Micah (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament) 9042943637, 9789042943636

Citation preview

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT Micah

by Johannes C. de Moor

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT *** MICAH

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

Editorial team: Cornelis Houtman (Kampen, The Netherlands) Gert T.M. Prinsloo (Pretoria, South Africa) Klaas Spronk (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Wilfred G.E. Watson (Newcastle, UK) Al Wolters (Mount Hope, Ontario, Canada)

MICAH

by Johannes C. de Moor

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2020

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Cover design by Dick Prins. ISBN 978-90-429-4363-6 eISBN 978-90-429-4364-3 D/2020/0602/126 © 2020 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

§ 1 The Text of the Book of Micah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 2 Name of the Book and Place in the Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 3 History and Future of Research in Micah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 4 The Structure of the Book of Micah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 5 The Style of the Book of Micah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 6 The Historical Order of the Compositional Units . . . . . . . § 7 The Socio-theological Criticism of Micah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 8 Micah and Isaiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 9 The Reception of the Book of Micah in Antiquity . . . . . . § 10 The Structure of This Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 3 18 20 21 24 28 29 31

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Micah 1:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Micah 1:2-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

Micah 1:10-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

Micah 2:1-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

115

Micah 2:12-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149

Micah 3:1-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159

Micah 4:1-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

189

Micah 4:8–5:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

213

Micah 6:1-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

269

Micah 7:1-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

317

Micah 7:14-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 9

List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

381

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

383

Index of Scriptural References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

443

PREFACE The work on this commentary started back in 1957 when I was still an undergraduate student of my revered Professors Nicolaas Herman Ridderbos and Willem Hendrik Gispen (Free University, Amsterdam). With countless interruptions because of other obligations the preparation of the manuscript had to be continued up till now. I am deeply grateful to God who allowed me to complete this volume despite several bouts of severe illness. I am indebted to the librarians of the Protestant University at Amsterdam and Groningen, the Free University at Amsterdam, the University of Amsterdam (Rosenthaliana), Leiden University (The Netherlands Institute for the Near East; Peshit.ta Institute), the Theological University of the Reformed Churches at Kampen, the National Library of Israel (Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts) at Jerusalem, the British Library at London, the Bodleian Library at Oxford, the Biblioth`eque Nationale at Paris, the Biblioteca Ambrosiana at Milan, the Biblioteca Apostolica at Vatican City, the Biblioteca Palatina at Parma, the Biblioteca Estense at Modena. They all helped me generously in collecting the data I needed. I want to express my deep gratitude to all who have helped me with this project in the course of so many years. Unfortunately it is impossible to specify their precious contributions here. I must confine myself to the enumeration of their names: Bob Becking, Todd Bolen, Manfried Dietrich, Meindert Dijkstra, Craig Dunning, Margaretha Folmer, Robert Gordon, Elisabeth Hernitscheck, Cees Houtman, Dineke Houtman, Konrad Jenner, William Koopmans, Marjo Korpel, Oswald Loretz, Pieter van der Lugt, Hennie Marsman, Tryggve Mettinger, Hans Renkema, Riemer Roukema, Paul Sanders, Klaas Spronk, Wilfred Watson, Nicolas Wyatt. The Editors of the Historical Commentary on the Old Testament are thanked for their patience, their suggestions for improvement and finally for their decision to accept this volume for publication. I dedicate this book to my wife Janny whose undaunted support created room for it. Johannes de Moor

abbreviations The use of abbreviations has been limited in this commentary. Those urzungen remaining are according to: Redaktion der RGG4 , Abk¨ uTheologie und Religionswissenschaft nach RGG4 (UTB, 2868), T¨ bingen 2007. For texts from Antiquity abbreviations current in English are used, mostly following D.J.A. Clines, The Sheffield Manual for Authors and Editors in Biblical Studies, Sheffield 1997. In addition the following abbreviations have been used. *

˜ Ì Ê Í ◊ Àò ßò Áò AHw AOAT AuS BDB BHSynt. BL CAD CEDHL

CHANE CoS

Reading deviating from ˜. Masoretic Standard Text. Septuagint (Old Greek). Targum. Peshit.ta. Vulgate. Aquila. Symmachus. Theodotion. W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handw¨ orterbuch, 2 Bde, Wiesbaden 1965–1981. Alter Orient und Altes Testament (M¨ unster). G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Pal¨ astina, 8 Bde, G¨ utersloh/Berlin 1928–2001. F. Brown et al. (eds), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford 1953 (1907). B.K. Waltke & M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990. H. Bauer & P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebr¨ aischen Sprache, Halle 1922. The Assyrian Dictionary (of the Oriental Institute, Chicago). E. Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English, Jerusalem 1987. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East (Leiden). W.W. Hallo et al. (eds), The Context of Scripture, 4 vols, Leiden, 1997–2017.

x

abbreviations CSAPI

DAF DBHE DCH DJD DS DULAT

Fs. GAG

GBH GKC

HAHAT

HAWAT HCHAT

HCOT HS HWAT

O. Keel, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Pal¨ astina-Israel (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series archaeologica, 13–), Freiburg 1997–. A. de Biberstein Kazimirski, Dictionnaire arabefran¸cais, 2 tms, Paris 1860. L. Alonso Sch¨okel (ed.), Diccionario B´ıblico-Hebreo-Espa˜ nol, Madrid 1994. D.J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 9 vols, Sheffield 1993–2016. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (Oxford). J.C.L. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax, Edinburgh 1994. G. del Olmo Lete & J. Sanmart´ın, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, 2 Parts, Leiden 2003. Festschrift. W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (Analecta Orientalia, 33), 3. Aufl., Roma 1995. P. Jo¨ uon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 27), Roma 2006. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English Edition, edited by A.E. Cowley, Oxford 1910. H. Donner et al. (eds), Wilhelm Gesenius Hebr¨ aisches und Aram¨ aisches Handw¨ orterbuch u ¨ber das Alte Testament, Lief. 1–6, Heidelberg 18 1987–2010; Supplementband, Heidelberg 2012. E. K¨ onig, Hebr¨ aisches und aram¨ aisches W¨ orterbuch zum Alten Testament, 2−3 Leipzig 1922. J. F¨ urst, Hebr¨ aisches und Chald¨ aisches Handw¨ orterbuch u ¨ber das Alte Testament, 3. Aufl., 2 Bde, Leipzig 1876. The Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kampen / Leuven). C. Brockelmann, Hebr¨ aische Syntax, Neukirchen 1956. C. Siegfried & B. Stade, Hebr¨ aisches W¨ orterbuch zum Alten Testamente, Leipzig 1893.

abbreviations KAI

KTU

¨ LA Lane

˜ Mur. 88 NIDB NIDOTTE

SAA SAAS StEL Synt. TB Thes.

ThWAT tr.

xi

H. Donner & W. R¨ ollig, Kanaan¨ aische und aram¨ aische Inschriften, 3 Bde, 2. Auflage, Wiesbaden 1969. M. Dietrich et al. (eds), Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten, Dritte, erweiterte Auflage, M¨ unster 2013. ¨ Lexikon der Agyptologie, 7 Bde (Wiesbaden). E.W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 Parts, London 1863–1885. Masoretic Text according to the Leningrad Codex B19a. P. Benoit et al. (eds), Les grottes de Murabba’at (DJD, 2), 2 vols, Oxford 1961. K. Doob Sakenfeld (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols, Nashville 2006–2009. W.A. van Gemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols, Carlisle 1996. State Archives of Assyria (Helsinki). State Archives of Assyria Studies (Helsinki). Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico (Verona). F.E. K¨onig, Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebr¨ aischen Sprache, Leipzig 1897. S. Mittmann & G. Schmitt (eds), T¨ ubinger Bibelatlas (TAVO), Stuttgart 2001. G. (=W.) Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae hebraeae et chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, Lipsiae 1829–1858. Theologisches W¨ orterbuch zum Alten Testament, 10 Bde, Wiesbaden 1973–2001. Translation by . . .

INTRODUCTION § 1 The Text of the Book of Micah At least from the second century bce the book of Micah must have been part of the scroll of the so-called Minor Prophets, albeit inserted in different places with regard to the order of the Books. The oldest presently known Hebrew manuscript of the Twelve is the Qumran manuscript 4QXIIa (4Q76), but Micah has not been preserved in it. The earliest copy of Micah is found in the Qumran manuscript 4QXIIg (4Q82) dating from the last third of the first century bce. With few exceptions it provides the standard consonantal Masoretic text (˜).1 This is also the case with the almost complete, but heavily damaged scroll of the Twelve discovered in Wadi Murabbaat, dating from c. 150 ce.2 Some fragmentary Hebrew commentaries (pesharim) from Qumran contain lengthy quotations from the book of Micah and in this case too the text remains close to ˜.3 The Old Greek Bible (Septuagint, Ì) suggests that earlier, probably around 200 bce, still some more or less diverging versions of the Hebrew text of the Bible circulated, but for Micah few variants have been found that can be attributed with confidence to a different Hebrew Vorlage. Most can be explained by translation technique or ignorance.4 The oldest manuscript of Ì is a fragmentary scroll from Nah.al H . ever (8H . evXIIgr) which is usually dated between the first century bce and the first century ce. It contains fragments of Micah 1:1–5:6. However, this is already a revision of the Old Greek to adapt it to the emerging ˜.5 A very helpful synopsis of all these early traditions is found in Ego 2005. Later translations like Aquila (Àò), Symmachus (ßò), Theodotion (Áò), Peshit.ta (Í) and Vulgate (◊) rarely help to reconstruct a supposed reading of the Hebrew text, but occasionally they may throw some light on the early understanding of the text. However, it 1 2 3 4

5

Fuller 1997. Milik 1961. 1QpMic = 1Q14; 4QpMic = 4Q168. Cf. e.g. Ryssel 1887; Taylor 1890; Ziegler 1984; Barth´elemy 1992; 3-5; Gelston 2010. Barth´elemy 1963.

2

introduction § 2

should always be kept in mind that both Jews and Christians tried to extract arguments for their faith from the Bible and made use of hermeneutical principles that sometimes led to far-fetched distortions of what we nowadays think was meant. The consonantal text of medieval Hebrew manuscripts seldom deviates from the standard ˜. Eighteenth century scholars6 diligently collected variants with regard to the consonantal text, but mostly these are merely orthographic. Initially more variation was tolerated with regard to vocalization and accentuation which developed since the sixth century. Scholars distinguish between Babylonian, Palestinian, Tiberian and Tibero-Palestinian systems.7 Sometimes one finds unexpected variant vocalizations in medieval Tiberian manuscripts that influence the meaning of the text. Examples of this are found in this commentary on Micah 2:7aA and 7:1, 10. Obviously the oral recitation in the synagogue tended towards a fixed tradition, yet it was part of late medieval understanding of the text. § 2 Name of the Book and Place in the Canon The oldest known name of the collection of sermons by Micah the Morashtite was ‘Hear you peoples, all of you!’, the first words of Micah 1:2. This title has been preserved as a gloss in 1 Kings 22:28 where a namesake, Micah ben Imla, is mistakenly credited with the authorship of the book. The Hebrews took over the custom to name literary compositions after their first word(s) from the Babylonians (for example, en¯ uma eliˇs, ‘when above’, the first words of the Babylonian Creation Epic, and Genesis 1:1 tyviarEB], ‘in the beginning). This means that the present superscription of the book was still not in place when the gloss was inserted in 1 Kings 22:28. Nowadays it is certain that the superscriptions of the prophetic books of the Bible were added at a relatively late date, probably around 300 bce when the Hebrew canon was in the process of finalization. However, this does not mean that these superscriptions are unreliable. There is growing evidence that they were based on colophons providing information about the name of the prophet and his or her pedigree and residence (see below § 3). 6 7

Kennicott 1780 and De Rossi 1786; 1798. See e.g. Kahle 1913; 1927; 1930; 1959; Dietrich 1968; Yeivin 1973; Revell 1977; Korpel & De Moor 2007.

history and future of research in micah

3

At present, the book of Micah is in the middle of the Book of the so-called Minor Prophets (the Twelve). In the Masoretic Hebrew Bible (˜) that has become the normative text in the Jewish community this is indicated by a marginal note next to Micah 3:12: ‘half of the book by verses’. This is true only if all Twelve were counted. Apparently, the terrible prediction of 3:12 was regarded as the heart of the whole book of the Twelve Prophets. However, in various manuscriptal traditions the order of the Twelve is different and this is an indication that these books originally circulated independently (see below). § 3 History and Future of Research in Micah The history of research in the book of Micah has been described so often that it is hardly necessary to repeat this exercise here.8 As will become apparent in this paragraph much previous research has become obsolete because through archaeological discoveries and fresh textual material much more relevant data has become available that was not at the disposal of earlier generations of scholars. Since Stade 18819 it has become almost a dogma among scholars that only Micah 1–3 (with some minor exceptions) can be attributed to the prophet himself.10 Recently even this has been contested.11 8

See e.g. Schmidt 1979, 221-225; Hillers 1984, 1-4; Schmid 2006, 384-386. A good bibliography up to 1989 is found in Van der Wal 1990. 9 See also Stade 1883; 1903. Even more critical was Haupt 1910a; 1910b. Only some 33 lines of the first three chapters would be genuine, chapters 4–7 would be Maccabean. 10 E.g. Marti 1904, 258-259; Nowack 1922, 195-199; Mays 1976, 13-15; Renaud 1977; 1987; Wolff 1982; Otto 1991; Jeremias 2003b; 2007; Kessler 2006a, 119120; Schmidt 2006, 384-385; Nogalski 2011; 2018; Zenger 2016, 671. 11 Becker 2010, 249: ‘In this passage [Mic. 4–5] we find neither the actual words of the historic Micah nor successive insertions in the text of the editors’. Zapff 2017, 553: ‘Since these contacts are inextricably linked with each other and constitute a considerable part of the book, it can be assumed that there was never an independent Book of Micah.’ Zapff 2018, 80, n. 1, ‘Was aber, wenn ein “Michabuch” als solches niemals ohne ein wie auch immer geartetes Mehrprophetenbuch existierte, sondern von vornherein f¨ ur ein solches verfasst wurde?’. In fact, also the approach of Ben Zvi divorces the interpretation of the book of Micah from the monarchical period envisaged in Mic. 1:1 and Jer. 26:16-19: ‘in sum, the study of the setting described in the book of Micah cannot be taken as a reliable source for understanding the history of monarchic Judah from Jotham to Hezekiah’ (Ben Zvi 2000, 11).

4

introduction § 3

Some scholars are still defending the position that everything in the book of Micah originated with this prophet,12 but most scholars are convinced that considerable parts of the book must be attributed to later, post-exilic redactors.13 Openness to the idea that later generations felt compelled to supplement Micah’s original work in different times should not be denounced as hypercriticism or lack of faith.14 The Word of God was mediated by generations of men and women, real people who had to cope with various challenges in a changing world.15 Copyright did not exist and so they felt authorized by the Spirit of the Lord to adapt the text to the needs of their communities, paying due respect to the primary author, as I will show time and again. Should they have resisted that urge? Stade’s thesis was refuted in his own time by several by no means uncritical scholars.16 Since then many other scholars have argued that more material of the book of Micah can be ascribed to the prophet himself.17 Shawn Zelig Aster writes, . . . biblical prophecies were written shortly after their composition. This proposes that the biblical books considered here (Hosea, Isaiah 1–39, and Micah) were not composed mainly by editors who postdated the Assyrian period, but that significant passages in these books were composed in the eight[h] and seventh centuries and were written down at that time. Subject to the vagaries of preservation and some limited intrusions and additions by editors, these passages reflect Israelite and Judahite writers’ thoughts on the political challenges their societies faced.18 12

E.g. Margolis 1908; Ridderbos 1930; Schibler 1991; Shaw 1993; Waltke 1993, 593; 2007; Marrs 1999; Barker 1998; Sweeney 2000; Roberts 2018; Shepherd 2018. 13 Some bibliography: Robertson Smith & Cheyne 1902; Renaud 1977; Jeppesen 1978; 1979; McKane 1998. 14 It is painful to see this still happening in the work of some colleagues, e.g. Maillot & Leli`evre 1976; Barker 1998, 29; Waltke 2007, esp. 8-13. 15 Cf. Korpel & De Moor 2011. 16 Like Ryssel 1887, 199-282; Kuenen 1889, 369-380. Also Driver 1897, 325-334; Wellhausen 1898, 142-146; Steuernagel 1912, 623-630 pointed to inconsistencies in Stade’s theory and defended the authenticity of at least parts of Micah 4–7. 17 See e.g. Sellin 1929, 305-308; Bentzen 1957, 147-149; George 1958, 13; Eissfeldt 1964, 552-557 (but see also Eissfeldt 1968); Vuilleumier 1971, 89-90; Rudolph 1982, 24-25; Allen 1976, 242-252; Kapelrud 1979, 103-116; Deissler 1986; Craigie 1985, 2-3; Weiser 1985, 232; Wahl 1990; Shaw 1993; Utzschneider 2005, 30; Joosten 2013; Burnett 2018, 189, n. 124.

history and future of research in micah

5

Several scholars have defended the thesis that ‘Deutero-Micah’ (i.e. Micah 6–7) originated in North-Israel.19 Often such theories have been based on similar phrases in deuteronomic/deuteronomistic passages, and parallel phrases in Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Statistically this is a rather hazardous method in view of the very limited size of the sample Micah 6–7. Comparing a huge amount of other Hebrew literature with only 36 verses from the book of Micah is bound to produce unreliable statistical results. The inscriptions of Kuntillet Ajrud have shown that Micah 1:3-4 uses typically ‘Northern’ imagery. He explicitly condemns Samaria in Micah 1:5. Why would it be impossible for the same prophet to condemn the behavior of Northern kings like Omri and Ahab in Micah 6:16? Especially if Micah was an early advocate of re-uniting North and South under Davidic rule (Micah 4:8–5:8)? Moreover, the proponents of a northern ‘Deutero-Micah’ often downplay the obvious parallels with First Isaiah (Isaiah 1–39). It is becoming increasingly clear that parts of the chapters 4– 7 may as well be pre-exilic and contain links with the first three chapters. It is no longer absurd to assume the existence of an early collection of Micah oracles comparable to similar collections that were compiled by Neo-Assyrian scribes in Micah’s time. Prophecy was a common phenomenon in the ancient Near East and Greece. We knew that already from the Bible itself,20 but in the past century much more extrabiblical evidence has been published that illuminates the phenomenon of prophecy in ancient Israel enormously.21 In the present commentary special attention will be paid to Neo-Assyrian prophecy that to a large extent was contemporaneous with Micah’s mission.22 It is a well-known fact that occupation by a stronger foreign nation always calls up mixed reactions. Partially aversion and resistance, but also admiration and adoption of 18

Aster 2018a, 102. E.g. Burkitt 1926; Dus 1965; Reicke 1967; Eissfeldt 1968; Van der Woude 1971b and more often. Their thesis was rejected by e.g. Jeppesen 1978, 22-23; Kessler 2000, 255. 20 See e.g. Num. 22–24; 1 Kgs 18; 1 Cor. 12:28-29. 21 See e.g. K¨ ockert & Nissinen 2003; Nissinen 2003a; Nissinen 2003b; 2017; 2019a, b; Korpel & De Moor 2011, 167-180; Burnett 2018; Sader 2018; St¨ okl 2018. 22 See e.g. Parpola 1997; De Jong 2007; Weippert 2014; Aster 2017; Nissinen 2017; 2019, all with earlier literature. 19

6

introduction § 3

political, economic, cultural and even religious customs of the occupier. To some extent this may also be said of the phenomenon of prophecy. The following points of similarity between extra-biblical and inner-biblical prophecy may be noted, 1. Both men and women could act as prophets, speaking in the name of a deity. 2. Their social status did not matter. 3. They delivered their messages orally in public places. 4. The prophet might be raving in trance because a deity had taken control of his tongue. 5. The delivery of prophecy could be accompanied by symbolic acts. 6. Even though the prophet spoke in public, the real addressee was the ruling king, less often a queen or a magistrate. This means that prophecy should be understood against its historical background. This is an extremely important new datum. 7. The king and his officers deemed it useful to keep an eye on what was being said by prophets. They commissioned scribes to write down the prophetic messages they heard. Individual prophecies were archived. The scribe was free to embellish the words of the prophet, occasionally styling them as poetry. If necessary, the scribe could also condense a prophet’s message, sometimes to even one word.23 Therefore the influence of scribes on the shaping of written prophecy should not be underestimated. 8. In view of this background it is not surprising that prophecies were predominantly favorable to the king and his entourage. However, the prophet might remind the king of his religious duties to the temple and his socio-religious duties to the underprivileged in his kingdom. In Neo-Assyrian prophecy the latter category is rare, but this may be due to the fact that most prophets were in the service of the king or queen. 23

In the Hebrew Lachish Letter No. 3:21 an unidentified prophet is quoted to have said, rmçh ‘Beware!’. So it was possible to condense a prophetic speech to only one word.

history and future of research in micah

7

9. Prophecies of doom were directed to enemies of the king, mainly other nations. However, the apocalyptic visions of ‘Balaam, son of Beor’, that were found on a plastered wall at the site of Deir Allah in Transjordan, prove that at the time of Micah’s ministry oracles predicting doom could indeed be collected in the form of a literary ‘book’ (spr ). In this case consisting of an inscription covering only a few pages in print. 10. Prophecies were usually provided with the name of the deity speaking as well as the name(s) of the person(s) that the deity wanted to address. 11. The name and the place of residence of a prophet were dutifully recorded, probably to enable the king’s officers to check the veracity of the message. 12. Prophecies could be reused later, sometimes in elaborated literary compositions. In this sense prophecy was always open to the future.24 The biggest difference with prophecies in the Old Testament is that the prophets speaking in the Old Testament were predominantly doomsayers.25 However, the predominance of warning messages in Israelite prophecies can also be attributed to the selection made by the postexilic redactors who were deeply impressed by the message of prophets like Micah who had correctly predicted the impending fall of the Northern and Southern States, culminating in the destruction of the temple on Zion as a result of the sins committed by the elite that had enjoyed royal protection. To decide what may be attributed to Micah himself or to those who received his message in later times one should not work with innerbiblical material alone. Fortunately the extrabiblical prophecies provide us with comparative material that has proven extremely 24 25

See e.g. Weippert 2014, 114-131. According to Simo Parpola the biggest difference between Neo-Assyrian and Hebrew prophecy would be that ‘the Assyrian prophets do not proclaim the word of their national god, Aˇsˇsur. In most cases the oracular deity is Iˇstar ’ (Parpola 1997, XVIII). However, Neo-Assyrian prophecies in the name of other deities are known, e.g. B¯el, Nabˆ u, Nusku. Because all other deities were seen as emanations of the highest god Aˇsˇsur, the difference is not as great as it may seem. The predominance of Iˇstar may rest on statistical bias or the preference of kings with extensive harems for the goddess of love Iˇstar.

8

introduction § 3

valuable to a better understanding of the phenomenon of prophecy, also with regard to their original delivery and transmission.26 Initially prophetic speeches were delivered orally in public places like squares.27 These original oracles were relatively short and continued to be transmitted orally by the hearers.28 Several passages in the Neo-Assyrian prophecies are formulated as parallelistic poetry and this too is an important similarity. It makes it imperative to devote special attention to the form of prophetic poetry.29 This can help to identify added and omitted verse-lines or strophes.30 Because prophets addressed politically important persons, especially kings and queens,31 their messages were written down by scribes who relayed them to the persons involved. These scribes felt free to embellish the text, using standard phrases or even whole passages from other compositions.32 As stated above, copyright was unknown, so this form of plagiarism was totally acceptable. However, the name and residence of the prophet or prophetess were usually added in a colophon33 for the purpose of verification, if necessary. Assuming that a similar procedure was followed in Israel, the veracity of the attribution of the gist of a prophecy to one particular person in the superscriptions of the prophetic books of the Bible deserves to be taken seriously. In the course of the scribal transmission of such prophecies passages were modified, added or omitted, as circumstances and interpretation required. As Martti Nissinen writes,

26

Of course there also exist fundamental differences between biblical and extrabiblical prophecy (see e.g. Zenger 2016, 523; St¨ okl 2018, 104-105, but also Nissinen 2003b). 27 See e.g. Ezek. 33:30-33. 28 With regard to Judah see e.g. Jer. 26:17-18. 29 See e.g. Watson 1986a; Watson 1986b; 1994; De Moor & Watson 1993; Korpel & De Moor 1998. I do not mean here form-critical studies, but technical analysis of verse-lines, strophes, canticles etc. 30 Examples, Korpel & De Moor 1998, 658; Korpel 2001, 214-217. In the book of Micah a striking example of editorial censoring will be identified in Mic. 3:10. 31 This is neglected in many studies, even in a work like Runions 2001 that devotes special attention to the gender of persons speaking or being addressed in the book of Micah. 32 With regard to Hebrew poetry, compare Isa. 2:2-5 with Mic. 4:1-5. 33 More rarely in a heading.

history and future of research in micah

9

The words that once came out of the prophets’ mouths were necessarily exposed to material restrictions, selection, and memory of the persons who wrote them down. The scribal process that produced the texts we have at our disposal is always a secondary development with regard to the spoken, “authentic” prophecies. Therefore, sources of prophecy are ultimately sources of the reception of prophecy; the texts often hide as much as they reveal, and our picture of ancient prophecy will always be incomplete and partially distorted.34

Surely this is an overly negative judgment because it underestimates the power of memory and oral tradition in societies that were still only partly literate. A century after Micah 3:12 was spoken elderly people still remembered its wording.35 Moreover the book of Micah contains traces of its oral delivery.36 Many prophets in Israel were trained in ‘schools’ and their training seems to have included at least a basic mastery of writing.37 Trained Hebrew scribes may have been active at least since the 9th or 8th century bce.38 Nevertheless, even if a prophet was explicitly instructed to write the words of God down on a scroll (Jeremiah 36:2) this may have been short for ‘have your oral message written down by an accomplished scribe’ (cf. Jeremiah 36:4-32; 45:1). However, Nissinen is right in observing that it is often impossible to retrace the redaction process that the original wording of a prophet’s words underwent. As a result, modern interpreters of ancient prophecy are sometimes forced to fill in gaps in the information transmitted in written form. Obviously it is the modern interpreter’s duty to recognize this and admit the hypothetical nature of such ‘reconstructions’. Unfortunately this seldom happens. Various redactional layers in the transmitted text are still determined with great confidence and relations between one text and another

34

Nissinen 2017, 327. See above and the comment on Mic. 1:1 for more details. 36 See this commentary on Mic. 1:10-15; 2:6. 37 Cf. 1 Sam. 10:25; Isa. 8:1, 16; 30:8; Jer. 22:30; 30:2; 32:10; Ezek. 37:16, 20; Hab. 2:2. See also Dekker’s criticism of Van der Toorn’s book (Dekker 2009). The book of Micah contains some passages that justify the conclusion that he too worked in a company of prophets. See the comments on Mic. 2:6 and 7:5. 38 Cf. Rollston 2018b. Nissinen admits that oral tradition may have been important (Nissinen 2019a, 563-576). 35

10

introduction § 3

are presented as if no other possibilities exist.39 Because I do not believe this is justified, I will rarely discuss all these proposals in detail. To understand prophecy properly it is necessary to reconstruct the historical situation in which the prophet, his contemporaries and his later editors lived.40 It is my firm conviction that more has been preserved of Micah’s original words than most scholars are prepared to accept nowadays. I hope to demonstrate this in the commentary. However, even if one denies Micah’s authorship for certain passages, it is necessary to attempt to read them against their later historical background41 and this too will be done on occasion in this commentary, even if it may seem an impossible task to unravel the genesis of a text which is the result of such a complex process. Those who compiled the canonical version of the Hebrew Bible must have realized this, if only because they themselves (re-)edited many passages. Therefore they omitted the colophons and replaced them by a general heading identifying the supposed original speaker and the source of his inspiration. However, it should be recognized that the colophons that were once there gave them a firm basis for attributing prophecies to a particular prophet who worked at a particular place in a particular time. Therefore it is warranted to take their testimony seriously unless strong arguments force us to assume a later adaptation of the text. Prophecies were also assembled in larger collections, ‘books’ or rather ‘anthologies’ – so to speak.42 Textual units were separated 39

A random example, Schart 1998, 185: ‘Mi 3,2a bildet den exakten Gegensatz zu Am 5,15a. Das kann kaum anders als eine bewußte Bezugnahme interpretiert werden.’ However, merisms like these are universal standard pairs that should not be used to establish a specific literary dependency. See e.g. Maqlˆ u VII.12-22; Seux 1976, 334, 373, 378; Watters 1976, 189, 212; Jacobsen 1987, 339, 342; Assmann 1999, 461; Hos. 9:5; Ps. 52:5; 97:10; 109:5; Prov. 8:13; 5:17. 40 So I disagree with attempts to discredit diachronical approaches, like those of Jeremias 1971; Childs 1979, 428-439; Ben Zvi 2000; Utzschneider 2005; 2007. In reality they, too, cannot ignore the historical circumstances presupposed by the literary texts they are studying, even though they are inclined to seek this historical background as late as possible. 41 A good example of this policy is Schmidt 2001. 42 The first to recognize the importance of all this for understanding the growth process of the prophetic books of the Old Testament was Manfried Dietrich (Dietrich 1973).

history and future of research in micah

11

from each other by horizontal lines or blank spaces – the Hebrew petuh.ot and setumot.43 These traditional separations that were introduced as early as the 13th century bce in North-West Semitic texts have been ignored by the majority of modern scholarship far too long. It is likely that at first the individual books of the Twelve were composed. Indicative of this is the different order of the Twelve in manuscripts of Ì and in 4QXIIa , a second century bce manuscript from Qumran,44 but as early as the first century ce the canonical order of the Twelve must have existed too.45 The much discussed passage Ben Sira 49:1046 is incomplete in the Hebrew manuscript B and merely indicates that by that date the Twelve were considered to be a coherent group of prophets who gave ‘Jacob’ hope. This implies that also the editorial expansions of the book of Micah expressing hope in forgiveness and restoration were already in place. However, as will be explained in the comments on Micah 2:12-13 this hope existed already much earlier, but was still climbing to its predominant position. As far as can be judged from the available evidence protoversions of Amos and Hosea may have preceded the book of Micah at this early stage.47 However, the manuscriptal evidence for a scroll containing all twelve ‘Minor’ Prophets in their Masoretic order is dubious.48 Even as late as the first century bce the sequence Amos – Hosea – Micah – Joel was known (Ascension of Isaiah 4:22)49 and some versions of the Vitae Prophetarum (first century ce) attest to the sequence Hosea – Micah – Amos.50 The Masoretic order Jonah – Micah – Nahum seems to rest on chronological reasoning. All three deal with the consequences of the Neo-Assyrian conquests.51 43

Korpel & De Moor 2011, 72-74; Korpel 2020, both with earlier literature. See e.g. Swete 1902, 201-202; Harrison 1988; Jones 1995; Steck 1996; Fuller 1997, 221-222; Ulrich 1997, 221-222; several authors in Nogalsky & Sweeney 2000; Sweeney 2000, Vol. 1, xxvii-xxxix; Utzschneider 2007, 170; Ben Zvi 2012, 22-25; Nogalski 2016, 38-48; Schmid 2006, 362-365; Fabry 2018a, 3-4; Shepherd 2018, 12-16. 45 8H . evXIIgr, the Greek scroll from Nah.al H . ever which is usually dated between the first century bce and the first century ce. 46 See e.g. Andersen & Freedman 2000, 6; Nihan 2016, 154-155. 47 E.g. Nogalski 1993b; Jones 1995, 226. 48 Guillaume 2008a. Contrast Shepherd 2011, 74-76. 49 See also Strazizich 2007, 71. 50 Schwemer 1996, 20. 51 Cf. Shepherd 2008, 188-189. 44

12

introduction § 3

In a number of influential studies Nogalski has defended the thesis that the book of Micah must be read as part of the Book of the Twelve, not as an independent book.52 His thesis has been adopted, defended and refined by quite a number of scholars.53 Most of these scholars speak of an early collection of proto-versions of the four prophets Hosea, Amos, Micha and Zephaniah54 which was composed by deuteronomistic redactors (D-Corpus). In their enthousiasm for Nogalski’s theory there is a tendency to neglect everything that speaks against it. Nogalski’s thesis obscures the individuality of each prophet even though the Neo-Assyrian parallels from Micah’s own time expressly name the individual prophets55 and mostly transmit the messages they pronounced in separate form. This is also the case with larger vertical tablets containing collections of prophecies. The individual prophecies are separated from each other by horizontal lines.56 Also the earliest Hebrew manuscriptal evidence just discussed argues against the early existence of a Book of the Twelve. From a methodological point of view it is problematical that Nogalski and his supporters overemphasize intertextual similarities between the Twelve at the expense of clear similarities with other biblical books. However, it is certainly possible to view the collection of the Twelve as an interpretative framework, as such anthologies were also produced in Assyria. The undeniable links between the Books of the Twelve are in part the product of reactions between the prophets themselves, but to a large extent also the result of later editorial work, as Martti Nissinen writes, The historical event at the time of the prophetic performance remained part of the memory of the scribes. However, their editorial work, involving selecting and organizing the source material, perhaps even changing the source text to some extent, channels the memory using an ideological compass which determines its direc52

See e.g. Nogalski 1993a; 1993b; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2016; 2018. E.g. Schart 1998; 2018; Kessler 2000; 2002; 2006b; 2018; Redditt & Schart 2003; Schwesig 2006; W¨ ohrle 2006; 2008; 2012; Shepherd 2008; 2011; 2018; Zenger 2016, 630-635; Fabry 2018a; Zapff 2018. 54 E.g. Schart 1998; 2018; Nogalski 1993b, 274, 279. However, Wagenaar 2001, 240 argues for a late exilic or early post-exilic compilation comprising only the Books of Micah and Zephaniah. 55 See e.g. the list of named prophets in Nissinen 2003a, 270. 56 Marti 2014, 52. 53

history and future of research in micah

13

tion. Therefore, the oracle collection is already the product of interpreted memory, apt to become reinterpreted in other scribal products (Nissinen 2019b, 191).

The collection of prophecies is the first phase of their reception and will be treated as such in this commentary. Several scholars have expressed doubts about Nogalski’s redactional model.57 The problem is that mostly it is rather difficult to establish priority – which text came first? The links that have been proposed can mostly be explained just as well by assuming that a later prophet was influenced by an earlier colleague. Even within the opus of one and the same author/scribe we find next to similarities dissimilarities caused by changing circumstances to which he reacted at different times of his life.58 I believe that this also took place in the course of Micah’s long ministry as a prophet. Difficult as it may seem therefore to reach out to the ‘original’ prophecies of Micah the Morashtite it is legitimate to try, starting from the assumption of fairly short sermons that were collected and ordered only later on by a redactor, or even by several generations of editors (redactors), in some cases long after they became part of the collection of the Twelve.59 .................................................................. I hope it will be clear that I do not assert that the book of Micah in its entirety goes back to the prophet himself. However, contrary to what has been stated for about 150 years now I am convinced that more can be regarded as authentic than those who were still unaware of the contemporary extrabiblical prophecies were prepared to acknowledge. In this commentary only the following passages are presented as later editorial additions to prophecies that in my opinion may be regarded as remnants of Micah’s preaching:60

57

E.g. Beck 2005; Roth 2005, 147; Ben Zvi 2009; 2012; 2016; Levin 2013; Kessler 2018. For judicious assessments of the controversy see R¨ omer 2009; Landy 2011. 58 For the Ugaritic tablets written by the same scribe Ilimilku at the same place Ugarit this has been demonstrated convincingly by Korpel 1998b. 59 It may be observed that also Neo-Assyrian religious texts from Micah’s time underwent such redactional editing (Parpola 2019). 60 Leaving aside a few minor explanatory glosses.

14

introduction § 3 Suggested Redactional Additions61 Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah Micah

1:1 2:12-13 4:1-7 5:9-13 6:4-5aC 7:14-20

Thematically all these passages might have been composed by the same redactor,62 but the way in which the future fate of the nations is described in Micah 7:16-17 is incompatible with the positive description in Micah 4:1-4. This points to at least two different redactors, probably working in different historical situations.63 Also Micah 4:5-7 point to one or two redactors who worked later than the redactor of Micah 4:1-4.64 Is it contrary to the doctrine of divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures to accept that various generations have actualized the transmitted text to the needs of their own congregations? I believe it is not. The way God spoke to the people who mediated his words was a dynamic process, not a static one-time event, as I have indicated above. Redactional additions often link up with the immediately preceding verses. Apparently they were intended to mitigate Micah’s extremely harsh messages. It has been observed that the redactors grouped the prophecies in such a way that a nice alternation of oracles of doom and salvation was achieved.65 Yet I will also point out that these promises of salvation were deliberately composed in a style resembling Micah’s and to some extent also tied in with Micah’s earliest prophecies. 2:12-13 The hZ