work with a superscription, and adding a few explanatory glosses. &dquo;Daartoe beperkt zich de Redaktionsgeschichte van het boek&dquo;, as van der Woude says (p.11) in a polemic directed primarily against Ina Willi-Plein and Th. Lescow.

According to van der Woude, Micah 1-5 preserves two glimpses into the activity of Micah of Moresheth: he must have been a member of the country populace from the plains and as such was familiar

21

with the injustices perpetrated by the &dquo;civiel-militair-cultische elite&dquo; in Jerusalem and other larger communities, such as the nearby Lachish. It was in Lachish that he first appeared with Micah 1,

poem which begins with the imminence of the fall of Samaria, the fall of Jerusalem which would occur directly afterwards, and ultimately concludes with a denunciation of Lachish. If the poem is dated shortly before the fall of Samaria it must stem from around 723.
a

Micah 2-5 is

seen

as

belonging

to

period

some

ten years la-

ter, in Jerusalem. The historical background of these chapters is therefore not the threat posed by Sennacheribs campaign of 701, as is usually assumed, but rather the events around 714, when Hezekiah allowed himself to be persuaded by the Philistines not to pay
the Assyrian tribute. According to van der Woude, Micah assumed that the fall of Jerusalem which had not occurred in the wake of the collapse of Samaria, would shortly come about. This proclamation is seen as having sparked a heated discussion between the prophet and some members of his audience. Thus van der Woude feels that the inconsistencies which are present in ch. 2-5 are best understood as representing a debate between people who hold radically different views; they are not a collection of &dquo;words&dquo; of judgement and &dquo;words&dquo; of salvation. On the contrary, they should be seen as a reiteration of what Micah held forth on (the &dquo;I&dquo; of 2.11; 3.1,8), and of what his opponent replied (&dquo;we&dquo; 4.5; 5.4). The
own, so that the elders to a written source. It is

author believes that the form of these passages is surely Micahs in Jer. 26 must have been able to refer

a widespread opinion that Micah 2.6ff represents a porepresentative of the prophets opponents, though there is room for discussion as to just how long this section actually is, since it is one of the above-mentioned &dquo;difficult&dquo; texts /53/. Van der Woude holds that the quotation comprehends v.6 and the first three phrases of v.7; thus Micahs response to the polemic of his enemies begins with the phrase &dquo;Do not my words do good...&dquo; and continues into v.ll. The author interprets v.ll as rejecting the thesis that a prophet who is inspired by the spirit is able to prophesy falsely; conversely, it implies that Micahs prophecy is not misleading, but that it is the truth itself, since he has been commissioned by Yahweh.

lemic

translates the last phrase in v.ll pun ~~~1 &dquo;to this people it is proclaimed&dquo;, which he understands as an introductory formula to a reply from the opponents of the prophet~vv.l2-13 /54/. He sees this as corresponding to the mysteVan der Woude
as

DID Dyn

22

rious ~17~1 , &dquo;and I say&dquo;, which introduces ch. 3. The whole of ch. 3 is seen as a new argumentation by Micah against the assertions of his enemies in the conclusion of ch. 2; this discussion continues in chapters 4 and 5, but the various passages lack introductory formulae to signal the alternation of speaker. First is a long speech by the opponents (4.1-9), a short reply by Micah (v.10), a new attack by the opponents (vv.11-13), which triggers Micahs response (4.14-5.3); another counter-argument(5.4-5), to which Micah replies briefly (v.6), and the opponents conclude the discussion (5.7-14). Thus the opponents of the prophet get the last word in, which is surely the greatest weakness of van der Woudes theory. The subject of the debate is serious enough, since it concerns the function of the divine assurances of salvation. Micah maintains that the disaster which has been provoked by the sins of the leaders of Israel can only be nullified by the judgement and grace of Yahweh. The opponents, on the other hand, cling to Isaiahs prophecy of a renewal of power on Zion, the restoration of the House of David, and so on. But it is a diluted version of the Isaianic prophecy to which Micahs opponents adhere; salvation is seen as unconditional, unconnected to that righteousness which is the ineluctable divine command. The opponents understand the proclamation of Micah as a provocation, as for example, when he asserts that the new Davidide will arise only after the humiliation of the

present king.
this historical understanding of the book, says van der we can add is that we know from Jer. 26 that Micahs proclamation against the salvation-orthodoxy of the leaders was heard by and achieved a certain influence on both the royal house and the people. What happened to Micah afterwards is lost to posterity. Nor do we know more about the &dquo;Micah&dquo; who preached ch. 6-7 than what the chapters themselves contain. However, van der Woude feels that he can identify this figure as a North Israelite prophet of the time of Hosea. The suggestion that these chapters have a provenance in Northern Israel is not an original one; A. van Hoonacker /55/ regarded Micah 6-7 as the denunciation of Samaria which is announced in 1.1, and F.C. Burkitt held in an article in 1926 that these chapters could conceivably be &dquo;the swansong of Northern Israel&dquo; /56/, and several others have entertained similar views.
To

Woude, all

Now

it is correct that if
encounter
an

one

separates Micah 6-7 from 1-5,

then text

we
so

unidentified
as

suggests it could just

city in ch. 6, and easily be taken to

if the conbe Samaria

23

Jerusalem. Nor is it unthinkable that one in the Northern Kingdom referred to Samaria as &dquo;the city&dquo;, as was the case with Jerusalem in the South. It is also indisputable that the locations and personal names which are mentioned in 7.14 and 6.16 are North Isas

they were presumably not unknown in the Southern heart of the matter is whether or not there really are The Kingdom. such great differences between the two sections of the Book of
raelite. However,
Micah
as van

der Woude supposes.

Quite simply, is it correct that these chapters (6-7) are closely related to Hosea and more&dquo;protodeuteronomistic&dquo; than ch. 1-5, and conversely, that ch. 1-5 reveal a relationship to Isaiah which is not shared by ch. 6-7 /57/? In thus concluding on a sceptical note, we do not intend to demean van der Woudes praiseworthy attempt to place the Book of Micah in the historical context which its superscription suggests. It is on the contrary most important that he has striven to represent the entire work as prophecy of the eighth century, including the final passage 7.8-20, which has, as is well known, by most researchers been seen as a post-exilic liturgy.
more

Conclusion:

The new aspects of Micah research here sketched out may well be taken to signify that what has been the traditional understanding of this prophetic work in this century will be reconsidered and re-evaluated in future. It is no longer possible to defer to a comfortably concluded debate. New interpretations have indeed been presented, but at this point it would be premature to speak of a new debate. The various authors have not had time to come to grips with each others points of view. It will therefore be exciting to learn how future commentaries will opt between the considerable range of new ideas /58/. There is, however, no doubt that the discussion will concern itself more with the Book of Micah as a whole than has previously been the case. No presentation of the proclamation of this prophetical book will be possible without a number of important decisions being made concerning both the structure and evolution of the work; it is impossible to say anything about a single oracle without having analysed its relation to the rest of the book. This discussion is, however, an item in the broader discussion of the history of the evolution of Israels ideas. Research into this area determines the range of material that can reasonably be assigned an earlier or later date within the individual prophetic book, and conversely each discussion of the individual prophetic writings is of vital significance for the exegesis of the Old Testament as a whole.

24

NOTES

1.

Sections of this article have been published in "Fire nye Mika-

Dansk teologisk Tidsskrift 40/1977, pp.243-262. Howthe ever, publication of B. Renauds most recent book has rendered (as originally planned) into English a translation of this article inappropriate; I have therefore chosen to restructure my article to provide room for discussion of this important contribution. I hope to be able to offer a more thorough analysis of Renauds book in Vetus Testamentum at a later date.

kommentarer",

2.

Restoration Quarterly 13/1970,

pp.77-90.

3. John Willis dissertation was written and presented to Vanderbilt University Divinity School; its major conclusions have been published in Willis article, The Structure of the Book of Micah, SEÅ 34/1969, pp.5-42. Willis has also published the following articles on Micah: 1.2 in VT 18/1968, pp.372-379; on 2.1a in Biblica 48/1967, pp.534-541; on 2.6-8 in BZ 14/1970, pp.72-87; on 3.1 in ZAW 80/1968, pp.50-54; on 3-5 in ZAW 81/1961, pp.191-214; on 4.145.5 in VT 18/1968, pp.529-547; on 5.1 in JQR 58/1967-68, pp.317322 ; on 5.9-14 in ZAW 81/1969, pp.353-368; and 6.6-8 in VT 18/1968, pp.273-278, a review. He has subsequently written on 7.8-20 in VTS

26/1974, pp.64-76.
This way of subdividing the Book of Micah is in reality as old the science of "introduction" to the OT; it is first to be found in J.G. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte Testament III (2.Ausgabe), Leipzig 1787, p.269. Around the middle of the last century it was to be found for example in the following work : A. Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch Onderzoek van de Boeken des ouden Verbonds , II, Engels, Leiden 1863, § 99, pp.349-351. However, when first a questionmark had been put beside 2.12f for literary-critical reasons, such a subdivision could of course no longer be regarded as valid. It is therefore typical that T.K. Cheyne opposes the division of the book into 1-2, 3-5, and 6-7 in his introduction to the Micah commentary in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges , Cambridge Univ. Press 1885 (p.10) and instead proposes 1-3, 4-5, and 6-7. 4.
as

5. 6.

SEÅ 34/1969, pp.40-42.

Bernard Stade, Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha, ZAW 1/1881, pp. 161-172; Weitere Bemerkungen zu Micha 4.5, ZAW 3/1883, pp,1-16;

25

Bemerkungen zu Nowack, über das Buch Micha, 297. Compare ZAW 6/1886, pp.122f.

ZAW

4/1884, pp.291-

Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum 7. Alten Testament , XIII, Mohr, Tübingen, 1904, pp.258-302. John Merlin Powis Smith (and others), Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, and Joel, The International Critical Commentary , Clark, Edinburgh, 1911, pp.5-156. Wilhelm Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, 3. Aufl. , III,4, Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1922, pp.195-238. Nowacks point of view was not nearly so extreme in the editions of this commentary which were published in 1897 and 1902. Theodore H. Robinson and Friedrich Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, Handbuch zum Alten Testament (herausg. O. Eissfeldt) 14, Mohr, Tübingen, 1938, pp.127-152. Sigmund Mowinckel and N. Messel, Det Gamle Testa ment oversatt av S. Michelet, Sigmund Mowinckel og N. Messel , III,

Aschehaug,

Oslo,

1944, pp.666-694.

8. This was the case as early as T.K. Cheyne in the Encyclopaedia Biblica III (London, 1902, columns 3068-3078); more recently, see A.E. Leslies article in The Interpreters Dictionary to the Bible 3 (New York and Nashville 1962), col. 369-372. Also, John Marsh in Torch Bible Paperbacks (Amos and Micah), SCM Press, London 1959 and Henry McKeating in The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (Amos, Hosea, and Micah), University Press, Cambridge,

1971.

, Bd. 1, Die Georg Fohrer, Die Propheten des Alten Testaments Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts, Mohn, Gütersloh, 1974, pp.165-174; Bd. V, Die Propheten des ausgehenden 6. und des 5. Jahrhunderts, 1976, pp.166-121, 132-134, and 177-180.
9.

10.

The title of Wolffs lecture

was

"Wie verstand Micha

von

prophetisches Amt?"; I have not yet had the opportunity to read the Göttinger Congress volume and have accordingly here followed "Zusammenfassungen der Hauptvorträge" (pp.39-41),
Moreshet sein

which

was

distributed at the congress.

A significant question which for reasons of space cannot be 11. taken up here is whether the first person suffix ny (1.9; 2.8, 9; 3.1,5; - 2,4 is regarded as secondary) does not in some cases refer to Yahweh himself.

12.

Micah in the Old Testament

, Library

SCM Press,

London, 1976.

26

13.

Cf. Arthur Weiser,

Das

Buch der zwölf Kleinen

&

Das Alte Testament

, 24, Vandenhoeck Deutsch

1949, pp.200-261. Weiser here asserts the ly all of the prophecies of judgement, as well as the nuclei of the prophecies of salvation, such as the Bethlehem-Ephrata prophecy in Micah 5.1 (MT).
14.

Propheten I, Ruprecht, Göttingen, authenticity of virtual-

It is obvious that the account of Micahs activities which is contained in Jer.26.18f should be employed in any investigation of the question of just who Micah was. Time has demonstrated, however, that rather different results are arrived at if the pericope on the fall of Jerusalem is quoted (Mi 3.12), or if one stresses the fact that Micahs proclamation brought about an alteration

in his
15.

society.

to find a number of of I. Willi-Plein, and those Mays and Th. Lescow (see notes 20-22 below), his work is independent of these. Even

though

it is

possible

tween the work of

parallels beJörg Jeremias,

as
a

whole

16. Against most researchers, Mays does not regard the conclusion of ch. 2 as originally an oracle of salvation, but as the climax of the repeated challenges in ch.2 to go into exile. It is Yahweh himself who will lead his people out of the city and away (v.13). Nor is Mays point of view without precedent in the history of Micah research. J.A. Dathius, in his , opposed Prophetae Minores what he referred to as "plerique interpretes", who apparently rejected the thesis that Mi 2.12f was a promise. Unfortunately, Dathius failed to identify his opponents. Dathius, P.M. , 3rd ed. Halae 1790, p.86.
Ever since the original breakthroughs of modern critical scholarship it has been held that in their prophecies the prophets largely concerned themselves with the actual, historical course of future event. Thus in his German translation of the OT prophets J.D. Michaelis (1779f) regarded Micah 4-5 as a prediction concerning the period of the Return up to the time of the birth of Christ. One of Michaelis Danish disciples was considerably more radical than his master, and held that Micah 4.9-5.8 dealt solely with what the prophet predicted would happen on the occasion of Sennacheribs siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. This disciple, C.F. Horne-

17.

, man

phecy,

thus maintained that 5.1 should not be seen as messianic probut historical commentary; his point of view was not popular at the conclusion of the 18th century. For more details on this the reader is referred to my article, "Hornemans prØveoversættelse af Mikabogen (1777)", which will presumably be published

27

in Kirkehistoriske

Samlinger

in 1979.

B. Renaud, Structure et attaches littéraires de Michée IV-V 18. , Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 2, Gabalda, Paris, 1964.

19.

E.

Nielsen, Mundtlig tradition, DTT 15/1950, 19-37, 88-106,

on Micah 4-5, pp.130-140. English translation is available in Oral , Tradition Studies in Biblical Theology 11, SCM Press,

129-146;

London, 1954,

pp.79-93.

20. Ina Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments, BZAW 123, de Gruyter, Berlin 1971. According to Mrs. Willi-Plein "Die Grundworte Michas" are ch. 1.2-9, 10-16; 2.1-5,6-11; 6.9-15 (pp.272-274); cf. p.110 (ch.3).

Exilzeit,

Jörg Jeremias, Die Deutung der Gerichtsworte Michas in der ZAW 83/1971, pp.330-354. Here it is significant that it is the prophecies of judgement which are the objects of examination, since the promises of salvation are seen as exilic additions. 7.8ff are held to be a concluding "Liturgie". Jeremias holds that the pronouncements of judgement have been subjected to a "Nachinterpretation" by means of additions at 1.5,7,13; 2.3f,10; 3.4,6, 14; and by additions of 5.9-13 and 6.16 which attempt to explain, at a period early in the Exile, that the present misery is the reward of past sins.
21. 22.

Theodor Lescow, Redaktionsgeschichliche Analyse von Micah 1-5, 84/1972, pp.46-85; Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6-7, ZAW 84/1972, pp.182-212. Lescow holds that these two divisions of the Book of Micah are not capable of explanation by means of a single theory: they are so different that application of the same method to both parts would be inappropriate (p.182).
ZAW

23. This is most clearly expressed by Lescow, who recognizes with apparent regret "dass sich Stades These in ihrem vollen Umfang nicht überall durchgesetzt hat" (p.46).

24.

B.

Renaud,

La Formation du Livre

de Michée.

Tradition et Ac-

, Etudes Bibliques, Gabalda, Paris, 1977. tualisation

25. Against a number of scholars who limit the "authentic" Micah material to ch. 1-3, Renaud holds that the anticultic proclamation against the Northern Kingdom (1.6-7) is largely a genuine oracle of Micah.

28

26. According to Renaud, one of the reasons Micahs proclamation does not extend to the king is that Micah may have seen something so positive in Hezekiahs reform that he was more concerned to concentrate on the injustices perpetrated by the upper class. Renaud finds the same two "re-readings" in the superscription the Book of Micah. Thus the exilic edition with a deuteronomistic cast bore the superscription, "the word of Yahweh which was (addressed) to Micah in the days of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah", while the tradent of the 4th century who gave the book its eschatological colouring added the words on Samaria and Jerusalem.
27.
to

In Renauds opinion, a number of the glosses correspond to the deuteronomistic tampering which Werner H. Schmidt demonstrated to be present in the Book of Amos in his article, "Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches", ZAW 77/1965, pp.168-193.

28.

29. The emphasis on divine inspiration is expressed, besides in the superscription(see f.n.27),in the additions in 3.8 of "spirit of Yahweh". This addition is not an actual transformation of the meaning of the section (against Wolff), but only a form of emphawhere Renaud detects a similarity sis. This is one of the cases to the Book of Ezekiel. Additions such as "at that time" (3.4) and "it has happened" to the fact that Micah is not just thinking of some judgement in the near future, but of the Exile itself. This is for example emphasized by the re-redaction of 2.10. Whereas Micah addressed himself to distinct groups, in Renauds view, the later tradent of the book stressed that the whole people were liable to punishment, for example by the addition of a gloss at 2.5, and by the nature of the sin which is made visible by the addition in 1.13bc, and so on.
30.

(2.4) point

31. In Renauds opinion, valuable supportive evidence for dating this version of Micah lies in the fact that 2 Chr. 18.27 knows Micah 1.2 as a Micah quotation (1 Kings 22.28, the author holds, has received the pericope secondarily from Chronicles). It is important for an understanding of Renauds views on the development of the prophetic books in relation to Israels cultural evolution, that the points of similarity which he detects between Isaiah and the Book of Micah (and of which the identification of Is. 2.2-4 and Micah 4.1-4 is the most important) receive so late a date.

29

32.

Renaud believes that at

only

one

point

in the process of tra-

dition does this particular redactor contribute a gloss, at 7.4b, which together with 7.11-13 (which is sandwiched between layers of an older psalm, 7.8-10, 14-20) give ch. 7 the liturgical unity which its present form enjoys. On 7.11, see below, f.n.44.
Renaud asserts that the tragic circumstances (that is, during 33. the Persian period) are mainly expressed in the second half of ch. 4 by means of the oft-repeated nny. Moreover, in this edition of the text the Return from exile is not the only guarantee that history is capable of transformation from present misery to future salvation; the prophet also proposed the early monarchy and the Exodus event
as

examples (4.8; 7.15, etc.).

Renaud maintains that Zech. 11, the chapter which closest re34. sembles this material, cannot possibly have been composed until after 312 B.C.

35. The author contends that v. 12 was at this point "re-read" so that Israel was here compared with sheep in Bozrah and Edom, in order to express the poor conditions of Israels existence. Additionally, he asserts that the Edom-element was subsequently corrupted in the MT. Finally, Renaud points out that the leadership of Yahweh is placed in opposition to the wretched leaders of the people 3.1-4 by means of ?.
36.

Compare with the

insight

press tra-distinction to Mt.Gerizim (see also below, f.n.43). As an extension of this suggestion, Renaud holds that the reading ? in 3.12 foreshadows the description of Zion as the sacral centre of the world.

. It is a surprising text suggested by BHS of the author to allow the ? of the text to exthe notion that Jerusalem is the true sacred shrine, in con-

37. Ernst Sellin, Kommentar zum Alten Testament (herausg. E. 2nd-3rd ed. 1929. Sellin), XII, Scholl, Leipzig 1922, pp.254-303.
On Weiser, see above, f.n.13. Walter Beyerlin, Die Kulttradi38. tion Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Micha, FRLANT 72, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1959; a similar point of view characterizes Rolf Freiherr von Ungern-Sternberg, Der Rechtstreit Gottes mit seiner Gemeinde (Der Prophet Micha), Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments 23,III, Calwer, Stuttgart 1958.

39.

Sophonie,

René Vuilleumier (et C.-A. Keller), Michée, Nahoum, Habacuc, Commentaire de lAncien Testament XIb, Delachaux et

30

Niestlé, Neuchâtel 1971, pp.5-92. This commentary strongly emphasizes the cultic background of Michas language, and holds accordingly that there is no reason to deny the authenticity of ch.4-5. Only 2.12f and 7.8ff are seen as really "inauthentiques".
E. Hammershaimb, Einige Hauptgedanken in der Schrift des Pro40. pheten Micha, ST 15/1961, pp.11-34, here quoted from Some Aspects of Old Testament Prophecy , Rosenkilde og Bagger, København 1966, similar view is put forth by A.S. Kapelrud in an artiA pp.29-50. cle in Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk II, 2nd ed. Stockholm 1963,

col.105-108.
Micha in Kommentar zum Alten Testament XIII, 3 , Mohn, Güters41. loh 1975, pp.21-140. Even if his commentary evidences some external resemblance to that of Willis, as in the case of the division of the book, it is incorrect to imagine that Rudolph has been influenced by Willis. This is apparent in, among other things, the differences between their views on the evolution of the book.
At issue is the last part of ch.l from in ch.2, the last part of ch.6 from v.9, 7 plus verse 11. verses in ch.

42.

v.10,
and

ses

finally

number of verthe first

43. Cf. Rudolph, p.26. We should not ignore the fact that Rudolphs suggested emendations are far above the average;

of it is, for example, a brilliant idea to vocalize the much-discussed ? in 1.5 so that it means "geradezu der Tod (Judas)". We ought nevertheless to consider whether or not we should retain the MT and understand it on the basis of the deuteronomistic view that "bama" and "sin" (?) belong together; cf. the expression "Jeroboams sin" used of the cult and holy place in Bethel.
some

44.

This

interpretation

is based among other

things

on

v.11, where

? is understood as applying to the walls of Jerusalem (the suffix is feminine). This would, however, become the only reading in
the OT in which ? is used of a city wall. It is otherwise a hedsuch as that which surrounds a vineyard in Is. 5.5. As in this pericope, it may well be the people who are the reference of the feminine suffix, so that the broken down and as yet unrepaired hedge represents the border, which also corresponds well to the parallelism of the verse. Building on an article by B. Stade in
ge,
ZAW
once

23/1903 (especially pp.164-171) Hermann Gunkel established and for all the liturgical importance of the conclusion of the Book of Micah. See "Der Micha-Schluss. Zur Einführung in die literaturgeschichtliche Arbeit im Alten Testament", 2/1923, pp.
145-178.

ZS

31

45.

Rudolph suggests that a possible proclamation against cultic improprieties has here disappeared from the tradition, since it was rendered superfluous by Hezekiahs Reform, 2 Kings 18.4.

46. Although Rudolphs commentary was published first, it was possible for him to refer to van der Woudes views, with which he was familiar through the articles mentioned in f.n. 52.
Micah in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament 47. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, Eerdmans, Grand Ra-

pids, Michigan,
48.

USA

1976, pp.238-427.

Wellhausen felt that the Exile was here presupposed ( Die KleiPropheten p.139), while Stade held out the possibility of its , ZAW 1/1881, p.162). One of stemming from the time of the Exile ( the first to suspect that the passage fits poorly in its present location was H. Ewald; in Die Propheten des alten Bundes (Krabbe, Stuttgart 1840, pp.333f.) he suggests that it is a quotation of a false prophet.
nen

49.

John

Bright,

History

of Israel ,

Old Testament

Library,

SCM

Press, London 1960, pp.282-287.

Unlike Rudolph, Allen is content to make do with a very short list indeed of necessary conjectural emendations (p.253). With an emphasis somewhat different from that of Renaud, he denies that the text of Micah is as difficult to understand as has so often been maintained. 50.

51.

Nijkerk,

Micha in De 1976.

Prediking

van

het Oude Testament, Callenbach,

52. A number of van der Woudes been published before this, such

results had, however, Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-prophets, VT 19/1969, pp.244-260; Micha I 10-16, Hommage a André Dupont-Sommer , Paris 1971, pp.247-353; Deutero-Micha: ein Prophet aus Nord-Israel? Nederlands Theologisch Tijdsschrift 25/ 1971, pp.365-378; Micah IV 1-5: An Instance of the Pseudo-Prophets Quoting Isaiah, Symbolae biblicae et mesopotamicae F.M.Th. Liagre Böhl dedicatae , Leiden 1973, pp.396-402.

partial
as

A Study of the Book of Micah ( , 1950) also assume a continuing debate between Micah and the "elders of Israel"; the authors do not, however, detect so radical a theological disagreement between the two parties as does van der Woude. The debate is held most
53.
B.A.

Copas and

E.L.

Carlson

Baker, Grand Rapids, Michigan,

USA

32

especially
54.
We

to

take

place in

ch.

6-7.
as

refer to the view of H. Ewald

mentioned above,

f.n.48. Bibli-

55. A. van Hoonacker, Les douze ques, Paris 1908, pp.339-411.

petits prophètes , Etudes

56.

F.C.

Burkitt, Micah 6 and 7

As
an

pp.159-161.

a Northern Prophecy, JBL 45/1926, early example of this line of discussion we can

mention C.F. Horneman (see f.n.17), who in his translation of 1777 suggested that the "city" of Mi 6.9ff refers to Samaria. He does not inform us whether this is hiw own idea, or derived from others. 57.
It would lead
we us can

too

far afield to attempt to

to

reply

to

these

questions here;

accordingly only refer

Van der Woude himself assumes 1.5 in f.n.43. mistic redactor has here inserted a gloss.

remarks on that the deuteronoour

58. H.W. Wolff has already tipped his hand slightly to indicate the direction his new commentary will take (see above, f.n.10), but G. Davies is also in process of preparing a commentary for The New Century ; s commentary on the Bible moreover, Anchor Bible minor prophets may also be under way.