The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah: Remnant, Restoration, and Promise 9780567665188, 9780567001641, 9780567359377

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

611 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Carolyn J. Sharp, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

ii

THE LITERARY COHERENCE OF THE BOOK OF MICAH

Remnant, Restoration, and Promise

Kenneth H. Cuffey

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

N E W YOR K • LON DON • N E W DE L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 © Kenneth H. Cuffey, 2015 Kenneth H. Cuffey has asserted his rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-56700-164-1 978-0-56735-937-7

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com)

Dedicated to the memory of my parents, Dr. James and Rita L. Cuffey (1911–1999 and 1916–2003)

vi

CONTENTS Acknowlegments Abbreviations List of Tables INTRODUCTION— THE QUESTION: LITERARY COHERENCE IN THE BOOK OF MICAH Chapter 1 HERMENEUTICAL PERSPECTIVE 1. The Nineteenth Century: Disconnecting the Component Portions 2. The Heart of the Twentieth Century: Building and Transitioning (1900–1965) 3. 1966 to the Present (2013) Excursus: A Brief Bibliography of Bibliographies and Surveys of Research on Micah

xiii xv xvii

1 6 6 11 19

51

Chapter 2 STUDIES OF THE COHERENCE OF THE BOOK OF MICAH 1. John Willis 2. David Hagstrom 3. Kenneth Cuffey 4. Lamontte Luker 5. Charles Shaw 6. Mignon Jacobs 7. Synthesis

53 53 57 62 63 64 66 71

Chapter 3 COHERENCE IN WORKS OF LITERATURE 1. The Problem a. De¿nition of the Question b. Differentiation from Other Questions and Concepts c. A Basic Working De¿nition of Coherence

73 73 73 73 78

1

viii

Contents

2. Coherence in the Context of a Communication Model 3. The Textual Dimension of Coherence: Internal Coherence a. Internal Linkage as a Source of Textual Coherence (1) Recurrent Literary Features (2) Links of Transition and Connection (a) Explicit Direction (b) Similarity and Extension of Meaning (c) Similarity and Interdependence of Structure (d) Dissimilarity of Meaning or Structure (3) Examples b. Structure as a Source of Textual Coherence (1) Delineating the Units that Comprise the Structure (2) Patterns (3) Types of Sequential Order (4) Expected Patterns of Thought (5) Examples c. Perspective as a Source of Textual Coherence d. Theme as a Source of Textual Coherence 4. The Historical Dimension of Coherence: External Coherence a. Basic Questions b. The Historical Process: The Formation of the Final Form of the Book of Micah c. The Canonical Process: The Location and Interpretive Use of the Final Form of the Book of Micah 5. The Perceptual Dimension of Coherence: The Reader’s Coherence 6. Studies of Coherence in the Varied Genres of the Hebrew Bible 7. The Nature of Coherence 8. Combinations of Types of Coherence 9. Summary Chapter 4 AN EVALUATION OF THE COHERENCE FOUND IN THE BOOK OF MICAH 1. Introduction 2. Categorizing the Sources of the Textual Coherence Seen in the Book of Micah a. Textual Coherence from Internal Linkage (1) Examples (2) Evaluation 1

79 83 84 84 85 85 86 88 88 89 90 91 92 93 95 96 97 100 103 103 103 104 105 107 112 118 119

121 121 122 123 123 126

Contents

b.

Textual Coherence from Structure (1) The Evolution of the Discussion About Structure (2) Proposed Structures Based Primarily on Historical Growth of the Materials in the Book (a) Historical Criticism in Initial Application to the Book of Micah (b) Historical-Critical Concerns About Distinguishing Genuine Mican Material and Reconstructing the Sequence of Historical Periods to Which the Segments Belong

Micah 1–3 and 4–7 Micah 1–3, 4–5, and 6–7 Micah 1–3, 4–5, 6:1–7:6(7), and 7:7(8)–20 Micah 1–3, 4:1–5:8, 5:9–7:6, and 7:7–20 Micah 1:1, 1:2–3:12, 4–5, and 6–7 (3) Proposed Structures Based on Both Historical-Critical Concerns and Attention to the Final Form Micah 1–5 and 6–7 Different Origins of the Sections and Two-Fold Alternation of Doom and Hope (4) Proposed Structures Based Primarily on Adherence to the Final Form of the Text (a) Basis: The Role of Micah 2:12–13 and Placement of the Summons to Hear Micah 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7 Con¿rmation in the Three-Fold Alternation of Doom and Hope (b) Basis: The Placement of the Remnant Passages Micah 1–2, 3:1–4:8, 4:9–5:14, and 6–7 Con¿rmation in the Four-Fold Alternation of Doom and Hope (c) Basis: Rhetorical Analysis and Issues (i) An Overall Symmetry Micah 1; 2; 3; 4–5; 6; 7:1–7; 7:8–20 A Chiasm Centered on Restoration 1

ix

129 129 132 133

133 133 135 140 141 142

142

142 152 153

153 161

161 163 164 164

x

Contents

(ii)

A Thematic Inclusio

Micah 1 and 7 Flanking Internal Subunits: 2, 3, 4:1–5:3, 5:4–14, and 6 (iii) Separation of Beginning and Ending Markers Micah 1:1 and 1:2–7:20 Subunits: 1:2–16, 2:1–5:14, 6:1–16, and 7:1–20 Micah 1:1, 1:2–7:17, and 7:18–20 Subunits: 1:2–2:13, 3, 4–5, and 6:1–7:17 (iv) Rhetorical Use and Situation Micah 1:2–16, 2, 3:1–4:8, 4:9–5:14, 6:1–7:7, and 7:8–20 Micah 1:1, 1:2–16, 2–3, 4:1–8, 4:9–5:14, 6, and 7 (v) Evaluation of Rhetorical Analysis (5) Evaluation of the Proposals for the Structure of the Book of Micah (6) Moving Forward c. Textual Coherence from Perspective (1) Examples (2) Evaluation d. Textual Coherence from Theme (1) Examples (2) Evaluation 3. ReÀections on the Dimensions of Historical and Perceptual Coherence Seen in the Book of Micah a. The Historical Dimension b. The Perceptual Dimension 4. Evaluation of Studies Speci¿cally on the Coherence of Micah 5. Conclusions Chapter 5 THE COHERENCE OF MICAH: A NEW PROPOSAL BASED ON THE REMNANT PASSAGES 1. Introduction 2. The Essential Elements of the Proposal 3. A Brief Exposition of the Book of Micah a. The Central Theme of the Book of Micah

1

165 165 167 167 168 169 169 170 171 172 176 176 176 183 189 189 192 194 195 204 204 209

213 213 217 217 217

Contents

b.

The Message of the Final Form of the Book of Micah (1) Micah 1:2–2:13—The God Who Regathers His People (2) Micah 3:1–4:8—The God Who Rules His People (3) Micah 4:9–5:14—The God Who Leads His People to Victory (4) Micah 6:1–7:20—The God Who Forgives His People

Chapter 6 AN EVALUATION OF THE NEW PROPOSAL FOR THE COHERENCE OF THE BOOK OF MICAH 1. Introduction 2. The Textual Dimension of Coherence: Internal Coherence a. Coherence from Structure (1) Observations About the Arrangement of the Book (2) Possible Objections (a) Historical Objections (b) Structural/Literary Objections (c) Objections Based on Content (3) Accounting for the Data b. Coherence of Theme c. Coherence of Internal Linkage (1) Within the Sections (a) Micah 1:2–2:13 (b) Micah 3:1–4:8 (c) Micah 4:9–5:14 (d) Micah 6:1–7:20 (2) Between the Sections (a) Between Contiguous Sections (i) Micah 1:2–2:13 and 3:1–4:8 (ii) Micah 3:1–4:8 and 4:9–5:14 (iii) Micah 4:9–5:14 and 6:1–7:20 (b) Between Non-contiguous Sections (i) Micah 1:2–2:13 and 4:9–5:14 (ii) Micah 1:2–2:13 and 6:1–7:20 (iii) Micah 3:1–4:8 and 6:1–7:20 (3) Retrospect

1

xi

218 218 227 233 245

254 254 257 257 257 260 260 262 275 276 280 283 284 284 286 288 292 296 296 296 297 299 300 300 301 302 302

xii

Contents

d.

Coherence from Perspective (1) The Initial Elements of a Sitz im Leben (2) The Options (a) Exilic (b) Post-exilic (c) Pre-exilic (d) ReÀection 3. The Historical Dimension of Coherence: External Coherence a. Origins of the Book b. Canonical Use of the Book 4. The Perceptual Dimension of Coherence: The Reader’s Coherence 5. Conclusions

303 304 305 307 307 308 310 310 311 312 312 313

Chapter 7 COHERENCE, THE GROWTH OF THE BOOK OF MICAH, AND PROMISE FOR THE REMNANT: SOME SUGGESTIONS 1. Implications for Biblical Studies a. The Book of Micah (1) The Nature of the Coherence of the Book (2) The Structure of the Book (3) The Theology of the Book (4) The Development of the Book: A Sample Proposal and Further Questions b. The Prophetic Books (1) The Signi¿cance of the Remnant (2) The Presence of Doom and Hope in One Book (3) Standards for Coherence (4) Critical Method 2. Implications for Understanding Literary Coherence 3. Directions for Future Research a. Research on Micah b. Research on the Hebrew Bible, with a Focus on the Latter Prophets c. Research on the Nature of Coherence 4. Summary

341 342 343

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

346 366 376

1

315 315 315 315 319 321 322 330 330 333 334 334 337 340 340

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Upon the completion of a project such as this, one of the strongest emotions felt is gratitude, especially to the numerous people who have contributed in so many ways to make this book a reality. This book has its genesis in my doctoral dissertation several decades ago (1987). The current work is different from that effort in numerous ways, and has developed in the interaction with unfolding scholarship since then. However, I gratefully acknowledge the impact that my advisor, Herbert B. Huffmon, had on the earliest version of my wrestling with the text of the book of Micah and forming me as a scholar. Similar gratitude is owed to the other members of my committee, Dr. Paul A. Riemann and the late Dr. Robert L. Chapman, for their insights and stimulus. Equally I express the debt of gratitude I owe to the late Dr. Thomas E. McComiskey, who taught me so much about the exegesis of the Hebrew text when I was pursuing my ¿rst Master’s degree. In more recent years the academic environment in which I am privileged to labor has provided me with an outstanding home base for research and growth. The board and faculty of Urbana Theological Seminary (Champaign-Urbana, Illinois) have been consistently supportive throughout the process. A special thank you to Dr. Todd Daly, Dr. Melody Green, Dr. Michael McQueen, Dr. Peter Spychalla, and Dr. Joe Thomas, the most congenial and stimulating circle of faculty colleagues. Certain Urbana Theological Seminary work-study students provided assistance at several stages of the work. I am particularly grateful to Karen Kieser for her extensive work with the bibliography. Thanks to the people at Bloomsbury T&T Clark for all their work in preparing my manuscript for publication, with special recognition for the role that Dr. Andrew Mein played in encouraging me to see this through to completion along with the labors invested and improvements provided by Dr. Duncan Burns, ever-gracious editor. And thanks as well to the others behind the scenes who carried this project forward in each of its various stages. Heartfelt thanks to each family member are in order—(now adult) children Stephen, Joel, Abigail, and Daniel; now joined by spouses Kassidee, Katie, and Jonathan; with the delight of the addition of

xiv

Acknowledgments

grandchildren, Micah, Josiah, and Jonah as of this date. My family has followed the progress of this study with interest, and have provided indispensable encouragement to me in all my labors. I thank them for being the best cheering section I could ever want, and for their love, care, and wisdom. I am grateful for each of them, and deeply love each one, more than I can adequately express. The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah is dedicated with gratitude to the memory of my late parents, Dr. and Mrs. James (Rita) Cuffey, not only for their loyal love and training over the years, but also for the fact that they stimulated my educational interests in learning at every stage of life and for their outstanding commitment to see me through my Ph.D. program in the 1980s. I know that without their sacri¿cial support to me all along the way in life, this project would probably not have seen the light of day. My deepest thanks go to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for strengthening and sustaining me. To Him be the glory! April 2, 2014

1

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AJSL ANET ATD ATR AusBR AUSS BASOR BBR BHQ BHS Bib BibB BibInt BK BKAT BN BTB BZ BZAW CBQ COS CRBS ÉBib ExpTim FOTL FRLANT FzB HAR HAT HTKAT HTR HUCA ICC IDB IDBSup

Anchor Bible D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York, 1992 American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton, 1969 Das Alte Testament Deutsch Anglican Theological Review Australian Biblical Review Andrews University Seminary Studies Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin for Biblical Research Biblia Hebraica Quinta Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblische Beiträge Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches Bibel und Kirche Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW Catholic Biblical Quarterly The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden, 1997–2003 Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Études Bibliques Expository Times The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forschung zur Bibel Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville, 1962 IDB, Supplementary Volume

xvi IEJ Int JAAR JBL JNES JNSL JQR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT KHAT LCL LHBOTS NAC NCB NedTTs NICOT OTL OTWSA PJ RA RB ResQ RevExp RevQ RHPR RHR RTP RevSém SB SBLDS SBLSS SEÅ SJOT SJTh ST TOTC TRE TRu TTZ TynBul UF VT VTSup ZAW ZDMG ZDPV 1

Abbreviations Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies New American Commentary New Century Bible Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift New International Commentary on the Old Testament Old Testament Library Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika Palästina-Jahrbuch Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Revue biblique Restoration Quarterly Review and Expositor Revue de Qumran Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de l’histoire des religions Revue de théologie et de philosophie Revue Sémitique Sources bibliques SBL Dissertation Series SBL Semeia Studies Svensk exegetisk årsbok Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Studia Theologica Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Realenzyklopädie Theologische Rundschau Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Tyndale Bulletin Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

LIST OF FIGURES 1.1

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2

The Steps of Disconnecting Micah in the Work of the Late Nineteenth-Century Application of Historical-Critical Methodology to the Book

11

J. T. Willis’s Proposed Structuring of the Book of Micah According to the Three-Part Alternation of Doom and Hope

54

The Symmetry in the Structure of the Sections of Doom in the Book of Micah, According to J. T. Willis’ Proposal

54

Willis’s Tracing of the Similarities Between the Mican Sections of Doom in Their Emphasis on Severe Punishment

55

The Symmetry in the Structure of the Sections of Hope in the Book of Micah, According to J. T. Willis’s Proposal

56

The Levels at Which Features that Contribute to Coherence Operate

60

The Overall Structure for the Book of Micah, According to Luker

63

The Proposed Rhetorical Situations and Historical Settings for Each of the Sections of the Book of Micah According to Shaw

65

The Generic Features Which Are Shared by the Two Macrostructural Units of the Book of Micah

68

The Interrelationships Exhibited Between Units in Micah 1–5, According to Jacobs

68

The Three Domains—Author, Text, and Reader— in a Communication Model for Understanding Interpretation

79

The Sources Which Generate Coherence in a Text, Viewed in the Light of a Communications Model

82

xviii 4.1

List of Figures The Outline Proposed for the Book of Micah by Dividing into Sections Based on Historical Development of the Materials in the Book

134

The Outline Proposed for the Book of Micah by Dividing into Two Sections: Chapters 1–5 and 6–7

143

The Outline Proposed for the Book of Micah by Dividing into Three Sections: Chapters 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7

154

Allen’s Understanding of the Arrangement of the Material in the Book of Micah

157

The Outline Proposed for the Book of Micah by Dividing into Four Sections: Chapters 1–2, 3:1–4:8, 4:9–5:14, and 6–7

162

A Schematic Representation of the Development of Micah 1–2, Noting the Steady Descent of Subject and Tone in Micah 1:2–2:11 and the Accompanying Resolution in 2:12–13

220

A Diagram of the Parallel Structures of the Three Pericopes in Micah 3, with the Intervening Description of Micah’s Calling and Ministry in Verse 8

230

5.3

The Symmetrical Arrangement of Micah 4:9–14

236

5.4

The Symmetrical Arrangement of Micah 5:1–14

241

5.5

A Diagram of the Structure of the Core (Micah 5:4b–5) of the Third Section of Promise in the Book of Micah

242

A Schematic Representation of the Descent and Ascent of Focus and Tone of the Fourth Section of the Book of Micah, Chapters 6–7

246

A Comparison of the Different Sequences in Which the Types of Coherence in the Textual Dimension of the Book of Micah Have Been Examined in the Studies Addressed Speci¿cally to the Issue of the Book’s Coherence

255

A Graphic Representation of the Structure of the Book of Micah, According to the Understanding of the Placement of the Four References to the Remnant as the Crucial Interpretive Aid in Reading the Final Form of the Book

258

4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1

5.2

5.6

6.1

6.2

1

List of Figures 6.3

6.4 6.5

7.1

7.2

1

xix

Diagram of the Ways that the Studies by Nielsen, Renaud, Willis, Allen, Dorsey, Jacobs, and This Present Study Have Dealt with the Material in Chapters 3–5 or 4–5

266

Numerical Distribution of Terms Used to Describe Geographical, Spatial, or Locational Concepts in Micah 1:2–2:13

284

The Data from the Text of the Book of Micah That Would Allow an Initial Reconstruction of a Background Perspective for the Arranging of the Whole Book and How a Setting in the Exilic, Pre-exilic, or Post-exilic Eras Would Satisfy Those Criteria

306

Proposals for the Structure of the Book of Micah, With a Representation of the Bases For and Con¿rmations of Each One

320

Three Juxtaposed Contrasts Within the Eighth-Century B.C.E. Historical Setting of the Proclamation of the Oracles of the Book of Micah That Would Have Been Determinative of the Contents of the Prophetic Message

330

xx

INTRODUCTION— THE QUESTION: LITERARY COHERENCE IN THE BOOK OF MICAH

The Hebrew prophets are dif¿cult to read! Evidently the Reformer, Martin Luther, experienced some frustration in interpreting the prophetic writings, as was in evidence when he said “They have [an odd] way of talking, like people who, instead of proceeding in an orderly manner, ramble off from one thing to the next, so that you cannot make head or tail of them or see what they are getting at.”1 The quandary continues on to the present day, or possibly even becomes more challenging as we grow ever farther in distance from the prophets and their day. In Longman and Dillard’s recent work, An Introduction to the Old Testament, Longman echoed Luther in relation to the book of Micah: “No prophet illustrates this statement better than Micah. It is easy to get lost in the mix of his judgment and salvation speeches. The structure is hard to fathom.”2 Is the book of Micah a coherent unity? Here are the oracles of a book linked to an eighth-century B.C.E. Hebrew prophet. Beyond interpreting each oracle successfully, the exegete also wonders if they make sense as a whole, treating the ¿nal and canonical form as a unit, and in tandem with each other. Is there some aspect of the literary nature of this book that ties all the oracles together, regardless of the historical setting of each of the individual units? Or is the book of Micah composed of a sequence of disconnected oracles that each reÀect their diverse origins along a spectrum of varying places, times, and movements that have been suggested as background in the history of ancient Israel? If these components came together in a way that reÀects the random vicissitudes 1. Martin Luther, Works (trans. E. C. Mason; Weimar ed., vol. 19), 350; as quoted in Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology. Vol. 2, The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (trans. D. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1965 [German original 1960]), 33. 2. Tremper Longman III and Raymond Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006), 449.

2

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

of history and development, one would expect that there would be little in the text that ties the oracles together. In the case that there is some overarching connectedness that gives a sense of wholeness to the ¿nal form of the book, it would be natural to expect that we could trace such in reading the text. And what implications might the discovery of coherence in the text bear for understanding the pre-history of the book? The book of Micah presents a “hard read.” To trace the progress of an argument or any Àow from one oracle to the next is a challenge, since the links that connect are not always obvious. Sometimes these connections seem to be entirely lacking. This all results in a reader’s confusion when engaging the text. Since the text is dif¿cult, the book of Micah has become a laboratory to study many of the issues of the application of both historical- and literary-critical methodologies to a text. The challenge of tracing a Àow in the sequential reading of the text has led to the book serving as an exemplar for seeking literary and rhetorical coherence in the text of one of the Book of the Twelve, or even as a paradigm for prophetic books in general. The book of Micah has been both dissected and reassembled by modern critical scholars. The pre-critical assumption that the book constituted a unity was “countered” with the application of historicalcritical methodologies in the study of the text already before 1900. The text of the book of Micah has been analyzed using historical-critical methodologies to ¿nd genuine material from the eighth-century B.C.E. prophet Micah, and then to reconstruct the history of its traditions and redaction. Much work has been done in the interest of reconstructing a history of development and editing. As a result of seeing discontinuities in the text, these studies painted a picture of a fragmented book, composed of pieces from various periods and hands. More recently, redaction-critical analysis has carried this tradition on in a more comprehensive and sophisticated manner, as scholars sought to understand not only the disparate origins of the pieces, but also the ways in which they were brought together to form the collection which we now have. In recent decades, there has been a new trend in Biblical Studies in general. Its impact has been felt with particular force in the ¿eld of Micah scholarship. This trend is one that “reassembles,” that begins with the text in its ¿nal form and tries to focus its efforts on explaining what the text means, as it now is. Scholars have applied literary-criticism to the book of Micah in order to address questions that arise from the ¿nal form of the text as we have it—questions of its unity, structure, and coherence. The interest often has moved away from determining how it 1

Introduction

3

got to be this way, but is now directed towards reÀection on what the signi¿cance of the present shape might be for interpreting the message and theology of the book as a whole. Correspondingly, the focus shifts from the recovery of the ipsissima verba of the prophet and a reconstruction of the history of growth to the interpretation of the ¿nal form, or beyond that, the “canonical” form. Possibly because the book of Micah had been mined for so many discontinuities and is viewed as having a complicated redactional history, it has also been the focus of a number of studies which look at the book as a whole and attempt to discover if it can be understood as an interpretive unit. They examine particularly, then, the connectedness, or coherence, of the book of Micah as literature. The results from all this research have not been unanimous, to say the least. Historical-critical studies have spawned a wide range of differing understandings of the origins of the various portions of the book. The application of literary-critical methodologies has engendered a plethora of views as to how the text Àows and is structured. In pursuit of coherence scholars have employed a diversity of de¿nitions of and multiple approaches for ¿nding coherence. This study addresses the issue of the coherence of the book of Micah. The purpose of this work is to reÀect on where the discussion has gone and to propose a way forward. Previous analyses of the question are not entirely satisfactory in their method and their ability to account for all the data of the text, as will be outlined subsequently. The intention herein will be to consider the nature of coherence and formulate a typology of its sources, and will provide a basis to facilitate analysis of the proposals which have been made for seeing coherence in the text of the book of Micah. This will lead to the presentation of an alternative solution for understanding the book’s coherence. This proposal will take into consideration the synthesis of the nature of literary coherence and account more adequately for the evidence in the ¿nal form of the text. To accomplish this, I propose the following. At the core of both historical- and literary-critical approaches lies the manner in which coherence is treated—whether it is expected or not, how it is de¿ned, and the framework used to understand and seek its presence in the text of the book. The ¿rst part of this study will examine the discussion for the book of Micah and the nature and de¿nitions of the literary phenomenon of coherence in order to form a foundation for the inquiry (Chapters 1–3). Chapters 1 and 2 will consider the swinging pendulum of scholarly opinion and the discussion of coherence in relation to the text of the book of Micah. Chapter 1 will offer a selective synthesis of the history of 1

4

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

scholarship on the book of Micah, with a particular concern for the developing discussion of the coherence or lack thereof of the ¿nal form. How have the different methodologies and varying results sought or dismissed the idea of coherence in the text of Micah? Are there any trends that can be traced? This survey will point out the problem areas in the text where scholars have perceived discontinuity and disagreed as to how the parts relate to each other. The history of study that ¿nds incoherence in the ¿nal form of the text of Micah will also provide context for the efforts of those who have seen coherence in the book of Micah. Several specialized studies of the topic of the coherence of the book of Micah will provide the focus for Chapter 2. Chapter 3 will consider the literary-rhetorical nature of coherence in literature, seeking to arrive at a de¿nition of textual coherence in a piece of literature. How should it be distinguished from similar concepts, e.g., linguistic cohesion, and how can one search for coherence in a text? What makes a book coherent? What are the indicators of coherence in a text? On what levels and in what dimensions of the text can this be found? Are there culturally de¿ned means of conceiving of coherence that will vary from one culture and era to another? This will offer a theoretical and conceptual background for the study of coherence in Micah, that should also be broadly applicable for the literary study of biblical prophetic works, and elsewhere. It should also prevent us from coming to the question with naïve assumptions or unrealistic expectations. The chapter will formulate indicators that allow modern readers of an ancient text to ¿nd and test for coherence. Selected efforts to ¿nd coherence in biblical literature more broadly than in Micah, especially in the prophets, will also be incorporated in Chapter 3, asking whether there are signi¿cant lessons that can be gleaned for considering coherence in Micah. Reference to and interaction with literary studies that seek and claim to discover coherence in other parts of biblical literature will enrich the study. The second major part of the book will consist of Chapter 4, which will scrutinize major studies that have perceived coherence in the book of Micah, evaluating them according to the criteria formulated in Chapter 3. How satisfactory have the proposals for understanding the book of Micah been in their apprehension of coherence and in explaining the evidence from the Hebrew text of the book? The survey of these studies will draw attention to common trends and issues needing resolution in the text.

1

Introduction

5

An explanation and evaluation of a new proposal for understanding the book of Micah as coherent will constitute the third part of this work (Chapters 5–6). An examination of the text of the book of Micah afresh, which consists of an exposition of its Àow and an explanation of its interconnectedness, will comprise Chapter 5. This new proposal about the coherence of the book of Micah will differ from readings that have gone before in recognizing the role assigned to the remnant in the passages of promise and hope, and will satisfy the data of the text in a more comprehensive and synthetic manner than other readings of the text. The position of the references to (or promises concerning) a remnant offers invaluable aid in understanding what the editor/redactor who put the book in its present form, more or less, intended to communicate. In Chapter 6 this proposal will also be evaluated in terms of the criteria for and indicators of coherence presented in Chapter 3. I will offer arguments for reading the book in this way and suggest answers to some objections that might be raised against this proposal, with an examination of the degree to which this proposal satis¿es the evidence of the text. In light of the coherence of the text, Chapter 7 will present reÀections and suggest future directions for research. In light of the foregoing study, this chapter will offer conclusions about the book of Micah and its origins, how to read the book in a way that faithfully addresses the text as we have it within its historical setting, implications this has for reading the prophetic books and seeking their coherence, and about the understanding of coherence in ancient Israel.

1

Chapter 1

HERMENEUTICAL PERSPECTIVE

Though Rolland E. Wolfe could describe Micah as the prophet “whose contributions have been most habitually underestimated,”1 nonetheless the book has a surprisingly rich history of research. Indeed, a working knowledge of these past studies is an essential prerequisite for properly evaluating the issues involved in an analysis of the coherence of the book of Micah. The book of Micah has been unusually well-served by histories of research which summarize the progress of Micah studies. One can learn a great deal about the unfolding history of interpretation of the book of Micah by reading a few well-chosen articles or chapters. The goal of this chapter is not to duplicate the detailed summaries and analyses of past scholarship that these writings offer. In the Excursus at the end of this chapter (“A Brief Bibliography of Bibliographies and Surveys of Research on Micah”), a summary of the highlights of what is available can point the student of the text of Micah in the right direction to understanding a signi¿cant amount more. 1. The Nineteenth Century: Disconnecting the Component Portions For reÀection on the state of the question in research on the book of Micah, and in particular the question of its coherence, it is possible to weave together a selection of the most important studies that is arranged according to the stages of development of varied approaches to the text. In these ¿rst two chapters coherence will be understood as the connectedness of the text. This survey of the course of Micah studies will begin with the work of three nineteenth-century historical-critical 1. Rolland E. Wolfe, “The Book of Micah: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB 6:895–949, esp. 897.

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

7

scholars, who argued the historical development of the text grounded in an apparent lack of connection, or incoherence, in the text—Ewald, Wellhausen, and Stade. Their research proved to be a watershed in the progress of the ¿eld, for their conclusions have had a lasting impact on the directions taken in examining Micah up to the present. Pre-critical studies had accepted the genuineness of the whole book of Micah without question. Micah studies were mostly devoted to textcritical matters and problems of prophetic ful¿llment, especially in relation to the New Testament.2 The dates in the superscription posed problems for some,3 while others gave attention to assigning the oracles to a speci¿c time in Micah’s ministry4 or to explaining the overall Àow and progressive development of thought in the text.5 The last third of the nineteenth century was a major turning point in scholarly understanding of Micah. During these years a series of studies by Ewald, Wellhausen, and Stade resulted in most critical researchers no longer viewing the whole book as coming from Micah of the eighth century B.C.E. By the start of the twentieth century, the assuredly genuine portions would be perceived as limited to the ¿rst three chapters, while Mic 4–7 would be assigned to later hands and periods. a. Heinrich Ewald The ¿rst crucial step in this direction was taken by Heinrich Ewald. Although chs. 1–5 and 6–7 were within themselves coherent, the ¿nal form of the book evidenced literary incoherence in that Mic 6–7 was from a different era. In his revised second edition of Die Propheten des

2. Note the useful summary and analysis of early research on Micah found in Knud Jeppesen, “How the Book of Micah Lost Its Integrity: Outline of the History of the Criticism of the Book of Micah with Emphasis on the 19th Century,” ST 33 (1979): 101–31. 3. Friedrich Bleek, An Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. 2 (ed. J. Bleek and A. Kamphausen; trans. G. Venables; London: George Bell & Sons, 1875), 146, and Johann Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 4 (4th ed.; 5 vols.; Göttingen: Carl Eduard Rosenbusch, 1823–24), 4:374. 4. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3:371–74. 5. For example, Karl F. Keil, Manual of Historical-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (trans. and ed. G. Douglas; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869), 405–6, or Ferdinand Hitzig, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (ed. H. Steiner; 4th ed.; Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1881), 190 or Paul Kleinert, The Book of Micah (trans. G. Bliss; Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 14; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1874), 6. 1

8

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Alten Bundes (1867),6 Ewald said that chs. 1–5 contain material from Micah, developed in three portions which are tied together by “the same fundamental thought.” With Mic 1–5, the book is “complete and selfcontained without any Àaw, both…well-ordered and coherent.”7 On the other hand, chs. 6 and 7 “form an entirely different piece, and come from another prophet.” Based on different background circumstances, distinct use of language, and the dramatic portrayal, he made the claim that these ¿nal two chapters date from the period of Manasseh and are the product of an unknown author of the generation following Micah.8 Ewald concluded: “This piece can therefore only have been appended to the book of Micah by accident: but it is possible that the later prophet himself attached it upon [the publication of] a new edition.”9 b. Julius Wellhausen A further step in the process of dissociating portions of Micah occurred in 1878, when Julius Wellhausen suggested an added textual gap, in that Mic 7:7–20 does not continue 7:1–6 and is actually of exilic origin, 100 years later than 6:1–7:6. “Mich. 7, 1–6 ends abruptly.” This discontinuity was explained by the contrasting contents of the two parts. The distortion of justice and horrible conditions arising from the dissolution of bonds of loyal commitment were portrayed in 7:1–6. Then “with v.6, however, the thread is broken, and 7,7–20 is inserted [as] something wholly different.” Though in vv. 1–6 there is an expectation of a coming recompense for sins, in vv. 7–20 this punishment has already arrived in the exile. Zion now ¿nds comfort in God during distress, waiting in patient faith that God will yet lead his people to victory. Since the situations are so different, and due to similarities of vv. 7–20 with Isa 40–55, Wellhausen moved the date of 7:7–20 to a time even further removed from that of the eighth-century prophet, the period of the exile: “There gapes about a century between v. 6 and v. 7.”10 6. Heinrich Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, vol. 1 (2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1867), 501. Also in translation as H. Ewald, Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (trans. J. Smith; London: Williams & Norgate, 1876), 292, 323–26. 7. Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, 501, traced the development of thought in chs. 1–5. 8. Ibid., 501, 525–27. 9. Ibid., 527. 10. He develops this idea in a footnote which he added while editing Bleek’s Einleitung. Julius Wellhausen, in Friedrich Bleek, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. J. Bleek and A. Kamphausen; ed. J. Wellhausen; 4th ed.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1878), 425–26. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

9

c. Bernhard Stade Now that Ewald and Wellhausen had set Mic 6 and 7 aÀoat, cut from the moorings of their “Mican origins,” the stage was set for Bernhard Stade to do the same for chs. 4 and 5. In the third step of forming the contours of critical thought regarding the book of Micah, in a series of articles between 1881 and 1903, Stade asserted that only chs. 1–3 are genuinely from the eighth-century prophet Micah. Chapters 4–5 must be regarded as separate from Micah of Moresheth, according to his explanation of how they grew onto the ¿rst three chapters as post-exilic additions. Further, he identi¿ed Mic 7:7–20 as a psalm written in the post-exilic era. Stade’s articles gave a ¿rm con¿guration to the critical perception of the origins of the book of Micah and sent Micah studies off in a particular direction from which it was to waver little for the greater part of a century following his work. In the ¿rst year of publication of the Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Stade wrote an article in which he argued that the book of Micah received its ¿nal form after the exile and that only chs. 1– 3 (except for 2:12–13) can be ascribed to the Micah of the eighth century B.C.E.11 He based this on three lines of evidence. First, chs. 1–3 ¿t together harmoniously as one prophecy. Micah 1 announced the coming judgment, while chs. 2–3 gave the reasons for God’s wrath. Since 2:12– 13 presupposes the exile, it is a later interpolation that leads scholars to make incorrectly a division between Mic 2 and 3. Second, since Jer 26 relates Micah’s message of doom, it is unlikely that Micah would ever have lessened the impression of his harsh prophecy in 3:12, by proclaiming the diametric opposite, as is found in chs. 4 and 5. Rather, chs. 4–5 are more closely related to prophecies later than the eighth century. Third, the history of the prophetic canon and the development of the Messianic idea supports the separation of chs. 4–5 from chs. 1–3, since the book might never have found its way into the canon had it not been for enlarging the text with chs. 4–5. He reconstructed the process by which the materials that now comprise Mic 4–5 were added onto chs. 1–3 in two stages, thus harmonizing the book with later historical circumstances, such as exile and foreign rule.12

11. Bernhard Stade, “Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha,” ZAW 1 (1881): 161–72. 12. Ibid., 162–72. In response to criticism, Stade replied with another piece, in which he traced the interconnections which held chs. 4–5 together along with evidence for a later date for these chapters. Bernhard Stade, “Weitere Bemerkungen zu Micha 4:5,” ZAW 3 (1883): 1–16. The following year, W. Nowack, “Bemerkungen 1

10

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

During the subsequent years, Stade ¿lled in his picture of the development of the book with remarks in two other publications. Writing in his Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1887), Stade said that child sacri¿ce had become established during Manasseh’s reign and connected the reference in Mic 6:7 with that setting.13 Finally, in an article in the 1903 volume of ZAW, Stade identi¿ed 1:2–4 as a post-exilic addition to Micah, and read 7:7–20 as a post-exilic psalm expressing the beliefs of the community.14 This made it clear just how quickly and how far from Micah the closing chapters of the book were becoming detached. From his assorted works, we can reconstruct the picture which Stade had of the development of the book of Micah into its ¿nal form. The prophet of the eighth century B.C.E. generated chs. 1–3. During the period of Manasseh, ch. 6 (including 7:1–6, presumably, for Stade) was added on to the genuine oracles. Then, in the post-exilic era, two epigones interpolated chs. 4–5. Apparently, 1:2–4 and 7:7–20 were then attached to round off the prophecy in line with later post-exilic circumstances. d. Summary In the work of these three pivotal early critical scholars of the book of Micah, the identi¿cation of gaps in the text where connecting links were absent and the reconstruction of diverse background circumstances as underlying perspectives to explain the contents of parts of the book were adduced to argue that the ¿nal form did not provide evidence for coherence. The materials in the book were of variegated origins, and did not have a uni¿ed and consistent message. The years from 1867 to 1903 were thus the crucial watershed in critical study of the book of Micah, for the proposals of Ewald, Wellhausen, and Stade would determine the direction, course, and Àavor of the majority of subsequent studies of Micah for quite some time. Even in this period the inÀuence of this newly formed consensus was clear, as the research of other scholars on

über das Buch Micha,” ZAW 4 (1884): 277–91, offered his critique and counterarguments, contending that chs. 1–3 and 4–5 came almost in entirety from the same hand. Nowack offered new perspectives on the very passages in which Stade saw discontinuity. Stade then reinforced his conclusions and made comparisons between ch. 4 and Isa 2 and 11 in Stade, “Bemerkungen zu vorstehenden Aufsatze,” ZAW 4 (1884): 291–97. 13. Bernhard Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 1 (Berlin: G. Grote’sche, 1887), 634, esp. n. 2. 14. Bernhard Stade, “StreiÀichter auf die Entstehung der jetzigen Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Prophetenschriften,” ZAW 23 (1903): 153–71. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

11

Micah either accepted the conclusions of Stade as de¿nitive,15 or sought to batter down his assertions,16 or debated the genuineness of portions of Mic 4.17 (See Fig. 1.1 for a diagrammatic representation of this process.) Disconnecting Micah Eighth century Seventh century Exile Post-exilic

H. Ewald 1867 Mic 1–5 Mic 6–7

J. Wellhausen 1878 Mic 1–5 Mic 6:1–7:6 Mic 7:7–20

B. Stade 1881–1903 Mic 1–3 Mic 6:1–7:6 Mic 4–5; 7:7–20

Figure 1.1. The Steps of Disconnecting Micah in the Work of the Late Nineteenth-Century Application of Historical-Critical Methodology to the Book

2. The Heart of the Twentieth Century: Building and Transitioning (1900–1965) Such a clear statement of a new understanding of the history of development of the materials which are now in their ¿nal and canonical form as the book of Micah as Ewald, Wellhausen, and Stade had argued stood in sharp contrast with the prior ways of regarding and studying the text. Formerly the book was seen to be entirely the product of the prophet Micah from eighth-century B.C.E. Judah, and hence as having all sections interconnected with the others, or, that is to say, it is coherent. Now the sections of the book were perceived to be of different styles with diverse messages that reÀected a range of historical settings extending throughout the centuries following the life of the prophet himself, and thus suspected to lack true coherence as a whole book. The lack of coherence was even appealed to as the basis for reconstructing a variegated history of development over several centuries. This created a basic dichotomy in scholarly work to be carried out on the book of 15. Carl Cornill, “Die Composition des Buches Jesaja,” ZAW 4 (1884): 83–105 (89); Paul Volz, Die vorexilische Jahweprophetie und der Messias (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897), 63–67. 16. Victor Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1887), 217, 224, 248, 279, 282; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets (3d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1927, original 1892), 210–11, 231–34. 17. H. Oort, “Het Bet-Efraat van Micha V:1,” ThT 5 (1871): 501–11, argued against the authenticity of Mic 4:1–7 and 11–13, while A. Kuenen, “De Koning uit Beth-Ephrath,” ThT 6 (1872): 45–66, defended the verses as Mican (cf. Jeppesen, “How the Book of Micah,” 117–20 for a summary). 1

12

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Micah in the succeeding years all the way into the latter half of the twentieth century. Some of the studies and commentaries would accept the conclusions of Stade and his peers, would focus their efforts on identifying the words that were genuinely Mican, and strive to extend this analysis to uncover either more instances of disconnection, or incoherence. Alternatively, studies would combine a view of inconsistencies in the text with an assumption that in the development of the book into its eventual ¿nal form there was editing and shared use of traditions that also eventually brought a level of coherence to the canonical form that we now have. Other studies pushed in the opposite direction and set out to ¿nd coherence and unity within the text. a. Acceptance of a “Consensus” and Incoherence in the Text So for the ¿rst trend, some accepted the broad outline of the historicalcritical conclusions of Ewald, Wellhausen, and Stade—that the book of Micah has had a complex history of development into the form in which we now possess it. Motivated by a desire to ¿nd the ippsissima verba of the eighth-century prophet Micah, these scholars assumed or sought further incoherence, before in some cases considering how the text might have a degree of connectedness due to the way it was reassembled into the ¿nal form. As Andersen and Freedman describe the process: The older criticism mainly worked backwards from the ¿nal product in an attempt to track down sources and hopefully to sort out the original words of Micah himself from the accretions and additions of later editors and redactors and the glosses and glitches of even later scribes… The variety of literary forms, the Àuctuations of mood, and the contrasting theological points of view suggested to many scholars that there must have been a number of contributors over a long period of time.18

In some studies of the ¿rst quarter of the twentieth century the assuredly genuine portions were thought to be con¿ned to chs. 1–3, while the rest of the book derived from various periods, authors, and settings. Some researchers extended the tendency to see more and more breaks in the continuity of the book, positing vastly diverse provenances from which small sections could be derived. Karl Marti (1904) concluded that only fragments of chs. 1–3 were from Micah. The book ¿nally attained its ¿nal form in the second century B.C.E., with the addition of the originally independent collections which had crystallized around 4:1–4 and 6:6–8.19 18. Francis Andersen and David Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24E; New York, Doubleday, 2000), 17 19. Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (KHAT 13; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904), 258–64. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

13

Paul Haupt (1910–1911) even restricted the authentic material to 33½ lines of chs. 1–3, which comprised three patriotic poems of Micah from around 701 B.C.E. All else in the book is secondary, even being consigned to a Maccabean dating.20 In J. Lindblom’s painstaking form-critical analysis of the material in the book of Micah (1929), he suggested that the book lacked any coherent structure overall and that there was no certainty possible about the authorship of Mic 4–7. He assigned the genuine units to ¿ve different periods in the life of Micah, and concluded that additions to the genuine material were more numerous in the second half than in the ¿rst, but clear differences between sections and their historical origins are dif¿cult to discern.21 A number of other scholars continued to re¿ne (and speculate about) the history of development into the ¿nal form of the text. There was the assertion that nothing from the hand of Micah can be found in chs. 4–7,22 arguments for post-exilic23 or even Maccabean dating of portions,24 and a text-critical study which resulted in an elaborate reordering of the pericopes into a suggested original arrangement.25 According to Rolland E. Wolfe, chs. 6–7 were split from their original connection with chs. 1– 3 by the post-exilic insertion of chs. 4–5. The book grew into its present form over ¿ve centuries, thus showing the development of Hebrew thought down to around 200 B.C.E.26 Georg Fohrer, pondered which materials are genuine and decided that the book is comprised of three collections: chs. 1–3 (largely genuine), followed by the later chs. 4–5 and 20. Paul Haupt, “Critical Notes on Micah,” AJSL 26 (1910): 201–52, and “The Book of Micah,” AJSL 27 (1911): 1–63. See especially (1910): 201, and (1911): 16, 18. 21. Johannes Lindblom, Micha literarisch untersucht (Acta Akademiae Åboensis, Humaniora, VI:2; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1929), 135, 150, 153, 162–77. Compare the similar view of Micah in Lindblom’s Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962), 251–52, 285. 22. Thomas K. Cheyne, “Micah,” in Encyclopedia Biblica (ed. Thomas K. Cheyne and W. R. Smith; New York: Macmillan, 1902), cols. 3068–74. 23. M. Delcor, in A. Deissler and M. Delcor, Les Petites Prophetes (La Sainte Bible 8; Paris: Letouzy et Ané, 1964), 300. 24. Bernhard Duhm, “Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten,” ZAW 31 (1911): 81–110, and Duhm, The Twelve Prophets (trans. A. Duff; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1912), 119, 127, 131, 135. 25. J. Halévy, “Le livre de Michée,” Revue Sémitique 12 (1904): 97–117, 193– 216, 289–312; and 13 (1905): 1–22. 26. Wolfe, “The Book of Micah: Introduction and Exegesis,” 899, 921–22, 936. See also his earlier work, “The Editing of the Book of the Twelve,” ZAW 53 (1935): 90–129. 1

14

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

6:1–7:7, with an appended post-exilic writing in 7:8–20. The redactional history resulted in the double use of the two-part scheme of disaster and deliverance.27 b. Acceptance of a “Consensus” with a Search for Coherence For other scholars evidence of coherence in the text was used to undergird and explain the growth of the book, whether seen as a redactional process or the growth of traditions. In some of these studies there is an exposition of an underlying perspective or outlook that ties together all the materials under examination. These links can be traced through time (i.e., they are diachronic) and are especially redactional in their nature. Even with a sense that they could uncover increasing levels of incoherence in the book, the inherent features of the text that interconnected parts one with the other were sensed as well and in restricted manner were incorporated into the discussion. Although Marti and Haupt argued for a greater variety of provenances for discrete portions of the book based on discontinuities within and between sections, especially within Mic 1–3, even they also sought to ¿nd connections that held segments together. Marti traced the use of linkages and common thematic material that spawned the growth of chs. 4–5 and 6–7 into their current form, while Haupt posited a common historical perspective (Maccabean) connecting chs. 4–7 together. A concern with internal links and the structure of the book overall is found in Otto Eissfeldt’s Introduction (1934, English translation of 3d ed., 1965). Since he took Mic 5:9–14 to be a negative word that links with 6:1–7:6 rather than the preceding section, he proposed a major division between 5:8 and 9, resulting in sections of promise in 4:1–5:8 and threat in 5:9–7:6. In addition, Eissfeldt saw much genuine material in or behind the present form of 5:9–7:6, leading to a unique picture of the book’s development. The later editorial insertion of 4:1–5 to tone down the threat of 3:12 drew other promises along with the added verses, 27. Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (initiated E. Sellin; trans. David Green; Nashville: Abingdon, 1968, original 1965), 444–47, 361. Also from this period, note the work of Louise P. Smith, “The Book of Micah,” Int 6 (1952): 210–27, who provided a brief popular summary of Micah—the prophet, his times, and the book—with comments on speci¿c passages. See as well Samuel R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (14th ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909, original 1897), 327–34; John M. P. Smith, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Micah, Zephaniah and Nahum,” in John M. P. Smith, William H. Ward, and Julius Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911), 6–16. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

15

thereby explaining why the main body of promises is found in the middle of the book and not at the end.28 T. H. Robinson (HAT, 1938) used a uni¿ed historical background perspective to explain the links which join the sections and allow for a reconstruction of the redactional growth of the book. The book of Micah was composed of three originally independent collections. The essentials of the speeches of Micah are found in chs. 1–3, which were combined into one collection in or shortly after the exile. A second eschatological collection brought together in the postexilic era is found in chs. 4–5. Moral reproaches and condemnation of injustice make up the third collection, found in chs. 6–7 and of uncertain dating. Probably chs. 4–5 were joined with 6–7 on the basis of a catchword in 5:14 and 6:1. Only later, then, were these collections joined with chs. 1–3 to form the book as we now have it.29 Artur Weiser, in his commentary (ATD, 1950), traced a coherent structure based on his observation of a two-fold alternation of threat and promise—threat (chs. 1–3), promise (chs. 4–5), threat (6:1–7:6), promise (7:8–20). He was concerned to determine the authenticity of the oracles and to reconstruct the history of redactional growth. This presumed an underlying historical perspective that explains this process of growth and renders the book coherent, rather than deriving coherence directly from the text of the ¿nal form of the book.30 Applying tradition history to Micah was the work of W. Beyerlin (1959, 1960), who traced Micah’s preaching to its sources in and connections with Israelite cult traditions, as evidenced by references to the traditions of the Exodus and Conquest, to those of Sinai as the grounds for concern for justice, and to those of the Davidic covenant as recited in the cult as the source of future expectation. All three of the old traditions are present in Micah and are interconnected through their use in the festival cult of the Jerusalem temple, which provides a common underlying perspective understood in terms of a reconstructed use in the cult.31 Also of note were attempts to assign some 28. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row, 1965, from 3d German ed. of 1964, original 1934), 409–12. 29. Theodore H. Robinson, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Hosea bis Micha (German trans. O. Eissfeldt; 3d ed.; HAT 14; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964, original 1938), 127–28. 30. Artur Weiser, Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I: Die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Micha (5th ed.; ATD 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, original 1950), 231–32. 31. W. Beyerlin, Die Kulttraditionen Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Micha (FRLANT 54; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 87–97; Beyerlin, “Kultische Tradition in Michas Prophetie. Ein Beitrag zum Problem Kultus und Prophet,” Vox Theologica 31 (1960): 2–12. 1

16

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

coherence to the book, or to the process of its development, through an appeal to the way in which the canon was formed, as seen in the work of Budde, who concluded that chs. 4–7 were later than the time of the prophet Micah, but had come to be incorporated in the book as the result of the process of canon formation.32 c. Search for Coherence in a Section of the Book Others carried out studies focused on portions of the book of Micah, rather than the whole, which identi¿ed connectedness within that one segment of the text, usually as an attempt to provide a thorough case for the origins of one section of the book. Hermann Gunkel’s use of formcritical analysis suggested possible connections between the seemingly diverse pericopes of 7:7–20. Textual linkages and development of theme uni¿ed the passage, whose respective pericopes comprised a liturgy used in temple worship. Gunkel, then, saw a coherence between sections assumed to be of varied origin.33 In 1926 F. Burkitt suggested that Mic 6–7 came from a northern provenance based on the common Israelite vantage point found all through, evidenced by geographical allusions to the North, allusions to the history of the Northern Kingdom, and theology and thought consistent with an origin there. In Mic 1–5 the viewpoint is always the same, reÀecting an origin in Judah—David is hero in the capacity of the king.34 Two scholars carried out detailed analyses of Mic 4–5. A section in E. Nielsen’s Oral Tradition (Danish originals 1950–52, English translation 1954) is devoted to examining chs. 4–5 from a tradition-historical perspective. Paying close attention to the links which bind the section together and unfold its growth through history, he saw chs. 4–5 as an independent unit which deals with the future, in contrast to chs. 1–3 and 6–7, both of which are didactic and related to each other in form and

32. Karl Budde, “Verfasser und Stelle von Mi. 4, 1–4 (Jes. 2, 2–4),” ZDMG 81 (1927): 152–58. Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948), 589–94, proffered a simpli¿ed redactional scheme, also linked to the formation of the canon. 33. Hermann Gunkel, “The Close of Micah: A Prophetical Liturgy,” in What Remains of the Old Testament (trans. A. Dallas; New York: Macmillan, 1928, German original 1924), 115–49. Note that Gunkel dated Mic 7:7–20 to the time of Third Isaiah, and saw the links between the stanzas as arising from their use as a connected liturgy in worship. He did not derive them or their connectedness from the prophet Micah, nor did he propose any sort of interconnections which could be discerned throughout the whole book. 34. F. Burkitt, “Micah 6 and 7: A Northern Prophecy,” JBL 45 (1926): 159–61. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

17

content.35 Nielsen laid out the concentric structure of chs. 4–5 as a complex of traditions gathered around a core that deals with national concerns (4:9–14 and 5:1–5). The complex was placed after 3:12 as a contrast, so that it “is no accident that Mic. 1–3 is followed by Mic. 4– 5.”36 His methodological approach was grounded in the use of traditionhistory, yet, as was typical in this era, he expounds a coherence for the process of growth of the materials into their present form and is less concerned with a connectedness in the text as we now have it.37 The ¿rst of B. Renaud’s studies on Micah appeared in 1964. In this work, he argued that Mic 4–5 was a uni¿ed anthology, with a scheme of arrangement which presented an eschatologico-messianic synthesis that arose from a post-exilic priestly school in Jerusalem during the early ¿fth century B.C.E.38 While Renaud focused only on chs. 4–5, he read the text with an eye to the explanatory power of following the manner of arrangement in the text against the backdrop of an explanation for the origin of this coherence.39 d. A Basic Search for Connections that Unify the Book as a Whole There were also contributions to the scholarly discussion that covered new ground and sought a form of coherence for the text, in whole or in 35. Eduard Nielsen, Oral Tradition (trans. A. Lange; SBT 11; London: SCM, 1954, from Danish originals of 1950 and 1952), 84–85. 36. Ibid., 85–86, 91–92. Surrounding the nucleus are promises to the remnant (Mic 4:6–8; 5:6–8) and an outer layer promising the elevation of Zion (4:1–4) and the demise of all that is bad (5:9–14). 37. He does adduce links of contrasts and similarities within the text. For example, he draws contrasts between 4:9–14 as negative and 5:1–5 as positive, or between 3:9–12 and 4:1–4 in their treatment of Zion. Ibid., 85–86. The link from the similarity of thought seen in the reference to the return of the rest of the brothers in 5:2 as the cause for drawing the promises about the remnant onto either side of the Bethlehem prophecy. Ibid., 88–91. 38. Bernard Renaud, Structure et attaches littéraires de Michée IV–V (CahRB 2; Paris: Gabalda, 1964). The chapters have a clear scheme, according to the pattern: A (Mic 4:1–5), B (4:6–7; 2:12–13), C (4:8–14), Cƍ (5:1–5), Bƍ (5:6–7), Aƍ (5:8–14). 39. Note also the similar quest for unity within the same portion in François Ladame, “Les chapitres IV et V du livre de Michée,” RTP 35 (1902): 446–61, which also traced the history of development of Mic 4–5. Later Arvid S. Kapelrud, “Eschatology in the Book of Micah,” VT 11 (1961): 392–405, employed tradition history to his advantage in studying the eschatology of the book, which is found especially in chs. 4–5. The prophets did proclaim a message of hope as they looked beyond their present ordeals to a new kingdom in the future. This ideology originated from the pre-exilic temple cult, especially as expressed in texts used for one of the (reconstructed) great feasts, and might be from Micah the prophet. 1

18

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

part. In a more thoroughgoing manner, Albin van Hoonacker (1908) saw the ¿nal form as an interconnected whole based on the principle of chronological structuring for the book and on the reconstruction of an underlying historical perspective. The chronological sequence of events, then, is the key to the arrangement of the book’s sections and allows the reader to understand the ¿nal form as a coherent whole. The ¿rst three chapters were composed c. 725 B.C.E., during the siege of Samaria, and with a focus on the sins of the Judeans, warning them to avoid a fate similar to that which was coming on the North. Chapters 4–5 reÀect the years of relief for Judah that came after the fall of Samaria, celebrating the salvation assured to the South, replete with promises of a glorious future from God. Chapters 6 and 7 also date to the period after 722 B.C.E. and contain the dramatic expression of the sympathy and emotions of a Southerner about the judgment which befell Israel and his prayer for restoration.40 The second and third sections look to different aspects of the needs of the period after Samaria’s capture, and result from stages in a chronological development in response to the fall of the North from a Judean perspective. Others defended the authenticity of the oracles in the book, proffering explanations for the background settings of the oracles which derive from Micah,41 or questioning the logic undergirding the method and conclusions of the historical-critical approach.42 Horton linked sections

40. Albin van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes (Etudes bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1908). On chs. 1–3, pp. 340, 354; on chs. 4–5, pp. 347, 380–81; on chs. 6– 7, pp. 351–53. 41. Max L. Margolis, Micah (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1908), 8–14, assumed a uni¿ed authorship for the whole, while trying to show the dubious nature of customary arguments against genuineness. In The Religion of Israel (trans. and ed., M. Greenberg; New York: Schocken, 1960), 352, Yehezkel Kaufmann advanced the idea that the only element in the book later than the prophet Micah is the reference to Babylon in 4:10. Similar defenses of Mican authorship for the entire book or for particular passages under debate are found in Arthur J. Tait, The Prophecy of Micah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916), 58–59, 84, 108; Hans Schmidt, Die Schriften des Alten Testaments. Vol. 2, Die Grossen Propheten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 146, 150–51; George W. Wade, The Books of the Prophets Micah, Obadiah, Joel and Jonah (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen & Co., 1925), xxii, xxv. 42. G. W. Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament (2d ed.; London: Duckworth, 1959), 155–57, questioned some procedures of literary study, such as assuming the incompatibility of denunciation and promise in one prophet’s ministry, or reasoning that the presence of a later touch implies the lateness of the whole passage in which it is found. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

19

of the book to speci¿c situations in Micah’s life,43 and Sellin sought to identify a period for each portion of the genuine Mican materials in 1:2– 7:7 based on the underlying perspective afforded by events in the life of Micah.44 Others looked for some overall structuring that holds the parts together.45 e. Summary Between the turn of the century and the mid-sixties, scholarship on the book of Micah went in two distinct directions. Some simply accepted the “Ewald–Wellhausen–Stade consensus” and sought to build further work on their predecessors’ conclusions. These studies tended either to ¿nd increasing levels of incoherence and disconnection in the text, or to to assume that was true to a degree, but that in the book’s history of growth certain interconnecting features had been incorporated by those who edited the ¿nal form. The basic concern was with identifying the genuine and original words of the eighth-century prophet Micah, and then reconstructing a history of the development of the materials of the book into the ¿nal form found in the canon. Coherence was used to explain how the book became what it did in its ¿nal form, without seeking to ¿nd any overall coherence for the entire book, or seeking any Mican intention to produce coherence. There was also serious questioning of the directions which Micah scholarship had been taking. In certain studies published in this period, there is a marked increase in interest in the connectedness of the text, whether to see what that might imply about its origins, or to buttress the case for the text’s integrity as a uni¿ed work from one hand. 3. 1966 to the Present (2013) These two directions of inquiry—to assume or ¿nd incoherence and to seek coherence in the text—have continued to de¿ne and drive research into the book of Micah up to the present. However, the last several 43. R. F. Horton, The Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (Century Bible; Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1904), 221–24. 44. E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, Erste Hälfte: Hosea–Micha (3d ed.; KAT 12; Leipzig: A. Diechert, 1929), 305–8. 45. Joseph Lippl, in Joseph Lippl and Johannes Theis, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I. Hälfte: Osee Joel Amos Abdias Jonas Michäas (Bonn: Hanstein, 1937), 182–84; A. George, Michée, Sophonie, Nahum (La Sainte Bible; Paris: Cerf, 1952), 13; and B. A. Copass and E. L. Carlson, A Study of the Prophet Micah (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1950), esp. 84–85. 1

20

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

decades, de¿ned from the pivotal year for Micah studies of 1966, have witnessed an increasing complexity, re¿nement of thought, and the appropriation and utilization of new methodologies for study. a. 1966: A Pivotal Year in Micah Studies Indicative of new winds blowing in the ¿eld of literary and Biblical Studies more broadly, two studies in the year 1966 articulated a new concern for studying the text of the book of Micah in its ¿nal form with sensitivity to its function as a de¿ned canonical unit. In an often overlooked essay, E. Hammershaimb (1966) laid a foundation for resolving what many had assumed were inconsistencies in the text when he argued that Micah could have predicted happiness, as well as doom. The two are not mutually exclusive parts of a single prophet’s message. Under the heading “Micah as a Prophet of Doom,” he examined the prophet’s concern for justice, which he traced both to Canaanite thought and to Israelite legal traditions, alongside his concern with the degenerate cult (6:1–5). The second half, “Micah as a Prophet of Happiness,” noted that exilic and post-exilic prophets prophesied happiness. It is odd, then, to deny Àatly that pre-exilic prophets could do the same. Preaching doom was never an end in itself, but instead had a wider aim, that of awakening the hearers to impending danger. Possibly the prophets hoped that their message would stimulate reformation, to which, in turn, God would show his mercy. Hence, the presence of promises is in no way inconsistent with the word of doom.46 Thus Hammershaimb remarked on the apparent incoherence of juxtaposed doom and hope, but found resolution and coherence to arise from the way the doom and hope work together to motivate the audience. Also in the same year, John Willis broke new ground and opened the discussion of the coherence of the book of Micah as a topic to pursue in its own right with the completion of his Vanderbilt dissertation. In the ¿rst major study devoted exclusively to the question of the book’s coherence, Willis presented a detailed proposal that the book shows a coherent overall structure as the result of intentional redactional arranging and gave thoughtful reÀection to the nature of what that coherence was and how it functioned. He studied what he termed the “horizontal coherence” of the book, or those factors which link all similar sections (i.e., of doom or hope) to each other, along with its

46. E. Hammershaimb, “Some Leading Ideas in the Book of Micah,” in Some Aspects of Old Testament Prophecy from Isaiah to Malachi (Teologiske Skrifter 4; Copenhagen: Rosenkelde og Bagger, 1966), 30–50. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

21

“vertical coherence,” or a progression of thought, supplemented by catchwords, connectives, and contrasts that can be traced within each of the three main divisions.47 b. Acceptance of a Level of Incoherence in the Book of Micah Certain approaches to the book of Micah have rather consistently assumed an incoherence in the text, whether only de¿ned by certain characteristics, such as the lack of an overall structure or consistent theme, or more broadly as the result of a chaotic ¿nal form of the text. (1) No Coherence Present in the Text (Especially Ruling Out Coherence that Results from Overall Structuring of the Text or from a Consistent Theme). Certain scholars have concluded that the text of the book does not evidence any connectedness from an overall structure or Àow/development between portions, nor do the oracles of the book carry through a consistent theme. As to the form of the book, Hillers says that it “is not as easy to discover any larger units…which are of signi¿cance for understanding the book.” Though units are linked by catchwords or similar themes, “nothing like an overall plan or structure is discernible.”48 In Peter Craigie’s commentary, he described the book as “not an easy one to read,” since it consists of a superscription (1:1) followed by 13 oracles with no overall plan.49 However, as will become evident, even those who make such a suggestion still often ¿nd another angle from which to understand the inherent coherence of the book, as in Hillers’ extensive case for a unifying sociological setting to be traced behind each scene and oracle of the book. (2) Studies of the Historical Development and Redactional Growth of the Collection. Far and away the dominant trend in reading the book of Micah in a way that assumes or seeks incoherence has continued to be the formulation of increasingly re¿ned and minutely varied reconstructions of the transmission and redactional history of the materials which eventually comprise the ¿nal form of the canonical book. The book as it 47. John Willis, “The Structure, Setting and Interrelationships of the Pericopes in the Book of Micah” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1966). More detailed discussion of Willis’s work will be reserved for the next chapter with its focus on studies explicitly on the coherence of the book of Micah. 48. Delbert R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 8. 49. Peter C. Craigie, “Micah,” in Twelve Prophets. Vol. 2, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 2. 1

22

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

is today is the end result of an ancient Near Eastern traditioning process, starting with the proclamation of the eighth-century prophet Micah. Over the centuries, the community “recomposed” this tradition “as they sought to honor and appropriate it in their situation.” At the end, the book is a literary “collage,” or a “collage of collages,” in which each succeeding stage of recomposition has taken in the earlier stages, “lending new meanings without erasing the old.” The older units bear meaning de¿ned by their original context. These are then juxtaposed with material from other settings in subsequent history, each unit of which arose from its own unique situation and context.50 To detect the different layers in the text arising in various periods and settings requires the assumption and identi¿cation of incoherence that demonstrates that sections of the book do not belong together with each other. At the same time, to imagine a redactional growth for the materials into the ¿nal form of today assumes that there will also be evidence of connections which tie the materials together and smooth out the inconcinnities, the work of redactors who tied the ¿nal form together. There have been numerous such proposed reconstructions, with limited broadly based assumptions held in common (e.g., that the book is a composite and the end result of a long history of composition, editing, and application) and widely divergent results in the details of the suggested schemes of development. In the early part of the 1970s three scholars published redactioncritical studies of Micah which reconstructed a redactional process which rendered the ¿nal form of the book coherent to some degree. In 1971, an article by Jörg Jeremias scrutinized the process by which Micah’s judgment sayings were updated in a single layer of redaction. Early exilic prophetic circles in Jerusalem, by a process of “Nachinterpretation,” made the prophet’s words apply to their own circumstances, so that they saw their present straits as God’s punishment for past sins and the judgment foretold by the prophets.51 In the same year (1971), Ina WilliPlein laid out a reconstruction of the literary genesis of the book to demonstrate the way in which the book reÀected the post-exilic history of development of the Hebrew Bible’s texts. The prophet’s words went through further prophetic reinterpretation as the material was extended to speak of the end times during Josiah’s reign, the exile, and the ¿fth century, reaching its ¿nal form around 350 B.C.E. with Zion theology in

50. As explained by Marvin Chaney, “Micah, Book of,” NIDB 4:73–76. 51. Jörg Jeremias, “Die Deutung der Gerichtsworte Michas in der Exilszeit,” ZAW (83): 330–54. Compare also with his later commentary in Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD 24/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

23

the center.52 In two articles (both 1972) Theodor Lescow presented a “redaktionsgeschichtliche” analysis of chs. 1–5 and 6–7 respectively. His reconstruction of the book’s growth in stages focused especially on its liturgical use in the cultus of Israel and the importance of the Samaritan schism (c. 330 B.C.E.) as the catalyst for its ¿nal form.53 In a later study (1995) he interacted with E. Otto’s work and studied the composition of the book.54 J. L. Mays’ Old Testament Library commentary on Micah (1976) is distinguished for two contributions: an elaborate reconstruction of the diachronic activity of redactors through changing historical circumstances to explain the contents of the book, as well as a proposal that the book overall has received a theological shaping which gives it a coherence in the message of the whole from the ¿nal stage in the history of development (to be explained below, pp. 37–38, regarding ¿nding coherence in the ¿nal form of the book). Mays developed a new scheme to understand the growth of the book over the years. The genuine Micah material found in chs. 1–3 was reused during the Babylonian crisis before the fall of Judah. The old traditions were reapplied to a new situation by emphasizing the continuity of God’s purposes with both Samaria and Jerusalem, and shifting the basis of punishment from social and economic sins to idolatry and trust in military might.55 An exilic collection of oracles of salvation about the restoration of Zion (4:8–5:3) was joined to the Micah-collection and after 515 B.C.E., further oracles were integrated into the movement of chs. 1–5 to highlight the relation between God and the peoples and place Israel’s judgment and restoration in the universal context of the nations.56 The last two chapters were composed from eight originally independent units, which were ¿nally connected with chs. 1–5 through the composition of 6:16 to link the beginning and end by showing an interest in the world setting of judgment and salvation, as do chs. 1–5.57

52. Ina Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments (BZAW 123; New York: de Gruyter, 1971), 70–114. 53. Theodor Lescow, “Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 1–5,” ZAW 84 (1972): 46–85; Lescow, “Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6–7,” ZAW 84 (1972): 182–212. 54. Theodor Lescow, “Zur Komposition des Buches Micha,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 9 (1995): 200–222. 55. James L. Mays, Micah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, Westminster, 1976), 23–25. 56. Ibid., 26–29. 57. Ibid., 29–33. 1

24

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

In 1977, B. Renaud published his second study concerning Micah, this time an exhaustive redactional study of the whole book,58 and a decade later (1987) a commentary as well.59 As he had maintained in his earlier work (1964), chs. 4–5 come from a “Deutero-Micah” who made “une synthèse eschatologico-messianique” in order to picture God’s intervention and the coming Messiah in an integrated manner.60 Renaud now traced the development of the whole book in stages of a complex and lengthy process of formation, spread over many centuries. The Mican kernel was supplemented and augmented by Deuteronomists during the exile to comment on sin and judgment. A post-exilic structuring of the book joined chs. 4–5 to 1–361 and incorporated 7:8–20, resulting in a double alternation of judgment and salvation each time joined by a catchword: “mountain” in 3:12 and 4:1, and “hear” in 5:14 and 6:1. Thus the book was ordered in two parts—chs. 1–5 and 6–7. Chapters 4–5 offered hope for Jerusalem, while the second section of hope (7:8–20) addressed the place of Israel among the nations.62 The ¿nal form of the book is comprised of pieces of diverse origins that are intentionally structured in a double alternation of doom and hope to reÀect the redactor’s theological presuppositions.63 The publication in 1982 of a commentary on Micah (BKAT; English 1990) was the culmination of many years of work by Hans W. Wolff. Some of his new ground breaking, in the results of a search for the social locus of the prophet Micah, had already appeared (1977, 1978, 1981; see below, pp. 35–36, for discussion of his proposed perspective for understanding the prophet). His sketch of the book’s redaction history runs along parallel lines to those mentioned already. Chapters 1–3 largely came from Micah, and subsequently received deuteronomistic additions. In a process that stretched into the post-exilic years, a collection of salvation prophecies grew into what is essentially chs. 4–5. These words, along with 2:12–13 and certain newly written segments, were joined to 58. Bernard Renaud, La Formation du Livre de Michée. Tradition et actualisation (Etudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1977). 59. Bernard Renaud, Michée-Sophonie-Nahum (Sources Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1987). 60. Renaud, Formation, xii, 403, 409–15. 61. In order to neutralize the threat of Mic 3:12 and revive hope, a redactor “opposed promise to threat.” Renaud, Formation, 403; and Michée, 169–71. 62. From its original location between Mic 4:7 and 8, Mic 2:12–13 was displaced to its present position. This resulted in an arti¿cial three-part structure of alternating judgment and hope in place of a two-fold alternation. Renaud, Formation, 383–421, and Michée, 171. 63. Renaud, Formation, 421, and Michée, 12. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

25

chs. 1–3 sometime after the consecration of the temple in 515 B.C.E. by a school in Jerusalem favoring salvation prophecy and a universalist tradition, whose focus was on the future of the remnant, on Jerusalem, and on the heathen world. Within the school was a group which, stemming from Micah’s indictments, was oriented to social criticism of contemporary outrages, and gave rise to 6:2–7:7, which was then linked to the Micah traditions of chs. 1–5. As a ¿nal step, another branch of the tradition school readied 1:1–7:7 for liturgical worship by adding 7:8–20 at the end.64 In an article in the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Eckart Otto considered the prominent strategies which were used in editing the book of Micah, drawing distinctions between chs. 1–3, 4–5, and 6–7 in techniques. Since he found the same techniques in Micah as in cuneiform law codes from Mesopotamia, as well as in the legal collections of the Hebrew Bible, he traced how these common patterns are found in the editing of the book of Micah and were also used in the exilic and postexilic periods for the redaction of the prophetic books more broadly. On this basis, Otto constructed a transmission and redaction history for the book of Micah, positing that the book’s materials ¿rst crystallized around several kernels, ¿nally being structured in three primary segments: chs. 1–2/3–5/6–7, based on the indicator of the summons to hear in 1:2; 3:1; 6:1 and resulting in an ABABAB structure of contrasts in which words of disaster alternate with the preaching of salvation.65 In a work devoted to the growth of the book of Micah, Gabriele Metzner began with the book’s ¿nal form, structured in two sections, Mic 1–5 and 6–7, and from that basis deduced the earlier stages through which the traditions passed. Drawing on Hagstrom’s work, he ¿rst considered the correspondences between 1:2 and 6:1, and how each of the larger sections was created and their relation to each other as seen in the common elements found in both parts. He reconstructed a history of the composition and editing of the materials into the book we currently have through examining the redactional layers found in chs. 1–5. He introduced the concept of “Fortschreibung” as an explanation for the end 64. Hans W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 4: Micha (BKAT 14/4; Neukirchen– Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), xxxvi–xxxvii. In English translation as Micah: A Commentary (trans. G. Stansell; Augsburg Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 17–27, esp. 26–27. 65. Eckart Otto, “Techniken der Rechtssatzredaktion Israelitischer Rechtsbücher in der Redaktion des Prophetenbuches Micha,” SJOT 2 (1991): 119–50. See also his summary of the structure and growth of the book in his “Micha/Michabuch,” TRE 22:695–704. 1

26

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

of the book. Most of Mic 6 is a Fortschreibung on Micah’s prophecies of judgment and Mic 7 in particular serves as a hermeneutical key for understanding the whole.66 In his ¿nal section Metzner considered the function of the book of Micah as a part of the prophetic canon, especially as one of the book of the Twelve.67 In his commentary on the book of Micah, William McKane begins from the reconstructed redactional history of the growth of the book proposed by H. W. Wolff. He proceeds to y modify this understanding only slightly, and also adopted as his premiss Stade’s claim that the only material to be assigned to the eighth-century prophet Micah is that found in chs. 1–3. The book in the form we now have it “bridges the centuries” with a history spanning “the pre-exilic, the exilic and the post-exilic periods.” The prophetic activity of the prophet stimulated prophecy of varying types in the centuries that followed.68 McKane’s view of the growth of our present book assumes heavy liturgical usage of the materials over the centuries. During the exile the prophecies of Micah were employed liturgically as the lections for the days of lament over the fall of Jerusalem. Connected with these liturgical events, a school of traditionists with a prophetic bent developed Micah’s message further in one of two directions. Some took Micah’s message and reinforced it to describe the ills of their (later) time, with no radical change of subject or mood, giving rise to 6:1–7:7. Another use of the traditions transformed it from a message of doom into one of hope. This material, our Mic 4–5, represents a different kind of prophecy. A reborn hope now opened up new prospects that God might have a plan for a future for his people. All was combined in the same collection, so that most of chs. 1–7 was used 66. Fortschreibung is a concept which originated in German scholarship on the formation of the prophetic books, used to describe a process in which a scribe or editor composes new material in the light of, or added onto, the preexisting sources that are already in use. These additions may draw from the larger context of the book to which they are added, or from the larger literary corpus outside that book, or may be drawn from a more limited context but be oriented towards a larger literary strategy that pervades the book. See J. Stromberg, “Formation of the Prophetic Books,” DOTP 271–79, esp. 274–75. 67. Gabriele Metzner, Kompositionsgeschichte des Michabuches (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Theologie, 635; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1998), esp. 90– 94, for connections between Mic 1–5 and 6–7; pp. 177–83, for the book as part of the prophetic canon; and pp. 185–96 for a translation of the whole text with line-byline identi¿cations of the nine purported compositional layers and historical periods from which each portion was to be derived. 68. William McKane, Micah: Introduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 1, 7–8, 21–23. He does reject Wolff’s assertion that Micah did not claim to be a prophet and spoke only on the basis of his authority as a village elder. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

27

as lections for the liturgy which reÀected the different moods of the Jerusalem community down into the post-exilic period. In the ¿nal stage, three separate and discontinuous psalms (now Mic 7:8–20), were added to the end of the collection as congregational responses to prophetic lections from the book of Micah used in a public worship setting, indicating a public liturgical use for the whole book of Micah.69 In the volume on Micah in the Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Raiser Kessler commented on the book in three parts based on the content, judgment in Mic 1–3; the remnant of Jacob under the nations (chs. 4–5); and chs. 6–7. The book operates on the basis of the salvation and judgment schema, thematically organized according to Israel and the nations. Kessler reconstructed a detailed ¿vestage process of growth. Micah 1–3 contains the prophet’s message, consistently and openly taking the side of the oppressed and seeing that the injustices will bring the Assyrian incursions. In response to the destruction of Jerusalem as a ful¿llment of 3:12, 4:8–5:3 was added, envisioning a new deliverance to come. A redaction in the early Persian period rounded out most of chs. 1–5 as a new composition in and of itself, shaping the whole by a post-exilic salvi¿c perspective, which expected the return of those in exile and the possibility of salvation extending to the nations. Unfortunately these hopes proved deceptive as the old social tensions returned with the years. During the late Persian period 6:1–7:7 added social criticisms to address these new developments, thus now ending the text in a lament that found hope only in waiting for God’s intervention (7:7). At the end of the Persian era, or as late as the beginning of the Hellenistic era, a ¿nal redaction added touches to Mic 4–5 and incorporated 7:8–20. Now the community claimed the existing text as its own and by expressing hope for forgiveness and salvation gave a salvi¿c perspective to the ¿nal form. Kessler also discussed the coherence of the text, which he saw as an issue since words of salvation and catastrophe “follow one another in constant alternation.” He explained the uni¿ed origin of a text which unites both judgment and salvation in the character of the book of Micah as opposition literature. This provides an answer to the socio-historical question as to the tradents and their audiences. He explained in detail the thoroughgoing manner in which Micah is “Oppositionsliteratur.” At each stage in the book’s history the contents were subversive to the powers that be. Alternating salvation and judgment messages are not contradictory if the different addressees are understood. The salvation texts answer the question of the future of the victims of the earlier oppression, 1

69. Ibid., 19–21.

28

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

which had caused the end of Jerusalem so that the nation has now become the victim of imperial powers. These promises also address what will become of Israel, holding out the hope of a salvi¿c change in the future and simultaneously now confronting current injustice through the social critique of Mic 6:1–7:7.70 In Judgement and Salvation, J. Wagenaar addressed the question of why the oracles in the book of Micah are arranged in a pattern of a “sudden and unexpected alternation of the oracles of doom and the oracles of hope.”71 He began with a sweeping survey of the numerous scholarly solutions which have been proffered for understanding the organization of the materials in the present form of the book of Micah, especially the tensions between doom and hope. With Stade and the advent of historical-criticism, clari¿cations of the alternating doom and hope have been sought in distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic materials, or explaining the tensions as derived from different historical or cultic backgrounds. In the 30 to 40 years prior to his work, a number of quite different explanations for this alternation have been put forward, explaining it as the result of a “more or less conscious composition” (composition model), or as the product of a dispute between Micah and some members of his audience (dialogue model), or as the result of the literary history of the book (redaction-history model).72 He is most sympathetic to the redaction history model. The dual proclamation of judgment and salvation is best attributed to different stages in the book’s development, and thus, the redaction-history model provided his point of departure to study the oracles in Micah.73 As a result of intensive exegesis of the text, Wagenaar concludes that the book of Micah assumed its present form in a ¿ve-step process of growth, from the earliest collection of Micah’s sayings (now comprising much of chs. 2–3) in four stages all the way down to the post-exilic collection of Mic 1–5, with its 70. Rainer Kessler, Micha (2d ed.; HTKAT; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2000), 36–40, 45–61, 63–70, and Kessler, “Micah/Book of Micah,” in Religion Past and Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion, vol. 8 (ed. H. Betz et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 326–28. Though Kessler postulated a redactional development scheme for the book, his work was broader in his sensitivity to other issues and ongoing discussions in emerging scholarship of recent decades. Kessler considered the book’s canonical context as part of the Twelve and attended to certain contemporary approaches to interpretation, as in his comments on feminist readings of the text and sensitivity to the text’s reception history. 71. Jan Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation: The Composition and Redaction of Micah 2–5 (VTSup 85; Boston: Brill, 2001), 3. 72. Ibid., 3–5. 73. Ibid., 6–45. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

29

concern for justice in Judah, then the nations, overlaid with hope of a new age and coming ruler. During the ¿fth or fourth centuries, tradents combined the sayings of Micah in 1:2–5:14 with a pre-exilic collection of oracles from an unknown prophet of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (chs. 6–7), seeking to tie the whole book in with both kingdoms.74 In the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Marvin Chaney proposed a structure in four parts, elevating the superscription to status as a section, 1:1/1:2–3:12 (making the punishment ¿t the crime)/4–5 (visions of hope for Jerusalem and Israel)/6–7 (from indictment to restoration). The “key to the interpretation of the book” is to resolve how the oracles of judgment are related to the visions for the future. Chaney sees the book as the end result of a process of traditioning with three stages as background: (1) the social injustices of the eighth century; (2) the royal reforms of the late Judahite monarchy; and (3) a less wellde¿ned context in the exilic and early Second Temple periods.75 David Carr tried to distinguish “authentic” late-eighth-century material from later additions to Micah, in a way reminiscent of the concerns with which historical-critical study had embarked on the examination of the text. He suggested that most of the material in chs. 1–3 came from an early Micah collection, which applied past prophecies about the Northern Kingdom to Judah. This claim was buttressed with comparisons to parallel themes in early Isaiah material, so that Micah and Isaiah parallel each other as interpretations of the crisis facing Judah in the years following the fall and exile of Israel “as seen through the lens of written prophecies from the North.”76 Ever sensitive to the theological dimensions of the Hebrew Bible, Walter Brueggemann sought to understand the book of Micah as “a doxological meditation upon the character of YHWH as understood and evidenced in a series of critical moments in the life of Israel.” The material evolved into coherence. An original prophetic utterance (most of Mic 1–3 and some of the harsh indictment from ch. 6) is “transformed into a fuller, coherent theological statement,” as the tradition developed beyond Micah into the exile, with the addition of later promises in chs. 4–5 to reÀect the prophetic conviction “that the God who punishes is the God who will restore.” Micah 6–7 constitutes the second wave of material, also the product of the later and ongoing tradition, and providing a parallel to chs. 1–5. Both sections of the book begin with judgment, 74. Ibid., 46–315 in detail. Note the summary of conclusions on pp. 317–26. 75. Chaney, “Micah, Book of,” 73–76. 76. David Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 329–31.

1

30

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

probably early and from the prophet of the eighth century (chs. 1–3; 6:1– 7:7), and culminate in promises of restoration, reÀecting a later setting and need (chs. 4–5; 7:8–20). The tradition refuses to allow Micah’s severe judgment to stand as the sum of the message, instead speaking the ¿nal word about the incomparable God who pardons in his compassion, faithfulness, and loyalty. This tension between the tradition’s initial harshness and ultimate pardon creates the text’s dynamism.77 Certainly recent decades have witnessed the continuing production of traditional historical-critical studies of the book of Micah, founded on research that begins with the assumption of some level of incoherence in the text in order to separate out layers that can be assigned to varied settings and centuries from the time of Micah himself onward. These scholars then reconstruct and trace the development of a redactional process that tied the materials of the book together at the end into the ¿nal form in which we now have it. This process is adduced to explain the interconnections and coherence that can also be found within the ¿nal form of the text. The coherence thus uncovered is diachronic in development and found its origins in the work of later editors who reinterpreted and updated or augmented earlier oracles to address changing situations at later dates. (3) Ideological Criticisms. Another set of methodologies which assume a certain incoherence in the text may be broadly grouped as ideological criticisms. Such approaches to the book challenge what the scholars perceive, or reconstruct, to be the dominant biases which determine the framework and viewpoints of the text. They assume or seek to ¿nd incoherence, often between the theological worldviews of different periods which have generated material that has been included in the ¿nal form of the book, or with the scholar’s own ideological worldview which is used as a criterion to evaluate and judge the message of the text. There have been fewer studies of the book of Micah using such approaches, but the work of several scholars stands out for mention. I. J. Mosala (1989) pursued an ideological approach to texts in Micah in order to reappropriate past struggles of the black people to derive a liberating use of the Bible for South Africa through the use of a “materialist method.” This sought to connect the black South African struggle for liberation from “capitalism, racism, sexism, and imperialism” with the struggles behind and in the biblical text. He began with an examination of the eighth-century B.C.E. material conditions depicted in 77. Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (2d ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013), 265–68. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

31

the book of Micah, especially through examining the structure of society and its modes of production and their implications. Mosala classi¿es the materials found in the book of Micah into three layers: A level texts indict the ruling elite for concrete social injustices that exploit the poor (eighth century), B layer texts are the product of scribes who serve the ruling elite, and so address evil in society in only a generalized fashion, while C level texts actually reverse the ideology of the A level texts so that ¿nally the former powerful elite are viewed as the exploited in the wake of the exile and postexilic reconstruction. He concluded that only A texts are connected in a positive manner with the struggles of black workers.78 Writing from a similar sociological and liberation theological stance, and building on Mosala’s conclusions, J. David Pleins examined the plea for social justice in the book, peeling back the layers of textual development in order to expound the Hebrew Bible’s overall social vision. The years of editing and transmission of the tradition has tempered the social critique of the eighth century.79 Erin Runions has examined Micah from the perspective of feminist and postcolonial biblical criticisms, joined with poststructural theory. Her reading of the text draws on the work of Homi Bhaba, whose concern with liberation she mapped onto a Marxist theoretical framework for understanding oppression, in order to consider the meaning of our call to justice. Her hope was to elucidate the capacity of a text to “disrupt dominant or oppressive practices,” that the text would confront its readers in order to be of use in the ¿ght against oppression. She allowed ambiguities and apparent textual discrepancies to stand, and did not seek one correct key for interpretation.80 c. Seeking Coherence in the Book of Micah Now an ever-increasing number of studies accept the book of Micah as we have it and search for the connections that hold the ¿nal form of the 78. Itumeleng Mosala, Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), see esp. 98, 101–53. 79. J. David Pleins, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 353–54, 381–90. 80. Erin Runions, Changing Subjects: Gender, Nation and Future in Micah (New York: Shef¿eld Academic, 2001). Using a hermeneutic of suspicion, at the core of her approach is the question of the reading process and textual determinacy, as to whether it is the text or the reader who controls meaning. A further example of her use of this approach can be found in Runions, “Called to Do Justice? A Bhabian Reading of Micah 5 and 6:1–8,” in Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader (ed. A. K. M. Adam; St Louis: Chalice, 2001), 153–64. 1

32

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

book together as a unitary whole. These scholars make their primary focus the ¿nal and canonical form of the book and delve into the way it functions as a literary or rhetorical piece. Some proceed from this analysis to consider the implications of their insights into the ¿nal form for understanding of the process of growth which the materials went through, while others may bracket out investigation of the historical development as not within the scope of the particular study, or even unattainable, and so de¿ne their research in simply literary terms. (1) Seeking Coherence for a Section of the Book. As was the case in earlier years, careful study of the text sought to ¿nd a coherence in portions of the book, even though not in the whole. A. S. van der Woude argued for coherence internal to portions of the book. In 1971, he picked up Burkitt’s (1926) line of thought and tried to demonstrate that chs. 6–7 came from a Deutero-Micah in the North. Since the usual division of the prophetic books into doom and salvation has been doubled in Micah, the book was probably composed of two parts stemming from two prophets. The latter portion, chs. 6–7, also show traces of a Northern origin, which he examined in detail and for which he adduced new evidence, including the use of entirely different traditions in the two sections.81 DeuteroMicah’s writing was not “a later addition to an already existing prophetic writing, but is to be regarded as an independent prophetic collection of North Israelite provenance,” probably from a “North Israelite contemporary of Micah of Morescheth-Gath,” possibly even having the same name. The two sections were combined early, since both contain prophecies against Samaria, probably both prophets were contemporaries, and possibly had the same name. Thus, in Mic 6–7 we possess at least one more example of Northern prophecy and belief.82 For chs. 1–5 he also sought to ¿nd coherence by tracing an ongoing debate/dialogue between Micah and the contradictory message from the “pseudo-prophets,” which are thus pre-exilic in date. To trace the dispute between Micah and his 81. A. van der Woude, “Deutero-Micha: ein Prophet aus Nord-Israel?,” NedTT 25 (1971): 368–78. 82. Ibid., 377–78. Also in a later contribution, van der Woude, “Three Classical Prophets: Amos, Hosea and Micah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter Ackroyd (ed. R. Coggins, A. Phillips, and M. Knibb; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 32–55, speci¿ed the book’s redaction history (see esp. pp. 52–53). Apart from later glosses, the form of the book which we now have is a Deuteronomistic redaction from the reign of Josiah that combined chs. 6–7 with 1–5, linking the two by means of Mic 5:9–14. From that point on, both books constituted one work, with any overall coherence being either coincidental or super¿cially imposed. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

33

opponents in Mic 1–5 allows one to ¿nd coherence in that portion of the text, even in the passages that appear contradictory, since they represent an account of the exchange of two opposing views.83 Interpretive confusion thus results from trying to understand the text as though all its pericopes were intended to represent a consistent message of one prophet. L. Ballard has demonstrated that the allusions to Israel’s past history in chs. 6–7 serve to hold this section together by creating a coherence on multiple levels. She observed that these references in Mic 6–7 begin with two to the period of the Exodus and Sinai (6:4a, the Exodus; v. 4b, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam), followed by allusions from the period of wilderness wanderings and then crossing the Jordan to enter the land (6:5a, Balak and Balaam; v. 5b, Shittim and Gilgal), and then continue by following the sequence of the historical narrative with a mention of two kings from the monarchy of Israel (6:16a, Omri and Ahab). A lament occurs in the center of this section (7:1–7). The section of hope then continues the frequent allusions to Israel’s past, picking up the same periods in focus on ch. 6, but now in a reverse chronological order: allusion to Egypt, Assyria, and the River (7:12, regarding the period of the monarchy), evocations of the wilderness and entering the land (7:14a, “dwelling alone”; v. 14b, Bashan and Gilead), the Exodus and time at Sinai (7:15, the Exodus; 7:18–19, the appropriation of the character qualities of God listed in God’s revelation of the meaning of his name at Sinai). It also takes the reader a step further into the past by ending with a climactic reference to the even earlier period of the Patriarchs (7:20, the oath to Abraham and Jacob).84

83. A. van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-Prophets,” VT 19 (1969): 244–60 and “Micah IV 1–5: An Instance of the Pseudo-Prophets Quoting Isaiah,” in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae: F. M. T. de Liagre Böhl dedicatae (ed. M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland, and J. Ryckmans; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 396–402. Later van der Woude decided that the dialogue was actually with a larger audience—magistrates, royal of¿cials—and not only the pseudo-prophets in van der Woude, Micha, 77–78. Interpretive confusion results from reading the text as though all its parts were intended to represent the view of one prophet. Thus, A. van der Woude saw no overarching coherence in the text of the ¿nal form in that the theme and origins of chs. 1–5 and 6–7 were totally different. Each major section has its own internal coherence, but there is further a super¿cial coherence, diachronic in origin, imposed by a later redactor who joined both sections of the book as we now have it. 84. Libby Ballard, “Intertextuality and the Coherence of Micah 6–7,” paper presented at Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, Ill., November 18, 2012. 1

34

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

(2) Seeking Coherence that Arises from an Underlying Perspective. Other scholars have operated from the datum of the ¿nal form of the book of Micah and discovered a unifying coherence in the elucidation of an underlying perspective arising from the original circumstances in which the text was produced. The perspective that gives coherence to the text may be a speci¿c historical situation. Some found this in a unitary eighth-century backdrop for all or almost all of the oracles in the book. LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush understood the prophet Micah to have been the source of the book’s oracles. Any arrangement was a deliberate attempt by Micah or his disciples to underscore the two-fold nature of prophecy.85 Thomas McComiskey (1985; revised as McComiskey and Longman, 2008) dealt with the question of the book’s unity. The discovery of lack of unity is based on an alleged incoherence in the text, which can be resolved only through passage-by-passage exegesis. McComiskey argued that these apparent incoherencies disappear when the text’s meaning is seen in the light of its historical background. As well, there is an internal coherence in structure, a logical sequence of argument, and a symmetrical arrangement of thought.86 Thomas A. Boogaart considered the prophecies in Mic 2:12–13; 4:1–8; and 4:14–5:3 and related them to a dawning hope of the restoration of the Davidic kingdom in the eighth century in the aftermath of the defeat of the SyroEphraimite alliance and the death of Tiglath-pileser III.87 Alternatively, the underlying perspective may also be explained in terms of the ancient cultural setting and customs associated with the production and use of the book. D. N. Freedman (1983) explained the lament in ch. 1 as incoherent due not only to the setting in the history of Judah, but also due to the nature of the prophet’s ecstatic experience. Based on an analysis of texts of different levels of interpretive dif¿culty, Freedman proposed that the setting for the poem in 1:10–16 is to be found in the invasion of Judah in 735 B.C.E. by the allied armies of Aram and the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The lack of overall clarity in the 85. W. LaSor, D. Hubbard, and F. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 270–75. The same group of disciples responsible for the ¿nal composition of Isaiah also collected and edited the Micah material. 86. Thomas E. McComiskey, “Micah,” EBC 7:397–445. He saw Mic 4:1–4 as rooted in eighth-century tradition, Babylon as a ¿gure for world powers, and 6:1–8 and 7:1–20 as in keeping with the eighth-century prophets. See also Thomas McComiskey and Tremper Longman III, “Micah,” in EBC 8:491–551. 87. Thomas A. Boogaart, ReÀections on Restoration: A Study of Prophecies in Micah and Isaiah About the Restoration of Northern Israel (Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, 1981). 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

35

passage “reÀects the confusion of battle and destruction,” but the passage is rendered coherent by the repetition of forms, especially the second person feminine singular verbs and vocatives. The “radical confusion and disorientation,” or incoherence in the text, is in reality a consequence of its being a transcript of an ecstatic experience of the prophet, which was recorded verbatim by a scribe. Freedman suggests that the oracle in 1:10–16 was uttered during an ecstatic seizure occasioned by his almost hysterical grief at what he foresaw to be the fate of his beloved country and people… In a paroxysm of anguish, sharpened by a panoramic vision of desolation and ruin, the prophet pours out in ¿ts and starts, in bits and pieces, his woe. Then we may suppose that the words which came forth were recorded by a scribe who simply set down what he heard, or what he could make out in words and sentences of what was uttered.88

Joyce R. Wood (2000) found coherence in the ¿nal form of the book of Micah derived from the concept that the book was poetry performed in public as drama, drawing on parallels with Sumerian poetry and anticipating elements of Greek theater. This understanding of the backdrop of its performance gives the text a unity in spite of there being multiple speakers and addressees, and despite the expression of a variety of thoughts. Drama has separate episodes, which will have “a jagged or staggered movement.” The variety found in the text is not evidence that oracles originally disparate in time and authorship were later assembled into one work, but rather demonstrates that the poetry found in the book was performed as drama.89 Interest in the social locus of the prophet and his ministry is seen in Wolff’s proposal of the prophet as one of the elders of the land from rural Judahite society, or Hillers’ locating Micah within a millennial movement, as a prophet of a new age. H. W. Wolff observed from the quote of Micah in Jer 26, that, ¿rst the epithet “Moreshite” shows that 88. David N. Freedman, “Discourse on Prophetic Discourse,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (ed. H. B. Huffmon, F. Spina, and A. Green; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 141–58. See also the similar, but broader explanation of essentially this same idea in Francis Andersen, “The Poetic Properties of Prophetic Discourse in the Book of Micah,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. R. D. Bergen; Dallas: SIL, 1994), 520–28. 89. Joyce Wood, “Speech and Action in Micah’s Prophecy,” CBQ 62 (2000): 645–62. A similar idea that the book is a drama, complete with actors and stage directions, is the basis of the commentary on Micah by Helmut Utzschneider, Micha (Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 24:1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2005), unavailable to examine. 1

36

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Micah was not a native of Jerusalem and second, his sayings were preserved and transmitted among the elders of the land. This led Wolff to the hypothesis that Micah possibly was one of the elders of the land himself. He was thus familiar with what an elder does “in a Judean country town, in the judicial process in the gate and in the instruction of youth.” Yet he was also a prophet, and this authority enabled him to attack injustice, proclaim disaster, and register complaint, even in the capital city.90 In the Hermeneia volume on Micah (1984), D. R. Hillers used millenarian perspectives to explain the origin of the range of different materials found in the book of Micah. He ¿rst underscored the hypothetical character of redactional study on Micah and decided to work from the only “given” really available, the present form of the book, with but occasional reference to redactional issues.91 His thesis is that Micah (and the others who may be involved) was part of a movement of revitalization, or a millennial movement. Thus, a “unifying explanatory approach is sought in a type of social situation which has recurred over and over in…history.” Micah was associated with such a millennial group and the oracles of the book “reÀect typical themes of such movements.” Hillers proposes that Micah’s message can be seen as characteristic of a prophet of a New Age, as these have been described in anthropological studies. In such situations, the oppressed in a society, suffering deprivation and the defection of authorities in a setting of societal and economic collapse, band together to seek to bring about change through a radical reordering of life on earth directed to producing improvements. There is hope for a radical and imminent change in earthly conditions, which will usher in a time of plenty and peace, a deliberate effort to build a more satisfying culture. Seemingly disparate elements can be seen as in reality closely connected, as when the protesting of oppression and dreams of a new age occur together, as in Micah. The underlying common outlook accounts for the presence of both the juxtaposed threats and promises, and the view of the future.92 90. H. W. Wolff, “Micah the Moreshite—The Prophet and His Background,” in Israelite Wisdom (ed. John Gammie, Walter Brueggemann, W. Lee Humphreys, and James Ward; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 77–84; Wolff, Micah the Prophet (trans. Ralph Gehrke; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 18–24. Such a social locus is consistent with the fact that Mic 3:8 has no reference to a speci¿c prophetic vocation. See also Wolff, “Wie werstand Micha von Moreschet sein prophetisches Amt?,” VTSup 29 (1978): 403–17; also cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 4, xxxvi– xxxvii. 91. Hillers, Micah, 3–4a. 92. Ibid., 4–8. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

37

(3) Seeking Coherence in the Text: A Primary Concern to Focus on the Final Form of the Book. Since Willis’s works in the late 1960s and with the rise of the appropriation of the newer literary criticisms in Biblical Studies, a distinct shift can be sensed as more and more studies have been primarily concerned to focus on the ¿nal form of the book as the starting point of their research, rather than prioritizing the (reconstructed and speculative) growth process which led to the canonical stage we have received. From that basis, they have gone in many different directions and pursued quite different goals. (a) Focus on Unity in the Final Form of the Book. Wilhelm Rudolph (KAT) appears to have built on Willis’s work to arrive at his understanding of the coherent structure of the book. He proposed that the book actually falls into three divisions: chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7. Micah 2:12–13 is not a clumsy or misplaced addition, but rather serves to end the ¿rst part with a prophecy of salvation. The book thus falls into these three parts, each of which not only starts with “hear,” but also is ordered by a condemnation/salvation scheme. The book’s structure then gives insight into the theology of the traditionists responsible for redaction, who desired to show that Micah had proclaimed both disaster and the coming rule of God, in order to warn posterity to live better in the light of past disobediences. The presence of the post-exilic liturgy of 7:7–20 ¿xes the time of the origin of the book in its present form to the ¿rst half of the ¿fth century.93 J. L. Mays (OTL) not only provided an elaborate reconstruction of the diachronic activity of redactors through changing historical circumstances, but also considered the way in which the book overall in the form in which we now have it has received a theological shaping and thus communicates a coherent message that arose at one time in the history of development, the ¿nal stage. The ¿nal form of the text is the result of a redaction carried out to impose a theological scheme on the book. He set out to “identify and to describe a unity of intention that is discernible in the arrangement and shaping of the material which created the ¿nal form of the book… When the book is studied carefully with an interest, not in what makes it come apart, but in what holds it together, then a variety of integrating features begin to appear.”94 Integrating 93. Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha–Nahum–Habakuk–Zephanja (KAT 13/3; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1975). See esp. pp. 24–25. 94. Mays, Micah, 2–12, and Mays, “The Theological Purpose of the Book of Micah,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie (FS W. Zimmerli; ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 276–77. 1

38

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

features include items such as catchwords and repeated motifs, arrangement according to similar style or subject, juxtaposition of contrasting or complementary passages, repetition of introductory rubrics, and transitions that lead from one unit to the next. There is also an arrangement that uses the material in “a movement of proclamation that Àows through the entire book.” Its structure is not as clear and coherent as would be the case with “an original composition where the movement of thought creates the material.” Nonetheless, there seems to be a pattern which results from “an accumulative and sustained intention to say something which incorporates all the smaller parts into a larger message.”95 Mays goes on to develop the idea that the book is composed of two major sections: chs. 1–5, which addresses a universal audience of all peoples, and chs. 6–7, which is directed to Israel. The ¿rst portion makes God’s punishment (1:2–3:12) and restoration (4:1–5:8) of his own people into a witness for the nations that they must either submit (4:1–4) or be punished (5:9–14). The pivot of the movement lies in the breathtaking shift between 3:9–12 and 4:1–5. The second section pictures an Israel living “under the inescapable judgment of God” (6:1–7:6), but yet expects salvation and forgiveness (7:7–20). These ¿nal chapters are concerned with God’s relationship to Israel, “with judgment and salvation as God’s struggle for the soul of his people.” Though the “accents of judgment and salvation” are present, “they are sounded as part of a movement which has interrelatedness and coherence as a whole.” Each section concludes with an appropriate passage, 5:14 focused on God’s vengeance and 7:8–20 on God’s compassion. “Within each section there is evidence in the arrangement and shaping of the material that a persistent intention has been at work to bring the individual units under the control of broader kerygmatic purposes.”96 The book’s ¿nal form, reached during the post-exilic period, contains material “crafted into a two-fold sequence” that maintains the individual units, but also sets them “in a context which displays their signi¿cance in a sweeping vision of the way of YHWH.” The two parts “set the congregation in a situation of faith which makes prophetic sense of their past and present and future.”97 L. C. Allen (NICOT) traced artistic arrangement in structure, linkages, and theme. He elucidated an artistic arrangement in the present form of the text, the result of literary redaction, with certain later pieces ¿rmly imbedded as essential structural ingredients. Allen does suspect that

1

95. Mays, Micah, 3. 96. Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 278; Micah, 4–12. 97. Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 287.

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

39

7:8–20 is the latest piece in the book, coming from the post-exilic era prior to Ezra and Nehemiah, thus ¿xing the probable time of the composition of the book in ¿nal form. He defended the Mican origin of most of the book, with the exception of 4:1–4, 6–8; and 7:8–20. The concerns of the editor are also evident in the choice of 5:1–6 as the pivot of the book, reÀecting its usage in temple worship, allowing the congregation to voice their prayers.98 If “the book is accepted on its own terms, hints of artistic patterning emerge for the careful reader.” Allen accepted the division into sections of chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7.99 He supported this by tracing parallels between chs. 1–2 and 6–7, and then highlighting the unique structure of chs. 3–5 that establishes that this section should be treated as a main unit. (See Chapter 4 for more details, speci¿cally pp. 156–57.100) R. L. Smith (WBC) looked for the unifying factors in the text and searched out precedents that give a cultural and historical context for their interrelations. He argued for a unity in the ¿nal form of the text that is the result of a redactional growth process, founded on the ministry and teachings of Micah of Moresheth, who himself furnished the inspiration for the entire project, with later editing and supplementation in the time of Jeremiah and again in the exilic or early post-exilic era by prophetic disciples of Isaiah and Micah.101 He compared the hope in the ¿nal form of Micah with the doom–hope motif of the ancient Near Eastern cult, in many pre-exilic psalms of lament, and in the basic pattern of Israel’s holy history. Hope from any period of Israel’s history was grounded in the same covenant theology, which was transmitted especially in the cult. Hence, the presence of hope does not rule out authorship by the prophet Micah.102 He says that there is no de¿nitive way to outline the book. To do so is to try “to organize the seemingly unorganizable.”103 98. Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976), 251–52. 99. Though chs. 1–3 are similar in tone and period of origin, they can stand as the initial section of the book only if Mic 2:12–13 are detached. 100. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, 257–60. Note the chart on p. 260. 101. Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 6, 8–9. 102. Ibid., 11. 103. Ibid., 8. There are obvious catchwords and other devices that join pericope to pericope. If there are larger units, then the alternation of judgment and hope oracles textually supports a division of chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7. A similar approach that is open to a redactional growth but views it as the source primarily of coherence/unity in the text is to be found in LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament 1

40

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Andersen and Freedman (AB) again combined their talents and insights to exegete Micah, as they had done earlier in their work on Hosea and Amos for the same series. The two are keenly aware of the development and importance of the texts, such as were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and translations, particularly the Septuagint.104 There is only one form of the book that we know so the goal is to describe the text as it is now. The book is understood to be a collection of oracles in three sections, or three “books,” each having a unique mood and message, as reÀected in the titles they assigned: I. The Book of Doom (chs. 1–3) II. The Book of Visions (chs. 4–5) III. The Book of Contention and Conciliation (chs. 6–7)

They trace the support for this structure as it can be found in the structural clues in the text, along with thematic consistency and the forms of material used within each section. D. Simundson (1996) concluded that chs. 1–3 proclaim the approach of disaster in response to unrepentant sin (with the exception of 2:12–13) and chs. 4–5 offer promise that conditions will improve, but only once the dif¿culties encountered from God’s judgment are in the past. Micah 6–7 also mix together judgment and hope.105 In the volume in the Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry series, devoted to and entitled The Twelve Prophets, Marvin Sweeney presents an innovative reading that is sensitive to the form and syntax of the ¿nal form of the text, as well as concerns with the book’s place within the canon. Overall, he concluded that the book was designed Survey, 270–75, where it is argued that the prophet Micah was the source of most of the book’s oracles of hope, as well as those of judgment. Any arrangement was a deliberate attempt by Micah or his disciples to underscore the two-fold nature of prophecy, as bringing both good news and bad news. Recall also the comments on unity in the book in the commentary by T. McComiskey. 104. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 3–5, 16–17. 105. Daniel Simundson, “Micah,” IB 7, introduction on pp. 533–38, outline on pp. 539–40, see also pp. 541, 563, and 577 for summaries of the sections. This material also appears in his “The Book of Micah,” NIB 433–37. It is interesting to note that in his Abingdon Old Testament Commentary he entertains four different ways of dividing the text in his discussion. See Daniel Simundson, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (AOTC; Nashville, Abingdon, 2005), 290–92. See also A. K. Helmbold, “Micah, Book of,” in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (ed. M. Tenney and M. Silva; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), vol. 4, 237–41 (240), and Rex Mason, Micah, Nahum and Obadiah (T&T Clark Study Guides; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 13–16 and 43–53, who both explain the structure in terms of the contents. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

41

to speak to the future fortunes of Israel and Jerusalem once the Babylonian exile was past. Even though the prophet Micah was active during the latter part of the eighth century B.C.E., while Judah survived under the shadow of the Assyrian threat, Mic 4:10 refers to the Babylonian exile thus indicating a later period for the focus of the message of the entire book. This is con¿rmed by the observation of the use of and debate with the Isaiah tradition.106 Sweeney describes the present shape of the book in a unique manner. There are two main sections: 1:1 and 1:2–7:20. The superscription (1:1) is distinct from the material that follows in its form, serving to introduce and identify the contents of 1:2– 7:20 “as a prophetic announcement concerning YHWH’s plans for the anticipated exaltation of Zion at the center of the nations.”107 The message is depicted in 1:1 as “concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.” The book then presents the prophet as arguing that God’s judgment has come due to the sins of the capital cities of the two kingdoms. Following that punishment, the Lord will restore Jerusalem and Israel in an exalted position among the nations and ruled by a new Davidic leader.108 This “second major structural component of the book of Micah,” 1:2–7:20, is understood based on the presence of syntactical indicators to be broken down into four subsections: 1:2–16; 2:1–5:4; 6:1–16; 7:1–20.109 (For further on the criteria used to differentiate these units, see pp. 167–68.) A much different project than its contemporaries, but distinguished by a depth in areas others do not approach, is Bruce Waltke’s commentary on Micah (2007).110 Given the author’s expertise in such ¿elds, the outstanding treatment of Hebrew grammatical issues and textual criticism is not unexpected. Waltke adopts the macrostructure of chs. 1–2/3–5/6–7 as argued by Willis. Around twenty formerly independent oracles make up the book we now have, edited with abrupt transitions that reÀect the work of either the prophet or his disciples. He regards what we have as 106. Marvin Sweeney, “Micah,” in The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2 (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2000), 339–43. 107. Ibid., 342. 108. Ibid., 345. 109. Ibid., 345–47. 110. Bruce Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), see esp. pp. 13–16 for an overview of structure, Àow, and the nature of the coherence found in Micah. This work is the culmination of several shorter works that he wrote on Micah, in each of which he also maintained this same structure for the book. See Bruce Waltke, “Micah,” 137–207 in Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), esp. pp. 144–45, 150 and Bruce Waltke, “Micah,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, vol. 2 (ed. T. E. McComiskey; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 591–764, esp. 594–95, 597–98. 1

42

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

resembling “Micah’s ¿le of sermons delivered on different occasions. But his sermon ¿les have been skillfully ¿tted together like pieces of a rose window in a cathedral, pieced together by catchwords and logical particles.”111 The design of the book is unique among the prophets, set apart by the three cycles of doom and hope instead of one large collection of each. Waltke’s detailed work on the grammar and text-critical issues draws out many of the features that lead to a coherent text, especially on the levels internal to the sentence and paragraph. The “apparently disjointed oracles [have] a remarkable coherence,” for the explication of which on a broader scope he relies on the analyses of Jacobs regarding the textual features that create a conceptual coherence and Willis for the connections within the overall structure. He points beyond the con¿rmatory evidence that each section begins with a summons to hear to the facts that all the hope sections have the motif of shepherding and refer to the remnant. Thus, although the book is made up of distinct pieces, the whole has an artful coherence proclaiming I AM’s covenant. On the one hand, the faithful covenant partner, I AM, will ful¿ll his threatened curses if unfaithful Israel does not repent. On the other hand, as a faithful covenant keeper, he will cleanse his unfaithful partner by hurling their iniquities into the depths of the sea if they return to him.112

With a focus on Barton’s “plain sense of the text” Jenson has written a commentary on Micah that endeavors to explain the text in a way that is sensitive to theological concerns, even reaching into the New Testament. He treats the ¿nal form as theologically signi¿cant. Although he considers recent attempts to read the book in the context of the Book of the Twelve, but decides that “the primary context for determining meaning is the individual prophetic book.” Purported themes that run throughout the Twelve may simply be aspects of a shared theology and common proclamation.113 Observing that it is challenging to determine the setting in history of many passages in the book, he suggests that this indicates that in the course of transmission the canonical text has been modi¿ed in a way that obscured the original context so as to serve as a more “general vehicle of prophetic insight and theology.” Many of the traditional questions of historical-critics are speculative in nature and we operate in a general ignorance about the writing, redaction, and transmission of the 111. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah, 13–14. 112. Ibid., 16. 113. Philip Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary (LHBOTS 496; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), 1–2. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

43

prophetic books.114 Exercising caution in de¿nitive conclusions about the history and development of the text, he provides a more synchronic reading of the canonical ¿nal form of the book, as well as engaging the history of its interpretation. Jenson treats the book as divided into sections of chs. 1–3/4–5/6–7 based on the content addressed, rather than repetition of words (such as the summons to hear): chs. 1–3 focus on judgment and doom for the wicked, 4–5 offer hope for the future, and 6–7 move from reproof to praise. Further, he grounds an examination of the theological unity of the book’s message in the continuity that arises from the book’s status as canonical. The book makes two fundamental assumptions, that the Lord is sovereign as God over the whole earth (Mic 4:13) and Israel is the people of his covenant, rescued from slavery and preserved through the centuries (2:8; 6:2–5). The complexity of the book’s theology and language is due to this “contingent interplay between the universal God and the particular people whom he has chosen.” Though the nations are present, they are only so in a secondary role. This theological underpinning generates a structure that reÀects the working out of God’s sovereignty in a succession of sin, judgment, and restoration.115 In an article published in 1998, so prior to the publication of his New American Commentary on Micah, Barker provided an analysis of the literary qualities of the book of Micah. He considered the structure of the book, proceeding with his own evaluation of the four structures that D. Hagstrom had suggested were characteristic of scholars’ readings of the book. Barker preferred the structure proposed by Willis, and thus saw the book in terms of three cycles in chs. 1–2/3–5/6–7. Barker’s exegesis of Micah in the New American Commentary (1999) also adopts this structure for reading the entire book.116 (b) Focus on the Rhetoric of the Final Form of the Book. Other studies have been concerned with the unity or coherence seen in the ¿nal form of the text, especially as this can be explained by the rhetoric used. 114. This is true, at least in part, since the books in the Bible were not written to provide us with such information. 115. Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, 95–102. 116. Kenneth Barker, “A Literary Analysis of the Book of Micah,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 437–48 (he also provides a list of the literary forms to be found in the book, ending with a brief consideration of the prophet’s style), and idem, “Micah,” in Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (NAC 20; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 21–136. 1

44

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

In what he termed a rhetorical-historical approach, Charles Shaw utilized rhetorical-criticism to assess the background of the discourses in the book of Micah. He sought evidence from the study of persuasion in order to learn about the historical setting presupposed by each of the discourses found in the book of Micah. The work by Shaw succeeds in offering a fresh approach to the questions, but is of such scope and bears implications for seeking coherence in the ¿nal form in such depth that it will be discussed in Chapter 2.117 In his 1992 dissertation at the Graduate Theological Union and the University of California (Berkeley), K. W. Shoemaker considered prophetic discourse in terms of its nature as communication, with participation by speakers and audience. He proposed a multi-disciplinary approach which incorporated rhetorical analysis, Hebrew grammar and syntax, and discourse analysis. His literary reading of the discourse of the book explored cohesion or lack thereof by focusing especially on abrupt transitions in speaker, audience, and topic. Using a sophisticated approach to participant analysis in the discourse, Shoemaker examined the speaker–audience issues in the discourse Àow, with the goal of laying a secure foundation for identifying participants.118 In Lexis Ludens: Wordplay and the Book of Micah, A. J. Petrotta surveyed theories for understanding wordplay in literature to derive a vocabulary and system to discuss and classify wordplay in the Hebrew Bible. In the second half of his monograph, Petrotta applied this framework to an exegetical consideration of instances of wordplay that are to be found in the text of the book of Micah. He ¿rst examined the varieties of wordplays that are to be found in Micah through a detailed examination of passages where exegetes have understood there to be wordplay: 1:6–7, 10–15; 2:12; 3:5–7; 4:14. In the book of Micah the wordplays employed are of diverse nature: certainly there are plays on the sounds 117. Charles S. Shaw, The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis (JSOTSup 145; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1993). 118. Kenneth Shoemaker, “Speaker and Audience Participants in Micah: Aspects of Prophetic Discourse” (Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union and the University of California, Berkeley, 1992). Towards the goal of participant identi¿cation, Shoemaker considered text-critical issues, the relevant linguistic components of discourse analysis, the way in which the prophetic speakers would employ quotations to introduce other minor participants, and a study of how personi¿cation effectively renders cities as participants in a discourse. Finally Shoemaker examined the issues around identifying God and Prophet as speakers. The issue of identifying the speakers who speak the words of the text had earlier also been addressed by Jan de Waard, “Vers une identi¿cation des participants dans le livre de Michée,” RHPR 59 (1979): 509–16. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

45

of words, but also the text employs morphology, semantics, and syntax. Paronomasia predominates in the passages examined, including alliteration, assonance, and consonance. In addition, there are puns and wordplays that are semantic and syntactical, their very nature requiring indirectness and imprecision. He then turned to consider the functions of wordplays, particularly from their value for persuasion, and then sought to identify the humor that was intended in these wordplays (the “Ludic angle of the text”). Wordplay allows the prophet not merely to announce the truth, but also to show the truth through the use of rhetorical features. The form not only contains the message, but even contributes to the message. Wordplay is not simply an embellishment of the text, but it can function to unify a text, bringing coherence to individual pericopes or larger structures. Alternatively, it can introduce disjunction within or between pericopes.119 Carolyn Sharp explains how the “sophisticated literary artistry” of the rhetoric of the prophetic text gives it coherence. She juxtaposes theories of redaction with theories of literary integrity and suggests that redactional conclusions can be evaluated by the rhetoric found in the text. She ¿nds coherence in the rhetorical strategies she traces to Micah, including a delight in “brutal ironic reversals” that unveil God’s overwhelming power, “strategic ambiguity,” sarcastic quotes of opponents (expressing an opposing position and then disassembling it), and “a complex understanding of the pathos and promise of Zion’s circumstances,” a view of the possibility of hope through the lens of pain and fear. Tracing broad themes provides indicators of literary coherence. She offers an analysis of the speci¿c rhetorical characteristics and usages of each passage of the book, and proposes understanding it in a unique structure: 1:1/1/2–3/ 4:1–8/4:9–5:15/6/7.120 (c) Focus on the Final Form of the Book within the Canon. The discussion of the ¿nal form of the book can be seen to have three main phases. (i) The Discussion from Childs On. The name of Brevard Childs is particularly linked with the canonical criticism. He treated Micah from this perspective in his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. 119. Anthony Petrotta, Lexis Ludens: Wordplay and the Book of Micah (American University Studies, Series 7: Theology and Religion 105; New York: Lang, 1991). Part Two, “Wordplay in the Book of Micah,” comprises an Introduction and chs. 6–8, found on pp. 59–126. 120. Carolyn Sharp, “Micah,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, vol. 2 (ed. M. D. Coogan; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 78–85.

1

46

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

He observed that the book “gives every evidence of being arranged in a clear pattern of alternating sections of judgment and salvation.” This results in a tripartite division of the book—Mic 1:2–2:13; 3:1–5:4 [sic, it should be 5:14]; and 6:1–7:20. He notes that the lead word “hear” in Mic 1:2; 3:1; and 6:1 tends to support this analysis, and that the usual division into chs. 1–3, 4–5, and 6–7 arises from an evaluation of the book’s compositional history and “does not do justice to the present shape of the book,” especially to the presence of Mic “2:11f.” [sic, for “2:12f.”]. Childs concluded that the literary pattern of alternating oracles of doom and hope does not stem from Micah the prophet, but is the product of redactional activity, arising from a circle of tradents who transmitted the corpus of prophetic tradition.121 He proposed that the major force behind the editing process was “the inÀuence exerted upon its editors by the larger corpus of other prophetic material, particularly the oracles of Isaiah.” The Mican tradition was transmitted by tradents who were similar to or identical with “those who were responsible for the editing of parts of the Isaianic corpus,” at work in Jerusalem from the early seventh century through the early post-exilic period. Those who edited and arranged the material were seeking to grasp the purposes of God for his people Israel through interpretation of the sacred literature. “The direct force in the shaping process came from one set of traditions upon another. The effect of this process of ‘exegesis’…occurred in various liturgical settings, through preaching and teaching, and in the study of scripture itself.”122 The present shape also interprets the book by putting it in a larger context shared by Isaiah. Each book serves as a commentary on the other.123 The book’s canonical shaping interpreted the original oracles’ meaning by putting them into a framework which extended his original proclamation to testify to “the larger intent of God with Israel.” The oracles are arranged in a “sharply de¿ned theological pattern” (of judgment and redemption) in order to describe “in the prophetic idiom the full plan of God with Israel.” Once both Samaria and Jerusalem had fallen, the prophecies served a new role “as an awe-inspiring con¿rmation of the prophetic message.”124

121. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 431–32. 122. Ibid., 432–36. 123. Ibid., 437–38. 124. Ibid., 436–37. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

47

(ii) Book of Twelve Studies. A new stream of scholarly discussion has coalesced around the meaning of Micah as part of the Book of the Twelve, as one of the “Minor Prophets” which were transmitted by scribal convention on a single scroll in ancient times and counted as a single unit in the enumeration of the Hebrew canon, the fourth book of the Latter Prophets, along with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The debate is centered on whether or not the Book of the Twelve is to be interpreted not only book by book, but was intended to be read as one unitary work with its own message, an entity that was expanded through redaction to make it a whole. There are of course twelve books, each tied to the name of a prophetic ¿gure, and each evidently existing at ¿rst as a self-contained piece of literature. These different works were combined at least in order to ¿t on one scroll, and then plausibly to be regarded as one new book, the Book of the Twelve. Scholars trace certain unifying elements that indicate the Twelve are to be considered as a whole: ¿rst, chronological structure in explicit references to reigns of certain kings, especially in superscriptions; second, recurring themes that add cohesion to the whole, such as the “Day of Yahweh,” fertility and lack thereof, theodicy, the nations, and promised hope; and third, catchwords and intertextual references from one book to another. Studies have sought to understand the sequence in which these twelve books were joined together and have generated a number of suggested redactional sequences.125 Paul House offered an analysis of the Twelve as a uni¿ed narrative with a thematic development.126 James Nogalski searched the Twelve for evidence that the books were intended to be joined together and were arranged in a manner that allows one to trace the story of Israel and Judah while reading through consecutively beginning with the eighth

125. For initial summaries of the voluminous discussion thus far, see James Nogalski, “Book of the Twelve,” NIDB 1:488–89; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Twelve, Book of the,” DOTP 788–806; and Aaron Schart, “Twelve, Book of the: History of Interpretation,” DOTP 806–17. More lengthy summaries of the state of research can be found in Paul Redditt, “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. P. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 1–26, and slightly earlier, Paul Redditt, “Recent Research on the Book of the Twelve as One Book,” CRBS 9 (2001): 47–80. A synthesis of this sort of reading for the Twelve can be found in Paul Redditt, Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 197– 208. 126. Paul House, The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup 97; Shef¿eld: Almond, 1990). 1

48

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

century and extending all the way down to the Persian period.127 There has not been unanimity in the ¿eld as to reading the Twelve as one book, as Ben Zvi has raised serious questions about the process and suggested that the books are meant to be read each as its own unit, associated with one particular prophetic personage, and not as one ongoing work.128 (This research will be examined further below, see pp. 181–83, 197–204.) (iii) Delimitation Criticism. At the instigation of the Pericope Group, beginning in 1999, scholars have carried out studies on the Hebrew text with a particular focus on the evidence that can be derived from the way texts were subdivided in antiquity. Manuscripts would provide guidance for the reader through the use of, for example, spaces, paragraphing, blank lines, headings, ornamentation, marginal notes, and writing styles. The goal of the Pericope Group has been to mine this data about text divisions and layout, as well as punctuation, seeking clarity on the way in which the ancient texts were structured. The new methodology has been termed “delimitation criticism.”129 The focus of course has been on the canonical form of texts as they are copied and passed down through the centuries of use by faith communities. Probably due to the dif¿culties of following the logic and coherence of the arrangement of the oracles, research in several instances has focused on sections of Micah. For example, J. C. de Moor notes that Codex 127. As an overview of the questions, see James Nogalski, “Reading the Book of the Twelve Theologically,” Int 61 (2007): 115–22. For far greater detail both on his proposed history of development of the Book of the Twelve into its current form, and de¿nitively on the catchword phenomena, see James Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993) and Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993). 128. Ehud Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. J. Watts and P. House; JSOTSup 235; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1996), 125–56. See also Kenneth Cuffey, “Remnant, Redactor, and Biblical Theologian: A Comparative Study of Coherence in Micah and the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. J. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney; SBLSS 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 185– 208. Not available in time for inclusion here, but of interest in this regard as well, is Ehud ben Zvi and James Nogalski, Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve/the Twelve Prophetic Books (Analecta Gorgiana; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2009). 129. “Pericope: Scripture as Written and Read in Antiquity.” Online: http://www.pericope.net/pericope_5.htm, accessed September 16, 2011 and http://www.pericope.net/pericope_21.htm, accessed August 17, 2013. 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

49

Leningradensis divides Mic 2 into two segments—vv. 1–2 and 3–13— but contrasts that with the tendency of modern scholarship to divide the chapter into three parts: 2:1–5, 6–11, and 12–13. Do the ancient textual witnesses contribute anything to our understanding of the way these verses were divided into sections and intended to be read? Based on a collation of 104 Hebrew manuscripts, along with selected manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, as well as limited additional textual sources, de Moor aims to bring new light on the text of Mic 2 in regards to word-division, colons and paragraphs. He urges weighing the total body of evidence carefully and critically. Noting the regularity of the structure of the chapter, and based on the analysis of the delimitation marks in the text, he reports that the ancient witnesses to the text con¿rm the division of Mic 2 into three parts: 2:1–5, 6–11, 12–13. He does note that this is “the generally accepted modern division.”130 The same author also examined the paragraphing of 4:14–5:8, looking ¿rst at evidence in modern translations and commentaries to survey the variety of ways in which this confusing segment has been thought to be arranged. He juxtaposed two columns of the Septuagint from the Codex Alexandrinus (¿fth century) and noted that paragraphing is clearly indicated in this text through the employment of wide spaces, capitalization, and ekthesis (a word protruding into the left margin). Further, he adduced a twelfth-century Syriac manuscript and Hebrew textual evidence. His conclusions include that the ancient structurings support seeing 4:14 as a fragment (though it is questionable whether that is the correct term), that the chapter border between chs. 4 and 5 is wellestablished in line with the Hebrew tradition and not Langton’s decision to begin ch. 5 with 4:14, and that the most ancient witnesses support taking 5:6–8 as a unit.131 Additional studies have been carried out on Mic 6132 and 7:1–13, as well as the entire book.133

130. Johannes de Moor, “The Structure of Micah 2:1–13: The Contribution of the Ancient Witnesses,” in Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (ed. M. Korpel and J. Oesch; Pericope, 3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 90–120. 131. Johannes de Moor, “Workshop on Unit Delimitation: Micah 4:14–5:8,” in Korpel and Oesch, eds., Studies in Scriptural Unit Division, 258–75. 132. J. de Moor, “The Structure of Micah 6 in the Light of the Ancient Delimitations,” in Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets (ed. M. Korpel and J. Oesch; Pericope 5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 78–113. 133. Unavailable to me at the time of writing were J. de Moor, “Micah 7:1–13: The Lament of a Disillusioned Prophet,” in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (ed. M. Korpel and J. Oesch; Pericope 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), 149–96, and on the whole book, the application of the methodology by 1

50

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

(d) Focus on the Final Form as a Stimulus to Application. Juan Alfaro chose to focus on issues of justice, loyalty, and kindness in order to allow the book to speak to contemporary situations of oppression of the powerless.134 Much the same impetus seems to have driven the earliermentioned works of Runions, Mosala, and Plein. d. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah There have been several works on the book of Micah which have examined the text to look for its coherence, and have been more explicitly reÀective on what that coherence is and means. J. Willis, in his dissertation (1966) and a series of publications (1969 on), looked at the ¿nal form of the text, reasserted the importance of the placement of promise in Mic 2:12–13 for understanding the structure, and sought the book’s coherence both within the sections and between them as a con¿rmation of the overarching arrangement he had already argued for. D. Hagstrom (1988) carried forward the research of his mentor J. L. Mays and made the case for the coherence of the book of Micah in the macrostructure chs. 1–5/6–7. He inductively studied the details of the text beginning with the features that connect together on the sentence level and sought to understand the nature of coherence by building up from the smallest units to examining the book. K. Cuffey (1987, 2000) examined the nature and theory of literary coherence, evaluated how people have seen this in the text of the book, and proposed a new understanding of the Àow of the book, based on the four strategically placed references to the remnant of God’s people. L. Luker (1987) gave careful attention to the way in which the text indicates how the reader is to understand its structure and proposed an original reading of the book of Micah. C. Shaw (1993) sought coherence for the book in terms of his rhetorical analysis that posited rhetorical situations for each discourse. This offered a plausible setting and underlying common framework to draw sequential oracles together into discourses with a clear Àow. M. Jacobs (2001) studied the conceptual coherence of the book, examining how the component parts all contribute to building that up. She suggested that we are to understand the book in two larger units (chs. 1–5 and 6–7), each with a conceptual Àow and coherence.135 Wei-Hua Hu, “Unit Delimitation in the Book of Micah: A Text-linguistic Approach” (Th.D. diss., University of Toronto, 2007). 134. Juan I. Alfaro, Justice and Loyalty: A Commentary on the Book of Micah (ITC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989). 135. Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah (JSOTSup 322; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2001). 1

1. Hermeneutical Perspective

51

Since this study addresses the focused question of the coherence of the ¿nal form of the book of Micah, and each one of these works on that topic has an important contribution to make to that discussion, these will each be examined in greater detail in the next chapter. Excursus: A Brief Bibliography of Bibliographies and Surveys of Research on Micah One can learn a great deal about the unfolding history of interpretation of the book of Micah by reading a few well-chosen articles or chapters. A brief rendition of the highlights of what is available can point the student of the text of Micah in the right direction to understanding a signi¿cant amount more. These works are mentioned not in order of their publication, but in the order in which one might survey them to gain a sense for the chronological development of the discussion of certain questions and suggested solutions to the issues that have been proffered. Knud Jeppesen (1979) overviews the early history of criticism of the book of Micah, with a focus particularly on the discussion in the nineteenth century. He traces the origins of the view that only a small number of prophecies come from Micah, pivoting on the groundbreaking work of B. Stade. The signi¿cant discussions which provide the backdrop for and lead up to Stade are detailed, including the decisive changes beginning with Ewald (1867) and Wellhausen (1878), followed by a series of articles penned by Stade between 1881 and 1884, and the ensuing responses which they provoked.136 J. T. Willis (1970) traces the development and use of different historical-critical methods to study the book of Micah, resulting in a survey of scholarly discussion through the ¿rst seven decades of the twentieth century. The organization is topical rather than strictly chronological. He distills three primary problems, each of which is related to the coherence of the book, which contemporary historical-critical scholarship has attempted to address: x x x

The present arrangement of the book and the process by which it reached its present form. The authenticity of the hope oracles. Were they a later creation? The interpretation of certain especially dif¿cult passages.137

136. Jeppesen, “How the Book of Micah.” 137. John Willis, “Fundamental Issues in Contemporary Micah Studies,” ResQ 13 (1970): 77–90. In his dissertation, “The Structure, Setting, and Interrelationships of the Pericopes in the Book of Micah,” he offers a detailed summary of the history of research which sums up models of compositional history and their impact on the understanding of the structure of the ¿nal form. He also discusses various views of the major divisions of the book in Willis, “The Structure of Micah 3–5 and the Function of Micah 5:9–14 in the Book,” ZAW 81 (1969): 191–214. 1

52

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

In another article, Knud Jeppesen (1978) surveys current Micah research in the 1970s, picking up from Willis’s article of 1970. Starting from Willis’s own work, Jeppesen discusses scholars who saw authentic material limited to a kernel in chs. 1– 3 (Wolff, Mays, Renaud) and those who saw most of the book as authentic, having an eighth-century provenance (beginning with Hammershaimb, and then treating Rudolph, Allen, Van der Woude). He concludes as a result of such a survey that (1) there was no longer any consensus to end the debate and (2) future Micah research would need to concern itself more with the book as a whole than had been the case before.138 Most recently Mignon Jacobs (2006) provides an article in Currents in Biblical Research which summarized work on the book of Micah from the 1980s into the early 2000s. She examines the results obtained using varied methodologies, both traditional and innovative, the interactions between the studies, and the new questions raised. Tracing trends in methodologies, she surveys literary-critical approaches (focusing on Willis, Hagstrom, Luker, Cuffey, Dempsey, Jacobs, and Runions), form criticism (Ben Zvi), tradition-historical and historical-critical approaches (Stansell), feminist and womanist approaches (Davis), text criticism (Andersen and Freedman, Garcia, Magary), redaction criticism (Wolff, Wagenaar), rhetorical criticism (Miller, Shaw), canonical and inter-textual approaches (Brenneman), and inter-disciplinary studies (Shoemaker, Green). Jacobs also follows the concern with certain concepts and ideologies, such as justice, class and power, preaching and missions.139 In addition, there have been several works of purely bibliographical nature compiling references to scholarship on Micah. Especially to be noted among these is the classi¿ed bibliography assembled by Adri van der Wal, which enumerates around 1,220 titles of books, articles, and dissertations, published from 1800 to 1989, which deal in some way with the text and meaning of Micah.140

138. Knud Jeppesen, “New Aspects of Micah Research,” JSOT 8 (1978): 3–32. Also note that van der Woude, “Three Classical Prophets,” provides a somewhat briefer summary of scholarship on Micah in the decade of the 1970s. 139. Mignon Jacobs, “Bridging the Times: Trends in Micah Studies since 1985,” Currents in Biblical Research 4 (2006): 293–329. 140. Adri van der Wal, Micah: A Classi¿ed Bibliography (Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1990). In this vein, note also the selective annotated bibliographic articles provided in Sheri Klouda, “Micah: An Annotated Bibliography,” SwJT 46 (2003): 48–56, and James Pakala, “A Librarian’s Comments on Commentaries: 28: Jonah, Micah, Nahum,” Presb 35 (2009): 116–20. 1

Chapter 2

STUDIES OF THE COHERENCE OF THE BOOK OF MICAH

Within the ¿eld of modern Micah scholarship the question of the coherence of the book has been more or less explicitly the focus of several studies. These are distinguished for several reasons, including the attempt to understand coherence as an idea, to examine the ¿nal form of the whole book as a unity with its own integrity, and to see how coherence is expressed within the text of Micah. Due to the focus on the speci¿c question of this work, the coherence of the ¿nal form of the book of Micah, and to the careful manner in which each of these engaged the text of the book, it is important to outline the work of several scholars in more detail as a basis for interaction with what has been claimed and learned. 1. John Willis The ¿rst major study devoted exclusively to the question of the book’s coherence, a study featuring a very detailed proposal that redaction has produced connectedness in Micah, is to be found in the work of J. T. Willis (1969, based on his Vanderbilt dissertation of 1966). He suggested that the book shows a coherent overall structure as the result of intentional arranging. After formulating a typology of different views as to how the book came to be in its present arrangement, Willis studied what he terms the “horizontal coherence” of the book, or those factors which link all similar sections (i.e., of doom or hope) to each other. (Note Fig. 2.1, which reproduces Willis’s diagram of the structure of the book in its three parts in accordance with the nature of the material [doom or hope].) That the book had a purpose in its ¿nal form is clear both from the sequential structuring of doom and hope, as well as from the passages which have a liturgical character (2:12–13; 4:5; 5:8; 6:9b; 7:7–20).1 1. Note that all of these with the exception of 6:9b either contain, or are in close proximity to, passages which refer to the remnant.

54

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

These factors “justify the conjecture” that it was to be used by a speci¿c worshipping community that was struggling with a particular problem. J. T. Willis: Symmetry of Structure Type of Oracle Doom Hope

Part I chs. 1–2 1:2–2:11 Extensive 2:12–13 Brief

Part II chs. 3–5 ch. 3 Brief chs. 4–5 Extensive

Part III chs. 6–7 6:1–7:6 Extensive 7:7–20 Brief

Figure 2.1. J. T. Willis’s Proposed Structuring of the Book of Micah According to the Three-Part Alternation of Doom and Hope. Adapted from Willis, “Structure,” 13. Used with permission. Symmetry of Structure: Doom Doom 1: 1:2–2:11 Doom 2: 3:1–12 Doom 3: 6:1–7:6

Longer doom; Structure like Doom 3 Shorter doom; Different structure Longer doom; Structure like Doom 1

Figure 2.2. The Symmetry in the Structure of the Sections of Doom in the Book of Micah, According to J. T. Willis’ Proposal.

To unfold the nature of the horizontal coherence, Willis ¿rst pointed out similarities between the sections of doom (see Fig. 2.2 for a representation of Willis’s conclusions). The doom sections in chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7 each begins with “hear.” The ¿rst and third are composed of three pericopes each: a lawsuit, a lament, and a reason. The middle section of doom consists of three pericopes of similar length, structure, and content. The ¿rst and third sections, then, are joined to each other by similarity of structure and the length of the segments of doom, while the dissimilarity of the structure of and shorter length (relative to the accompanying section of hope) of the passage of doom in the middle section also links it to the rest by way of contrast. This argues in favor of a wellconceived plan for the book. There are striking parallels between all three sections, such as an emphasis on the principle of ius talionis, the extreme severity of the punishment (see Fig. 2.3 for Willis’s evidence for this), the concept of sin, the view of God’s activity, and the concept of the people. These similarities of vocabulary, structure, and thought 1

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah

55

sequence are too numerous and interrelated to be accidental. Rather, they show that the one who gave the book its ¿nal form organized it “according to a speci¿c pattern to meet the needs of a Jewish community in a certain historical situation.”2 Description of Punishment Principle of jus talionis Capital to become heaps A grievous wound The work of Yahweh Invading army Captivity Complete destruction Invader takes over that from which Israel expected to bene¿t

Section I

Section II

Section III

1:7; 2:1, 3; 2:2, 4–5; 2:9–10 1:6

3.2b–3; 3:2–4; 3:5–6; 3:10, 12 3:12

6:10–15; 7:4; 7:9

1:9 1:12

(4:14) 3:4, 6–7, 12

6:13 6:13–14

1:14–15; 2:4–5, 10 1:16; 1:7; 2:10 1:6; 2:4

3:12

6:14; 7:4

3:12

6:13, 16; 7:4 6:13, 16

Land and Property 2:4-5

Fruits of Harvest 6:15

Figure 2.3. Willis’s Tracing of the Similarities Between the Mican Sections of Doom in Their Emphasis on Severe Punishment. Adapted from his chart titled “Similarities in the Emphasis on Severe Punishment in Micah’s Doom Sections” in Willis, “Structure,” 16. Used with permission.

Then Willis scrutinized the hope sections for signs of coherence (see Fig. 2.4 for a representation of Willis’s conclusions). They are connected with the doom sections in that here, too, God is the leading actor, and in that all the promises assume a situation of severe punishment. As in the doom sections, “Yahweh” is the predominant name used for the deity. The ¿rst and third hope sections are short, while the second consists of seven pericopes of two parts each. The hope sections describe God’s actions of leading, restoring, and giving victory to his people. Israel is restored to its former status as God’s covenant people. The hope portions all draw from the Davidic tradition and give the same portrayal of the people of God. These striking similarities are best “explained by assuming that an 2. John T. Willis, “The Structure of the Book of Micah,” SEÅ 34 (1969): 5–42. For horizontal coherence, see esp. pp. 11–23. See also Willis, “Structure, Setting.”

1

56

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

individual (or “school”) purposefully arranged these oracles within the larger framework of the whole book so as to achieve a type of horizontal coherence between them.”3 Hope 1: 2:12–13 Hope 2: chs. 4–5 Hope 3: 7:7–20

Short hope Long hope Short hope

Unique structure

Figure 2.4. The Symmetry in the Structure of the Sections of Hope in the Book of Micah, According to J. T. Willis’s Proposal.

From here Willis proceeded to search for evidence of a “vertical coherence” in the ¿nal form of the book of Micah as he traced those features which held each of the three main sections together. Within each of the three main divisions he found a progression of thought, supplemented by catchwords, connectives, and contrasts. Sections I and III each consist of four pericopes: a covenant lawsuit (1:2–7), a lament (1:8–16), an explanation for the coming catastrophe in the form of a reproach (2:1–11), and a hope oracle (2:12–13); then a covenant lawsuit (6:1–8), an explanation for the coming catastrophe in the form of a reproach (6:9–16), a lament (7:1–6), and a hope oracle in the form of a liturgy (7:7–20). He traced interrelations between the pericopes of each section, seeing similarities of vocabulary and thought throughout. The pericopes of section II are connected by their each assuming the same sort of historical situation, the two-part structure of each, and catchwords or phrases. Further, each major section is connected to the adjoining section(s) by the use of catchwords.4 Willis concluded that the book is best understood as having three large divisions, arranged into an ABA pattern. The many af¿nities within and between these sections are hardly accidental, but rather suggest a redactional arrangement according to a speci¿c scheme which provided a message of relevance for a certain community.5 Willis even felt that he could pinpoint the time and place in which the book received its present form, viz. the exilic period, when the recently endured crisis would cause passion, reÀection, and sharp contrasts between the present situation and future hopes. The community was in Palestine. The references to Jerusalem in the hope passages indicate that the writer was either in or near the city. The similarity between the Assyrian conquest of Israel and the Babylonian conquest of Judah would

1

3. Ibid., 23–31. 4. Ibid., 31–40. 5. Ibid., 40.

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah

57

have made the material of the Mican corpus “take on new and signi¿cant meaning for the later community.” Such promises as these would have been preserved and valued among non-aristocratic groups left in the land, possibly in a circle of the disciples of Isaiah.6 A more speci¿c example of his procedure was published in another article of the same year (1969), which dealt with the structure, and hence, coherence, of Mic 3–5. Here Willis developed his proposal that chs. 4–5 are composed in a symmetrical structure of seven pericopes, each having two parts—a description of the present hopeless situation and an announcement of divine deliverance. The presence of catchwords which link the pericopes shows that someone tried to arrange the oracles into an order. Seven originally independent oracles were combined secondarily. There is a contrast within each pericope, more so than is the case between chs. 1–3 and 4–5. The order and contrasts (intentionally dissimilar meanings) build up the coherence. The passages do not explain the transition from disaster to glory, which is not made clear until 7:7–20, where we ¿nally see that the people repent and trust in God. There has at last been a change in Israel. This provides a link in dependence of content with the ¿nal passage of hope and contributes to the coherence of the book overall. Each of the pericopes in chs. 4–5 thus has a meaningful position in relation to the purpose of the book as a whole. The thread which holds all the pericopes together is the proclamation of the aims and results of God’s leadership in the age to come. Willis then proceeded to interpret 5:9–14 along these same lines and to reconstruct its tradition history.7 2. David Hagstrom Building on the work of Willis and Mays, D. G. Hagstrom (1982, a dissertation submitted to the Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, under James L. Mays, published 1988) undertook detailed study of the coherence of the book of Micah, not in order to formulate conclusions about the ¿nal stage of redaction as did Willis, but rather to examine the text on a purely literary level, and thus to dispense with the more historically oriented questions. His thesis was that “Micah in its ¿nal form is so shaped as to render the book a uni¿ed, coherent whole; that is, the individual units of Micah are so shaped, structured and linked together as to make it possible to read the book as a unit.”8 6. Ibid., 40–42. 7. Willis, “The Structure of Micah 3–5.” 8. David G. Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis (SBLDS 89; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 1.

1

58

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Hagstrom noted the recent trend in Biblical Studies of dealing with a whole book as an interpretive unit and, thus, focusing on the ¿nal form.9 He de¿ned “coherence” as follows: “a literary work displays coherence or unity when it is capable of being construed as a unit…when there are features within the text that hold it together, that make it cohere, that provide keys as to how it might be construed.”10 The keys to construal are features in different parts which demonstrate consonance (features that are like each other or refer to each other), dissonance (two proximate parts having an adversative relationship), or sequential linking.11 The procedure followed was to try to measure the expression of coherence in concrete literary features. This description comes from an analysis of the language of the book itself.12 Hagstrom contrasted his project with that of Willis, noting these two differences: ¿rst, while Willis focused on the interpretive signi¿cance of the Sitz im Leben of the redactor and his community, Hagstrom looked for possibilities of construal from the language of the text alone (and not from the background context which produced the book), and second, whereas Willis looked at the ¿nal form primarily in relation to the ¿nal redactor and then worked back to the earlier stages, Hagstrom gave priority to the resultant shape of the whole without pursuing the questions of historical development.13 After examining ways in which scholars have supposed the book to have formed and how they sought to grasp its structure,14 Hagstrom proceeded to study the function of the summons “Hear!” in Micah. “Hear!” occurs in 1:2; 3:1, 9; 6:1–2, 9. His conclusion was that the usage in 1:2 and 6:1–2 introduces new major sections and evokes a courtroom setting. The other examples have a more limited scope in their audience, in their accusations, and in being bound to the text immediately surrounding. This supports the contentions of his advisor, J.L. Mays, that the book is in two main divisions, chs. 1–5 and 6–7. Each begins with a summons and is composed of a section of judgment followed by promises of salvation. The judgment sections are each subdivided by a 9. Ibid., 1–3. 10. Ibid., 3. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., 6–7. 13. Ibid., 8–9. He is seeking “to discern within the text guides to construability, not necessarily intentionality” since “the fact that such a coherent reading is possible does not guarantee that this reading was intended by any given writer or redactor” (p. 6) 14. Ibid., 11–22. 1

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah

59

second summons (3:1; 6:9), which serves to continue the legal disputes introduced at the beginning of the two major divisions. These second summonses also serve as transitions by singling out a more narrowly de¿ned group for accusation and more clearly specifying the sins.15 Much of the rest of the work is devoted to a detailed examination of the coherence of the parts and the whole of Micah. Hagstrom started with Mic 3 and argued for the coherence of the subunits by themselves and then for the relations between those units. For example, he argued that 3:1a–2a is a uni¿ed subunit because of the structure and Àow of thought. Micah 3:2b–c and 3a–e are connected by the image of cannibalism, the correspondence of crime and punishment, and repeated vocabulary, while syntactic dependency and semantic parallelism make 3:4a–d coherent. Micah 3:1–4 is a coherent subunit because it continues the same theme throughout, the role of the rulers is consistent, and there are internal references (as in pronominal suf¿xes) to other parts within the unit. After presenting similar evidence for 3:5–8 and 3:9–12, Hagstrom then argued that the chapter may be read as “a connected, coherent whole” because of the links between the divisions, such as (1) a common topic—the wicked leaders, (2) parallel structure, (3) continuation of the theme that justice is needed, (4) common motifs in each, (5) repeated vocabulary, and (6) the rhetorical form (arrangement in a triad, movement to a climax).16 Based on these observations, Hagstrom drew some initial conclusions about the phenomena of coherence. Features that bring coherence operate on three levels: that of the subunit, concerning the relations of words, clauses, and sentences; that of the unit, concerning the relations of the subunits; and that of the chapter, concerning the relations of the units (see Fig. 2.5). Coherence encompasses a plethora of different phenomena and differs in its means of expression from level to level. A number of these features are interrelated, and so he offered a tentative systematic categorization of the features under the following headings: poetic devices, such as semantic parallelism; syntax of sentences, as seen in basic grammatical and syntactical conventions; syntax of relating sentences, exempli¿ed by linking adverbials or grammatical antecedents between sentences; stylistic devices, such as continuity of discourse style, internal non-grammatical referents, repeated vocabulary, use of irony; rhetorical form, seen in features such as structure, Àow of thought, unity of function, or movement to a climax; and commonality of subject

1

15. Ibid., 22–27. 16. Ibid., 29–41.

60

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

matter, exempli¿ed by the likes of thematic continuity, recurrence of motif, continuity of topic, repeated vocabulary, and the recurrence of the principle of ius talionis.17 Literary Features Contributing to the Coherence of Micah 3 Subunit * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Level Unit

* * * *

Features Chapter

* *

* * *

*

* * * * * *

grammatical/syntactical conventions troping semantic parallelism syntax of sentences Àow of thought structure grammatical antecedents repeated vocabulary sustained use of imagery principle of ius talionis syntax of relating sentences internal referent (non-grammatical) continuity of theme unity of function linking adverbials continuity of speaker (i.e., of discourse style use of irony recurrence of motif continuity of topic rhetorical form

Figure 2.5. The Levels at Which Features that Contribute to Coherence Operate. Table Adapted from Hagstrom, Literary Coherence, 41. Used with permission.

From this foundation, Hagstrom marshaled evidence for the coherence of both of the major divisions of the book. In this section, he brought out features that unify each of the subunits, units, and chapter divisions, as well as the basic linear continuity (i.e., the relations between units in

1

17. Ibid., 41–43.

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah

61

their succession) and development of thought as one reads through the book sequentially. For example, a linear analysis showed chs. 1–2 to be coherent due to features such as connecting particles, verbal repetition, sustained imagery, and thematic continuity and motifs (both the motifs of the gate of Jerusalem and the exile converge on the climax of 2:12–13).18 Then Hagstrom proceeded to the next level. Based on the textual evidence, he concluded that chs. 1–2 and 3 are interconnected.19 He followed this with a similar linear analysis of chs. 4–5 and a discussion of the unifying features in that section.20 Hagstrom then ascended to the next level higher and asked ¿rst about what relations were present between Mic 1–3 and 4–5. They are “complementary parts of a whole which together present a meaningful contrast.”21 Then he performed a linear analysis of Mic 6–7, giving particular attention to the dialogical style throughout.22 At the highest level of scope he ¿nally explicated the relations between chs. 1–5 and 6–7 according to the categories of structural parallels, verbal links and terminological correspondences, common motifs, other linking correspondences, and theological interrelations (as to how the reader is to construe the text in response to his personal situation between judgment and salvation). The superscription in Mic 1:1 also establishes the coherence of the book as a whole, in that the book is to be read as a word from God, in that it provides historical background to effect our understanding of the whole, and in that it lays out the overall topic—Jerusalem and Samaria as centers of corruption, objects of judgment, or Jerusalem as a future recipient of salvation. “Thus the two major sections of the book of Micah are bound together in such a way as to function as one larger whole…[and] the book of Micah displays an overall literary coherence which renders it capable of meaningful construal as a unit.”23 Hagstrom’s contribution extended beyond the interpretation of the book of Micah to include a consideration in his conclusions of the nature and de¿nition of coherence and those aspects of the text which contribute to coherence. There are degrees of coherence in a book such as Micah, more than would be the case in a composition produced at one time by one author. There is still tension within the ¿nal form. To seek coherence

1

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Ibid., 45–53. Ibid., 57–59. Ibid., 59–84. Ibid., 84–87. Ibid., 89–113. Ibid., 115–24.

62

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

does not mean providing a Àat reading and harmonizing all the differences. Coherence functions on many levels and includes a variety of phenomena—grammatical and syntactical conventions, logical connectives, structure of composition, thematic development, recurrence of motifs, and stylistic and rhetorical features. Coherence arises from a whole network of interconnections within the text. Some operate sequentially by establishing relations between consecutive words, sentences, and units. The constituents of this linear continuity are items such as syntax, connecting particles and adverbs, logical sequences, verbal repetition, sustained imagery, recurring motifs, and a continued topic or theme. Other literary characteristics also maintain coherence, but on a scope that operates over some distance of text. Examples of such features would include structural parallels between sections, the relation of each section to the superscription, terminological correspondences, common motifs, and correspondences of sins under indictment. In his judgment, a network of connecting features operates within chs. 1–5 and 6–7, composed of the use of inclusio, the overall structure of the book, and the function of the superscription.24 The remainder of this work is devoted to a discussion of the implications of this analysis for interpretation, and, in particular, for canonical criticism.25 3. Kenneth Cuffey In a 1987 dissertation and a chapter in a book (2000), K. Cuffey ¿rst sought to de¿ne coherence as a literary phenomenon. The typology of coherence developed served as a framework to analyze the way scholars have seen coherence in the book of Micah and as a pointer to see the elements of the text which need to be taken into account in order to seek connectedness in the text. An analysis of the ¿nal form of the book of Micah in light of the placement of the passages that contain reference to the remnant offers a new means of understanding the message and hence the coherence of the whole.26 No further comment on this work will be made at this point since the chapters of this book carry forward this project in a more re¿ned and developed form.

24. Ibid., 125–30. 25. Ibid., 130–36. 26. Kenneth Cuffey, “The Coherence of Micah: A Review of the Proposals and a New Interpretation” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1987); Cuffey, “Remnant, Redactor, and Biblical Theologian.” 1

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah

63

4. Lamontte Luker An original and careful approach to the ¿nal form of the book of Micah appeared in an article by Lamontte Luker in the Hebrew Annual Review (1987). Luker carefully tended to the textual indicators that point out the organization and Àow of the book. He began with the observation that three traditions connect chs. 1 and 7: the presence of lamentation, the Divine Warrior, and personifying the people as a woman. This forms an envelope around the entire book, setting apart chs. 2–6 as an internal core, which also carries through these three themes (see Fig. 2.6). x x x

Chapter 1 Lamentation Divine Warrior Personi¿cation of people as women

x x

Chapters 2–6 Internal core Same three themes as in the inclusio of chs. 1 and 7

x x x

Chapter 7 Lamentation Divine Warrior Personi¿cation of people as women

Figure 2.6. The Overall Structure for the Book of Micah, According to Luker.

Luker provided a detailed analysis of the way in which the oracles of Mic 2–6 are tied together and develop. In particular, Luker picks up on the extensive use of wordplay, assonance, and alliteration to provide connections. He traces a coherence through each of the internal sections, which are demarcated by their content and structural indicators, such as repeated catchwords (much like Willis’s vertical coherence or Hagstrom’s linear connections). He contends that these features override the use of the alternation between doom and hope (or the oft-cited con¿rmation sought in the presence of the summonses to “hear”) and divides the text into the following subunits: Mic 2; 3; 4:1–5:3; 5:4–14; 6. Within the enveloping context of a woman who laments due to the approach of the Divine Warrior (chs. 1 and 7) stand chs. 2–6 which cohere because of the same tripartite imagery. In an “un-English” but Hebrew style, wordplay and paronomasia have been used by the redactor to cement the prophetic oracles around these three traditions.27

27. Lamontte M. Luker, “Beyond Form Criticism: The Relation of Doom and Hope Oracles in Micah 2–6,” HAR 11 (1987): 285–301. 1

64

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

5. Charles Shaw A fresh approach to the questions of the book of Micah and its coherence appeared in Charles Shaw’s The Speeches of Micah. Herein Shaw sought evidence derived from a new analysis of the text for proposed historical settings for each section of the book. He grounded this in an understanding of the role of the prophets and the nature of prophetic speech that assumed, ¿rst, that the prophets delivered discourses to try to persuade their audience of a particular truth or action, rather than speaking in “short sayings which were only secondarily connected.” What appear to be independent sayings are actually the building blocks on which the speaker constructed his discourse. Second, it was assumed that the political orator of ancient Greece played a role analogous to the prophets of Israel. Thus, prophetic discourse is ¿rmly rooted in historical circumstances and events.28 Shaw employed rhetorical criticism, especially as the study of persuasive force, in order to learn about the historical setting presupposed by each of the discourses found in the book of Micah. The focus is on what the author intended to convey and how that goal is achieved and transmitted to an audience. His work used the terminology employed in classical rhetoric and followed the three steps in rhetorical analysis proposed by George Kennedy. First, there is a preliminary determination of the unit to de¿ne which material belongs together and how the various parts form a unity. Second, a detailed investigation of the rhetorical situation shows “the matrix of circumstances that prompted and is addressed by the speech.” The ¿nal step is a consideration of the arrangement and structure of the material in the discourse.29 Based on such rhetorical analysis of the text, exploring the rhetorical situation and accounting for the variety of persuasive styles and methods, Shaw concluded that the text is divided into the following discourses: 1:2–16; 2:1–13; 3:1–4:8; 4:9–5:14; 6:1–7:7; 7:8–20.30

28. Shaw, The Speeches of Micah, 11–22. 29. Ibid., 22–31, with reference to George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). 30. Ibid., 32–220. 1

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah Passage 1:2–16

2:1–13

3:1–4:8

4:9–5:14

6:1–7:7

7:8–20

Rhetorical Situation Addresses the capitals of Samaria and Jerusalem, and also perhaps the kings, as well as the chaos caused by defection of cities Addresses powerful group guilty of violence in taking of land from landowners Addresses the leaders of the nation of Judah who have failed to acknowledge a speci¿c decision by Ahaz Jerusalem under siege by Israel; addresses fears created by crisis as urges that deliverance is to be found on Zion under their present (ideal) king Addresses king and rulers of Samaria for failures and conspiracies Addressed to a defeated Samaria, urging that they bear their judgment with lamentation and confession

65

Proposed Historical Settings Before 747 B.C.E., from the reign of Jotham before death of Jeroboam II c. 746/745 B.C.E., the time of Menahem’s coup c. 734 B.C.E., after Pekah’s takeover in Samaria, in the wake of Ahaz deciding not to join the anti-Assyrian coalition c. 734 B.C.E., presupposing the Syro-Ephraimite siege of Jerusalem and resultant panic

Shortly before the arrest of Hoshea in 725 B.C.E. Sometime after the ¿rst capture of Samaria in 722/721 B.C.E., participation in another revolt will bring the planned deportations and resettlements

Figure 2.7. The Proposed Rhetorical Situations and Historical Settings for Each of the Sections of the Book of Micah According to Shaw. See the summaries in Shaw, The Speeches of Micah, pp. 221–25.

Differences within the book of Micah are to be explained by changing circumstances in the time of Micah (see Fig. 2.7). Shaw demonstrated both the unity of each discourse, and also that each speech addresses “a unique matrix of events and circumstances.” The proposed historical settings locate each discourse in the eighth century B.C.E., between the time before the death of Jeroboam II (prior to 747 B.C.E.) all the way down to a time between 722 and 720, with little need to see later additions. Shaw argued that Micah had a ministry to Samaria and the Northern Kingdom in many of these addresses that are usually seen as only pertinent to Judah by other scholars. As a result, he saw the ministry and message of Micah in terms that vary dramatically from the usual scholarly conclusions. Instead of being a rural prophet who defends the peasant class from exploitation at the hands of the elite rulers, Micah was a skilled orator who spoke to the critical issues of domestic and foreign 1

66

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

politics. The prophet was an ardent supporter of the Davidic king, especially in the case of Ahaz. Since Yahweh was “guarantor of the oath of allegiance to Assyria,” to participate in any coalition fomented against Assyria was unwise and certain to bring punishment. “It is in the task of conveying this conviction to others that Micah employed his considerable persuasive skills and produced the discourses which comprise a record of his ministry and times.”31 6. Mignon Jacobs The thesis of Mignon Jacobs is that “the ¿nal form of the Book of Micah exhibits a conceptual coherence discernible through its structure and generated by its conceptuality.” 32 In contrast to earlier research on Micah and the prophetic books in general, which saw the texts as disuni¿ed based on the discovery of inconsistency, Jacobs carries out a sustained analysis of the text in order to discern the book’s conceptual coherence. Part I is titled “History and Method.” In her review of prior research (Chapter 1), she chronicles and analyzes the ways in which scholars have viewed the coherence or lack thereof in the ¿nal form of the text, tracing the shift in interest from more traditional historical-critical questions to more recent analyses which focus on literary unity and coherence. This newer trend raises the challenge of de¿ning coherence and analyzing the text’s conceptuality. Jacobs demonstrates that authors’ presuppositions about the book’s conceptuality are determinative for how each explains the book’s structure and coherence. In Chapter 2, “Methodological Concerns,” Jacobs seeks to extend and deepen the work of three others who have tried to understand the nature of the coherence of the book of Micah. Between recounting the details of these studies in Chapter 1 and her analyses of their work in this chapter, Jacobs builds her foundation on the work of J. T. Willis (1966, 1969); D. G. Hagstrom (1982, 1988); and K. H. Cuffey (1987). Jacobs gives careful attention to focusing the question and de¿ning crucial terms. Beginning with a broad dictionary de¿nition of coherence as being connected logically, and not rambling, she re¿nes the de¿nition: “Coherence is the conceptual interrelationship of the parts of a work. This interrelationship is constituted by the conceptuality of the work and is discerned in the text’s structure and the other literary and substantive features that together de¿ne the text’s literary and conceptual integrity.”33

1

31. Ibid., 221–25. 32. Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 11. 33. Ibid., 51.

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah

67

Jacobs is especially concerned with the nature of conceptuality as the overarching idea that accounts for what is said and controls the selection and crafting of the text. The conceptual framework generates the thesis (the intent of the work) and will demonstrate itself by means of discernible textual features such as structures and concepts. In the different structural levels and units of a book there may be many conceptualities. Our task is to discern these conceptualities, the coherence they each exhibit, and their interrelationships within the whole. Coherence is the “conceptual interrelationship of the parts of a work.” Conceptual coherence refers to the “interrelationship of the various conceptualities toward an overarching conceptuality.” According to Jacobs, the proper realm of coherence is the conceptuality of the whole, and not of the individual units. We must seek the larger purpose for which the smaller elements were brought together. Jacobs takes the types of coherence suggested by Cuffey (1987)—internal linkage, structural linkage, perspective, and theme—and describes them as essential aspects of a single complex phenomenon, which she calls conceptual coherence, rather than different types of coherence. Most importantly, she links thematic coherence with her conceptuality of the text. Her work employs “concept-critical analysis,” which complements both form criticism and literary criticism. The objectives of the concept critical process include (1) identifying the form of the extant text; (2) discerning the various concepts within the whole; (3) discerning the text’s particular conceptualities; and (4) discerning the conceptuality of the text by distinguishing between the governing concept and its supporting concepts.34 Part II is devoted to “Analysis of the Text.” Chapter 3 addresses the structure and coherence of the book of Micah. Jacobs examines proposals for understanding the book’s structure and evaluates the assumed (or explicit) ideas of coherence—both what it is and what constitutes it in an ancient Hebrew text. A scholar’s understanding of the conceptuality of the text determines the proposal made concerning the structure of the whole book. An analysis of both the macrostructure and the microstructure of the whole book is necessary. The macrostructure is the result of redactional activity and can be discerned through study both of the interrelationship of the varied indicators of coherence and of the thought progression in the book.35 On the macrostructural level, Jacobs suggests that the book is to be understood in two larger units, chs. 1–5 and 6–7, representing two disputes. The focus of chs. 1–5 is on Israel’s fate in the light of its sin

1

34. Ibid., 48–53. 35. Ibid., 60–64.

68

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

and God’s response to that sin. The introduction to the dispute is found in 1:2–16, which is then followed by an examination of Israel’s fate in 2:1–5:14. This begins in the present (2:1–3:12) with a focus on Israel’s sin and the impending judgment and moves into the future with the announcement of hope found in the establishment of Yahweh’s reign (4:1–5:14). Chapters 6–7 feature the particular relationship between Israel and God. The second dispute is introduced in 6:1–8 and then looks again to Israel’s fate, beginning with the present of judgment on Israel (6:9–7:6) and then turning attention to the prospect of hope for the future (7:7–20). Jacobs draws out the generic features shared by these two macrostructural units (see Fig. 2.8). In addition, she examined in particular the interrelationships exhibited between units of the longer section, chs. 1–5, and provided a chart showing how these were interconnected (see Fig. 2.9).36 Features Summons to hear Dispute Lament Woe oracle Judgment Speech Oracle of Hope

Location 1:2 6:1–2 1:2–7 6:1–8 1:8–16 7:1–6 2:1–5 7:1–6 3:1–12 6:9–16 2:12–13; 4:1–5:14 7:7–20

Figure 2.8. The Generic Features Which Are Shared by the Two Macrostructural Units of the Book of Micah. Adapted from Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 70, Table 3. Used with permission

IV A

I 1:5–7

B 1:16

2:1–5

V 2:12–13

3:12

C 4:15

4:6–7

III II

Figure 2.9. The Interrelationships Exhibited Between Units in Micah 1–5, According to Jacobs. Adapted from Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 72. Used with permission

1

36. Ibid., 63–76.

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah

69

Jacobs also offers a detailed outline of the microstructure of the book in order to show the conceptual Àow of the whole and to demonstrate the various levels at which the text exhibits coherence. For example, the development and Àow of thought in chs. 1–5 can be traced from a focus on the fates of Samaria and Jerusalem in ch. 1, to an explanation of the reasons for God’s displeasure in chs. 2–3, with an announcement of promise for the future beyond the judgment in chs. 4–5.37 A detailed analysis of the text of the book of Micah is found in Chapters 4 and 5. Jacobs considers the different levels and spheres of conceptual coherence that can be found in the structure and the compositional history of the text. Her goal is to uncover the conceptual coherence of the ¿nal form, and show the various levels of coherence indicated by the extant structure of the book. Each smaller unit that is a part of the whole may exhibit its own coherence, the coherence of certain units being more discernible than others. Chapter 4 is devoted to a detailed textual examination of the conceptual coherence of Mic 1–5; Chapter 5 focuses on Mic 6–7. The coherence of the book is indicated by two aspects of the macrostructure. First are the conceptual aspects (such as the focus on sin throughout, judgment as just response to sin, and proclamation of promise), then the structural elements related to the text’s cohesion (syntax and grammar, the summons at the start of each major unit, the presence of a judgment and lament speech in each part of the book). Jacobs also carried out an exacting analysis of such elements as connective particles or temporal transitions that indicate coherence on the micro-structural levels.38 Part III, “Discerning Conceptuality,” includes the ¿nal two chapters. In Chapter 6, “Concepts and Conceptuality,” Jacobs suggests that structural indicators and conceptual elements contribute to coherence. She turns to the analysis of the conceptual elements in the text. The “conceptcritical method” sees texts as multi-conceptual units with concepts operating on different levels. Her proposal is that “the interrelationship of the indicators within the text and their conceptual presuppositions are essential for understanding the conceptuality and thus the conceptual coherence of the text.” An analysis of four main concepts—justice, sin, judgment, hope—and the quantity, typicality, and salience of their indicators (both explicit and implicit) allows Jacobs to pinpoint the conceptuality of the book of Micah as concerning the fate of Israel. The

1

37. Ibid., 76–96. 38. Ibid., 97–194.

70

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

people have sinned and face the threat of judgment for that sin. Yet the ¿nal word is not judgment, but hope in a future that lies beyond the judgment.39 Chapter 7 provides “Synthesis and Conclusion.” The conceptual coherence of the ¿nal form of the text reÀects the concerns of the ¿nal redactors, who may have reconceptualized the message of the text from that which Micah had originally proclaimed. These redactors structured the book in an attempt to contemporize its message for their audiences. In her judgment, then, the ¿nal form reÀects the concerns and conceptual framework of editors, which framework generates the text’s conceptuality. Coherence is a manifestation of the conceptuality of the book. To discern the coherence of the book involves the awareness of structural indicators, along with the literary integrity and cohesion of the whole. Here Jacobs makes a clear statement of the coherence of the whole. The text’s coherence is generated by the conceptuality of God’s justice and mercy as signi¿cant determinants of Israel’s fate. This accounts for the presence of both judgment and hope sections. The next subsection reÀects on the nature of coherence—it can be found at different levels of the text, in units of differing sizes, and depends on the clarity of the indicators.40 This is a thoughtful piece of scholarship that has advanced the discussion of the coherence of the book of Micah signi¿cantly. Jacobs has taken a rather more narrow view of coherence than others and developed a rigorous approach to ¿nding its indicators in the text. Her thorough analysis of the book’s ¿nal form delves into the minute details and at the same time considers the overarching picture. In discussing conceptuality, she has developed a detailed and sophisticated approach to doing a topical/thematic study, re¿ned in methodology and conclusions. The data from the ¿nal form of the text and from studies of crucial concepts are integrated together into a discussion of the overall conceptual coherence of the book. Jacobs’ work is a prerequisite in terms of methodology and theory for further study of the nature of coherence and its expressions in Micah, the other prophetic books, and beyond.

39. Ibid., 196–223. 40. Ibid., 224–30. In the Appendix (pp. 231–59) Jacobs offers her own translation of the book of Micah and explanations of text-critical matters. 1

2. Studies of the Coherence of the Book of Micah

71

7. Synthesis This survey of the scholarship on the coherence of the book of Micah raises several points to consider. First, there is the issue of terminology and de¿nition. Some have assumed a de¿nition of coherence without making it explicit, others have treated coherence in a consistent and meticulous manner with clarity of de¿nition (e.g., Jacobs). The studies use a number of similar, even overlapping, terms to discuss the phenomenon of coherence—coherence, cohesion, theme, unity, concept, conceptuality, conceptual framework, conceptual interrelationships, concept-criticism, and conceptual coherence.41 In and of itself, this is confusing. The number of similar, but distinguished, terms can render the discussion dif¿cult to follow. Further illustration and simpli¿cation would help, as would explicit interaction on how the term “coherence” is to be de¿ned. Some have made a conscious effort to give de¿nitions (Hagstrom, Jacobs), which is to be commended. To offer more concrete illustration through textual examples of exactly what each of these (slightly) different ideas is referring to would strengthen the discussion. Often scholars have simply assumed a de¿nition for the concept of coherence in the discussion of the work of other scholars or in their exegesis of the text. It would be helpful to incorporate the results of these studies into a broader de¿nition of coherence that would open research to additional features of the text. The de¿nition of coherence has been too restricted and, hence, restricting in the study of the text. To derive the discussion of features of coherence from the foundation of the structure (Willis), links between units starting from the smallest scope (Hagstrom), indicators of reading strategy (Luker), rhetorical indicators of a historical setting (Shaw), or concepts (Jacobs) constricts each discussion to a degree. In any case, it is easy to focus on one aspect of the broad idea of those phenomena which tie a text together, which is a danger if it allows too little room for the connectedness that arises from the other types of linkages. Levels of linkages from all sources, as well as on all levels from the sentence to the panoramic view of the whole, as well as connections effected by literary and rhetorical features, all should be taken into account in a study of coherence. Second, such a survey of these carefully pursued studies of the text makes it evident that understanding the structure of the book is crucial, but will present some signi¿cant challenges. Within the scope of these

1

41. For example, Conceptual Coherence, 48–52.

72

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

few studies, all concerned to draw out the coherence of the ¿nal form of the book of Micah, varied proposals about the structure of the book have been defended: 1–2/3–5/6–7 (Willis); 1–5/6–7 (Hagstrom, Jacobs), 1–2/3:1–4:8/4:9–5:14/6–7 (Cuffey); 1/2–6/7, with the central section subdivided into 2/3/4:1–5:3/5:4–14/6/7 (Luker); 1:2–16/2:1–13/3:1– 4:8/4:9–5:14/6:1–7:7/7:8–20 (Shaw). This raises the question as to what can be deduced from the indicators within the text. And are there any data that point the reader to a more comprehensive way of viewing the whole? Are any of the pieces of evidence of greater signi¿cance than others in their importance for perceiving the structure and connectedness of the whole? Certainly the presence of a section of promise in Mic 2:12–13 breaks up chs. 1–3 or 2–3 as a unit. Certainly there are prominent summonses to hear in 1:2; 3:1; and 6:1, and these appear to mark off a new section. But the summons to hear is also found in 3:9; 6:2, 9. What is the signi¿cance of these instances of the same form, used in a similar context (to introduce at least an oracle, if not a major section)? To regard 4:1–5:14 as a whole does not adequately account for the thematic link (leadership) between 3:1–12 and 4:1–8, ignores the break between 4:8 and 9, and the patterns of intermixing of doom and hope in 4:9–5:14. Nor is the presence of four strategically located passages which mention the remnant factored into the overall picture. Finally, the implications and program for further study which this survey of selected signi¿cant studies suggests should be noted. The ongoing discussion calls for analyses of the coherence found in other prophetic books, in the Book of the Twelve as a whole, and in other parts/genres of the Old Testament, as well as in other (extrabiblical) works. Comparative studies of the process of determining coherence in large as opposed to small prophetic books may disclose signi¿cant insights about the levels on which coherence operates.42 The search for coherence is replete with implications for the study of biblical theology and could be explored with great bene¿t by biblical theologians. The present work will be able to touch on some of these issues, but others will have to be tackled on other occasions, whether by this author or by other scholars.

1

42. Ibid., 228.

Chapter 3

COHERENCE IN WORKS OF LITERATURE

1. The Problem a. De¿nition of the Question A number of scholars have suggested that they can perceive a coherence in the book of Micah. The need to evaluate this recent trend (see Chapter 4) and to examine another such proposal (see Chapters 5 and 6) sparked personal interest in this study. However, before there can be any critical scrutiny of the proposals, we must examine the theoretical nature of coherence in the literary text. This chapter is a survey of literary and rhetorical theory of coherence as it can be helpful in the analysis of Micah, with the aim of providing a working de¿nition of coherence and formulating a framework for understanding how coherence functions within a text. There will be no attempt to cover all the theory which has been formulated about coherence, but will focus on those aspects most pertinent to the discussion of a work from the ancient world that is at times obscure and dif¿cult to follow for whatever reasons, and potentially with a complex literary history, such as many historical-critical scholars agree the book of Micah has undergone. The different kinds of coherence which are likely to be found in a book of the Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament, particularly a prophetic book, will be highlighted, along with the indicators of each type of coherence. b. Differentiation from Other Questions and Concepts By way of de¿ning the problem, it should be stated at the outset that there are three potentially overlapping areas of inquiry which are not the object of this study. The focus is on the problem of coherence as it is treated in the ¿eld of literary-rhetorical theory, with a view to its application for understanding a Hebrew Bible/Old Testament book, especially from the books of the Latter Prophets, and not as it is dealt with in linguistics, aesthetics, or rhetoric and composition.

74

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

First, attention is not directed to the problem of linguistic cohesion, which is one of the foci of the ¿eld of linguistics called discourse analysis. Linguistic cohesion is a surface structure notion that has reference to the linguistic devices by which a text creates continuity, dealing exclusively with the relations which obtain among the sentences and clauses of a text.1 It accounts for those relations without the implication that there is a structural unit above the sentence.2 Cohesion has been said to describe how well-formed and highly readable texts are bound together into a linguistic unity. Bulkeley says that it is the product of meaning and structure. Structure can include expected patterns typically found in the use of a form within a genre, as well as being fostered through the use of verbal links. Coherence is then distinguished as that which causes a text to make sense, in which the parts work together so as to produce an effect on the reader. The reader will perceive the text to be orderly and logical because the parts relate well to each other.3 Linguistic cohesion also entails consideration of the whole context in which communication occurs, including the attitudes of the participants who intend and accept the message. An understanding of the sense of an utterance may be gained from the context of an ongoing discourse.4 “The terms COHESION, COHESIVE, and COHESIVENESS…should not be confused with the terms ‘coherence,’ ‘coherency,’ and ‘coherent,’ frequently used in textbooks of rhetoric and composition, although some grammatical devices usually mentioned in the discussion of ‘coherence’ will be studied…under the heading of cohesion.”5 Coherence in literature is a broader concept than linguistic cohesion. It has to do with links not only within and between sentences, but also on the level of the paragraph and larger blocks of text. Literary coherence deals as well with the ideas communicated and their interconnections and progressive development. Cohesion as an object of linguistic analysis is 1. Peter MacDonald, “Discourse Analysis and Biblical Interpretation,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. W. Bodine; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 153–75 (166), and Ellen van Wolde, “The Creation of Coherence,” Semeia 81 (1998): 159–74. In attempting to mark off cohesion from coherence, these authors view coherence as a semantic idea which obtains in the mind of the reader. 2. M. A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, Cohesion in English (London: Longman Group, 1976), 10. 3. Tim Bulkeley, Postmodern Bible—Amos. Online: http://www.bible.gen.nz/ amos/frametext.htm, accessed 08/08/2013. 4. Robert de Beaugrande, “Text Linguistics in Discourse Studies,” in Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 1, Disciplines of Discourse (ed. Teun A. van Dijk; New York: Academic Press, 1985), 41–70 (48). 5. Waldemar Gutwinski, Cohesion in Literary Texts (Paris: Mouton, 1976), 26. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

75

different because of its narrowed de¿nition of scope—examining at the level of the sentence exclusively, because of its limitation to linguistic questions rather than literary, and because it takes into account data which are often inaccessible when dealing with a piece of literature— such as the psychology of how people receive and process what has been said or the givens of a particular situation of communication. To know the latter would indeed be of help in evaluating a Hebrew prophetic book or collection. However, it is just this context of the whole communicative setting which we frequently lack and which sparks so much speculation as to the original life circumstances in which the prophet spoke. In other words, we really do not have this information to study, but often try to create it by a historical reconstruction of the setting, which is then used as a key to the meaning of the text. This is a much less direct and secure process than obtaining the data by observing an actual situation in a living language context. Inevitably, to adhere to the narrow de¿nitions of coherence as distinguished from cohesion above, will result in a signi¿cant amount of overlap and confusion. Thus, although several of the works on linguistic cohesion serve as stimuli for understanding the analysis of literary coherence, linguistic cohesion and literary coherence are not equivalent. It will bene¿t our data-gathering to work with a broader, more inclusive and comprehensive notion for coherence.6 Second, examination of the connectedness of a work of literature is not to be confused with the idea of “organic unity,” as it is used in the study of aesthetics. Organic unity, the wholeness and oneness analogous with that of a biological organism, serves as a criterion in aesthetics to appraise the beauty, goodness, value, and excellence of a work of art.7 Such unity, along with the achievement of variety, are the two elements 6. Werth’s study of the linguistic concept of connectivity mirrors this conclusion, in that he concluded that coherence is “an umbrella-term covering all discourse connectivity,” including cohesion (formal connectivity to identify or contrast in a discourse), collocation (operating by “semantic ¿eld links between lexical items,” lexical connectivity), and connectors (logical connectivity, lexical items which express logical relationships between different parts of a discourse) (p. 60). Coherence is “a superordinate term to which cohesion, collocation, and connection are subordinate” (p. 72). Paul Werth, Focus, Coherence and Emphasis (London: Croom Helm, 1984), especially pp. 60–77. 7. See, for example, Harold Osborne, “Artistic Unity and Gestalt,” Philosophical Quarterly 14 (1964): 214–28; A. G. Pleydell-Pearce, “On the Limits and Use of ‘Aesthetic Criteria’,” Philosophical Quarterly 9 (1959): 29–45. Jeremy Hawthorn, A Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory (4th ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 47–48, seems to conÀate the concepts by de¿ning coherence as the imposition of a form of unity on disparate elements. 1

76

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

traditionally expected to bring pleasure to the one who appreciates art.8 Beauty in aesthetic terms is thus said to depend on the principle of unity in variety, or “the fusion of various elements into an organic whole which produces a single impression.”9 Note that as to the use of this criterion, objections have been raised from within the ranks of scholars of aesthetics, who say that it is an insuf¿cient ground for evaluation, that it is often an expression merely of personal preference, that it is too abstract, and that it can only be used fruitfully with additional constraints.10 The goals of this work do not include passing judgment on the aesthetic beauty of the book of Micah. Though a reader might take pleasure in the book of Micah and its literary artistry, and ¿nd its message a challenge to personal knowledge of God, it is beyond this project’s scope to try to evaluate the excellence of, or pleasure produced by, what is there. Rather, the concern is with a question of literature and its rhetoric. The desire is to evaluate whether or not a proposed coherence does exist,11 and, if so, to learn more about its nature and implications. Though some of the theory of organic unity has proven to be conceptually signi¿cant in formulating my de¿nitions, I will not, even then, be concerned with the evaluation of aesthetic beauty. Third, “coherence” will not be used in exactly the sense in which it is understood by most handbooks of rhetoric and composition. In these works, coherence is usually de¿ned as that which connects the individual parts to one another, without implying that all the parts are related to a single main idea or principle. “Coherence is that quality which makes it easy for a reader to follow a writer’s train of thought as it moves from 8. Catherine Lord, “Organic Unity Reconsidered,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 22 (1963–64): 263–68; Aram Torossian, A Guide to Aesthetics (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1937), 93–96. 9. Philip B. Gove, ed., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (Spring¿eld, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1976), 2501. 10. Milton C. Nahm, Aesthetic Experience and Its Presuppositions (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946), 166; Pleydell-Pearce, “On the Limits,” 29–45; Michael Scriven, “The Objectivity of Aesthetic Evaluation,” Monist 50 (1966): 159–87; Arthur K. Moore, Contestable Concepts of Literary Theory (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1973), 139, 222. 11. Most literary critics assume that “every work is a distinct and verbally created universe”; see Roger Fowler, ed., A Dictionary of Modern Critical Terms (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), 184. They assume that it is a unity and then try to evaluate to what degree the special concept of organic unity has been achieved. Compare with Leonard Orr, A Dictionary of Critical Theory (New York: Greenwood, 1991), 97–98, on “coherence” in relation to literary theory. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

77

sentence to sentence and from paragraph to paragraph. It facilitates reading because it ensures that the reader will be able to detect the relationships of the parts.”12 Most of the works on rhetorical theory examined suggest that coherence is the product of two factors. First, coherence is the result of the use of linguistic devices which clarify the transitions and connections between constituent parts of a work. Second, the order, or sequential arrangement of the parts, also causes a work to hang together.13 Coherence is then distinguished from unity, which refers to “wholeness,” or “oneness.” A uni¿ed work is one whose parts are all focused on one main idea or principle. All components relate to one 12. Edward P. J. Corbett, The Little Rhetoric and Handbook (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977), 424. Note the way in which Hirsch has considered coherence in terms of readability and the psychology of processing discourse in E. D. Hirsch, The Philosophy of Composition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 118– 30 and 150–55. For further help in de¿ning coherence, consult Howard C. Brashers, Creative Writing (New York: American Book Co., 1968), 455; Charles Duffy and Henry Pettit, A Dictionary of Literary Terms (repr., New York: Brown, 1953), 27; William F. Thrall and A. Hibbard, A Handbook to Literature (rev. C. Hugh Holman; New York: Odyssey, 1960), 93. 13. Examples of those who understand the origin of coherence in these two features would include Corbett, Little Rhetoric, 119–22, 423–26; Robert W. Daniel, A Contemporary Rhetoric (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1967), 49–53; Duffy and Pettit, Dictionary of Literary Terms, 27; Linda Flower, Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing (2d ed.; New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1985), 201; John H. Gardiner, George L. Kittredge, and Sarah L. Arnold, Manual of Composition and Rhetoric (New York: Ginn & Co., 1907), 35, 160; Dana O. Jensen, R. Morell Schmitz, and Henry F. Thoma, Modern Composition and Rhetoric (New York: Houghton MifÀin, 1935), 48–53; James R. Kreuger and Lee Cogan, Studies in Prose Writing (rev. ed.; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967), 93–94; William W. Watt, An American Rhetoric (4th ed.; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970), 55. Compare the linguistic analysis of the more restricted concept of cohesion as derived from similar factors—from segmenting (dividing into rhetorical units) and from making ties across message chunks (through the use of stylistic devices and connectives) in John J. Gumperz, Hannah Kaltman, and Mary C. O’Connor, “Cohesion in Spoken and Written Discourse: Ethnic Style and the Transition to Literacy,” in Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse (ed. Deborah Tannen; Advances in Discourse Processes 12; Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1984), 8. Others have focused solely on the order, i.e., the sequence and progression of parts, as the source of coherence. This is too limited in scope, however, for simply having a wellordered arrangement does not ensure that the relations between all of the smaller parts (as sentences) will be clear. These often need to be spelled out explicitly. For examples of this, consult Raymond Chapman, Linguistics and Literature (London: Edward Arnold, 1973), 100–111; Richard E. Hughes and P. Albert Duhamel, Rhetoric: Principles and Usage (2d ed.; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice–Hall, 1967), 17–23; Thrall and Hibbard, Handbook, 93. 1

78

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

central aspect, which allows us to view the work as a whole.14 Unity, then, describes whether or how the parts are all tied to a “center,” while coherence refers to the way in which the relations of each part to the other parts are made clear. As will be seen shortly, to limit coherence in this way, by ruling out the focal center as a means of providing inner connections between parts in the same work, is too restrictive and risks imposing modern standards on ancient texts. c. A Basic Working De¿nition of Coherence The understanding of coherence in this work will be somewhat different. Since we are dealing with texts written and edited by ancient Israelites, who had no familiarity with any modern discussions and de¿nitions, it will be to our advantage to work with a de¿nition for coherence of the broadest sort. The ancient author’s concern was to communicate through what was written or read, and he/she would have welcomed any devices or sources of connection that held the entirety of a text together. The de¿nition used should allow us at this distant remove from their era and cultural world the best chance to allow the data of the text to determine how we perceive coherence, in the hope of glimpsing it from their point of view. Coherence will be de¿ned in a broader sense, as “the connectedness of a work.” Anything that contributes to tying parts to each other and/or to tying them into a whole will be treated as a component of coherence. Thus, what students of rhetoric and composition refer to under the heading of “unity” will be subsumed under “coherence.” This will lessen the ambiguity which results from the inevitable overlap of the two concepts in the analysis of actual texts15 and thereby simplify our understanding and discussion of the coherence seen in Micah. Further, the treatment of the kinds of coherence and their indicators is speci¿cally directed at the coherence which we might ¿nd in a speci¿c type of literature, viz., a book of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, especially a prophetic book. There are no claims of presenting an exhaustive analysis of the nature of literary coherence in an abstract sense, as it would apply to all literary works, even though these categories certainly may be applied more broadly to other types of literature elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and to a variety of literature from other cultures and eras. 14. On the de¿nition of unity, see Duffy and Pettit, Dictionary of Literary Terms, 130; Gove, ed., Dictionary, 2501, de¿nition 3b; and Hughes and Duhamel, Rhetoric, 16. 15. For example, a common theme can serve both to tie the parts to each other (“coherence”) and to bind them all into a uni¿ed whole (“unity,” according to the handbooks). The two concepts are interrelated and are not entirely distinct. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

79

Finally, to describe the process one further delineation is necessary. It is assumed at the start that a work can be initially examined as a whole in order to test and determine whether it does have any features which tie it together into a coherent piece. The question is whether what is in the work itself constrains us to view it as coherent. Is the work coherent? What makes it so? From where does coherence arise?16 2. Coherence in the Context of a Communication Model Jeannine Brown’s 2007 introduction to biblical interpretation, called Scripture as Communication, contains the suggestion that we view the process of reading, studying, and understanding the Bible as part of a natural process of communication. She derives this from an application of a basic model of the process of communication to the different aspects and questions treated in Hermeneutics.17 It will prove helpful for us to address the concept of literary coherence within this framework as well. In her communication model for reading and interpreting Scripture, Brown delineates three domains: author, text, and reader. (See Fig. 3.1.) The author is the one who communicates, the text is the vehicle or act of communication, and the reader is the one who is addressed and responds. Author

Text/ Work

Reader

Figure 3.1. The Three Domains—Author, Text, and Reader—in a Communication Model for Understanding Interpretation

In the case of Scripture, the author will be viewed as the person(s) who wrote, collated, and edited the texts.18 Of course the text is the Bible, 16. Cf. David Robertson, The Old Testament and the Literary Critic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 7, 9. Note as well Alter’s discussion of the plausibility of doing this with texts that many critics have viewed as the result of “a constant stitching together of earlier texts drawn from divergent literary and sometimes oral traditions,” “a crazy quilt of ancient traditions.” He suggests that even the combining of sources in an editorial process could be viewed as a last stage “in the process of artistic creation which produced biblical narrative.” Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), 132–33. 17. Jeannine Brown, Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), esp. 13–14, then pp. 29–56 for a more in-depth theoretical grounding. 18. Two clari¿cations are in order. In the case of the prophetic books, much of the written material was ¿rst spoken in oral proclamation. The author, or sender of 1

80

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

which is addressed to an audience, otherwise known as the reader(s), or the recipients of the communication and the respondents. There are two categories of reader: the original intended audience, ¿rst addressed by the original biblical texts, and the subsequent readers, including us, to whom the work was not originally addressed and who thus read over the shoulders of that ¿rst audience, so to speak. A text, such as those in the books of the Hebrew prophets, is an artifact in and of itself, but is also a culturally located communicative act, tied to a particular time and place. Thus questions of authors and original readers are relevant for interpretation. Brown’s communication model places meaning at the center of our consideration as it allows the meaning of the biblical text to be understood as the communicative act of the author that has been inscribed in the text and addressed to the intended audience for purposes of engagement. This does justice to the roles of author, text, and reader in the interpretive process as it allows for the distinctive contribution of each to the process of communication. Imbalances in the study of Hermeneutics have arisen as a result of focusing on one or the other of the three basic component domains to the neglect of the other two. Further, it incorporates the readers of today by connecting them with the audience envisioned in the text. We stand in continuity with the people of God who comprised the original audience and identify with those who were ¿rst addressed.19 The advantages of conceiving of the interpretive process in this manner are many. It will orient the reader to a higher level of engagement with the text which has initiated a dialogue with its audience, and hence is an example of interpersonal communication. The text addresses us as its readers. The text is not merely a code without a personal source, but instead initiates a conversation with its readership so that to study the Bible is to engage in a dialogue. This allows for a more holistic view of the process of communication, to encompass not only the conveyance of cognitive content, facts and propositional truth, but of emotions and volitions as well.20 the original message, would be a speaker. These messages were subsequently recorded in written form, hence involving an author as we usually think of one who writes the contents. However, since this is a study of the written form of the prophetic books, it will enable our discussion to focus on authors as those who write the message to communicate. Many will hasten to add that the authors in this sense are inspired authors, or that God is the divine author behind the text who guides the words of these human instruments. 19. Brown, Scripture as Communication, 14, 26–28. 20. Ibid., 15–16. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

81

Most authors compose texts in order to communicate a meaning to an audience. If the author does this well, the result will be a clear text that the reader can easily follow. If the writing is too obscure, there is a danger that the audience will miss the point and not understand the message the author intended. Clarity in writing is achieved through guiding the reader to see the interconnections and Àow of the writing, according to whatever standards and means of expression are accepted and standard in that particular time, culture, and place. This is often called the text’s coherence, or connectedness. Any features which connect individual parts with each other, or all the parts into a whole, contribute to coherence in a work of literature. It is natural in reading that texts which were written to communicate an author’s intention be given the bene¿t of the doubt and assumed to make sense. There are a number of ways that a text can be seen to be coherent, or held together in the way in which it is expressed. In studying a text it is worthwhile to be alert to such textual clues and reÀect on how these devices connect parts of the text together. When we consider the concept of coherence, or connectedness within a literary text, in relation to the framework of a communication model for interpretation, it becomes readily apparent that there are several dimensions to consider in order to give a full accounting of what coherence entails. We might begin in the middle of the process with the text itself, since this is what we have in concrete form, as opposed to a longdeparted author, the ¿rst audience(s), and their time and setting. The reader/scholar discovers the indicators of coherence in the hard data of the text. Upon ¿nding these internal textual interconnections, one must also examine their intentionality. Did an original author, or a subsequent editor, intend these? Or might I simply be seeing them myself without the author ever having known these were present in the text? In examining coherence on the basis of such a model, the author is the source of all intended connections within the text. Note that by the author we may be referring to an author who composes the text, or an editor, whether along the way to the ¿nal form of the text, or the ¿nal editor who provides it with the shape and wording we now have. In relation to the discussion with critical scholarship’s proposals about the biblical text, author might then also be taken to refer to a description of the effects of a process of development, or the history of the text, its growth and transmission. The reader, of course, whether ancient or contemporary, is the one who is trying to read and understand the text, making sense out of the words that are read or heard, in the order of progression in which they are recorded. The reader assumes the text will make sense and naturally will attempt to ¿nd the coherence that is present, or else will not be able to form a 1

82

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

mental representation of what the text communicates. When we read, we have the expectation of ¿nding regularity, so that we assume coherence and interpret on that basis.21 The hope is that the reader will not impose or import meaning into or onto the text. If certain apparent indicators of connectedness are only seen by the reader on this end of the process, they may turn out to have little or nothing to do with the meaning which the author intended to communicate through the text. Source of Coherence: A Communication Model Gives Coherence Author

Seeks Coherence Text/ Work

Reader

Location to ¿nd coherence

Figure 3.2. The Sources Which Generate Coherence in a Text, Viewed in the Light of a Communications Model

As can be seen in the diagram of coherence in the context of a communication model, there are several dimensions which will require attention in order to arrive at a full-orbed understanding of coherence and how it works. As a foundation, there is a textual dimension to coherence, in that the indicators of coherence are sought and found in the ¿nal form of the text. In regards to this internal textual dimension it will be helpful to consider the sources of coherence in a text, that is, the sorts of devices or frameworks which serve to connect a text together. Second, there is a historical dimension for literary coherence, external to the text. A component of understanding connectedness in a literary piece is to understand as much as we can recover about the historical process of origins and intended purposes that created the text we have. In the case of a prophetic book, we might talk about several different locations along a historical timeline of development in terms of broadly conceived authorship. This might begin with the person of the Hebrew prophet himself who proclaimed his message and may or may not have been involved in 21. Gillian Brown and George Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 62, 66. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

83

recording the contents in writing, and move to disciples who may have recorded or collated his oracles, to editors at several stages of a process we can only guess at, culminating with the ¿nal redactor who edits the materials into the ¿nal form of the text which we now have. To this could also be added the consideration of a canonical process, which continues to play out in the historical dimension of the life of a coherent text, as the ¿nal form is attained and then incorporated into a larger canon of scriptural works. Third, there is a perceptual dimension of coherence to take into account the role of the reader or audience in interpreting the text as a meaningful whole, that is, a coherent text. 3. The Textual Dimension of Coherence: Internal Coherence For the purposes of this study, coherence refers to the connectedness of a work. Any features which connect individual parts with each other, or all the parts into a whole, contribute to coherence in a work of literature. The ¿rst dimension to explore is the text itself. What sort(s) of connections may be found internal to the ¿nal form of a biblical text? What are the indicators of coherence, or the sources which give coherence, or a sense of interconnectedness to the text of a book as a canonical unit in its ¿nal form so that it is tied together and Àows as a whole? Here the goal is to ¿nd features in the text itself which illumine the underlying relationships between propositions: linking sentences together, facilitating unity so that the text “sticks to the point,” and making sense together in respect to the context. The writer will need to order and interlink the propositions together through using the appropriate structuring of the information in order to express adequately the overall discourse theme.22 This section will classify the sources of coherence or ways in which connections can be made within a piece of literature. The following list intentionally focuses on those types which we would expect to ¿nd in a book of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, with a focus on a prophetic book, though the application of these categories is certainly not limited only to that genre. Note that the categories below are not mutually exclusive of one another. More than one type of coherence can appear in the same work.

22. Ann Johns, “Coherence and Academic Writing: Some De¿nitions and Suggestions for Teaching,” TESOL Quarterly 20 (1986): 247–65. My gratitude to Dr. Melody Green for pointing out this source. 1

84

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

a. Internal Linkage as a Source of Textual Coherence Coherence may arise from recurrent literary features or links of transition and connection in the text. Such features of style or the speci¿cation of transitions and connections can clarify the relations of section to section or to the whole. Often a text will mark the relations between its propositions explicitly, directing the reader through the use of words of transition which serve to link together sections of a writing.23 These words will speci¿cally guide the reader in how to understand the progression of the text by specifying the relationships between sections that are to be understood, as can be seen with the use of “therefore,” “after,” “since,” or “however.” Repetition of key words and phrases maintains a continuity, the use of similar patterning (e.g., parallel forms) eases comprehension, and the use of substitution (e.g., a pronoun for the fully expressed earlier antecedent, or the employment of synonyms) picks up on what has gone before with an economy of expression.24 Internal links aim to make the text accessible and predictable to guide the reader in moving through the text. The following classi¿cation system will attempt to describe such links from the vantage point of their actual function within the progression and Àow of the text. These internal links provide a ¿rst source of coherence, which can be discerned by the following indicators. (1) Recurrent Literary Features. A work may seem coherent, or connected together, due to the consistent use and appearance of certain aspects of literary style.25 The reader’s sense of coherence is heightened, for example, by the consistent use of a genre/form or closely related genres/forms throughout the sections of a piece.26 A consistent style of 23. “Most coherence devices…point backwards to what has just been said, thus connecting what has been said with what is about to be said.” Edward P. J. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 414. 24. The use of these internal links resembles the category of foreground information that provides grounding for the text to make it accessible. See van Wolde, “The Creation of Coherence,” 170–71. Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 230–31, describe a discourse characterized by grammatical structure. 25. The use of a number of linguistic devices helps to display a writer’s thoughts in an orderly and logical fashion, so that a text “hangs together.” Corbett, Classical Rhetoric, 414. 26. Notice the way in which Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 65–71, has traced recurring examples of forms in the book of Micah, such as dispute in 1:2–7 and 6:1– 8; judgment speech in 3:1–12 and 6:9–16; laments or woes in 1:8/9–16; 2:1/2–5; and 7:1/2–6; and hope oracles in 2:12–13; 4:1/2–5; and 7:7/8–20. See her chart on p. 71. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

85

writing or use of language could also foster a sense of oneness. Similar types of metaphors (e.g., predominantly taken from nature, as is the case in Micah; see 1:4, 8, 16), consistent use of ¿rst, second, or third person pronouns to express the author’s perspective, or the consistent use of the same temporal viewpoint (using the same verbal forms—e.g., all imperfects—as the basis from which to describe the occurrence in time of the actions) would all be examples of writing style and use of language fostering an awareness of connectedness throughout the component parts of a piece of literature.27 The continuity of such features throughout the whole or their occurrence in several of the parts serves to tie together and make connections within the work. (2) Links of Transition and Connection. As a second example of internal linkage providing connectedness, consider those devices of the language which serve to show the bridges between parts. Such devices indicate the transitions being made and the connecting interrelations between the segments. These may be classi¿ed according to their nature and function within a text. There are four classes of linkages which tell the reader of a transition or connection being made.28 (a) Explicit Direction. Links can be expressed explicitly.29 First, and most centrally, we would think of the use of coordinate conjunctions, adverbs, and transitional words to spell out the movement and connections within the text. They serve to connect and join thoughts, point out direction, and show how the new statement bears on the prior. Often placed at the beginning of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions offer a logical bridge to connect sentences. Conjunctive adverbs, such as “also,” “indeed,” “moreover,” “therefore,” are also common devices to strengthen coherence.30 Van Wolde’s classi¿cation into anaphoric, which point back to and pick up on prior information already introduced in the text, and cataphoric, which look ahead to material which is being

27. Compare on these Fowler, Dictionary, 184; William Zinsser, On Writing Well (2d ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1980), 54–55. 28. The examples listed under the four categories are not to be seen as absolutely exhaustive. 29. These are the expressed links of Daniel, A Contemporary Rhetoric, 53, and Watt, An American Rhetoric, 91. The other three categories correspond roughly to the same writers’ concept of implied links. 30. “One can point up the logical relationship between sentences simply by inserting the appropriate conjunctive word.” Corbett, Classical Rhetoric, 415. 1

86

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

introduced and will yet be developed more fully, is useful.31 Corbett’s organization of these according to a description of the kind of relationship they establish is helpful. For example, in English there are additive (and, also, besides, moreover, furthermore), opposing (but, yet, however, rather, instead, on the other hand), alternative (or, either…or), temporal (then, next, now, later, henceforth, previously), and causal words (for, so, therefore, thus, as a result, clearly).32 Second, there can be explanations of the overall direction within a text. Examples of this would include a full sentence or paragraph which speci¿es the transition being made, or the device of labeling components “¿rst,” “second,” “third.”33 (b) Similarity and Extension of Meaning. An idea can be carried on or built upon as the reader progresses through a text. First, there can be resumption of meaning. Repetition may serve to hold (a) passage(s) together. The author may repeat words, phrases, details, verbal roots, a verbal subject or object, sounds, patterns of structure, or the same word with differing meanings.34 The same idea or topic can also be continued

31. Van Wolde, “The Creation of Coherence,” 170–71. Compare this distinction with the discussion on the value of co-text in Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 46–50. The more co-text there is, the more secure the interpretation will be. 32. Corbett, Little Rhetoric, 120–21. Compare Chapman, Linguistics and Literature, 105, 107; Daniel, A Contemporary Rhetoric, 50; Jensen, Schmitz, and Thoma, Modern Composition, 51–52; Kreuger and Cogan, Studies in Prose Writing, 94; and Watt, An American Rhetoric, 88 for further examples and slightly different schemes of classi¿cation. Note two similar classi¿cations in works on linguistic cohesion. Lita Lundquist, La cohérence textuelle: syntaxe, sémantique, pragmatique (Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck, 1980), 50–51, divides these indicators into twelve groups: additive, enumeratif, transitif, explicatif, illustrative, comparative, adversative, concessive, causative/consecutive/conclusive, resumatif, temporal, and metatextuel. Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 242–43, have organized conjunctive relations, in which the text speci¿es the way in which what follows is related with what has gone before (and there are no other structural relations to hint at the connections), into these four categories (with my selected examples): additive (and, furthermore, or, that is, thus, likewise, by contrast), adversative (yet, only, but, in fact, rather, in any case), causal (so, then, for, because, for this reason, in that case, in this regard), and temporal (then, next, at last, soon, ¿nally, from now on). 33. In a language system such as English, punctuation as well can serve to show connections and transitions. A comma can serve to link two thoughts, while a period may distance them. This, of course, is not immediately relevant to an ancient Hebrew text. 34. See, for example, Chapman, Linguistics and Literature, 105, 108; Nash’s and Halliday and Hasan’s concept of lexical cohesion: Walter Nash, Designs in Prose (New York: Longman, 1980), 20, and Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

87

as the work progresses, without being repeated verbatim each time (a repetition not of the wording, but of the concept).35 Second, there may be reÀection of a preceding meaning. Grammatical, structural, and lexical items can point back to what has been said prior. Personal pronouns (I, we, you, he, she, it, they), point back to an antecedent mentioned or assumed already in a text. Demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative adjectives, or deictic pointing words, such as “the, this, that, these, those,” direct our attention back to something already expressed or clearly in the setting. A close reference to a preceding item, as well as the device called ellipsis (omission of an item which is understood from the context) also reÀect meaning that has gone before.36 Third, we may ¿nd an approximation of meaning in a text. The use of synonyms and substitute wording which rephrases the same idea contributes to such an effect. Loose semantic connections, such as with the words “faded,” “erased,” “forgotten,” or the use of words from a common semantic area, such as “bank,” “teller,” “money,”37 also approximate the meaning of what has gone before without speci¿cally repeating it, using synonyms, or referring our attention back to it directly. Fourth, what I will term “coupling” can also be used to resume a meaning. In this case, the end of a paragraph or section is that which begins the next unit of similar magnitude.38 274ff. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric, 415–16, adduces the ¿gure of anaphora, seen in repeating the same word(s) in the initial position in successive phrases. 35. Note the discussion of discourse subjects, those topics to which reference is made in the text, creating a topic framework, along with the way in which discourse picks up on topics from the preceding context in Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 80–87. Cotterell and Turner describe a thematic net which connects ideas together, Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 23–33, cf. the discussion of deixis on pp. 236– 39 as well. See also Deborah Schiffrin, “Cohesion in Everyday Discourse: The Role of Paraphrase” (Sociolinguistic Working Paper 97; Austin, Tex.: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1982), for a discussion of the nature and use of paraphrase in conversation, a parallel to the idea of paraphrase to resume a topic within a written text. 36. Compare Chapman, Linguistics and Literature, 104–7; Corbett, Classical Rhetoric, 414–15. On ellipsis, see Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 142ff. for a linguistic discussion of its use. Daniel, A Contemporary Rhetoric, 50, offers an example of close reference to a prior element in “it fell victim to the trend it had started,” in which we understand “that” to link “it had started” with the “trend.” 37. For the examples, see Chapman, Linguistics and Literature, 106–8. On p. 106 he also suggests the effect of class-member relations, as in “boughs, trees,” but this seems simply to be an aspect of semantic connections. 38. See Gardiner, Kittredge, and Arnold, Manual, 288. Similar to this, the use of fragmentary sentences that rely on the preceding statement to ¿ll out an ellipsis also 1

88

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

(c) Similarity and Interdependence of Structure. Not only may the meaning be repeated, extended, or echoed as a text continues, but also the structure itself may recur or interlock and thus serve to tie together the different segments. First, similar structure recurs with the use of parallelism. The construction of lines in their pattern of word order and syntax may be parallel. This implies that speci¿c words are parallel to one another.39 Second, several features of rhetorical usage contribute to literary coherence by causing the segments to interlock with one another. Meaning can be conveyed by creating a sentence that is tied to the one immediately preceding. Examples of this would include raising a question and answering it, or a fragmentary sentence which follows another statement that ¿lls in the needed content (such as “True!,” after a statement which tells us what the writer judges to be correct). The device of classical rhetoric called anaphora, in which identical words are repeated at the beginning of successive phrases, also serves to make the sentences interdependent and linked.40 Even a consistent level of rhetorical formality and manner of expression can bind the parts of a piece to one another.41 (d) Dissimilarity of Meaning or Structure. Finally, the parts of a work can be hooked to one another by the use of dissimilarities which intentionally juxtapose an idea or pattern in one part with that in another. Contrasts in lexical meaning or arrangement can set two ideas or orderings in juxtaposition with one another so that it is clear that the two are intended to “bounce off” one another in order to arrive at a clearer de¿nition of what is communicated.42 Comparisons between like or unlike objects can function similarly, as can the use of antonyms.43 bolsters a text’s coherence, by forcing the reader to look backwards to the sentence before the meaning of the two sentences is tied together. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric, 415. 39. Chapman, Linguistics and Literature, 103, 108, gives some examples. He even details some of the ways in which words may be parallel—by contrast (“large, brilliant star,” “little, black railroad”) and by loose semantic connections (“underfoot, climbing”). 40. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric, 414–16, especially emphasizes these items. 41. Winston Weathers and Otis Winchester, The Strategy of Style (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), 127–29. 42. The sharp transition between Mic 3:12 and 4:1 may be a prime example of this. W. Robert McFadden, “Micah and the Problem of Continuities and Discontinuities in Prophecy,” in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (ed. W. Hallo, J. Moyer, and L. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 127–46, argued that the oracle of salvation and hope in Mic 4:1–4 is in continuity with the immediately preceding oracle of judgment announcing the 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

89

(3) Examples. Examples of coherence of internal linkage which are found in the biblical text, or attempts to read the text of a book as coherent by scholars, include the following. The repeated acrostic poems in all sections of Lamentations (each chapter as an acrostic, with the exception of ch. 5, which is a faux acrostic with the correct number of verses, but without the alphabetic sequence in the beginnings of the successive lines) and the recurring oracles of doom throughout Amos, are instances in which the sections of a book are connected with each other by the presence of similar forms, styles, and usages. The use of transitional and connecting words to link the parts of a work with other parts is precisely what many scholars have observed as the work of redactors who joined separate segments together, as seen in the discussions about redactional growth in Chapter 1. For example, Sigmund Mowinckel, in his study of the composition of Deutero-Isaiah (1931), noted internal linkages which gave a connectedness to the work. He divided the book into 41 sections and analyzed the connections of each with the surrounding context. He concluded that although there was no inner progression (i.e., a coherence of structural linkage) or development of meaning (i.e., a coherence of theme), the text was not in total disarray. Rather, he detected the presence of connections between units based on external similarities, such as catchwords, phrases and words at the beginning of sections, and content. All these provide a coherence of internal linkage which binds part to part within the book.44 destruction of the temple mount in 3:12. The two parts are linked by the juxtaposition of contrasting ideas. Sometimes a text may seem to have multiple components that are devoid of any connection between the parts, but on closer examination the texts are discovered to be “united in the most cogent and equally tight fashion,” as explained for Ps 23 and Gen 4 in Yair Mazor, “What You See Is Not What You Get: When Unity Masquerades as Disarray,” SJOT 20 (2006): 264–72. 43. Chapman, Linguistics and Literature, 108; Watt, An American Rhetoric, 85. 44. Sigmund Mowinckel, “Die Komposition des deuterojesajanischen Buches,” ZAW 49 (1931): 88–112, 242–60. Note that his links by association might be seen as providing an associational order and hence a weak coherence of structural linkage. For more examples of studies that detect such redactional links and thus propose some sort of coherence of internal linkage for a book, see Francis I. Andersen and David N. Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1980), e.g., 58–66, 69–70, 313–30; T. R. Hobbs, “Some Remarks on the Composition and Structure of the Book of Jeremiah,” CBQ (1972): 268–75; Arvid S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies (Uppsala universitets årsskrift; Uppsala: Lundequistska bokhandeln, 1948); James L. Mays, Hosea: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), esp. 15–16; and Hans W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (trans. Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride, Jr. and Charles A. Muenchow; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), esp. 6–8. 1

90

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Similarly, Edwin M. Good’s study of Hosea (1966) focused on the ways in which segments of the book had been tied together. Many connections between the individual units and the complexes were made by grouping together similar ideas, words, and themes. For example, Hos 4:4–5:7 revolve around a knowledge–harlotry motif. The theme and terms of the ¿rst poem are continued in the succeeding ones. Or again, references to food and agriculture account for the joining of the units and sub-complexes in Hos 9:1–10:15, while the continued presence of the motifs of Egypt–Exodus and father–son determine the course of Hos 11:1–14:1.45 Another example of the discovery of internal links, this time used in the pursuit of ethical understanding, is to be found in M. Daniel Carroll R.’s study of the character ethics found in the book of Micah. For example, Carroll traced the recurrence of the word and concept of “good” in the text of Mic 3:1–4:5. Other threads that can be followed through multiple oracles within this section of the book include the topic of violence against the less fortunate in all three oracles of ch. 3. Micah 6:1–8 contains three pericopes: vv. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7. These are interconnected with each other through the sustained topic of God’s demands of his people, as well as a shared vocabulary (“his/my people” in vv. 2, 5; the interrogative “what” in vv. 3, 5, 6, 8). God challenged the people to explain themselves in 6:3, then their response to the LORD is found in the series of questions in 6:6–7. The transition into the next section of denunciation and judgment (6:9–16) is found in the stinging rebuke of 6:8. He also charted the connecting links between this section and the one preceding, 3:1–4:5. The continuity of concerns between the two sections is brought out by the reappearance of the summons to “hear” (3:1, 9; 6:1), the idea of walking in God’s ways (4:2, 5; 6:8), the pursuit of justice (4:2–3; 6:8), and the value of the good (3:2; 6:8).46 b. Structure as a Source of Textual Coherence A second type of coherence is that which comes from the arrangement of the parts. The writer may organize and arrange material in a clear pattern. 45. Edwin M. Good, “The Composition of Hosea,” SEÅ 31 (1966): 21–63, esp. 34, 36, 43, 48. Note that Good observed the presence of themes which connected subsections within a section, but perceived no overall theme which ran throughout, and hence saw no coherence of theme for the book. The links he observed were often what I have classi¿ed under links of transition and connection. 46. M. Daniel Carroll, “ ‘He Has Told You What Is Good’: Moral Formation in Micah,” in Character Ethics and the Old Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture (ed. M. D. Carroll and J. Lapsley; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 103– 18. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

91

Structural coherence may come from an order which makes a work a connected whole, an arrangement of the parts that places the sections into the framework of a larger context. There are a variety of different ways of ordering a text. Such coherence is indicated by an order which makes the work a connected whole. The arrangement indicates the way each part is to be construed, by placing the sections in the framework of a larger context. The larger context of the whole book can determine the meaning of a part, possibly in a way that differs from the reading we would have given that part in isolation. The parts are subordinated, then, to the purposes of the whole by means of the order. Classical literary theory already recognized the importance of order. Plato represents Socrates as teaching that it is a virtue of composition to arrange the parts according to a plan. Don’t you think the parts of the discourse [under discussion] are thrown out helter-skelter? Or does it seem to you that the second topic had to be put second for any cogent reason, or that any of the other things he says are so placed? It seemed to me…that the writer uttered boldly whatever occurred to him. Do you know any rhetorical reason why he arranged his topics in this order?47

In searching for coherence of this type, then, we want to notice how the author or editor has ordered or arranged the parts. Does the arrangement foster a sense of connectedness in the whole work? (1) Delineating the Units that Comprise the Structure. Dorsey points out that an analysis of structure must begin with identifying the units which have been arranged in a discernible pattern. The authors of biblical books, like all writers, use three basic methods to mark off the boundaries of a literary unit:

47. Plato, with an English Translation. I Euthryphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus (trans. Harold N. Fowler; LCL; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1933), 528–29, Phaedrus 264B. Cotterell and Turner make the observation that the more skilled the communicator, the more carefully structured the text will be. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistic and Biblical Interpretation, 23. Note further Aristotle’s comment that in a tragedy, the most important component “is the arrangement of the incidents” within the plot, Aristotle in Twenty-Three Volumes. Vol. 23, The Poetics (trans. W. Hamilton Fyfe; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 28–31, Poetics VII:2–7. Horace, too, held that the “clearness of order” was of import, Horace: Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica (trans. H. Rushton Fairclough; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), 452–55, Art of Poetry, see lines 40–45. 1

92

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

x

x

x

An indicator of a unit’s beginning, such as an introductory formula (“these are the generations of x”; “thus says the LORD”; “hear”); a vocative; a summary of what is coming; a shift in time, place, topic, genre or form. An indicator of a unit’s end, such as a concluding formula (“and it was evening and it was morning, the nth day”); summary of what has been discussed; a conclusion with resolution of tension; the conclusion of an inclusio or chiasm. Indicators that a unit has been shaped into a cohesive whole so that it is an “independent, self-contained “package”,” such as maintaining the same time, place, characters, topic; inclusion; symmetrical arrangement; repetition of a keyword; recurring motifs.48

(2) Patterns. Patterns of structure may be traced in the ancient texts. Some of the more frequent and easily discovered include: x x x x

Linear arrangement (ABC, units following one another without repeating)49 The chiasm (ABCCƍBƍAƍ, a symmetry created by reversing the order of the elements) The alternation or parallelism (ABCAƍBƍCƍ, following the same pattern in successive lines) The inclusio (ABA, in which the segment is marked off by returning to the ¿rst introductory topic at the end)

These structures have a variety of uses in the text and serve as guideposts for the reader in delineating boundaries and arrangements. In the absence of modern printing technology which bombards a reader with graphical signals, an ancient author would point a reader in the right direction for processing the text through the use of such markers. They could be used to divide a text into segments, resume a story after an interlude of other material, unify a text by establishing an inner unity of the segments through providing an introductory summary or grouping by categories, or to emphasize text by placing an element at the center of a symmetry or through a broken structure. Parunak has provided a general introduction to the categories and linguistic functions of such patterning.50 48. David Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis–Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 21–25. 49. Ibid., 26–27. 50. H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure,” Bib 62 (1981): 153–68. He develops this further in “Transitional Techniques in the 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

93

(3) Types of Sequential Order. In order to facilitate discussion about the arrangement seen in works of literature, it will be helpful to give some thought to the different kinds of order which are possible. In what ways can an author structure or pattern his material? What are the consistent means of ordering which bind the parts to each other and ultimately produce a sensible whole? Scholars suggest six major classes of sequential order that build up coherence. First, there is chronological, or temporal, order. Here the passage of time provides the pattern for coherent presentation. The author or editor presents the events in a succession which parallels the actual temporal succession in which they occurred. The time sequence in which the incidents took place is often the ordering least liable to confusion, as the reader can refer the components to their place in the progression of events. This will be especially favored in narration of stories or historical events and in reports of speci¿c incidents.51 Van Wolde observes that this is the basic expectation that we have for narrative in contemporary culture, but that sometimes texts from a distant culture and time can develop in very different ways.52 Second, there is spatial order, particularly in the description of a physical object or scene. The sequence of the details advances according to their arrangement; the order mirrors the order they actually occupy in space. This involves the assumption or statement that all parts are being described in relation to a viewpoint from a speci¿c position. Clarity in such an ordering often comes from an imposed frame of reference, such as a square or triangle, to which the writer can refer all the details of the described scene. Coherence is also increased by the presentation of such details in an ordered pattern of progression (e.g., left to right, clockwise).53 Bible,” JBL 102 (1983): 525–48. Note as well the detailed and thoughtful presentation of the study of structure in ancient Hebrew literature found in Dorsey, Literary Structure, 26–35. Dorsey details the types of ordering that may be found—linear (both chronological and nonchronological schemes), parallel, and symmetrical—and considers the techniques that are used to connect these units with each other within a structure. 51. Hughes and Duhamel, Rhetoric, 22–23. Also, Corbett, Little Rhetoric, 50; Gardiner, Kittredge, and Arnold, Manual, 35; Jensen, Schmitz, and Thoma, Modern Composition, 49–50; Watt, An American Rhetoric, 55. 52. Van Wolde, “The Creation of Coherence,” 167, contrasts our contemporary tendency to build coherence in a chronological manner in narratives with the coherence seen in Genesis, where the text will begin with a general survey and follow that with a focused concentration on one aspect in particular. 53. Hughes and Duhamel, Rhetoric, 22; also Corbett, Little Rhetoric, 424; Watt, An American Rhetoric, 55. 1

94

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Third, writers frequently use a logical order. This would especially predominate in the development of scholarly arguments. In this category, “the sequence of parts is controlled by objective, impersonal, and analytic relations among the various ideas in the work.” Such logical order is usually based on relationships such as that of the part to the whole or cause and effect (see the following section on expected patterns of thought). With intangibles, such as ideas, it is common that the writer impose some type of logical order to make the separate members hang together. The details are arranged so that they unfold the ideas in a clear progression. Included under this category would be the ordering of parts according to an imposed outline.54 Possibly to be included here would be the progression from a general treatment to speci¿c focus within that broader category that can be observed in many texts, a type of logical development that made sense to an ancient more readily than to our accustomed ways of thought.55 Fourth, there is what we might designate natural order. This is one that “is inevitably decreed by the nature of the process itself.” The chain of thought grows automatically without calling for special attention to the links.56 Fifth, we can detect associational order. While logical order was founded on objective, veri¿able relations between ideas, “associational coherence is based upon subjective and personal relations among ideas, images, details—anything.” A sequence derived from experiences from real life or from psychic succession (“stream of consciousness”), may show only accidental interrelationships. Such composition tells the reader much about the writer’s mind and ways of thought, unless, of course, the connections are left unclear because of their being too personal and private in the life of the author, or dif¿cult to follow because of recording associations without including the intermediate steps that are needed to put the items together, thus rendering the Àow quite dif¿cult for a reader in a later and different setting to follow.57 The collection of 54. Hughes and Duhamel, Rhetoric, 18–19; also, Corbett, Little Rhetoric, 424; Jensen, Schmitz, and Thoma, Modern Composition, 49; and Watt, An American Rhetoric, 55. Note the caution that what is orderly and logical to an ancient author may not be so for a modern reader. This underscores the importance of the modern reader’s entering into “the spirit of the author’s/editor’s times.” 55. Van Wolde, “The Creation of Coherence,” 167. 56. Watt, An American Rhetoric, 55. 57. Hughes and Duhamel, Rhetoric, 20–22. Note that Umberto Cassuto, operating apart from critical methodologies, concluded that such an associational ordering had determined the arrangement of Ezekiel, as well as of most Old Testament literature. Umberto Cassuto, “The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel,” 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

95

prophetic oracles into a book is often understood in terms of associations made in the mind(s) of the redactor, editor, or tradents who assembled the materials. Indicators, such as links of transition and connection (see pp. 85–88), are seen as the evidence of such a process. As these connect part of a work with its other parts, they provide a coherence of internal linkage. When this connecting by association determines the way in which a whole prophetic book has been arranged, it implies a coherence of structural linkage operating in the book’s ¿nal form as a result of the associations in the minds of the collectors. Sixth, we also ¿nd climactic order. Here the section is organized so that it builds up to a climax. This effect arises from placing the least important details ¿rst, and revealing the most important or surprising details only at the end.58 (4) Expected Patterns of Thought. Coupled with the ways in which sections of a literary work can be ordered are the patterns of arrangement or progression in the thought which readers will expect to see and follow.59 Thought may develop from the particular to the general or from the general to the particular. A writer may argue from problem to solution or from opinion to explanation. Cause may be laid out ¿rst as the basis for an effect, or an effect may be stated ¿rst and then explained by its cause. Many start with the familiar and progress to the unfamiliar, or move from less to greater or greater to less. A description of the whole object or situation can precede a discussion of the part(s).60 (original date 1946), 227–40, and “The Sequence and Arrangement of the Biblical Sections” (original date 1947), 1–6, both in Biblical and Oriental Studies. Vol. 1, Bible (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973). 58. Jensen, Schmitz, and Thoma, Modern Composition, 50. 59. Insightful in this regard is Dorsey’s chapter on the relationship between structure and meaning in biblical texts, Dorsey, Literary Structure, 36–41. He traces how structure can convey meaning in three ways—through the overall structure of a discourse, through structured repetition according to parallel and symmetrical arrangements, and through placing elements in positions of prominence, such as in the center, at the climax, or at a turning point. Note in this connection the attempts to diagram linear and branching referential text coherence sequences in Gordon H. Bower and Randolph K. Cirilo, “Cognitive Psychology and Text Processing,” in van Dijk, ed., Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 1, 90–92; as well as the attempt to de¿ne coordinate and subordinate structures for paragraphs in Francis Christensen, “A Generative Rhetoric of the Paragraph,” College Composition and Communication 16 (1965): 46–47. 60. Note, in relation to the patterns of thought, what Nash calls rhetorical design. Nash has enumerated four basic varieties of development and interrelation of the parts. First, Nash noted “the step,” in which each segment is a discrete step in a 1

96

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

(5) Examples. Old Testament examples of books that evidence a coherence grounded in a clear delineation of structure would include Ruth, with its four chapter-scenes that unfold the story in chronological order from the return to Bethlehem (Ruth 1) through gleaning in the ¿eld (ch. 2) and the threshing Àoor incident (ch. 3) to the climactic transaction at the gate and the birth of Obed (ch. 4), or Job, with the successive and alternating dialogues between the different parties present in Job 3–27. The four chapters of Jonah are clearly delineated scenes which tell the story in a chronological progression. This device is used to signal shifts in theme or emphasis and also to bring out new angles on the mercy of God. Scholars have argued for such coherence in various books of the Old Testament. Claus Westermann’s commentary on Isa 40–66 (1966, ATD; 1969, OTL), proposes that Isa 40–55 shows “clear signs of a deliberate orderly arrangement” which derives from Deutero-Isaiah himself. Westermann pointed to ¿ve pieces of evidence for the existence of this coherent arrangement. First, a prologue and an epilogue, interrelated in their content, form a framework in which to set the whole. Second, songs of praise are positioned as conclusions of the various divisions within the book. Third, the Cyrus oracle occurs near the division between the two major sections within chs. 40–55, quite in keeping with its importance. Fourth, each of the two sections of the book opens with a poem that arises from a disputation. Fifth, chs. 54–55 are exceptional in the direction of their focus, which differs from that of the previous sections. The prophet himself produced this deliberate order as “the result of his desire to transmit his message as a balanced whole.”61

procedure. There is thus no great effort made to provide explicit relationships between the sentences. The coherence depends on the reader’s perception of the underlying context of the situation, and ability to see that the piece concerns one event or series of interrelated events. Second, we encounter “the stack.” Here the development goes forward by de¿nition and extension. After announcing the topic, the writer’s thoughts diverge and converge to explain the topic further in different directions. Third, there is “the chain.” This is an exploratory approach, which works and sees ahead no farther than one sentence. Here trust is placed in clues from syntactic or lexical connections. Fourth, Nash pointed to “the balance.” In “the balance,” “the structure is organized around a going back and forth between thesis and antithesis while the writer explores alternate paths.” Nash, Designs in Prose, 9–15. 61. Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 27–30. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

97

Ronald E. Clements proposed a coherence of structural linkage for Isa 1–39 in his commentary (1980, NCB). There are “clear signs of a structure,” resulting from “editorial work that took place relatively late in the history of the book.” The process involved both “a planned and imposed grouping of prophecies according to the subject matter and in part…the way in which the separate prophecies had been collected together and formed into longer sections.”62 Note how the coherence observed may be clearly redactional. To argue for connectedness within an Old Testament prophetic book does not necessarily imply that the proposed coherence results from the work of the prophet himself. Nor does this imply that it could not be, or was not, the product of the work of the Hebrew prophet in his own lifetime. c. Perspective as a Source of Textual Coherence A common perspective which underlies a work may contribute to a sense of connectedness, or coherence. This perspective might consist of a set of shared assumptions held in common, a background situation, or the outlook and views of a single author or editor that are assumed throughout the work. If the ¿rst two indicators giving rise to coherence—internal links and structure—are to be found in the text within itself, this third category describes an interconnectedness sensed in the text as a result of the text’s relation to its real life world. Common assumptions can be present throughout a whole piece and thus serve to connect the parts to each other. A shared presupposition pool, arising from a base of cultural knowledge held in common by the audience, or from the content already introduced in a preceding part of the discourse, often will generate these assumptions so that the author knows what his readership/audience already are aware of and do not need to have spelled out.63 A common situation might be assumed as background to all the different sections of the whole. As Cotterell and Turner point out, although a text may be

62. Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCB; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980), 2, 3, 8. Compare this with the type of arrangement proposed for Isaiah in Childs, Introduction, 325–26, 337; for Jeremiah in William L. Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah 1–20 (Lewisburg, Penn.: Bucknell University Press, 1976), 14–26, and in Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (SBLDS 18; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975); for Amos in James L. Mays, Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 13–14; and for Habakkuk in Paul Humbert, Problèmes du livre d’Habacuc (Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1944), 285–89. 63. Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 79–81. 1

98

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

carefully structured, coherence is also related to a particular historical and sociological context within which communication was carried out.64 The outlook and viewpoints of a single person who wrote or heavily redacted a work might be able to be detected throughout its parts. An origin within a speci¿c group of people who share common assumptions or perspectives (e.g., Jerusalemite priestly circles, schools of the wise), or the derivation of a whole piece in response to a historical crisis (e.g., the invasion of 701 B.C.E., the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E.) or set of circumstances (particularism in the postexilic community) could contribute to the sense of oneness and interconnectedness of the parts. In trying to understand a text being read, a reader will naturally try to build around a text a world which makes sense out of what it says.65 People naturally assume that a text is coherent and the statements are related/ connected. Based on this a reader will seek those common features that link components of a text together.66 A background setting or set of assumptions and presuppositions may provide the links that hold the text together. Although this chapter treats a historical dimension of coherence separately from that which is strictly found in the text, it is worth noting that there are really two arenas in which one could propose seeing perspective that gives rise to connectedness within the components of the text. There is a coherence that would arise from a diachronic perspective, in which the elements in the text are interrelated through a (reconstructed) historical narrative of the development and joining of the component parts to attain the ¿nal form of the book. This diachronic historical perspective seeks to offer insights into the intentions and decisions of redactors or traditionists at several stages in the history of the book’s 64. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistic and Biblical Interpretation, 232. Also compare the comments in Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 37–38 and 44 about underlying context. 65. Note Enkvist’s explanation that to be able to interpret a text it must ¿rst be intelligible, so that the reader can recognize the syntax, sounds, and words, then comprehensible only if the reader can assign semantic meaning to those, and ¿nally interpretable in the case when the reader “can build around that text a scenario, a text world, a set of states of affairs, in which that text makes sense.” Nils Enkvist, “On the Interpretability of Texts in General and of Literary Texts in Particular,” in Literary Pragmatics (ed. Roger Sell; New York: Routledge, 1991), 1–25 (7). It is this interpretability that provides the perspective of an underlying situation throughout that makes sense out of the text. 66. Note the explanation of the assumption of coherence in Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 58–67. Also see below in the discussion of the perceptual dimension of coherence. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

99

growth. A coherence can also more securely be derived from a synchronic underlying perspective that uni¿es all the parts of the ¿nal form on some common shared grounds. In this case, the synchronic perspective provides a unifying explanation based on the thoughts and intentions of the person who put the book into its ¿nal form. This connectedness within the text of the entire book may represent the discernments and intentions of an editor/arranger who stands at the end of the process, as the last stage in a multi-layered process of recon¿guring and reinterpreting the book as in the case of Ben Zvi’s ¿nal stage of literate rereaders of the book in the Persian period. It might also be derived from the intentions of a sole original arranger and author, the prophet Micah himself, as seen in B. Waltke’s reading of the text as entirely derived from the prophet Micah. In seeking a textual coherence arising from a common underlying perspective the exegete does face a unique challenge in interpreting the books of the ancient Hebrew prophets. Andersen and Freedman speculated about the possibility that the speci¿c pointers we need to reconstruct historical backdrop are lacking in the text for the simple reason that when the prophet delivered his oracles his audience hardly needed to be told about their current circumstances: “The prophet could afford to use oblique or ¿gurative language; they knew what he was talking about. We don’t.”67 As a result, the indications of the exact circumstances in which any speci¿c oracle was proclaimed that we so long to discover in the text are often entirely lacking, presumably due to the fact that in many instances these explanations would have been entirely superÀuous to the audience hearing the prophet. It is quite possible that the fewer such indicators are present in the text might indeed reÀect a text that was recorded closer to the time of its original setting, thus obviating the need to specify the setting. As a result we are often left to take hints and implications in the text to reconstruct the backdrop, the “current events” of the ¿rst audience. Coherence of perspective is indicated by the presence of an underlying viewpoint, assumption, or situation throughout a work. Sometimes a background situation will be expressed clearly, as with the locust plague that is behind a good portion of the material in Joel, or with the events surrounding the fall of Nineveh which provide the backdrop to Nahum. In each section Hosea assumes the image of adultery destroying the marriage covenant. In every passage in the book of Lamentations the smoldering ruins of Jerusalem are in the backdrop. In other cases, the 67. Ibid., 23–27. Compare also the analysis of the poetry in the book of Micah in Andersen, “The Poetic Properties.” 1

100

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

underlying situation is reconstructed from less direct hints within the text as to attitudes, viewpoints, or crises. When this is the case, as with Hiller’s view of Micah as the product of a millenarian perspective, the background is necessarily more speculative. In Hiller’s reading of Micah, the viewpoint and aspirations of those who subscribe to the ideology of such a movement have determined the contents included in the book.68 Another example is Wolff’s proposal that Amos was heavily inÀuenced by wisdom.69 The situations are only hinted at in the text without any explicit statement, and a scholar reconstructs what was happening or being thought, as is the case with any proposal of a primarily cultic setting for the book of Micah. Pride of place here belongs to Shaw’s elaborate reconstructions of a series of eighth-century settings for the different discourses in the book of Micah. A coherence of perspective may naturally imply a coherence of theme, as would be the case in Nahum. It need not, however, for one could argue that wisdom language and assumptions underlie the whole book of Proverbs. Yet not all would suggest that the book in its entirety deals with one clearly and tightly expressed central theme. The Gospel of Mark assumes the disciples, and the Pharisees, and the crowds all share certain common perceptions of the world and life as formulated in ¿rst-century Judaism. An example of a scholarly proposal of coherence of perspective for a biblical book would be Paul Humbert’s study of Nahum (1932). Humbert not only traced a coherence of perspective to the fact of the book’s composition in response to the situation surrounding the fall of Nineveh, but went even further in specifying that it was a cultic liturgy to celebrate that event. It was originally used in the (reconstructed!) New Year’s festival of Jerusalem in 612 B.C.E. He saw a logical and climactic ordering of the units, and hence also a coherence of structural linkage, which was related to their use as a liturgy. This background of liturgical use underlies and informs all the parts of the book and gives them coherence. They are all to be interpreted from this perspective.70 d. Theme as a Source of Textual Coherence The ultimate source of coherence is the presence of (a) common meaning(s), or theme (“conceptuality”), which can be found throughout the work. A dominant motif or a sustained plot or argument can integrate 68. Hillers, Micah, 4–8. 69. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 95–98, 100. 70. Paul Humbert, “Le problème du livre du Nahoum,” RHPR 12 (1932): 6. Compare also his initial analysis of these issues in “Essai d’analyse de Nahoum 1:2–2:3,” ZAW 44 (1926): 266–80. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

101

all the parts into a whole. All the parts talk about the same thing. A key theme serves as a center around which all the parts are united and integrated. A work of literature can also be connected together by (a) common theme(s) or meaning(s). All the parts may talk about the same thing. A key theme or themes may serve as a center around which all the parts are united and integrated. The common meaning links the parts to each other. As Plato has Socrates observe in the Phaedrus, a discourse acquires “clearness and consistency” by uniting the parts around one central theme, that is, by “perceiving and bringing together in one idea the scattered particulars.”71 What are the indicators of a coherence of theme? A work may evidence connectedness due to the continuous or recurrent presence of an item or items of content that express meaning. If this occurs only in some parts, it would be an example of similar meanings which link section to section, which would thus provide a coherence of internal linkage. On the other hand, if this item or these items recur throughout, the work shows what I will call a coherence of theme. A dominant motif can be used to integrate all the parts. The development of a plot or an argument can provide such coherence. To ¿nd coherence of theme, then, we look for a principle that creates oneness for a literary text, and then evaluate how the different component parts of the piece are integrated around that principle. Connectedness from a common meaning or theme may be expressed loosely, when all the parts deal with similar content, but do not develop this in a wellordered manner. Such connectedness may also be expressed tightly, when the piece develops and de¿nes the theme in a clear way through structure or plot as one reads progressively through the work. In this latter case, the piece exhibits coherence arising from structure in addition to coherence of theme. Such coherence must also be an item of signi¿cance. Here we are looking for themes or motifs that are closely linked with the thought and message of the whole piece. We search for items that are of importance for illuminating the intentions of the work. Even if such a unifying theme originated with a later editor, it would still serve nicely to inform us of his concerns. Examples of coherence of theme in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament would include the book of Jonah, with its development of a plot centered on the Lord’s compassion for all peoples, developed through the uni¿ed story of the call of Jonah to go to Nineveh and Jonah’s struggle with the 1

71. Plato, Phaedrus 265D (pp. 532–33).

102

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

mercy shown by the Lord to those outside the bounds of God’s chosen people. Habakkuk deals throughout (even in ch. 3) with the place and work of God in a situation where it appears that he is doing nothing at all. Note that it not only has this coherence from a unity of theme, but also a coherence arising from a shared perspective, since the approach of the Babylonians is a background situation which informs the theme, as well as helps to explain the parts and thus also connects them together. The categories of coherence are not exclusive of one another. The book of Ruth could be adduced once more, for it is centered on following the story of these few Judean peasants in the midst of the turbulent era of the Judges. Its coherence from a unity of theme may also be traced in a subtler, but consistent, reinforcement of a theological theme all throughout, which has been described in terms of God’s “hidden provision” for his beleaguered people.72 A clear central focus or theme for a work thus helps the reader follow how all the parts are interrelated, such as Matthew’s interest in Jesus as the ful¿llment of all that the Old Testament anticipated as the Messiah of the Jews. G. A. F. Knight, in his commentary, regarded Deutero-Isaiah as displaying a coherence of theme. The chapters are “a sustained theological treatise in verse.” There is “a logical sequence of thought throughout” (a connectedness from structural linkage which strengthens and tightens the expression of the theme) and “each of the pictures he paints…is necessary for the continued advancement of his argument just at that point where he has placed it.”73 Deutero-Isaiah was a “theological giant,” who conceived his work in terms of a “literary and theological whole.” The different Gattungen which can be isolated are not separate essays from the author, but rather each serves as a means to develop his sustained thesis. The book is “a written unity,” as is evidenced by “the brilliant manner in which his argument advances from point to point.” Chapters 40–55 give “the impression of being carefully produced in the study…its ¿nal form is that of one sustained and uni¿ed thesis.”74 The message is so coherent and self-contained that Knight could summarize its content and progress in three pages at the end of his commentary.75

72. Ronald Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth (Facet Books, Biblical Series 23; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969). 73. George A. F. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah: A Theological Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (New York: Abingdon, 1965), 34. 74. Ibid., 11–12. 75. Ibid., 271–73. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

103

4. The Historical Dimension of Coherence: External Coherence It is internal to the text itself that the reader discerns the evidence for coherence. Yet there is as well an external dimension to take into account in order to understand coherence. This dimension is related to the origins of the text we have, beginning with the author and incorporating the complexities of the book’s development from the author to the ¿nal form. a. Basic Questions To examine the historical dimension of coherence the reader seeks to address two basic lines of questioning. First, what was the intended meaning? Is the coherence that is detected something that the person who put this text into its current form, whether prophet, writer, or editor, would recognize and acknowledge as part of his intended design? Second, at what point in the process of historical development and growth was this coherence intended and thus encoded into the text? This may range from the time of the author over many subsequent years of editorial growth. b. The Historical Process: The Formation of the Final Form of the Book of Micah How would this external aspect of the coherence of the book of Micah be described? There are a number of points along a temporal spectrum that might have served as the origination point for an indicator of coherence observed in the ¿nal form of the book: x

x

x

1

Pre-Mican—Coherence might arise from the contents of the traditions that the eighth-century prophet inherited, or from the customary usages of the literary forms he incorporated in his preaching. Micah—The prophet from eighth-century Judah may be the source of the coherence found in the text in the interest of communicating his message, whether as a result of his oral proclamation or the product of his writing skill, in the event that he was the one who (¿rst?) recorded his oracles. The original audience—Whether we refer to a ¿rst auditory audience hearing the proclamation of the prophet Micah in person, or the ¿rst literary audience reading the text, or as Ben Zvi describes, having it read and reread to them, the person who was the sender of the message (the author) had some idea of

104

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

x

x

x

what the readers knew in order to communicate effectively by building coherence on the assumptions and facts they held in common. A subsequent process of editorial growth—Many, if not most, scholars assume (and reconstruct) an ongoing process of growth at the hands of circles of prophetic disciples or redactors and editors along the way. As certain as the guild is that such a process occurred, the note must be made that we possess virtually no unambiguous evidence about this process at all. There are hints preserved in the text, but these prove to be less helpful or de¿nitive upon examination.76 The ¿nal redactor—The last step in this envisioned process is usually conceived of in terms of an editor who gives the text its ¿nal form through the arrangement and addition of notations that provide connecting links to guide in reading what has become canonized as the ¿nal form of the book. The ¿nal form of the book of Micah—At the end of this process we arrive at the product we have today, the book of Micah in its ¿nal form.

c. The Canonical Process: The Location and Interpretive Use of the Final Form of the Book of Micah Also external to the text with its internal indicators of literary coherence, and going beyond the historical process that resulted in the book as we know it, there is the question of the book in its canonical place in relation to other writings. The ¿nal form as a unit is used by those who sought to hear God’s voice speaking through the oracle of a prophet, whether in an individual manner, or as part of a “listening community.” At some point this textual unit was accepted into a collection of other presumably similar writings (the Twelve; the prophets), which would later be incorporated as a section of the canon of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Apparently different groups of “canonizers” in different times and settings arranged the books in certain patterns and orders, as can readily be seen by comparing the order of the Twelve in the Masoretic text and in the Septuagint. These orderings of the discrete textual units, the books, into a larger 76. Helpful in this regard is Chaney’s crystallizing the main steps of the process into three: (1) oracles for the eighth century, (2) “reformist recomposition for the late Judahite monarchy,” and (3) a message for those in exile or after restoration. These latter two would sum up the stages of growth under what I have labeled “A subsequent process of editorial growth.” 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

105

textual/literary entity, the canon, was eventually accepted as Scripture for the synagogue or the church. Today, observation of the book of Micah, for example, in the context of the canon reveals what seem to be explicit ties with the textual units (books) surrounding, links with other books within the broader canon, and ties with the canon as a whole and the metanarrative of its overarching Àow and story. In light of discussions of intertextuality in literature, one could also argue for seeing links with the broader “canon” of literature. This might take the form of a study of the links with other ancient Near Eastern prophetic writings, or a consideration of the reception history of the book over the centuries. 5. The Perceptual Dimension of Coherence: The Reader’s Coherence One dimension of coherence, the textual, engages the text and seeks to understand the connections which can be discovered internal to the ¿nal form of the book. Another dimension, the historical, must consider the origins of the coherence that scholars can ¿nd, whether from the themes of a prophet’s preaching ministry or in the historical process that led to the book in the form in which we now have it or in the canonical process of the book’s inclusion in an ordered Scripture. To have a complete picture of the nature of coherence, drawing on a communication model for understanding, there is a third dimension to take into account, the perceptual dimension, which describes the way in which a reader perceives coherence. This reader-based dimension of coherence acknowledges that there needs to be a successful interaction between the reader and the text in order to process the meaning. To what extent does the reader grasp the intended meaning and underlying structure? How will the reader’s prior knowledge and expectations help or hinder this apprehension? As the reader processes the meaning of the text, there will be a continuous cycle of interpretation as expectations receive modi¿cation while reading further.77 Note that the “reader” could have several signi¿cations in a discussion such as this, referring ¿rst to the audience in the village gate or city square listening to the prophet Micah preach, then to the ¿rst

77. Johns, “Coherence and Academic Writing,” esp. 250–51. Her presentation of coherence was in the context of teaching English as a second language, so she only noted two aspects to teaching coherence, text-based and reader-based. No historical dimension is necessary in the classroom context since the students who produce the writing are immediately present and accessible for interview about their intentions. 1

106

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

audience intended to read/hear the written form of the text, through the literate rereaders of the text later in the history of Judaism, and on to the many subsequent generations and locations of different readers who engage the text up to the present moment. It is the “reader” who perceives coherence in the text. The default assumption in reading a text is that it will make sense, and it is natural to look for those connections that cause the text to hang together. The reader expects to ¿nd regularity in any discourse. The “normal expectation is that the discourse will be coherent.” People “naturally assume coherence, and interpret the text in the light of that assumption.” Brown and Yule describe how the principle of analogy, or relevant similar past experience, coupled with the principle of local interpretation, which instructs the hearer/reader not to construct a context any larger than is needed to arrive at an interpretation, combine to “impel hearers/readers to try to interpret sequential utterances as relating to the same topic.” There is “a powerful expectation in human beings that what is said or written will make sense in the context in which it appears.” Humans make a “natural effort” towards attributing “relevance and coherence to the text they encounter until they are forced not to.”78 The reader will as a matter of course seek to make sense out of a text by ¿nding the internal connecting links. In considering the perceptual dimension of coherence, the work of Erin Runions on the book of Micah serves to issue a caution. She considered those scholars who have read Micah seeking coherence, then carried out a sustained examination of dif¿culties and ambiguities in the text of the book, especially “the shifting forms of address” and the challenges in identifying the participants and genders. Rather than trying to come to the text in order to solve its problems, resulting in a “uni¿ed reading,” i.e. ¿nding coherence, she chose to examine the text as it is “with all its fascinating nuances and ¿ssures.” Her desire was to avoid homogenizing texts in a way that erased differences to be found within. “I would rather not presume the text to be unitary, knowable and ‘¿xable’ with the ‘right interpretive key’.”79 This serves to point out the dif¿culties inherent in a text that at times leaves the modern reader with unresolved ambiguities and points out the role played by the reader in perceiving meaning. The case Runions makes serves as a reminder of the pitfalls inherent in seeking and seeing coherence in a text. On balance,

78. Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 58–67. 79. Runions, Changing Subjects, 20–23 on studies of coherence, and 250–55 for a summary of results.

1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

107

though, an exegete will recall that in spite of the distance separating us from the texts in their original expression, each of these stages of development, and even the ¿nal form collection of the book as a whole, were the product of a set of circumstances wherein they made sense in all likelihood as a unit to the persons speaking, reading, rereading, compiling, or studying them. This makes the pursuit of an understanding of coherence in the textual, and through that in the historical, dimensions a worthwhile goal for which to strive. 6. Studies of Coherence in the Varied Genres of the Hebrew Bible Although this study is focused on the coherence to be found in the Hebrew prophetic books, it is important to note that in the appropriation of many more recent literary methodologies for study of the text there is much signi¿cant work being done on the concept of coherence in the books of the canon. The following represents only a very small selected sample of such works, and is intended to give some sense for the breadth of inquiry into coherence and also the urgency for arriving at some common understandings of what coherence is and how one should analyze it. Work on narrative coherence begins with analyses of texts from the Pentateuch. Gordon Wenham’s study of the Genesis Flood Narrative sought to trace elements of connection within a text often viewed as a composite narrative. Wenham diagrammed the palistrophic (or chiastic symmetrical) structure of the whole narrative as it now stands, gave an explanation for the possible motivations to record the chronology in the way we ¿nd it so that we resist imposing our expectations on an ancient author, and enumerated the parallels with the Gilgamesh Àood story. Thus he traced a comprehensive coherence in the text itself, derived from structure, perspective, and an understanding of ancient narrative technique.80 On a much broader scale David Clines presented a reading of the entire Pentateuch as an exposition of one central theme. He followed the textual indicators that guide reading the text, in particular the extensive repetitions and expansions of the promise that begins in Gen 1:26–28 and is explicitly vouched to Abram in 12:1–3. This promise is restated numerous times and provides the thematic material for the narrative of Genesis through Deuteronomy. By following the story as it unfolds, 80. Gordon Wenham, “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative,” VT 28 (1978): 336–48. 1

108

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Clines argued that the theme of the Pentateuch is the partial ful¿llment (and thus also the partial non-ful¿llment) of the promise to the patriarchs. The promise af¿rms God’s primal intentions for people and is God’s initiative in the face of our disastrous choices. There are three elements that comprise the promise: posterity, divine–human relationship, and land. Each one of these elements is emphasized at different points in the storyline of the Pentateuch. The concern with posterity dominates Genesis 12–50, the relationship of God and his people is prominent in Exodus and Leviticus, while the issue of the land moves to the fore in Numbers and Deuteronomy.81 Examples of the search for coherence in the historical books are plentiful. For example, many of the narratives of the prophet Elisha in 1 Kgs 2–8 have been thought to have few interconnections with contiguous narratives or the broader context. However, P. Satterthwaite argued that the entirety of the narrative is held together by a common outlook or perspective that seeks to depict Elisha as a second Joshua.82 Firth delineated 1 Sam 27–2 Sam 1 as a section by showing the literary boundaries, then argued that it is “a highly polished piece of literature with developed literary features.” He traced the internal links and repetitions within the unit, along with a structure and common theme. All of this clari¿es the ties which this section contains with the rest of the book of Samuel.83 Work on the coherence found in the Psalms has drawn not only on that which is internal to an individual Psalm as a unit, but also traced connections across the boundaries between Psalms in their canonical arrangement. Viviers studied the collection of the Psalms of Ascent (120–134) and uncovered a coherence external to the individual psalms that runs all through the canonical collection we have. To begin, each psalm is unique in and of itself and all but one are very short. Throughout the collection the indicators of coherence include internal links, such as vocabulary, repetitions, syntax, and ¿gures of speech; a structure (a non-rigid chiasmus) that arranges the psalms ¿rst into smaller groupings which then play a part within the Àow of the whole collection; and a 81. David Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (2d ed.; JSOTSup 10; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1997). Note too his Afterword on pp. 127–41 where he reÀects on the project from the later vantage point of the inÀuence of postmodernism in Biblical Studies. 82. Philip Satterthwaite, “The Elisha Narratives and the Coherence of 2 Kings 2–8,” TynBul 49 (1998): 1–28. 83. David Firth, “The Accession Narrative (1 Samuel 27–2 Samuel 1),” TynBul 58 (2007): 61–81. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

109

common theme, that God is a mighty Creator and Savior and thus people need to trust him fully, along with the Àow of that theme as it is developed in reading through the collection.84 Hayes considered the unity of Pss 113–118, the Egyptian Hallel. Here she traced a meaningful thematic Àow, with peaking or prominence in the explication of the theme through the collection.85 There has been a thread of studies in scholarship on Israel’s wisdom movement that has sought to ¿nd coherence in the collections in the book of Proverbs. This is especially challenging due to the apparently random manner in which the individual small proverbs have been arranged. During the 1990s, Whybray pondered issues of coherence in the collections,86 while Goldingay examined clusters of similar sayings in Prov 10–15.87 Stuart Weeks, in Early Israelite Wisdom, offers a study of “Context in the Sayings Collections” as his second chapter. He carried out a detailed “nearest neighbor analysis” of the sayings in Prov 10:1– 22:16 and in chs. 25–29 to follow the thematic and verbal links, as well as sayings connected by the use of certain letters in common. The distribution of these internal links points out two subcollections within each of these larger collections. He also looks for larger structures and common themes.88 There certainly have been other studies on the coherence of the prophetic books, whether or not they were explicit in de¿ning the nature of coherence and how one ¿nds it. A few examples will have to suf¿ce. In examining the preaching of Hosea, Martin Buss gave thought to the relation between the positive forms of Israelite prophecy (i.e., promise) and the words of threat. How can positive statements be related to 84. Hendrik Viviers, “The Coherence of the ma‘alôt Psalms,” ZAW 106 (1994): 275–89. 85. Elizabeth Hayes, “The Unity of the Egyptian Hallel: Psalms 113–18,” BBR 9 (1999): 145–56. 86. R. N. Whybray, “Thoughts on the Composition of Proverbs 10–29,” in Priests, Prophets and Scribe: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; JSOTSup 149; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1992), 102–14. 87. John Goldingay, “The Arrangement of Sayings in Proverbs 10–15,” JSOT 61 (1994): 75–83. 88. Stuart Weeks, Early Israelite Wisdom (OTM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 20–40. More recent work analyzing the coherence of the proverbs collected in the canon can be found in Knut Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1–22:16 (BZAW 273; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001) and Seenam Kim, The Coherence of the Collections in the Book of Proverbs (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2007). 1

110

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

negative ones within the same person’s message? He suggests that the “two seemingly opposing aspects could be combined,” particularly through the insight that punishment serves to chasten God’s people, “it leads the nation back to its lord.” Downfall is a divine judgment, but the presence of promise assures that God desires to open the door to a possible new beginning. The two sides of the coin are not separate, but are intimately intertwined. “The promises serve to underline the inescapability of the threats, while the threats lead on to a new situation.”89 Snyman’s study of Obadiah began with the idea that the book is a proven literary disunity, but that there is evidence on the sentence level, in structure, and in tracing overall themes that the book has cohesion (which is used synonymously here for coherence).90 Through tracing the use of a theme in common to each part of the book of Nahum, Becking argued that the book evidences a clear conceptual coherence. The two sections (Nah 1:2–8 and 1:9–3:17) although of different character and tone, share a common ideology derived from an understanding of God’s wrath protecting his own people within the context of the covenant.91 Ben Zvi offered a comprehensive in-depth examination of the book of Obadiah, which acknowledged that it comes to us as a marked unit, with a clear beginning and for a certain audience and use (reading and rereading). He sought the use of similar expressions and related ideas that make the book “an integrated and distinctive work.” The networks of similar expressions point us to related ideas within the work and provide the grounding for a communal key for interpreting the text, that it should be read as a separate whole.92 The book of Jeremiah contains both the promise of a new exodus for those who were exiles in Babylon (chs. 30– 33) and describes the experience of the Jerusalem remnant after the fall as a reversal of the exodus (40–43). Yates studied the way in which this juxtaposition served to offer the Babylonian exilic community both the promise that they would receive the blessings of restoration and a warning of the consequences of continued disobedience to Yahweh. What

89. Martin Buss, The Prophetic Word of Hosea: A Morphological Study (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1969), 126–29. 90. S. D. Snyman, “Cohesion in the Book of Obadiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 59–71. He seems to undermine his starting point of disunity by the evidence adduced. Rather than a proven disunity it might be more accurate that he has shown that it is challenging to describe the overall structure. 91. Bob Becking, “Divine Wrath and the Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Nahum,” SJOT 9 (1995): 277–96. 92. Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (BZAW 242; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996). 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

111

appear to be contradictory elements—new exodus and no exodus—in reality ¿t together to address the spiritual conditions and needs of the audience in Babylon.93 A fascinating pair of studies on Amos 3 provides paradigms for ¿nding evidence for and indicators of coherence in a sustained prophetic text. Gitay’s rhetorical analysis of Amos’ speech in 3:1–15 sought to demonstrate the communicative intentions of the passage, accounting for the three dimensions of the discourse—the speaker or writer, the work, and its audience. Gitay ¿rst delineated the rhetorical unit and its components, before considering the rhetorical situation and means of persuasion used. He elucidated the structured arrangement of the materials and explored the impact this would have on the listeners. He then gave careful consideration to the style employed. The conclusion was that the chapter is a carefully constructed discourse, meant to be read as a whole and not simply made up of disparate oracular tidbits, seeking to appeal and convince the listeners.94 Almost two decades later, Tim Bulkeley carried out an analysis of the same text to discover its coherence, in the sense of the rhetorical relations between textual units. Rather than focusing on the level of line and verse in the individual speech unit, he elected to combine a concern for rhetorical purpose with examining the text’s linguistic cohesion in order to consider the rhetorical impact of the entire chapter. In exploring the linguistic cohesion and rhetorical coherence of Amos 3, he drew connections between the chapter’s cohesion and its rhetorical purpose. He speci¿ed the formal features of each unit (vv. 1–2, 3–8, 9–15), detailed the lexical features of the chapter, and considered the impact of repetition. The parts are thematically linked, but in a way such that the expression of each of the parts ¿ts well with the concern of the whole. The expression and forms were chosen and adapted to suit the message that God had spoken, and that message is itself a judgment and a warning of approaching punishment. All the component parts of Amos 3 serve a common rhetorical purpose. The linguistic features promote cohesion and hence the coherence of the parts.95 On a broader scope, note might be made of two helpful studies in relation to specialized questions about the coherence of the prophetic 93. Gary Yates, “New Exodus and No Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45: Promise and Warning to the Exiles in Babylon,” TynBul 57 (2006): 1–22. 94. Yehoshua Gitay, “A Study of Amos’s Art of Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1–15,” CBQ 42 (1980): 293–309. 95. Tim Bulkeley, “Cohesion, Rhetorical Purpose and the Poetics of Coherence in Amos 3,” Australian Biblical Review 47 (1999): 16–28. 1

112

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

books. Brevard Childs followed the way in which the canon process took oracles, the original prophetic pieces, addressed to one generation, and fashioned them into Scripture which could be used by another later generation. As this process joined together disparate pieces, it created or suggested connections between them, which we now can discover in the text.96 To address concerns with ¿nding evidence for coherence within the Book of the Twelve as a whole, Richard Schultz explained the nature of intertextuality as it works in the prophetic books. He contends that links involving verbal parallels that are internal to any one of the books function in ways that are quite different from verbal links external to a book, for instance, between Hosea and Micah. Within a book verbal repetitions function as a type of self-quotation, a literary echo along with other forms of repetition (refrains, images, themes) which serve to unify the book. Schultz conducted this study in order to discover whether the Book of the Twelve is suf¿ciently coherent in and of itself that the intertextual relationships which functioned originally as external links between the books might now function internally within a more recent unity created through combining the separate books. His conclusion calls for the exegete to pay closer attention to fewer but clearer verbal parallels, where the likelihood of intent is higher.97 7. The Nature of Coherence On the recognition of the three dimensions of coherence and the presentation of a four-fold classi¿cation of sources for textual coherence, it is appropriate to make a few remarks about the nature of coherence in general. First, it is important to distinguish the three dimensions of coherence. Second, coherence occurs on different levels. Third, coherence is relative in various ways. This latter can serve as a caution in the quest for coherence in literature. First, there are three dimensions to be taken into account when discussing a text’s literary coherence. These three dimensions—textual, historical, and perceptual—are of course based on and can be correlated with the three basic components of the communication model. In the middle is the message, which in this case is the text, representing what 96. Brevard Childs, “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” in “The Place Is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (ed. R. Gordon; SBTS 5; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 513–22. 97. Richard Schultz, “The Ties That Bind: Intertextuality, the Identi¿cation of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve,” in Redditt and Schart, eds., Thematic Threads, 27–45. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

113

was in all likelihood an originally oral communication from a prophet. Here in the text we ¿nd the hard data, the evidence for and indicators of connectedness. Someone produced the text at some point in history— otherwise we wouldn’t have it! This realization turns our attention to the sender of the message, whether thought of in terms of the prophet from the eighth century, or later disciples recording his oracles in written form, or later redactors editing materials received from the past. Whether from author or editor, or maybe at several points along the path to the ¿nal form of the book, textual features that provide coherence were incorporated into the text. An author or redactor inscribed these features into the text. This raises the issue of intention and of a historical setting or settings for the creation and early use of the materials. The historical dimension can also extend beyond the creation of the ¿nal form to consider the canonical status of the book in its intertextuality, its use and reception. Then, ¿nally, there is the reader-based aspect of coherence. For a text to work successfully as a piece of communication, the audience needs to be able to understand the intended meaning and follow the underlying thought patterns and structures. Second, coherence can be found on different levels. Within a sentence, it is necessary that a reader be able to perceive the structure and relationship of the “syntactic constituents.” Writing two successive sentences creates a semantic gap which may imply more than one meaning. Hence, an author frequently attempts to show the connections between sentences so as to ¿ll the gap and ensure that the intended Àow of meaning is evident. Similarly, authors or editors may try to bridge the gaps which occur between paragraphs (or strophes) and between major sections of a work, so that the meaning will Àow easily for the reader. Further, the furnishing of indications of structure for the whole text lets the reader grasp the interconnection and relationship of passages which may even be distant from each other in their location in the work. Cotterell and Turner lay out a hierarchy of units of meaning, from the proposition, to the sentence, sentence clusters, paragraphs, and sections of a chapter. On each level the student of the text ¿nds an internal coherence and the observance of the law of principality, that one idea is marked as more prominent so that its relation to the rest of the concepts gives coherence to the discourse unit.98 98. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistic and Biblical Interpretation, 193–96, describe the ways in which units of meaning of different sizes all may evidence coherence. They provide a detailed analysis of the meaning relations which are possible between pairs of sentences or propositions (pp. 205–17), as well as the semantic structure analysis of longer discourses (pp. 221–26). Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 1

114

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Third, it is important to keep in mind that coherence is a relative term. Doubtless, it is impossible to have a work that exempli¿es perfect coherence. We are really discussing degrees of coherence. Literature may be more or less coherent, in comparison with other pieces, but translating this into a numerically quanti¿able score (e.g., “Micah scores 78 out of 100 for coherence!”) is not possible. Coherence can only be evaluated in relative terms because of two polar aspects of the literary process—how it was written and how it was read. Both author/editor and reader are involved in the evaluation of coherence. The amount of coherence provided for a piece is relative to the way it was written, due both to the author and to the standards for coherence of his ancient milieu. The degree of coherence may also be relative to the particular genre in which the author chooses to write, and the choice of forms to employ. The very choice of writing in the genre of prophetic book may bring with it expectations of how the coherence of that genre should look.99 Thus, a further direction to address from this study might be an evaluation of the different levels and kinds of coherence found in varying genres. Coherence is contingent upon the author or editor. Different individuals may differ in their capacity to provide coherence in a work. Undoubtedly, no author or editor has ever succeeded in so clearly specifying every connection within a piece that it could be regarded as exemplifying perfect, or ideal, coherence, with all the Àow between and interrelations of the parts evident to the reader.100 Some may not have had the skill to provide these links, while others may not have wanted to tie a work together so tightly. Personality and temperament also played a role. Some, no doubt, thought in highly organized terms, while others were less compelled by their nature to connect together the parts. Both literaryrhetorical skill and personality may lead to successful representation of coherence in the composition of a text. demonstrates that there are differing levels of coherence on both micro-structural and macro-structural levels; see pp. 193–94 for a summary. Similarly Hagstrom, Coherence, 42, observes that “coherence functions on a variety of levels and encompasses a plethora of different phenomena. Moreover, the means of expressing coherence varies from level to level,” e.g. coherence is expressed in differing ways on the level of a sentence in comparison to the expressions on the level of an extended discourse. Compare Nash, Designs in Prose, 18. 99. See MacDonald, “Discourse Analysis,” 163–65, and Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 67. 100. Recall the dictum that the more skilled the communicator, the more carefully structured the text. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistic and Biblical Interpretation, 231. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

115

Any discussion of coherence must also account for what makes a work coherent. The standards for this will differ between cultures, ages, and genres. How much coherence must a particular text have? If texts of a certain genre were expected to have a low degree of coherence, there will still be comparatively greater or lesser degrees present in the different examples of that genre. Thus, a certain piece might be much more coherent than most others of the same genre and at the same time be less coherent than other works of different genres. My interest is especially in the coherence shown by an Old Testament prophetic book, Micah. One goal of such a study of coherence is to increase our understanding of standards for coherence that were meaningful to ancient minds.101 We need sensitivity to discern what degree and kinds of coherence to expect in a book of this genre from another culture and era. As Alter points out, we may fail to grasp “what would have been perceived as a real contradiction by an intelligent Hebrew writer of the early Iron Age,” with the result that apparent conÀicts between accounts may not actually have raised concerns for their ¿rst audiences, whose expectations of coherence were de¿ned by and “justi¿ed in a kind of logic we no longer apprehend.” Indeed, the biblical writers and editors “had certain notions of unity rather different from our own,” so that in a desire to include full statements of events they may have violated “what a later age and culture would be disposed to think of as canons of unity and logical coherence.”102 According to Andersen, It is an anachronism to impose on biblical texts and other reports of visions the criteria we now apply to writings intended to be scienti¿c or didactic—clear and distinct ideas, logically ordered…[or in the expectation that ancient writers will follow all the rules of grammar so that] it is our (sacred) duty to undo their bad work… [O]ne wonders if the fault lies in us modern readers, not in ancient authors or scribes. Imposing our standards of correctness in either grammar or literary form, we might have obliterated precious evidence of deviant linguistic use or of deliberate literary arti¿ce.103

101. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985), 179, points out that biblical narrative “follows its own code.” 102. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 20, 132. 103. Francis Andersen, “Linguistic Coherence in Prophetic Discourse,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See (FS David Noel Freedman; ed. A. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 137–56 (146–47). This, of course, is in the discussion of the idea that examples of incoherence found in oracles of the prophets, notably in Mic 1, may actually be a successful attempt to render the incoherent speech of people 1

116

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

To develop a feel for the answer to this question in relation to Micah will no doubt be an aid to help us evaluate coherence in other Hebrew prophetic works more fairly, and to draw comparisons with other works in the Hebrew Bible. Second, the degree of coherence one perceives while reading an ancient text is relative on the modern end as well, due to certain subjective elements operative in the reader, to the readability of the text, and to the degree of context understood. Coherence is relative due to the subjective element involved. Thinking in terms of the perceptual dimension of coherence, it is known that judgments as to a work’s coherence are ultimately bound by the reader. In seeking the historical meaning of a text one person may perceive more or less coherence in a text than another. There is always the danger that the reader may see too much (or too little), that our creative and fertile minds will import and impose meanings alien to the text. In our exegesis we must beware of seeing unintended juxtapositions or arrangements as intentional and thereby understanding more than the author or editor meant. We need to seek the original intention of the author and redactor(s) rather than to read the text anew through modern “¿lters.” The various details of a piece have different degrees of relevance to the central focus. Some details may be more essential than others.104 The coherence sensed in a work is relative to the readability of the text. Connectedness will seem greater, the more simply and directly the message is expressed. The fewer new ideas and relationships between concepts that are introduced, the more easily discerned will be the connections between the parts of a text. The more that concepts are continued and repeated throughout a piece, the more readable it will be. A text that is harder to read will seem less coherent. That is, the connecting features will be harder to spot if new words and concepts are continually introduced, the syntactical structure is complicated, and there is little repetition or referring back to earlier concepts (i.e., anaphoric references).105 with a fresh revelation or experience of God. Also Freedman, “Discourse on Prophetic Discourse,” who explained the dif¿culties of the text of Mic 1 in terms of a scribe taking a transcript of what he heard. 104. Catherine Lord developed the comparison of literature with a living organism and pointed out that all parts of an organism and of a piece of literature are not of equal importance. Essence and accident combine both in the composition of organisms and of literature. Lord, “Organic Unity Reconsidered,” 264–66, 268. 105. On this see Hirsch, The Philosophy of Composition, for a rede¿nition of aspects of traditional rhetoric and composition (including coherence) in terms of readability. His theory is based, at least in part, on the cognitive psychological 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

117

In an Old Testament prophetic book, a lower degree of readability will cause the contemporary reader to sense less of a coherence as one moves through the work. Indeed, collections of prophetic oracles were intended for repeated reading and study, so all of the connections were not ¿lled in as fully as we might now like.106 The reader’s instant perception was not necessarily the intended goal of those who collected the oracles, nor does it constitute coherence in and of itself. What redaction, especially the ¿nal editing, does effect, however, is the reader’s sense that the work is more or less connected. It is less an issue of coherence from the ancient point of view, than it is an issue of the relative nature of coherence from the contemporary vantage point of the reader. The question of coherence is relative, also, because of its dependence on the context furnished. To a contemporary of a speaker, who sees, or at least has a natural perception of it, the context can be assumed to be understood.107 Words that seem disjointed and lacking in inner connections may have made quite good sense to one who shared the same setting, era, and culture as did the speaker, author, or editor. Needs commonly felt by ancients in a speci¿c situation may have served to tie together what now appear to be disparate elements. The degree of seeming chaos—being “without form and void”—of the prophetic literature, was probably much less the case for the ancients than for us. In a written text, the writer supplies the context verbally. However, if the prophet, editor, or redactor directed his words at those sharing a common situation with him, he may not have sensed the need to provide those verbal clues to context which we would need now.108 Some of this will always remain inaccessible to us, obscured by our distance over the centuries. In addition, the appearance of coherence may be lessened for us if some of research contained in Walter Kintsch, “Notes on the Structure of Semantic Memory,” in Organization of Memory (ed. Endel Tulving and Wayne Donaldson; New York: Academic, 1972), 247–308; Walter Kintsch and Janice Keenan, “Reading Rate and Retention as a Function of the Number of Propositions in the Base Structure of Sentences,” Cognitive Psychology 5 (1973): 257–74; and W. Kintsch et al., “Comprehension and Recall of a Text as a Function of Content Variables,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior 14 (1975): 196–214. 106. Recall the understanding of the use of the prophetic books in rereading proposed in Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 9–11. 107. Cf. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistic and Biblical Interpretation, 90–97, concerning common shared presuppositions. 108. In telling a story to a later audience, the narrator necessarily ¿lls in the gaps, since the listener who is not at the “scene of the (original) action” needs to have the mental picture that represents the backdrop of the story. 1

118

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

the oracles are more in the nature of summaries or edited versions than verbatim records, as these would not necessarily make the connections between the parts explicit. Therefore, we should keep in mind that what we are seeking, when we evaluate the connectedness of a work, is a relative matter, contingent upon and varied by at least these factors just mentioned. It is not a question of absolutes, in which a work has full coherence or none at all. As we look at the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, we may well sense that the different books display a whole spectrum of degrees of coherence. 8. Combinations of Types of Coherence As has been noted above, the types of coherence in the textual dimension are not mutually exclusive. They can be present in varying combinations in each individual piece. None by itself represents an ideal sort of coherence. Were there an ideal coherence, it would be that in which all types were present. The more kinds in a work, the more coherent it will be. Accumulation of types of coherence reinforces the connectedness of the work and makes it more evident to the reader.109 The order of my presentation of the types of coherence is signi¿cant. The most important type of coherence in the textual dimension is the last, coherence of theme. A piece of literature was written to communicate something. Our goal in interpretation is to discover what that message is. Works with coherence from theme show a connectedness between the parts and throughout the whole that is directly related to what the intended message is. Literature may have a coherence of internal linkage without clearly communicating a main theme or themes. Coherence of order may serve to organize the sections to communicate a central motif, but it may also serve to group together pieces of disparate material 109. Note, in this connection, James Muilenburg, “The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66,” IB 5:385–773, esp. pp. 385–93. Muilenburg proposed that there were several different kinds of coherence present in Isa 40–66. Multiple major themes continue from start to ¿nish. There is also coherence of internal linkage as style and forms recur throughout; as continued motifs provide links to extend meaning; and as similar structures of the poems contribute to the Àow from part to part. A coherence derived from structure is also found in that the parts were arranged in a climactic order. The explanation of the presence of some of these literary features was seen in the background provided by the ancient Near Eastern literary revolution of that time. This constitutes a coherence of perspective. Muilenburg thus devoted much effort to showing how the argument Àowed and developed. This thematic coherence was reinforced by showing the presence of the other sources of coherence, based on internal links, structure, and common underlying perspective. 1

3. Coherence in Works of Literature

119

without channeling them toward a main or interrelated focus. Coherence of perspective could conceivably help in interpreting the separate parts of a work, which all share some common underlying situation, viewpoint, or set of assumptions, without implying that they all had a common thrust in their message. Of the individual types, then, the fullest and most signi¿cant is coherence of theme. It is directly related to the purpose of writing a work, for it is the clear expression of an intended message. This connectedness of theme will be further strengthened the more the other types of coherence are present. Certain literary critics discuss “organic unity.” In the Phaedrus, Socrates develops the analogy of a literary work as a whole, consisting of distinct parts bound together, paralleled with the joining of members in a living creature. “Every discourse must be organized, like a living being, with a body of its own, as it were, so as not to be headless or footless, but to have a middle and members composed in ¿tting relation to each other and to the whole.”110 This concept of a work being a whole, with all its parts joined to one another, seems to approximate what I have been referring to as the ideal kind of coherence. In this, all the types of coherence combine to reinforce the theme or message of the piece. The presence of a coherence of theme, strengthened by coherence derived from internal linkage, structure, and perspective, clari¿es the connections between the parts and how the parts relate to the whole, just as the connections between the limbs of an organism are evident. 9. Summary Coherence refers to the connectedness of a work. There are three dimensions in which to study coherence: textual, historical, and perceptual. The text itself communicates in a way that will be either coherent or not, based on the indicators of coherence inscribed in the text (the textual dimension of coherence). An author, an editor, or an arranger inscribed that coherence in the text at some point or points passing through the historical continuum of the centuries (the historical dimension). Then and today, a reader picks up the text and needs to be able to process well what it is saying in order to make sense of the text and understand (the perceptual dimension of coherence). 110. Plato, Phaedrus 264C (pp. 528–29). Aristotle picked up this concept again when he talked of the parts of “a living creature or any organism composed of parts,” Poetics VII:8 (pp. 30–31); as did Horace in his insistence that a work of literature should represent a whole ¿gure and thus produce a satisfying total result, Art of Poetry, lines 32–37 (pp. 452–53). 1

120

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

There are four sources which give a text coherence: internal links, structure, perspective, and theme. First, there is coherence arising from internal linkage, which can occur in two ways. Similar literary features, such as literary forms or genres, or uses of verbal forms and pronouns, can occur in different parts of the work, thus serving to connect the parts to each other. In addition, parts may be connected with other parts through the use of transitional and connecting links. Recurring vocabulary, similar topics, and similar structures may occur in separate sections, thus linking those sections to one another. Second, there is the coherence provided by the structure of the piece of literature. Here the order and arrangement connect the parts and indicate the way each part is to be construed. For our purposes in considering the book of Micah, we are interested here in structures which encompass the whole of a book. Third, there is coherence derived from perspective. Common assumptions, viewpoints and attitudes, or background situations occur all through and serve to interconnect the parts. The perspective underlying the whole serves as an aid for interpreting each part. Fourth, there is coherence that is given and reinforced by a theme. Common meaning or meanings link the parts together. All the parts talk about the same thing, which thus serves as a “center” for the whole. These types are not exclusive of one another. Nor does the presence of one necessarily imply the presence of certain ones of the others. None of these by itself represents an ideal type of coherence. However, they may be present in any combination, in which case the multiple types serve to strengthen and reinforce the overall degree of coherence which is evident in a work. Coherence occurs on different levels (sentence, paragraph, section, whole book) and is a relative matter, in that a work is or seems to be more or less coherent than others. The ultimate type of coherence is a clear coherence of theme, which is reinforced by coherences drawn from internal linkage, structure, and perspective. The presence of all types makes very clear the nature of the connectedness of the whole. This classi¿cation of types of coherence will be used to discuss proposals for reading the book of Micah. The hope thereby is to be able to understand what types of coherence scholars have seen and why they have read the book in the way that they do, with a special interest in seeing how close these proposals have come to suggesting an ideal coherence for the book of Micah.

1

Chapter 4

AN EVALUATION OF THE COHERENCE FOUND IN THE BOOK OF MICAH

1. Introduction What is it that makes the ¿nal form of the book of Micah connected? What types of coherence have scholars using various methodologies posited for the text of the book of Micah? On what have they based their conclusions? In this chapter, I will analyze the types of coherence found in the book of Micah by selected signi¿cant scholarly studies, and evaluate the arguments used to support these coherences. First, to consider the types and sources of coherence found by scholars, I will apply the criteria for the sources of coherence and their indicators (explained in Chapter 3) to classify the arguments for the connectedness of the book’s present shape which have been put forward by scholars (as was outlined in Chapters 1 and 2). What types of coherence have been seen? How have they quali¿ed their arguments for connections in the book? From where do the links come and at what point in the book’s growth did they arise? Most see the development of the book as a process. In many scholars’ opinions there is a point in a process of historical development at which whatever coherence is seen in the ¿nal form does emerge, rather than deriving from an arrangement of ipsissima verba by the prophet Micah himself. Thus, there are a number of points along the path of historical development at which an editor, school, or author might have rendered the text coherent. A connectedness may have been put into the text not only by a prophet and his immediate circle, but also by later disciples or tradents. It may be present as the result of forces or circumstances which led to the use and growth of the collection, or to the formation of the book as we now have it, or to its interrelations with other parts of the developing canon. My ¿rst goal is to classify these arguments for the book of Micah, to see patterns which emerge as to how scholars have perceived coherence, and to seek explanations for these patterns.

122

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Second, what are the arguments used to support these coherences? How solid is the foundation on which these contentions have been based? Does it seem to be in line with the text of the book of Micah? Before embarking on this stage of the project, a de¿nition and limiting of the sources is in order. I will set aside studies which only address the coherence of a portion of the whole book or argue only brieÀy for the coherence of Micah and do not clearly lay out the reasons for the connectedness seen or answer objections that might be raised to the proposals. For example, Gunkel (1924) argued for connectedness in Mic 7:7–20. He argued that, in a section seen by some to be disparate, there is a way of viewing the text as coherent. Formulating a different set of questions allowed Gunkel to ¿nd coherence. This does at least raise the question as to whether the same results might come if the questions were applied to the whole, but Gunkel never did carry that through for the entire book. On this basis, I will not deal in depth here with the works by Kapelrud (1961), Renaud (1964), Reicke (1967), van der Woude (1969, 1973), Freedman (1983), Jeremias (2003), and Ballard (2012), which con¿ne their analysis to only a portion of the book. 2. Categorizing the Sources of the Textual Coherence Seen in the Book of Micah Let us turn, then, to the evaluation of the scholarly proposals for coherence in the ¿nal form of the book of Micah. Note two cautions at the start. First, though a scholar may have emphasized a particular type of coherence, this does not rule out his/her having seen some of the other kinds as well. Second, I am dealing here primarily with the most workedout proposals. This does not imply that others, who presented their arguments in less detail, did not see similar connections in the text. A number of other scholars did, and I will mention selected ones in passing, while concentrating on major recent studies. We also need to bear in mind that some scholars have seen no coherence at all in the text. J. Wellhausen (1878, in Bleek’s Einleitung), for example, separated sections of the book from other parts in his suggestions as to dates of origin.1 Due to the trends of the day, however, his concern was with discovering secondary, as opposed to genuine, material so that he could reconstruct the history of development of Israel’s religion. Quite naturally, he did not explore all the possibilities as to how the sections had been joined to each other in the book’s present form. My

1

1. Wellhausen, in Bleek, Einleitung, 425–26.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

123

interest, however, is in those scholars who see the text as connected. I will organize my analysis according to the types, sources, and dimensions of coherence outlined in Chapter 3. a. Textual Coherence from Internal Linkage A number of studies have noticed recurrent literary features throughout the sections of Micah, and found links of transition and connection between the parts. (1) Examples. A. Weiser (1950) and E. Nielsen (1954) both observed that the strong contrast between Mic 3:12 and 4:1–5 serves to hold the two oracles together,2 a linkage accomplished by dissimilar meaning. A. S. van der Woude (1971) saw a connection between chs. 1–5 and 6–7 in that both parts contained prophecy against Samaria, in accord with his exegesis of the text and his proposals for the background of 6–7.3 This connecting link is therefore based on similarity of meaning. B. Renaud (1977) argued that “mountain” (:!, ™ 3:12; 4:1) and “hear” (K3/— f, š 5:14; K3/’ f, – 6:1) serve as catchwords that join individual sections by repeating the same word (resumption of meaning). Also, the use of the verb “hear” š functions as an inclusio,4 a rhetorical in 1:2 (K3/’ f– ) and 5:14 (K3/— f) structure that serves to delineate a section. A rather more detailed proposal for such coherence is found in J. L. Mays (1976, 1977) and L. C. Allen (1976). Mays, too, picked up on the inclusio formed by “hear” in Mic 1:2 and 5:14. This inclusio delineates the kerygmatic focus of his ¿rst major section, chs. 1–5. A similar inclusio envelops chs. 4–5, with the occurrence of the nations as obedient featured at the beginning (4:1–4), and as punished at the end (5:9–14). This rhetorical feature marks off the limits of a subsection in Mic 1–5. A transition within each main section is signaled by the abrupt shift and contrasts (dissimilarity of meaning) found in the “pivots” at 3:12–4:1 and 7:7. The alternation of voices in Mic 6–7 points to a similar and interdependent structure that binds the parts to each other. The repetition of the lawsuit motif in 6:1 and 7:9 provides a dramatic setting and theological framework for this alternation of voices. For Mays, these features are the result of a post-exilic redaction which made the book a theological

2. Weiser, Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I, 231, who explains this as being for the use of the collection in liturgical reading; Nielsen, Oral Tradition, 91–93. 3. Van der Woude, “Deutero-Micha,” 378. 4. Renaud, Formation, 402.

1

124

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

unity. The oracles were put into this form at some time after 515 B.C.E., in order to speak of Yahweh’s relation with the nations.5 L. C. Allen (1976) ¿nds parallels between chs. 1 and 6 in the repetition of the summons to hear, the use of similar language of the court, and the grave warnings. All these are links formed by similar meanings which occur in each section. Micah 1–2 and 6–7 are connected by their common pattern of a long block of negative oracles followed by a block of hopeful tone, an example of similar structure serving to join the two sections. Echoes of the structure of Mic 1–2 in 3:1–4:5 and of 6–7 in 5:9–14 also serve as bridges between the sections. The structure of ™ chs. 3–5 interlocks its segments, as does the repetition of “now” (!kš 4) in 4:9–5:6 and the concept of the remnant (4:6–8; 5:6–8). Allen suggests that these features are probably the result of later literary arranging, and are derived from the post-exilic era, prior to the work of Ezra and Nehemiah.6 Pride of place for ¿nding examples of internal linkage goes to the works of J. T. Willis (1969) and D. G. Hagstrom (1982). (See pp. 204– 209 for an evaluation of these two studies.) Since their arguments are detailed extensively elsewhere, and the number of examples each found was quite numerous, I will not recount every instance they discerned. Willis spelled out an exhaustive list of similar topics, concepts, and words occurring in, and thus connecting, at least two pericopes. For example, the three doom sections (Mic 1:2–2:11; 3:1–12; 6:1–7:6) are connected by the recurrence of “hear” and the concepts of the punishment, the sin, the corruption of the capital, the description of God, God’s relation with the people, and the notion of individual responsibility. The hope sections (2:12–13; 4:1–5:14; 7:7–20) are joined by similar concepts—the assumption of punishment, God’s task, the people of God, Davidic tradition, and the restoration of Israel. The doom and hope sections are linked together because Yahweh is the leading actor in each and because punishment is assumed even in the sections of hope.7 These are examples of internal linkage by similar or extended meaning recurring in different parts of the text. Similar literary forms of the individual pericopes, especially in the opening lawsuits (Mic 1:2–7; 6:1–8), as well as a similar structure (longer doom, shorter hope), link chs. 1–2 with 6–7,8 an example of coherence 5. Mays, Micah, 4, 6, 9–10, cf. 27–30, and Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 278, 281, 284, 286–87. 6. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, 257–60. 7. Willis, “Structure,” 13–31. 8. Ibid., 13–14.

1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

125

formed by internal linkage both from recurring literary features and from similarity of structure. Dissimilarity of meaning comes into play to interlock the three sections of the book into an ABA arrangement as well, for Willis noted the different structure (shorter doom, long hope) and emphasis (more hopeful) of Mic 3–5, in contrast with 1–2 and 6–7.9 Once he had argued for the overall coherence of the book, Willis also spent a great deal of time tracing coherence between the pericopes in the sections. This consisted of a large number of examples of internal linkage. For example, Mic 1:2–4 and 5–7 are connected by the presence of judgment and by the elements of the lawsuit in each (similar meanings). ™ an example Micah 1:8–16 is tied to 1:2–7 by “for this” in 1:8 (=œ $¡+4), of explicit direction, which points back to the ¿rst section) and the similar meanings in both pericopes—the sin and punishment of Samaria, the transferal of the fate of Samaria to Jerusalem, and the announcement of captivity. Similar content makes 1:8–9 and 10–16 a coherent piece, while the interaction between Micah and his opponents links 2:1–5 and 2:6–11 together. The contrast of 2:12–13 with the captivity of 2:10 renders all of ch. 2 connected. Then chs. 1 and 2 are connected by similar content—the invasion, the captivity, and the relation between the punishment to come (1) and the sins which are its cause (2).10 Willis argued similarly for the coherence of the sections in Mic 6–7 and 3–5.11 In his judgment the book received its present form in an exilic redaction carried out in Palestine, which linked the parts together to speak to the community’s needs.12 Whereas Willis descended from the broadest scope (the whole book) to examination of the coherence of the smaller parts, D. G. Hagstrom (1982) ascended from looking at the smaller units up to the examination of the whole. Considerable detail elsewhere shows how Hagstrom argued for connectedness. Several selected examples should suf¿ce to demonstrate that the material Hagstrom found related mainly to a coherence of internal linkage. For example, in his detailed exposition of the coherence of ch. 3, he proposes that 3:2b–c and 3a–e are coherent due to the resumption of similar and extended meanings—the image of cannibalism, a correspondence between crime and punishment, and repeated vocabulary. Similar principles render 3:1–4 coherent—the same theme throughout, the consistent role of the rulers, the principle of ius talionis, as well as internal references to other parts within the unit (such as

1

9. 10. 11. 12.

Ibid., 14. Ibid., 31–34. Ibid., 34–38 for chs. 6–7 and pp. 38–39 for chs. 3–5. Ibid., 40–42.

126

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

“then” or the use of suf¿xes—examples of what I have called explicit direction in Chapter 3).13 As Hagstrom worked up the ladder to ever larger sections of the book, he argued that there is coherence between the units on each level. His evidence consisted primarily of instances of internal linkage. Recurrent literary features, such as the rhetorical form in a triad and building to a climax make, ch. 3 a connected unit. Similar structure in each pericope and the similarity and extension of meanings, such as the continuation of the theme of justice or repeated vocabulary, also contribute.14 The “and I said” of Mic 3:1 logically connects chs. 1–2 with 3, an example of explicit direction.15 A reference back to Hagstrom’s categorization of features that build up coherence will show that these are almost without exception aspects of coherence of internal linkage.16 Hagstrom did not speculate on the origin of these coherent features in the text, since he had de¿ned the historical questions as beyond the scope of his inquiry from the start. (2) Evaluation. The evidence upon which claims for coherence of internal linkage are based is concrete. It is present there in the text. Thus these textual features are observable and of value for a reading of the ¿nal form of the book. There is no denying, for example, that “daughter of Zion” occurs in Mic 4:8 and 10. Questions do not arise over the existence of recurrent literary features or transitional links, but over their meaning. What do they actually indicate or imply? How should the recurrence of “daughter of Zion” in two juxtaposed oracles be construed in understanding the book in its present form? Does this feature bear any implications for understanding the growth of the book (the question of the historical dimension)? The issue becomes complex when one goes on to af¿rm, as does Willis in the example above, that this repetition connects 4:6–8 with 4:9–10.17 Now it is true that two pericopes with the same word(s) and concept(s) in each are connected in that they both contain at least one similar meaning. There is an internal link there, but what does it mean, how does it function, and why was it introduced into the text? Certainly 13. Hagstrom, Coherence, 57–59. 14. Ibid., 68–72. 15. Ibid., 99. 16. Those listed under Rhetorical Form or “thematic continuity,” when applied to a whole piece of literature, could contribute to coherence generated by the structure or derived from theme, as well. 17. Willis, “Structure,” 39.

1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

127

the ¿rst oracle (4:6–8) is positive and promising in its tone, while the second (4:9–10) evokes a harsher reality of defeat, agony, and exile, though ultimately culminating in the assurance of rescue by the hand of Yahweh. In some way the repeated use of “daughter of Zion” connects the two segments, but is it to tie them together to communicate the same message in tandem, or is it a bridge between two starkly differing segments that gives a continuity but allows their unique expression of different angles on the question of the future of God’s people. The question of intention leads beyond the textual dimension of coherence to pondering the historical dimension as well. Was this a connection intended by someone in the history of the book’s formation? Were both oracles composed together as complementary aspects of one message? Were two oracles brought together because of the presence of similar elements or did an editor seek to join two oracles by imposing the connection as he added the words from one to the other? By whom was this done? It is dif¿cult to know this with any certainty. As Hillers has pointed out, certain features in the growth of an Old Testament prophetic book could be due to chance.18 Why must the formation of the book of Micah have been a wholly rational process? How much could have come together by accident? Were other oracles that had closer ties to one of those extant in the canonical form lost along the way? Willis argued that the similarities, e.g. between the doom sections, “are too numerous and interrelated to be explained as an accident.”19 But who determines at what point there are too many to be accidental? At what point do we cross from the results of chance to solid evidence for intentional editing? Might not a collection of such links be comprised of instances which are the result of both accident and intent? Much here is dependent on the subjective opinion of the one beholding the evidence, although certainly the cumulative impact of a greater number of examples renders a text more highly coherent and can plausibly be seen as the result of an intentional design. Material from different, yet similar or parallel situations, would naturally be expected to use similar words, forms, and progressions of thought. A later portion might even be expressly modeled on an earlier one, such as one might argue for Mic 6–7 in relation to chs. 1–2. Such modeling would render the two parts similar, as can be observed in the textual features present in both portions. This does not, however, constitute de¿nitive evidence as to who encoded this similarity into

1

18. Hillers, Micah, 4a. 19. Willis, “Structure,” 23.

128

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

the text, for what purpose, and when. It goes beyond the simple presence of the observable features in the text to claim that each was designed or altered for the purpose of being included together as part of an overall literary framework for the whole book. What does one actually show with this sort of evidence? Can similar words in two pericopes mislead the reader into understanding similar themes for the whole of each segment? The same word or phrase may have been used in different ways in different contexts. It is possible that two sections were brought close together in the arranging of a collection due to the presence of a certain word in each. This proximity of text due to the use of a catchword, however, does not require that the two pericopes have the same theme or evidence a progression of thought from one to the other. More evidence of coherence arising from other sources will need to be assembled to make that argument. A unit may be the result of the author composing it as a whole and intentionally trying to connect the parts together. Another piece may be the result of a complex literary history, such as that which much critical scholarship posits for the prophetic books. Coherence may arise from a unity of authorship or a unity of editing in a redactional history. It is one thing to ¿nd the links between sections in the ¿rst type of literature where the content is all the product of one person who also arranges the material into the order which we have. It seems quite another to look for similar items in parts generally thought to derive from different settings and eras. The connections in the latter case are much less secure, or are at least intended secondarily (that is, not by the person who composed each section, but by a later editor combining the texts, or even editing the book for inclusion in the canon). Has anything been demonstrated beyond the existence of the same word in two separate pieces? The apparent connection could be inherent to the material, whether seen ¿rst by one original author or a faithful reÀection of the ideas in the original composition of the oracles on the part of a redactor later in the process of formation. The connections that are seen could also be the result of a redactor’s imposition on the text, or the result of a collector grouping materials on the basis of some external similarity, or due to chance. A connection of the same word occurring in two quite different contexts is to be distinguished from the repetition of that same word in two contexts when each segment has the same theme, or even source of origin. By itself, however, the recurrence of a term or phrase does not constitute full proof of intentionality by an author or redactor during the process of development. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

129

Finally, there is the danger that evidence will “manufacture itself.” Willis noted that Yahweh is the predominant name for the deity in the hope and doom sections. This is true, and may indicate some connectedness. Yet it also seems that a large enough segment of ancient Judahite and Israelite society would have referred to the deity as Yahweh and so this is less cogent in demonstrating any intended link between the sections. In sum although the features pointed to as indicators of a coherence arising from internal linkages do occur in the text, their meaning and signi¿cance is less clear. What do they imply for coherent meaning in a reading of the ¿nal form of the text? Are these valid indicators of coherence that an author or editor intended or is their presence due to chance? How are we to discern when these are numerous or convincing enough not to be accidental? We must ask about the complexity of the process of development of the prophetic literature, which adds a historical dimension to take into account. Some of the connections seen are unconvincing, others so vague as to be meaningless. Thus, the criteria used to indicate a coherence from internal linkage often do not prove more than the presence of these features and the plausibility that these connections were intended. That these criteria would indicate intention in the creation of coherence seems more secure only when there is a higher incidence of occurrences and/or in the presence of evidence for other types of meaningful coherence, e.g. from structure, perspective, or theme. b. Textual Coherence from Structure Quite in contrast to the often fragmentary nature of the bits and pieces of evidence that are the basis for coherence of internal linkage, the order and structure of the book overall may have immediate and direct implications for how the whole is to be understood. Grappling with the total arrangement can lead to suggestions about the background which would have produced such a work, or about its development, Àow, and theme. (1) The Evolution of the Discussion About Structure. Many have made suggestions about the way in which the materials in the book of Micah have been arranged. There is a logical order in which these ideas of structure for the book have developed in the history of Micah scholarship. Initially this section will offer an explanation of the broad sequence in which these orderings of the text have been proposed with an eye to discerning the underlying logic, and then offer a classi¿cation and evaluation of the various outlines suggested. 1

130

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Prior to the advent of historical-critical study of the book of Micah the text’s entity as a whole was assumed. In a sense it was viewed as one piece, chs. 1–7 as an entirety. This does not preclude scholars of the period having provided outlines of the arrangement of the materials in the text, but with the application of the historical-critical methodologies to the prophetic books, the issue of there being separate sections not all part of a seamless revelation came to prominence. Certainly there have always been scholars who have despaired of ¿nding any order for the text, as in the cases of Lindblom (1929), Hillers (1984), and Craigie (1985). However, most have tried to provide an outline that captures the essence of the way in which the materials have been arranged. Based on the delineation of different periods of origin for the portions of the text, Ewald (1867) essentially provided an outline of 1–5/6–7, followed by Wellhausen’s (1878) separating out the ¿nal passage to yield a book with material arranged in the schema 1–5/6:1–7:6/7:7–20, and then Stade’s proposals for growth of the sources (1881–1903) that described a book with materials in the arrangement of 1–3/4–5/6:1– 7:6/7:7–20. This has been followed by others, whether for the same or other reasons. Since Stade concluded that the only genuine Mican materials were those found in Mic 1–3, this also offered a broad outline of the book in genuine and non-genuine portions of chs. 1–3/4–7, as Haupt (1910– 1911) would describe it. Other proposed outlines were derived from this, based primarily on the reconstructed grounds of historical growth and development in the text’s history marking off Mic 1–3 as the only genuine portion. These outlines could also be supported by tracing literary features in the text and explaining its message/contents in ways that reinforced the proposed divisions. Following on Stade’s distinction of chs. 4–5 as separate in historical origins from 6–7, but both non-Mican, Marti (1904), for example, elected to interpret the book through the framework of the outline 1–3/4–5/6–7. At least two other variations of structure for the book along these lines of ¿rst delineating chs. 1–3 (originally as the only genuine portion, though this could also be argued on the basis of consistent content and topic) have been Eissfeldt’s (1934/1965) ordering as 1–3/4:1–5:8/5:9–7:6/7:7–20 and more recently Sanderson’s (1998) and Chaney’s (2009) separation of the superscription as a section in its own right and then the following sections based on this understanding of the content as 1:1/1:2–3:12/4–5/6–7. The discussion assumed new life with the completion of J. T. Willis’ dissertation (1966), followed by his article on the structure of the book (1969). Since Mic 2:12–13 most likely is to be read as an oracle of 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

131

salvation, it interrupts the pattern of doom in 1–3 in the ¿nal form of the book. Those who assumed that chs. 1–3 represented the only genuine portion of the material in the book usually viewed Micah as a monotone proclaimer of doom and understood 2:12–13 to be a displaced oracle of hope from a later prophet. Willis recognized that this did not do justice to the ¿nal form of the book as an entity with a message in and of itself. He determined instead that 2:12–13 was the subsection of hope that marked off the end of the ¿rst section (chs. 1–2) and thus ch. 3 belonged with chs. 4–5, giving the book a three-fold alternation between doom and hope in the sections 1–2/3–5/6–7. Many have subscribed to this understanding of the structure. B. S. Childs (1979) chose the grouping 1–2, 3– 5, and 6–7 due to the alternation between doom and hope and the occurrence of “hear” at the start of each section.20 For similar reasons, T. McComiskey (1985) also chose this order, while R. Smith (1984) agrees, though somewhat tentatively, with this division.21 A further stage in understanding this structure was proposed in my dissertation, based on incorporating the role of the passages that make reference to the remnant, resulting in a book with a four-fold alternation between doom and hope and an outline of 1–2/3:1–4:8/4:9–5:14/6–7 (Cuffey 1987, also in 2000; this proposal will be explained more fully in the next two chapters, so comment will be kept to a minimum in this chapter). Since the late 1980s, there have been a string of other proposals for understanding the structure of the book, which are grounded on paying close attention to indicators of structure contained in the text. These close readings, often using rhetorical criticism, have included Luker (1987) who suggested the book be understood as Àanked by the ¿rst and seventh chapters, which surrounded a core divided into 2/3/4:1–5:3/5:4– 14/6. Dorsey (1999) saw a symmetrical arrangement for the book as a whole, with sections echoing one another. Sweeney (2000) separated the superscription off from the rest of the book, resulting in a two-part division of 1:1/1:2–7:20, with the second segment in sections of 1:2– 16/2:1–5:14/6/7. In a similar vein Ben Zvi (2000) treated both the superscription and concluding oracle as independent units on the level of the body of the book, proposing an outline of 1:1/1:2–7:17/7:18–20, with the body in sections of 1:2–2:13/3/4–5/6:1–7:17. Based not only on rhetorical critical reading of the text, but taking into account the communicative

1

20. Childs, Introduction, 431. 21. McComiskey, “Micah,” 397; R. Smith, Micah–Malachi, 8.

132

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

setting as persuasive speech, Shaw (1993) saw the book in discourse units of 1:2–16/2/3:1–4:8/4:9–5:14/6:1–7:7/7:8–20 and Sharp (2011) proposed that the book was to be read according to the structure 1:1/1/2– 3/4:1–8/4:9–5:14/6/7. Yet others have attempted to identify different structures present at various points in the development of the book, so that the ¿nal form is determined by the ¿nal structuring but the evidence for the earlier structures is still visible in the text. I. Willi-Plein (1971) argued that an exilic redaction had structured the book into four different parts (Mic 1:2–2:11; 3:1–8; 3:9–12 and 5:9–12; 6:2–16), some of which began with a summons to hear. Later additions, in the ¿fth and fourth centuries B.C.E., brought the book to its ¿nal form, which was thus created around the earlier four-part structure.22 B. Renaud (1977) explained the present form of Micah by positing two structures in its last stages of development. During the post-exilic period, between the mid-¿fth and the end of the fourth centuries B.C.E. the book was structured according to a double alternation of judgment and salvation into two parts—l–5 and 6–7. This structure is apparent even in the present form of the book through the presence of the catchwords “mountain” (:!™ as a bridge from doom to hope in 3:12; 4:1) and “hear” (K3/— fš in 5:14 and K3/’ f– in 6:1 as a bridge between major sections), as well as the inclusio formed by “hear” in 1:2 – and 5:14 (K3/— f). š After 312 B.C.E., a retouching displaced 2:12–13 (K3/’ f) from between 4:7 and 8 to its present location, thus creating a three-part structure (1–2, 3–5, and 6–7), based now on a triple alternation of judgment and salvation.23 (2) Proposed Structures Based Primarily on Historical Growth of the Materials in the Book. In the period of the application of historicalcritical methodologies to the book of Micah the ¿rst ways of engaging the structure of the book within this new paradigm assumed that the book as a whole evidenced incoherence. Outlines were derived from the different periods in which segments of text were thought to have originated, according to the reconstructions of historical growth and development. These descriptions of the arrangement of the text do not necessarily lead to an exposition of a logical and coherent message of the book in its entirety.

1

22. Willi-Plein, Vorformen, 111–14. 23. Renaud, Formation, 402–4, 418–19.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

133

(a) Historical Criticism in Initial Application to the Book of Micah. Ewald (1867) enumerated different periods of origin for the portions of the text, thereby organizing the book in two sections, 1–5/6–7, based on his differentiation of the material in the last two chapters and their supposed derivation from the period of Manasseh. Wellhausen (1878) separated out the ¿nal passage, 7:7–20, as not continuing 7:1–6 with its agonies of disloyalty and betrayal, now looking back on the punishment of exile as an already accomplished reality. Hence the ¿nal passage was from a century later during the period of the exile, on the basis of historical development yielding a book with material arranged according to the schema 1–5/6:1–7:6/7:7–20. Finally Stade’s proposals for growth of the sources (1881–1903) led to an understanding of the materials arranged according to the pattern of 1–3/4–5/6:1–7:6/7:7–20. Only chs. 1–3 are from the prophet of the eighth century, chs. 4–5 are post-exilic, ch. 6 from the era of Manasseh, and the ¿nal passage from later in the post-exilic era. This has been followed by others, whether for the same or other reasons, such as consistency in content within each section. For example, A. Weiser (1950) divided the book into the same four sections, 1–3, 4–5, 6:1–7:7, and 7:8–20, on the basis of the double alternation of threat and promise.24 (b) Historical-Critical Concerns About Distinguishing Genuine Mican Material and Reconstructing the Sequence of Historical Periods to Which the Segments Belong. Micah 1–3 and 4–7 [Scholars: P. Haupt (1910/1911); K. Budde (192); D. Gowan (1998); D. Carr (2011)]

This division, along with several variations derived from this one, is based on a critical judgment concerning the growth of the book, that genuine material is concentrated mostly in Mic 1–3, while a high percentage of the material in chs. 4–7 is later and secondary (represented in Figure 4.1).25 In each of these schemes the ¿rst section is delineated as chs. 1–3 because of the reconstructed historical development of the materials in the book. Often con¿rmation is found in different ways of reading a two-fold alternation of doom and hope.

24. Weiser, Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I, 231. 25. For example, Haupt, “Critical Notes,” 201; Haupt, “Book of Micah,” 15–16; Budde, “Mi 4,1–4,” 156–57.

1

134

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

1–3

4–7 Genuine Mican material

Later In varied forms of structuring: 4–7 4–5/6–7 4–5/6:1–7:6/7:7–20 (4:1–5:8/5:9–7:6/7:7–20)

x x

Basis: Reconstructed historical development of materials in the book Con¿rmation: Arrangement of content in a two-fold ordering of doom and hope (doom [chs. 1–3] and hope [chs. 4–5]; doom [6:1–7:6] and hope [7:7–20]) Figure 4.1

The Outline Proposed for the Book of Micah by Dividing into Sections Based on Historical Development of the Materials in the Book [Haupt, Budde, Gowan, Carr]

Whereas this is acceptable as a historical-critical evaluation as to how the genuine and secondary materials are distributed throughout the book, that, however, is not the question this study seeks to address. The concern is with the ¿nal form as it is. Does this have an organized pattern of arrangement? Did whoever put it into what is essentially the ¿nal form structure the materials in a certain way to communicate a message? Or is there some other discernible principle according to which the materials have been grouped? It is possible that the present form arose from historical development in which a collection of genuine oracles (Mic 1–3) attracted the remaining material (Mic 4–7) in bits and pieces at random. However, as will be seen from the rest of this section and from Chapters 5 and 6, there are textual indicators of an intentional arranging of the book of Micah. Questions arise over how these indicators are to be understood, but that some ordering took place seems clear. While a redactor may have arranged oracles according to differences sensed between the pieces, which for that matter could have been the result of historical development at various stages, nonetheless, the redactor would not have made a modern historical-critical judgment as to literary origin and then arranged the material on that basis. Even if the differences he would sense were to correspond with the results of redactional additions and changes, he would have made his structuring on the basis of the actual contents of each passage, rather than on a conception of the book’s redaction history. No one, to my knowledge, has argued that an 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

135

ancient editor intended to structure the book according to differences in content and origin between chs. 1–3 and 4–7. Even if we were to accept that all of Mic 4–7 is secondary, there are great differences between sections within chs. 4–7, especially between chs. 4–5 and chs. 6–7, that would make it more plausible to argue that an editor organized the book according to the following three-part outline. Micah 1–3, 4–5, and 6–7 [Scholars: K. Marti (1904); A. van Hoonacker (1908); T. H. Robinson (1938); R. Calkins (1947); E. Nielsen (1950–52, 1954); R. E. Wolfe (1956); B. Renaud (1964); H. W. Wolff (1982); P. Kelley (1984); R. Mason (1991); R. Kessler (2000, 2010); F. Andersen and D. Freedman (2000); D. Simundson (1996, 2005, 2005); P. Jenson (2008); A. K. Helmbold (2009); D. Master (2009)]

Such an outline has been suggested for the book of Micah on three grounds. First, this division has been founded on the historical-critical picture of the growth of the materials in three distinct collections or groupings. Th. Robinson (1938) adopted this criterion as the basis for understanding the structure of the book.26 H. W. Wolff (1981) proposed this tripartite division based on an exposition of the history of the book’s development which allows for deliberate development of the message of the whole. He said that the critically assured minimum of Mican sayings are concentrated in chs. 1–3 (Mic 1:8–16; 2:1–11; and 3:1–12). Micah’s message stimulated new prophecy after the prophet’s times. Chapters 4– 5 contain varied types of later prophetic sayings which all answer the questions as to the future of Zion raised by the doom foretold in 3:12. Chapters 6–7 contain a further echo, in that they answer the question as to how God’s people are to live in the interim. This dilemma arises from what went before—the doom of Mic 1–3 and the assurance in Mic 4–5 that doom is not the last word.27 Second, such a division has been founded on the arrangement of the contents of the book. I. Willi-Plein (1971) notes that the book seems immediately to be divided into sections that contain threats (Mic 1–3), promises (4–5), and threats and promises (6–7).28 The Anchor Bible volume by Andersen and Freedman also categorizes by form of material 26. Th. Robinson, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 127. 27. Wolff, Micah the Prophet, 15–17. 28. Willi-Plein, Vorformen, 110. Cf. Nielsen, Oral Tradition, 85, whose treatment of Mic 4–5 as a unit and whose relations of form and content between 1–3 and 6–7 result in the same division. 1

136

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

and content into an arrangement of 1–3 as the Book of Doom, 4–5 as the Book of Visions, and 6–7 as the Book of Contention and Conciliation. They rejected the efforts to understand the book’s structure drawn from its history of development as too diverse in conclusions from scholar to scholar to be convincing. There is a clear opening statement (1:1–4) and a clear closing statement (7:18–20). Four types of oracles recur throughout the book, and there is a consistent development from doom to woe to salvation as the pattern of revelation of the nature of God. Further, they supported their division into these thematically uni¿ed sections by noting a number of concepts treated throughout the book, issues raised and eventually resolved, and inclusions that mark off each of the sections (Jerusalem for chs. 1–3, the End Time for 4–5, and Sin and transgression in 6–7).29 The Book of Doom (chs. 1–3) has thematic consistency from the unrelenting condemnation. Micah 2:12–13 is thus the unit they ¿nd hardest to “¿t in with the rest.” The title’s sequence in 1:1 provides the structure to be followed in chs. 1–3, to address Samaria ¿rst and then Jerusalem. The proportionate space assigned to each indicates Micah’s priority on Jerusalem and Judah. The sequence also follows the chronological unfolding of disaster for Samaria ¿rst, then Jerusalem. A longrange inclusion encompasses an oracle against Samaria in 1:6–7 and ends the section with an oracle against Jerusalem (3:12). References to the “mountain” and “Jerusalem” in 3:12 pick up the earlier references to the “mountain” in 1:3–4 and to “Jerusalem” in 1:5, 9, 12. The Book of Visions (chs. 4–5) is comprised of eschatological oracles that draw the extreme contrast between the current status of Jerusalem, especially in ch. 4, and Jacob (ch. 5), and the prospects for the future. The themes of disarmament and the peoples in the ¿rst and last oracles of the section (4:1–5 and 5:9–14) form an inclusion around the unit. The reference to the “mountain” and the parallelism of “Zion” and “Jerusalem” in 4:1 form a bridge between this section and the preceding chs. 1–3. Defeat and humiliation will be reversed with glory in victory, as oracles beginning with “now” are juxtaposed with predictions that start with “in that day.” The authors believe that the sequence of oracles is “fantastic to the point of unreality” with no historical particulars that permit a more exact dating. Even though the reference to Babylon in 4:10 might be a product of the exile, it is also a possibility that Babylon might have been “part of the prophets’ world map even in the eighth century.” The third section (chs. 6–7, the Book of Contention and Conciliation) covers similar ground as do the prior two sections. Condemnation, grief, and hope are 1

29. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, especially pp. 27–29.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

137

all mixed together, the people break the covenant, and then God mends it. It begins with judgment for sin and ends with forgiveness of those sins and divine mercy. The contention with which this section begins is resolved in the ¿nal oracle’s conciliation.30 Although the book evidences diversity in form and theme, Andersen and Freedman also assert that “the book as a whole shows some signs of overall integration.” The opening statement uses vocabulary that will recur later (Mic 1:1–4). “The opening statements are programmatic; the closing statements are climactic.” The ¿nal oracle in 7:18–20 wraps up motifs treated throughout the book and picks up on themes introduced in the ¿rst oracle—revealing God in his mercy and compassion in contrast to the initial vision of God in his angry judgment, and answering the dilemma posed by sin in 1:5 with gracious forgiveness. Each of the three sections reÀects the overarching structure of the whole and is marked by a signi¿cant inclusion. Catchwords link successive sections.31 Andersen and Freedman treat the value of the divisions into paragraphs (parashiyyoth) in the ancient texts for delimiting sections with caution, since many either simply con¿rm what could be discovered by exegesis without their aid, while others break coherent connections within the text.32 Work of a form-critical nature, along with studies of the transmission history of the traditions, has resulted in greater fragmentation with the proliferation of analyses and conclusions, and has obscured the “extended structures and artistic designs that make for literary integrity.” They argue for the importance of seeing the variety of ways prophetic oracles might have been composed and gathered, along with the different things that may have happened to them as they were handed down from one generation to the next. Daniel Simundson understood the ¿nal form of the book to be structured in this manner. This was not, however, due to a concentration of genuine Mican materials in the ¿rst three chapters, but can be explained by observing the grouping of oracles on a thematic basis. Chapters 1–3 seek to alert the people to the coming disaster which is the direct result of their disobedience. The prophet presents God’s case against the people and calls them back to reliance on God. Simundson’s treatment of the text allows 2:12–13 to stand where it is but views it as disrupting “the logic of these ¿rst three chapters.” Hopeful words are prominent in Mic 4–5, but the distinction is not consistently maintained, as the reader ¿nds “announcements of impending suffering and assurances of Israel’s

1

30. Ibid., 7–14, 24, 27–28. 31. Ibid., 27–29. 32. Ibid., 14–16.

138

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

eventual deliverance from all its enemies” side by side in the text. There is hope for a better future, but only after the dif¿culties from judgment are past. Again, Mic 6–7 presents a combination of judgment and hope, with the ¿nal emphasis being placed on the hope at the end.33 Third, van Hoonacker (1908) also argued for this arrangement, but based on the chronological sequence of the sections—chs. 1–3 sparked by the siege of Samaria in 725–722 B.C.E., 4–5 celebrating Judah’s salvation, and chs. 6–7 reÀecting on the fall of Samaria.34 Such an outline for the book encounters signi¿cant problems, however. To base such a division on a picture of historical-critical growth of the materials does not engage our real concern in this study, which is the present form of the book and why it has been arranged as it is, if any intention can be identi¿ed. It addresses a different question altogether. This was already dealt with above in the evaluation of the division into chs. 1–3 and 4–7. However, even to base such an understanding of the arrangement on the contents, as done by Nielsen, Willi-Plein, Andersen and Freedman, and Simundson, does not do justice to the ¿nal form of the text. All the data must be taken into account in order to explain the text’s present form, if any can be discerned. Such an outline does not account for the prominence of the summons to hear at the start of signi¿cant oracles in Mic 1:2; 3:1; 6:1. “Hear!” would then start two of the sections (chs. 1–3 and 6–7), but not the third (4–5), while another prominent “Hear!” would occur in the midst of the ¿rst section (3:1). Nor does this division allow for the placement of 2:12–13. Many will approach Condamin’s view or one similar, that these verses are dislocated from their original place elsewhere in the book.35 This understanding of the structure similarly overlooks the prominence of the passages which refer to the remnant, 2:12–13; 4:6–8; 5:6–8; 7:18– 20. The question to address concerns the ¿nal form, i.e. the book as we now have it. An outline for this present shape must account for what is there in the text.

33. Simundson, “Micah,” introduction on pp. 533–38, outline on pp. 539–40, see also pp. 541, 563, and 577 for summaries of the sections. This material also appears in his “The Book of Micah,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Old Testament Survey (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 433–37. It is interesting to note that in his Abingdon Old Testament Commentary he entertains four different ways of dividing the text in his discussion. See Daniel Simundson, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (AOTC; Nashville, Abingdon, 2005), 290–92. 34. Van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes, 340, 347, 353. 35. Albert Condamin, “Interpolations ou transpositions accidentals?,” RB 11 (1902): 383–86. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

139

This way of understanding the order also obscures the differences between chs. 1–2 and 3. They are not the same. Micah 1–2 focuses extensively on the land and the undoing of the peoples’ environment by their sins (e.g., 2:2, 9) and by God’s punishment (e.g., 1:3–4, 6, 10–15). In ch. 3 the focus shifts clearly to the leadership of the people and its failures. Furthermore, even the structure and form of the oracles is diverse between chs. 1–2 and 3. Neither does such an understanding of the arrangement allow the sharp contrast between Mic 3:12 and 4:1 to have its full effect. As the book is now shaped, the vivid contrast may serve to link the two together, 4:1 answering to 3:12. To make a major division between sections between these two verses sunders the link provided by the stark contrast in tone and content, which was doubtlessly intentional on the part of the person(s) who arranged this portion of the book.36 Further, such a division assumes too easily that all the material in Mic 4–5 is of one type—hopeful. It does not do justice to the elements of doom and distress present in these chapters. The chapters do not paint a picture of unmixed hope. The following passages do not portray simply promise, also including judgment as a warning that the promises would be ful¿lled only after great trials. Such a prophecy would do doubleduty, then, for it also assures of punishment. Now why do you cry out loudly? Is there no king in you Or has your counsellor perished, So that you are gripped with pain like a woman giving birth? Writhe and labor, O daughter of Zion, like a woman giving birth, For now you will go out from the city and you will dwell in the ¿eld and you will come to Babylon. (Mic 4:9–10d) And now many nations are gathered against you, who say, “May she be polluted!” and “May our eyes gloat over Zion!” (Mic 4:11) Now gather yourself in troops, O daughter of troops, They have laid siege against us, With a rod they will strike the ruler (lit. “judge”) of Israel on the cheek. (Mic 4:14)

Notice also that many (e.g., Eissfeldt, Mays) take Mic 4:9–14 to be a threat.37 36. See McFadden, “Micah and the Problem of Continuities and Discontinuities in Prophecy.” 37. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, 408–9; Mays, Micah, 4. 1

140

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Finally, the criteria on which this division into chs. 1–3, 4–5, and 6–7 is made seem to be followed inconsistently. Why ought there to be one section of judgment (chs. 1–3) and one section of hope (chs. 4–5), and then a ¿nal section (chs. 6–7) which has both? If the ¿rst two sections are divided on the basis of content, why not divide the third into two sections, especially since the negative (6:1–7:6) and positive (7:7–20) halves are so well delineated? Why combine the two types of material, which served as the basis to distinguish between chs. 1–3 and 4–5, into one section in 6–7? This last point would suggest that it might be more fruitful to try one of the next two outlines. Micah 1–3, 4–5, 6:1–7:6(7), and 7:7(8)–20 [Scholars: A. Weiser (1950); R. Ungern-Sternberg (1958); G. Fohrer (1965, English 1968); H. W. Wolff (1982, 1990); W. McKane (1998); J. Jeremias (2007); L. Ballard (2012)]

A four-fold division of the book of Micah into sections comprised of chs. 1–3, 4–5, 6:1–7:6(7), and 7:7(8)–20 has been suggested on two grounds. First, a historical-critical evaluation of the origins and development of the materials in the book has led some to propose this outline. This division, for example, represents the four major sections, deriving from different periods, as B. Stade (1881–1903; see above, pp. 9–10) laid out in his studies—chs. 1–3 as genuine, chs. 4–5 post-exilic, 6:1–7:6 from Manasseh’s reign, and 7:7–20 post-exilic. Or according to G. Fohrer (1965), “the general conclusion of critical scholarship” perceives genuine (chs. 1–3; 6:1–7:7) and later (4–5; 7:8–20) passages arranged in an order that alternates between the two. (Note that Fohrer personally rejected the authenticity of 6:1–7:7.38) Second, this division has been based on the arrangement of the content. Both A. Weiser (1950) and G. Fohrer (1965) point to a double alternation of threat (chs. 1–3; 6:1–7:6[7]) and promise (4–5; 7:7[8]–20) as the indicator of this arrangement.39 Analysis. As already discussed, a historical-critical judgment as to genuine and later materials may well be correct but does not necessarily account for the ¿nal form’s arrangement. As to the distribution of the types of material, this outline is more consistent than the previous one, in that it delineates on the basis of the content of each section and does not 38. Fohrer, Introduction, 444. 39. Weiser, Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I, 231; Fohrer, Introduction, 444. Also, van der Woude, “Deutero-Micha,” 367, seems to suggest this with his observation that the usual division of the prophetic books into sections of doom and salvation has been doubled. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

141

violate the criteria used to distinguish chs. 1–3 (judgment) from 4–5 (hope) when it arrives at 6–7. (See above, p. 140, concerning chs. 1–3, 4–5, and 6–7.) However, neither does this outline do justice to the book as we now have it. The division made between Mic 1–3 and 4–5, as was the case also in the preceding outline, raises many of the same objections. Such a division does not account for the presence of 2:12–13. This hopeful pericope, as presently located, suggests a division based on the alternation of doom and hope, with a break between chs. 2 and 3, instead of between 3 and 4. Neither does the inclusion of ch. 3 with chs. 1–2 as one major textual unit dovetail well with the sections suggested by the summonses to “hear” in 1:2 and 3:1, nor the differences in thematic content and form between chs. 1–2 and 3. Once again, it would seem better to start a new section at 3:1. Nor does this understanding of the arrangement of the book’s materials recognize the status of the placement of the remnant promises. Further, the contrast between 3:12 and 4:1 could serve to link the two passages within a section, instead of pointing to their separation into different sections. Again, this scheme does not account for the presence of diverse content in chs. 4–5, in particular the passages of doom, when it groups the material in these two chapters together on the basis of their containing promise. (See the comments on the preceding outline). In addition, Hagstrom has pointed out that this way of understanding the book obscures the parallel content in the ¿rst and third, and also in the second and fourth, sections.40 It levels them all out, instead of recognizing that two contain threats, while the others focus on hope. His solution is to join the ¿rst two and last two together into two larger sections. Then each section has a ¿rst and second half which correspond to and parallel the halves in the other section. Such an outline will be treated in what follows. (See below, pp. 142–52.) Micah 1–3, 4:1–5:8, 5:9–7:6, and 7:7–20 [Scholars: O. Eissfeldt (1934, English 1965); J. Lippl (1937)]

There is, however, another scheme for dividing Micah that is really only a slight modi¿cation of the previous one. O. Eissfeldt (1934) suggested that the sections were Mic 1–3, 4:1–5:8, 5:9–7:6, and 7:7–20. This proposal was the result of his conclusion that 5:9–14, although its threat against the heathen is an indirect promise for Israel, is “clearly directed against Israel,” and thus, actually threat. Therefore, when Eissfeldt grouped the material he proceeded on the basis of the alternation 1

40. Hagstrom, Coherence, 29.

142

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

between threat and promise, and so attached 5:9–14 (negative in tone) to what follows (also negative and not promising) rather than to what precedes.41 He was joined in this arrangement by J. Lippl (1937), apparently on the basis of two collections of threats being augmented with promises, and ¿nally joined as a book.42 But the same objections raised against the division of Micah into chs. 1–3; 4–5; 6:1–7:6; and 7:7–20 apply to this scheme, as well. Micah 1:1, 1:2–3:12, 4–5, and 6–7 [Scholars: J. Sanderson (1998); M. Chaney (2009)]

In a further variation on this tradition of outlining the book of Micah, beginning from the preservation of chs. 1–3 together as the ¿rst main textual unit, J. Sanderson (1998) and M. Chaney (2009) separated out the superscription in Mic 1:1 as on an equal level with the main sections of the book and then followed with an outline having the same sections as has been seen already.43 Once again the objections against the division of Micah into chs. 1–3; 4–5; and chs. 6–7 mentioned previously apply to this scheme, as well. (3) Proposed Structures Based on Both Historical-Critical Concerns and Attention to the Final Form. The following proposal of structure began as a delineation of various theories about the growth of the traditions, but has also been explained with a detailed theological undergirding (Mays) and with painstaking analysis of the features of the text (Hagstrom and Jacobs). Micah 1–5 and 6–7 Different Origins of the Sections and Two-Fold Alternation of Doom and Hope [Scholars: H. Ewald (1867); F. Burkitt (1926); A. S. van der Woude (1971, 1982); J. L. Mays (1976; 1977); B. Renaud (1977, 1987); D. Hagstrom (1988); J. Alfaro (1989); G. Metzner (1998); M. Jacobs (2001); J. Wagenaar (2001); T. Longman (2006); W. Brueggemann (2013)]

For a variety of reasons, many scholars have favored dividing Micah into two major sections, chs. l–5 and 6–7 (see Figure 4.2). This has been based primarily on a reconstruction of the history of the development of

1

41. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, 408–9. 42. Lippl, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I, 182–84. 43. Chaney, “Micah, Book of,” 73–74.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

143

the book’s materials and the attempt to discern an arrangement of the content in two sections, each of which begins with doom and follows that with hope. 1–5

6–7 x x x

Possible Basis: Reconstruction of historical concerns Basis: Arrangement of content in two sections, each of which begins with doom and follows with hope (doom [chs. 1–3] and hope [chs. 4–5]; doom [6:1–7:6] and hope [7:7–20]) Con¿rmations: x Structural indicators, such as the placement of the summons to “hear” (1:2; 6:1) that indicate the beginning of sections or inclusios that mark off the extent of sections, as has been suggested for the occurrences of “hear” in 1:2 and 5:14. x Distinguishing literary characteristics in each section, exempli¿ed by the use of the exile motif in chs. 1–5 and by employing dialogue in chs. 6–7 x Sustained themes found throughout an entire section of the book, as seen in the references to Zion in chs. 1–5 or to the people of the Lord in chs. 6–7 Figure 4.2 The Outline Proposed for the Book of Micah by Dividing into Two Sections: Chapters 1–5 and 6–7 [Ewald; Burkitt; van der Woude; Mays; Renaud; Hagstrom; Alfaro; Metzner; Jacobs; Wagenaar; Longman; Brueggemann]

Various con¿rmations of this structure have been adduced. Structural indicators focus on the presence of a summons to “hear” in 1:2 and 6:1, that would prominently mark the beginning of each section. In addition, inclusios delineate the extent of each section from beginning to end, as with the use in the ¿rst major segment (chs. 1–5) of the verb “hear” in 1:2 and 5:14, along with mention of the destruction of idols in 1:7 and 5:12. The second section, chs. 6–7, is marked off by the combined reference to both “Israel” and “Jacob” in 6:2 and 7:20. Differences between both parts are also adduced in support of this understanding of the structure of the book. Each section has distinguishing literary characteristics, as evidenced by Mic 1–5 having an exile motif and discussion of punishment according to ius talionis, while chs. 6–7 are dialogical in character, with an antiphonal alternation of voices and an emphasis on covenant faithfulness. Sustained themes are carried through each section and differentiate them one from the other: the peoples, Zion, misunderstanding, 1

144

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

the gate, exile, God’s sovereignty, and the shepherd found in chs. 1–5; while covenant faithfulness, the “day,” God’s lawsuit, and the people of the Lord are prominent in chs. 6–7. Some have based this division on their particular understanding of the book’s historical development. H. Ewald (1867) said that Mic 1–5 was complete in itself, while 6–7 came from a different period and had a unique language, form, and art.44 F. Burkitt (1926) saw the sections as arising from different geographical provenances, Mic 1–5 from the South and 6–7 from the North.45 A. S. van der Woude (1971) extended Burkitt’s analysis and concluded that the two segments derived from two prophets in the two different regions.46 T. Lescow (1972) understood the book to be the result of the joining of two collections at the time of the Samaritan schism.47 The book’s history of editing gave it this form, according to a number of others, including Alfaro, Metzner, who resolves this out of nine stages of growth, and Wagenaar. Some, such as Brueggemann, have recognized that this growth process resulted in a twice-repeated sequence of judgment and restoration which reÀected the historical sequence with judgment coming from the eighth century and passages promising restoration later.48 Other reasons have prompted this division, as well. J. L. Mays (1976, 1977) also argued that a discernible intent of the redactor supported dividing the book into Mic 1–5 and 6–7. Each unfolds an aspect of God’s way in the world.49 He suggested that these two major sections are distinguished from each other on the basis of content and addressee. Chapters 1–5 convey a message to the nations, focusing on the establishment of the Lord’s reign in the context of the nations and addressed to a universal audience, while 6–7 are concerned with God’s relationship with Israel. It is inadequate to divide between chs. 1–3 and 4–5. Due to Mic 2:12–13, with its apparent word of hope, it is invalid for scholars to divide between chs. 3 and 4 on the differentiation of content as doom and 44. Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, 501, 525–27. Note that Wellhausen’s picture of the book’s development (see Chapter I) led him to understand an outline of Mic 1–5, 6:1–7:6, and 7:7–20, which is actually a variation of the outline treated in this section. 45. Burkitt, “Micah 6 and 7,” 159–61. 46. Van der Woude, “Deutero-Micha,” esp. 377–78. He further expands on this in van der Woude, “Three Classical Prophets,” 49–53. 47. Lescow, “6–7,” 210–11. 48. Brueggemann, Introduction, 267. 49. Mays, Micah, 2–12; idem, “Theological Purpose,” esp. 277–78.

1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

145

hope. Further, 5:9–14 is an oracle of judgment, which means that chs. 4– 5 are not composed exclusively of hope.50 Mays concludes that 2:12–13 is an oracle of judgment and perceives a twice-occurring sequence of judgment and salvation in a general pattern that supports a division of the book into sections of chs. 1–5 and 6–7. This arrangement assigns subsections of judgment and of salvation to each major division.51 The boundaries of the ¿rst segment (chs. 1–5) are marked off by an inclusio with the use of the verb “hear” (1:2; 5:14). In the middle of each section is a pivot, where the mood shifts signi¿cantly (3:12–4:1; 7:7). Each of the parts ends with a passage that rounds off and concludes its movement (5:15; 7:18–20). The two sections start very differently—the ¿rst with a theophany (1:2–7), the second with a trial scene of covenant proceedings between the Lord and the people (6:1–5). Also, the antiphonal alternation of voices in Mic 6–7 serves to emphasize the different nature of these ¿nal two chapters.52 This arrangement came about in the post-exilic era, after 515 B.C.E., to speak to issues relevant to the people at that time.53 D. G. Hagstrom (1982) aligned himself with his advisor’s (J. L. Mays’) division into chs. 1–5 and 6–7, based on close examination of telling features of the text. He pointed to clear differences between the two sections, as well. Micah 6–7 is of a markedly different literary character in that it has a dialogical form, with antiphonal alternation of voices. The ¿nal two chapters lack both the exile motif and the principle of punishment according to ius talionis that are found in Mic 1–5.54 Hagstrom argued that this division could also be con¿rmed by seeing that chs. 1–5 are a coherent unit by themselves, as are 6–7. Though the overall direction of his study was to show that the book as a whole is coherent, he started with the smallest units, making comments on connections within and between the verses, and proceeded from level to level of ever greater scope. The very last units for whose coherence he argued were Mic 1–5 and 6–7. Chapters 1–3 and 4–5 are two smaller, complementary, yet contrasting, units bound by concrete literary features into one larger coherent unit. Similar themes and motifs are found in each subsection of Mic 1–5—such as the peoples, Zion, misunderstanding, the gate, exile, God’s sovereignty, and the shepherd.

1

50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

Mays, Micah, 4; “Theological Purpose,” 278. Also see Renaud, Formation, 402. Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 277–78, 283–84, and Mays, Micah, 2–12. Mays, Micah, 27–28, 33. Hagstrom, Coherence, 193–201, 203–4.

146

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Different aspects of the message are portrayed by contrasts, such as the doom of chs. 1–3 as the background to the emphasis of 4–5 on restoration, or poor human leadership compared to God’s leading, or the converse sides of God’s schemes for the remnant (negative in 2:12–13, positive in 4:6–7). The destruction of idols forms a frame (1:7 and 5:12), as do summonses and warnings of judgment.55 Chapters 6–7 are differentiated from 1–5 by their literary style as a dialogue. There is a pattern of increasing dramatic tension (6:1–7:6), with a climax (7:7) and resolution (7:8–20). The theme of covenant faithfulness runs all through chs. 6–7, as do major motifs such as the “day,” God’s lawsuit, the nature of Yahweh, and the people of the Lord. The use of Israel and Jacob in 6:2 and 7:20 forms an inclusio that also delineates this section.56 Hagstrom, then, argued that because Mic 1–5 and 6–7 each form a unit, the division into these two major sections is supported. Since he did not address the historical questions, he did not present any proposals as to when this arrangement might have come into being. Several rhetorical indicators are also thought to be indicators of this arrangement of the book. Hagstrom argued that the summonses to “hear” (K3/’ f– ) in 1:2 and 6:1 are distinguished from the other occurrences of the same imperative in the book, in that they have a broader focus and evoke a courtroom setting. These two instances (1:2; 6:1) are thereby marked off as structural indicators that introduce the two major sections.57 There are also two major pivots in the book, wherein the direction or tone seems to shift markedly. These distinguish the two subsections within each major unit. They occur in the breath-taking shift between 3:9–12 and 4:1,58 and in the shift from despair to con¿dence at 7:7.59 The uses of – and 5:14 (K3/— fš ) form an inclusio which the verb “to hear” in 1:2 (K3/’ f) marks off the boundaries of the ¿rst section60 and also serve to link the two sections by catchword (5:14, and the verb 3/™ fš again in 6:1).61

55. Ibid., 150–57. 56. Ibid., 183–88. 57. Ibid., 39–48, see his summary chart on 44–45. Note his caution that this will not bear the weight of the book’s structure if taken alone. He proceeded by using the division suggested by these unique examples of “hear” as a hypothesis, and sought its con¿rmation in many instances of coherence of internal linkage. 58. Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 278; Renaud, Formation, 403. 59. Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 284. 60. Renaud, Formation, 402; Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 278. 61. Renaud, Formation, 402. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

147

Mignon Jacobs presented an understanding of this structure of the book that clari¿ed the Àow of the text based on its conceptuality. The ¿rst section, chs. 1–5, has a universal perspective since all the nations are summoned, but treats Israel’s fate in light of its sin and God’s response, while 6–7 addresses Israel’s special relationship with God. Micah 1 is the introduction that treats the fates of Samaria and Jerusalem; chs. 2–3 offer explanation of God’s displeasure; and then 4–5 transcend this with promise of future hope beyond judgment. The two main sections are held together, and thus are coherent, through their shared concern with Israel’s fate. In each section it af¿rms that God is just to judge sin, and introduces the concept of God’s mercy in the promises of restoration and forgiveness juxtaposed with the judgment.62 By way of analysis, though the case for this structure has been thoroughly presented by several important critical studies, problems remain. As for arguments based on the supposed historical development of the book, it need only be said that this is not the issue to address. The ¿nal form, which has indicators of some structuring, is the crucial question for this study, as has already been mentioned. Moreover, when viewed in relation to the ¿nal form of the text this scheme does not account for all of the data. Division into chs. 1–5 and 6–7 overlooks the function of 2:12–13 in its present location. To say that 2:12–13 has been dislocated from its proper place is acceptable as a historical conjecture, but at best that accounts for a stage that precedes the ¿nal form. Alternatively one could reinterpret 2:12–13 as an oracle of doom, as does Mays. The “apparent salvation oracle…is in fact a disclosure that the exile is the work of Yahweh. He himself gathers Israel like a Àock in a fold, breaks down the gate, and leads them away [i.e., into exile].” It serves as a climax for the prior references to exile by showing that the disaster manifests God’s sovereignty.63 Mays understood v. 12 to be a late exilic (or later) salvation prophecy. The people’s only hope lay in God’s ful¿lling his role as shepherd. He saw v. 13 as an expansion of v. 12 which reinterpreted the gathering. It is now not a prophecy of the gathering of the Àock together in deliverance, but of the gathering of the population into Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege. This makes vv. 12–13 into a larger unit that announces punishment as the work of the Lord. Mays’ understanding of v. 13 is founded on (1) two passages in the Psalms (Pss 80:12; 89:40) in š is used of God’s “breaching the which the verb “to break out” (7:™ a)

1

62. Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 226–27. 63. Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 279.

148

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

walls of Jerusalem at the city’s fall” and (2) the assertion that the reference to the gate “must presuppose and allude to the two references to the gate of Jerusalem as the focus of Yahweh’s assault on Jerusalem in 1:9, 12.” Thus, the Lord “breaks down the forti¿ed gate of Jerusalem and leads the people out through it.” This interpretation explains the placement of 2:12–13 within a sequence of prophecies of judgment.64 Sweeney also makes a similar case by attempting to account for the “threatening elements of the scenario presented in this text.” God gathering the people describes not security, but the threat that the people will be like sheep led out of their pens and into the open dangerous terrain of the wilderness, where there is the potential of lost sheep as they are scattered. “Breaking” describes a destructive action and the loss of security. He links this understanding with the circumstances of the invasion of Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E. and the accompanying exile of the inhabitants of the Shephelah. The king at their head is not a leader who rescues the people, but instead is led away “as the chief captive.” Yahweh is at the front of the procession not to deliver them, but because he is himself the cause of the exile who leads them to punishment.65 Though a creative idea, this interpretation seems forced and the evidence weak. It is more natural to read the verses as an oracle of salvation, along with the vast majority of exegetes, on the following grounds. Two references in the Psalms do not assure us that the verb in Micah is used in the same, or even a similar manner. How do we know that the mention of the gate necessarily picks up the earlier references in Micah? It hardly seems that Mays has established with any certainty that ™ must the gate is Jerusalem’s or that “the one who breaks through” (7:œ— a!) have reference to God initiating and superintending the exile, rather than ending it. The people are indeed released from a pen, but this seems more likely to evoke freedom. Note that Mays even took v. 12 in its earlier form to be salvation, providing some indication that the language is most easily understood as hope rather than judgment. Instead, it would seem that the language of and parallels to vv. 12–13 indicate that this is a salvation oracle, based on three lines of evidence. First, the language of the passage indicates its character as hope-¿lled promise. The people are brought together from the scattering mentioned ž “all of in 1:16; 2:4, 10. This is described using terms of totality (TXš V, you”) and togetherness (5œ2“ ˜ 5œ2, š 7C— 9™ ” 7C— 9,™ %™ ™', “gather,” “bring

1

64. Mays, Micah, 74–76. 65. Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 365–67.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

149

together,” “together”), which intentionally refer to the reversal of the scattering of exile. The shepherding imagery (!:š 8’ Cš 0œ8V, ’ “like sheep in a ’ “like a Àock in its pasture”) bespeaks salvation pen,” L:’ Gš !™ TL=C’ :˜ 4— V, and protection in the care of the Lord, rather than the cruelty of deportation. It is the Lord, their shepherd, who is “at their head” and “their king,” not the armies leading away a defeated people.66 The image of the place teeming with people is a promise of numerical strength, and thus to be interpreted as deliverance and not discontent as Sweeney ™ and leads the people suggested. The “one who breaks out” (7:œ— a!) through the gate can be understood to lead them back from exile, just as well as to lead them into exile, as Mays had proposed. Mention of the gate picks up on and reverses earlier references to the gate (1:9, 12). ™ is N. Mendecki has even proposed that the reference to the gate (:4™ f) a pun on the name of Babylon (Akkad. bâb-ilƯ, “gate of the god[s]”). If this is the case, it would imply that the march is out of exile, instead of into captivity, for the pun would indicate that the people are leaving Babylon.67 The clear parts of this text (12 and 13d–e) are positive in content. The unclear lines (13a–c), with the picture of “the breaker” leading the people through the gate, can be read as positive just as well as negative. It seems most prudent to allow the immediate context of v. 13a–c to tip the scales in favor of their being understood in a positive sense. These pictures are in vivid contrast with the preceding section (1:2–2:11), picking up on prior references to “gate” or the use of “scatter” and changing their direction. It is rather dif¿cult to read them as a continuation of the same tone of judgment. Indeed this sharp juxtaposition of images and ideas parallels that which Mays saw at the juncture between 3:12 and 4:1, and is in fact analogous to that as a transition from judgment to hope. Second, there are other references to the remnant in the book of Micah (4:6–7; 5:6–8; 7:18–20). Each of these is unquestionably hopeful in tone. Even Mays and Sweeney understand them thus. Why, then, would the ¿rst of four references to a concept as crucial and strategically placed as the remnant undercut the very purpose for which the others have been positioned as they are throughout the book? Each of the four gives reassurance and hope.

66. It is easier to understand “their king” here to connote the Lord, and not a human king, due to the parallel structure. 67. Norbert Mendecki, “Die Sammlung und der neue Exodus in Mich 2, 12–13,” Kairos 23 (1981): 96–99. 1

150

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Third, parallels to vv. 12–13 indicate that the language is positive. N. Mendecki has studied the inÀuences discernible in 2:12–13. He argues that the author of this passage used phrases and concepts from DeuteroIsaiah and Ezekiel in v. 12, while v. 13 contains Deutero-Isaianic inÀuences. The use of the word pair 52 // 79 and the designation of the people as a Àock may be derived from Ezekiel (see Ezek 11:14–17 and Ezek 34). The concept of the remnant (cf. Isa 46:3; 49:21–23), the word pair “Jacob-Israel” (cf. Isa 46:3), the large scope and size of the regathering (cf. Isa 49:18–20), and the new Exodus of v. 13, along with Yahweh’s role as the king who delivers (cf. Isa 42:13; 43:14–15; 45:1–4; 52:11–12) all can be traced to Deutero-Isaiah.68 Though not decisive in itself, these parallel concepts and language are quite promising and hopeful when they appear in other contexts. Also, when the parallel word pair 52 and 79 is used in the prophets with God as subject and God’s people as object, it communicates positive content (Isa 11:12; Ezek 11:17; Mic 4:6).69 Taking all of this evidence together, it is hard to substantiate Mays’ reading of Mic 2:12–13 as negative. The oracle is a promise of salvation. A further weakness of the division into Mic 1–5 and 6–7 is that it does – in 3:1. not account for the presence of the summons to “hear” (K3/’ f) Both sections do start with the imperative “hear” (1:2; 6:1), but is Hagstrom’s argument that these two are distinct from the other uses of “hear” in the book really convincing? According to this arrangement, a summons to hear (3:1) occurs within the ¿rst unit, though not to introduce the start of the second subsection (chs. 4–5), and then no such summons occurs within the second unit (chs. 6–7). Why not? Would not this be good reason to argue that chs. 1–2 and 3–5 are sections on the same level as 6–7? To divide into sections of chs. 1–3 and 4–5 may indeed be inadequate, as Mays has argued.70 However, to group 1–5 into one section also seems inadequate. There may yet be another, more satisfactory, way to outline Mic 1–5.

68. Ibid. 69. See Wilfred G. E. Watson, “The Hebrew Word-pair ‘sp // qb‫܈‬,” ZAW 96 (1984): 426–34. Note, too, that both words are used in Mic 4:11–12, though the instances are separated by three lines. Here the reference is to the Lord gathering the nations against Israel in order to carry out his plan upon them, an indirect promise of hope for Israel. The word pair also occurs in Zeph 3:8, in which God gathers the nations for judgment, another example of indirect promise for the people of God. 70. Mays, “Theological Purpose,” 278. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

151

In addition, the indicators used to establish chs. 6–7 as a separate section, while convincing in showing the uniqueness of 6–7 within the book, do not necessarily imply that chs. 1–5 constitute the book’s only other section. There is indeed a catchword “hear” in 5:14 and 6:1 which could indicate a major break and provide a bridge between sections. This does not, on the other hand, indicate that here is the only break between major divisions of the book. Why not argue for a break between two sections connected by “head” in 2:13 (-fœ š :C) ’ and 3:1 ('f — :,š as does Willis71) or by a play on the similar sound of !kš ™ and !kš 4™ in 4:8 and 9 (see following chapters)? There may be an inclusio intended with the two uses of “hear” in Mic 1:2 and 5:14. But how do we know that there was not meant to be an inclusio between the occurrence in 1:2 and one of the other instances of the second person plural imperative “hear” in the book, such as 3:1, 9; or 6:9? Or that this represents the resumption of a prominent word at the start of successive major sections? Each of these other instances is even the same imperative form of summons that is in 1:2 and would thus seem more likely to be closely related to 1:2 from the start than would the instance in 5:14. Why might there not have been an inclusio intended with different words, such as -Xš Vž (“all of them,” 1:2) and TXš Vž (“all of you,” 2:12), thus rounding off 1:2–2:13 as a complete section? Or why not argue that the references made to the nations in 4:1–4 and 5:9–14 form an inclusio that serve to mark off chs. 4–5 as a unit? How can we know that “hear” was intentionally used in 5:14 as the latter member of an inclusio? It might also be the case that the word was employed with no intent of any connection between the two instances. Is it simply another occurrence of a different form of the same verb in the text, which in this case serves as a catchword link that connects with the following section? The pivots between 3:12 and 4:1 and in 7:7 are important transitions and shifts in tone and content. However, they do not show that the only two units are chs. 1–5 and 6–7. A pivot at 3:12 and 4:1 could show that both what precedes and follows are held together as a unit by the juxtaposition of the contrasting ways in which they treat the same topic (leadership), but is the unit necessarily chs. 1–5? Why could not this be the decisive shift in chs. 3–5, or 3:1–4:8, as a unit? Probably all would agree that 7:7 is the turning point of chs. 6–7. Why is there no catchword here, as there is at the ¿rst pivot? This could indicate that the two

1

71. Willis, “Structure,” 39–40.

152

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

transitions are not of the same scope and signi¿cance within the book’s Àow. Might there be other pivots, at which decisive changes are made in the progress of the book’s thought? Finally, is Mays’ interpretation of the book’s development of thought (chs. 1–5 addressed to the nations, chs. 6–7 to Israel) a convincing way to read the contents? No one doubts that chs. 6–7 address God’s people, whether of the South or North. On the other hand, so much in chs. 1–5 is also clearly directed to God’s people that it is dif¿cult to sustain the idea that these chapters address the nations. The nations do play a part, especially in chs. 4–5. In 1:2 they are summoned to hear what the Lord will do in punishing his own. However, their presence is subsidiary to the purpose of reproaching Judah. The focus then turns to the fall and sins of Samaria and Jerusalem. It continues thus, without exception, until the start of ch. 4. The nations are on stage in Mic 4–5. However, their role here is always, in the end, to reassure Israel. Yahweh, their God, is so powerful that he will rule the nations (4:1–7). Though the nations attack Israel (4:10–11; 5:4–5), God will deliver his own (5:1–8) and take vengeance on the nations (5:14). The primary purpose in all this would seem to be to comfort God’s own in their relation to the surrounding world. Even if there is an inclusio in 1:2 and 5:14, this would emphasize that the nations are hearing what God will do to Israel in the ¿rst passage and are the objects of his wrath in the second, which then is actually a reassurance to God’s own people. Thus, the focus here would be on Israel, not the nations. In actuality, the whole book is addressed to Judah/ Israel. The intended addressee is not then an effective criterion on which to base the division of the book. (4) Proposed Structures Based Primarily on Adherence to the Final Form of the Text. Especially in the last several decades there has been a desire to ground the discussion of the structure of the book ¿rst and foremost in the objective data of the text, with an acknowledgment that the ¿nal form of the text was brought into existence to communicate a message whatever the stages in the process of growth that led to this ¿nal form might have been. Methodologies from the newer literary and rhetorical criticisms have been brought to bear on the text to search for tell-tale signs and indicators of coherence that would point to a structure to guide the reading process.

1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

153

(a) Basis: The Role of Micah 2:12–13 and Placement of the Summons to Hear Micah 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7 Con¿rmation in the Three-Fold Alternation of Doom and Hope [Scholars: C. Keil (1878, translation 1949); B. Copass and E. Carlson (1950); J. Willis (1969); W. Rudolph (1975); L. Allen (1976); B. Renaud (1977, for the fourth stage of redactional growth); B. Childs (1979); J. Coffman (1986); R. Smith (1984); T. McComiskey (1985); D. Schibler (1989, with a minor variation72); E. Otto (1991, 1992); W. LaSor, D. Hubbard, F. Bush (1996); K. Barker (1998, 1999); B. Waltke (1988, 1993, 2007); M. Chaney (2009); Stulman and Kim (2010); J. McConville (2012)]

A number of recent works have suggested that the three parts are chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7 (see Fig. 4.3). This understanding of the structure is grounded in a desire to adhere to the ¿nal form of the text, and thus also to acknowledge the role of 2:12–13 as an oracle of hope.73 The presence of 2:12–13 as a salvation oracle invalidates reading chs. 1–3 as a unit of judgment and doom in the ¿nal form of the book. The proposed outline accounts for 2:12–13 in its present context as a contrasting word of hope.74 There is no need to relocate it within the book or to dismiss it as later or to reinterpret its meaning. Instead the oracle can function where it is in the ¿nal form of the book and as an announcement of salvation. This serves as the hope that responds to the doom proclaimed in 1:2– 2:11 and creates a thrice-repeated cycle of alternating doom and hope for the text as one progresses through the whole book.75 Con¿rmation of this structure’s validity is sought especially in the presence of the summons to “hear” (1:2; 3:1; 6:1) as a prominent editorial clue that marks the

72. Daniel Schibler, Le Livre de Michée (Commentaire Evangélique de la Bible; Vaux-sur-Seine: Editions de la Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangélique, 1989), 43–44, based on the alternation of negative and positive, adopts this outline. But on pp. 29–30 he has a modi¿ed version, seeming to assign 5:9–14 to what follows rather than precedes, which would result in apparently 1–2/3:1–5:8/5:9–7:20. 73. See, e.g., Renaud, Formation, 402, 419; Rudolph, Micha–Nahum–Habakuk– Zephanja, 24; Willis, “Structure,” 12. 74. See, e.g., Childs, Introduction, 431; Rudolph, Micha–Nahum–Habakuk– Zephanja, 24. 75. Otto’s ABABAB structure of contrasts. McComiskey does essentially the same thing, but views it as a thrice-repeated tripartite sequence of “Hear” + doom + hope. Copass and Carlson divided the same material into accusation + judgment + promise. 1

154

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

beginning of a new section of condemnation followed by salvation.76 In addition, proponents of this reading of the structure trace the symmetry of the sections in an ABA sequence in which chs. 1–2 and 6–7 resemble each other in structure, each with a long series of negative oracles, followed by a short section of hope, while chs. 3–5 are distinguished as a unique section once it is noted that there is proportionally less space allotted to doom and more to hope, and that the doom and hope are intermingled together, gradually altering the proportion to favor hope.77 Catchwords at the transitional junctures between sections are also adduced as support for this reading: “head” at the end of ch. 2 and beginning of ch. 3 (forms of fœ : in 2:13; 3:1) and “hear” at the end of ch. 5 and start of ch. 6 (forms of 3/™ fš in 5:14; 6:1). 1–2

3–5 x x x x x

6–7

Basis: Adherence to ¿nal form of text Basis: Acknowledgment of the role of 2:12–13 in the order of the ¿nal form Basis: Arrangement of content in three sections, each of which begins with doom and ends with hope (doom [1:2–2:11] and hope [2:12–13]; doom [3:1–12] and hope [chs. 4–5]; doom [6:1–7:6] and hope [7:7–20]) Basis: Placement of prominent summons to ‘hear’ (1:2; 3:1; 6:1) Con¿rmations: x Symmetry of sections in an ABA order, so that chs. 1–2 and 6–7 resemble each other in structure and chs. 3–5 stands out as a unique section x Presence of catchwords between sections Figure 4.3

The Outline Proposed for the Book of Micah by Dividing into Three Sections: Chapters 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7 [Keil; Copass and Carlson; Willis; Rudolph; Allen; Renaud; Childs; Coffman; Smith; McComiskey; Schibler; Otto; LaSor, Hubbard, Bush; Barker; Waltke; Chaney; Stulman and Kim; McConville]

76. See, e.g., Rudolph, Micha–Nahum–Habakuk–Zephanja, 24, 65, 108; Willis, “Structure,” 12. 77. James Coffman, “Micah,” in The Minor Prophets: Hosea, Obadiah and Micah, vol. 2 (rev. ed.; Abilene, Tex.; ACU, 1986), 267–380, makes the interesting claim that “these dominant divisions therefore have the utility of suggesting, without actually saying so, that they correspond to the reigns of three different kings mentioned,” meaning Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, who are mentioned in the superscription in 1:1 (pp. 270–71). 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

155

This understanding of the structure of the book is well-grounded in the phenomena of the text, as evidenced by Keil’s advocating this way of reading the book in his work of 1878. He based this on the similar introduction for each unit, along with the similar contents, moving in each section from reproof through threat to promise which rounds off each division. He was so convinced of this that he commented that “all attempts at any other division…are obviously arbitrary.”78 Reading the book in sections of chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7 has enjoyed considerable popularity in recent years, receiving a thorough exposition and defense ¿rst from J. Willis (1969), followed by a number of others. Willis made a rather detailed proposal for an overall structure in the same three sections, chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7, based initially on the presence of the summons to hear (K3/’ f– ) at the beginning of each section (1:2; 3:1; 6:1) and on the symmetrical arrangement that comes from the threefold sequence of a section of doom followed by a section of hope.79 Willis sought to con¿rm this in more depth. His analysis of the “horizontal coherence” pointed to af¿nities between the three doom sections and likewise for the corresponding hope sections.80 Further, he examined the “vertical coherence” of the book of Micah, and concluded that “there is also a progression of thought within each of the three divisions of the book, which is supplemented by catchwords, connectives, and contrasts.”81 In other words, the material in each of his three sections holds together as a unit by itself. Also, chs. 1–2 and 6–7 have many parallels, especially in the form and arrangement of the pericopes,82 as well as in the predominance of oracles of doom in each.83 Micah 3–5 is a section on its own due to its different nature. Here there are primarily hope oracles. Its section of doom, quite unlike the varied nature of the pericopes in the doom sections of chs. 1–2 and 6–7, is made of three parallel pericopes of similar length and structure (3:1–4, 5–8, 9–12). Thus, the similarities between chs. 1–2 and 6–7, coupled with the different nature of 3–5, show the book to have been arranged in an ABA pattern.84 This also con¿rms the existence of each of these segments as a major unit in the course of the whole book. Finally, Willis shores up his case for so dividing the 78. Carl Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, vol. 2 (trans. J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949; translation of 1878 original), 422. 79. Willis, “Structure,” 12. 80. Ibid., 13–31. 81. Ibid., 31–40. 82. Ibid., 31–32, 34–35. 83. Ibid., 14. 84. Ibid.

1

156

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

book with the observation that each major section of the book is linked with the adjacent section by a catchword. The ¿rst two sections are linked by “head,” “at their head” (2:13), and “heads of Jacob” (3:1), while the last two sections are connected through the use of “hear” (K3/— fš , 5:14; K3/’ f, – 6:1).85 According to Willis, this ordering came about in Palestine during the time of the Exile, to help the community struggle with “a particular type of problem in its own historical situation.”86 W. Rudolph (1975) adopted the same three divisions (chs. 1–2, 3–5, 6–7) on similar grounds. His argument began with the position of 2:12– 13, which ends the ¿rst section with an oracle of salvation, and noticing that each of the three parts starts with the same summons to “hear,” and is ordered on a scheme of condemnation/salvation. He sought con¿rmation for this division from seeing connections between chs. 1 and 2, and then 6 and 7, in Àow of thought. The book came into its present form in the ¿rst half of the ¿fth century B.C.E.87 L. C. Allen (1976) joined Willis and Rudolph in perceiving an arrangement of chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7, with some signi¿cant nuancing. (See his chart, reproduced here as Figure 4.4.) His argument proceeded on somewhat different lines. The presence of 2:12–13 prevents us from taking chs. 1–3 as a unit. Rather, he contended that there are clear parallels between chs. 1–2 and 6–7 in that each starts with the same summons to “hear,” uses language of the court, contains grave warnings, and is composed of a long negative block followed by a hopeful block. This suggests that the second section begins at 3:1. He found con¿rmation for this in a new analysis of chs. 3–5, which concluded that this portion holds together as its own concentric and symmetrical unit. These chapters are arranged in a concentric structure which gives a kaleidoscopic picture of the judgment and salvation of God’s people and city. Two passages with a long segment of doom and a short segment of hope ring the section (3:1–4:5 and 5:9–14). Inside this centerpiece are two passages which contain promise for the remnant and pictures of general hope mixed with allusions to present disaster (4:6–8 and 5:6–8). In the center of the section is a nucleus consisting of three parallel units (4:9–10, 11– ™ deals with present distress 13, 4:14–5:5). Each starts with “now” (!kš 4), and future hope, and moves to a triumphant climax. That chs. 3–5 exhibit such a concentric structure shows that they belong together as a unit and also con¿rms that 1–2 and 6–7 are to be marked off as the other sections. Micah 3:1–4:5 and 5:9–14 are a framework each of which echoes the

1

85. Ibid., 39–40. 86. Ibid., 13, 40–42. 87. Rudolph, Micha–Nahum–Habakuk–Zephanja, 24–25.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

157

structure of 1–2 and 6–7 in having long doom and brief hope. Micah 1–2 and 6–7 in their turn play a supporting role for the central section. Allen says that the composition of the book in its present form probably dates from the post-exilic era prior to Ezra and Nehemiah.88 1:2–2:11 long doom

I. 1:2–2:13

2:12, 13 short hope 3:1–12 long doom 4:1–5 short hope 4:6–8 (remnant) hope with distress allusions

II. 3:1–5:15

4:9, 10

4:11–13

5:1–6

long distress and doom + short hope

short distress

short distress

+ long hope

+ longer hope

5:7–9 (remnant) hope with distress allusions 5:10–14 long doom 5:15 short hope

III. 6:1–7:20

6:1–7:7 long doom 7:8–20 short hope Figure 4.4

Allen’s Understanding of the Arrangement of the Material in the Book of Micah Adapted from Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, p. 260. Used with permission

Further evidence has been sought to con¿rm such a scheme of organization. First, Willis noted the presence of the catchwords “head” (2:13; 3:1) and “hear” (5:14; 6:1) bridging the breaks between sections.89 Second, both Willis and Allen ¿nd detailed internal parallels that link

1

88. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, 251–52, 257–60. 89. Willis, “Structure,” 39–40.

158

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

chs. 1–2 with 6–7. In Mic 1 and 6 there are summonses to hear, court language, and grave warnings. Both chs. 1–2 and 6–7 are structured on a similar pattern of a long section of doom, followed by a shorter section of promise and hope.90 These internal parallels also mark off the two portions as distinct sections. Third, these same scholars have argued that chs. 3–5 ought to be understood together as a unit, distinct from the surrounding sections. The details of their analyses of chs. 3–5 differed. Allen argued for a concentric structure. Willis pointed to the unique form and structure of the doom section in Mic 3, along with the series of seven interrelated pericopes in 4–5. In both studies, the point is that chs. 3–5 are of a different character than 1–2 and 6–7. This distinction results in the symmetrical arrangement of the sections in an ABA pattern.91 This understanding of the structure of the book, however, also seems inadequate. It is commendable for our purposes in that it works with the ¿nal form and discerns coherence. In particular, 2:12–13 is allowed to function as an oracle of hope where it stands in the canonical form of the book and the differences between chs. 1–2 and 3, as well as the complicated mix of materials and forms in chs. 4–5, are also acknowledged. Nonetheless, there are still dif¿culties. Two of Hagstrom’s criticisms of this structure may be dismissed at the start. He argued that this reading of the book places too much emphasis on 2:12–13. This short pericope is not comparable in length to chs. 4–5 or 7:7–20.92 Yet even the considerable difference in length between the other two shows that to require that the hopeful parts be either at least a certain length or the same length is not a criterion that can be used to devalue the signi¿cance of 2:12–13. It could make sense to place the shortest section of hope ¿rst, so that the book would evidence a coherence derived from structure that builds to a climax with the longer and more emphatic hope sections. Possibly 2:12–13 is made all the more emphatic by its conciseness. Hagstrom also pointed out that this arrangement split the commonly accepted core of genuine Micah material in chs. 1–3.93 That, however, is not an issue of the ¿nal form. A redactor or editor may not have had any idea at all as to which of the received traditions could be traced back to the prophet Micah. Thus, to

90. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, 257–58; Willis, “Structure,” 13, 31–32, 34. 91. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, 258–60; Willis, “Structure,” 14, 38–39. 92. Hagstrom, Coherence, 35–36. 93. Ibid., 36.

1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

159

read a modern historical-critical distinction back into the book as a foundation for understanding the structure makes its arrangement dependent on something which would not have been accessible to the ancients. Note further that all such reconstructions are speculative and tenuous. However, there are other objections to this order for the whole book which are more compelling. It is problematic as to whether or not the summonses to hear in Mic 1:2; 3:1; and 6:1 are intended to be key structural markers for the start of major sections. Hagstrom argued that the two summonses to hear in 1:2 and 6:1 were unlike the other instances in the book. He pointed to their distinctness from 3:1, which is introduced by “and I said,” has more speci¿ed addressees who act as defendants instead of witnesses, and lacks legal terminology.94 On the other hand H. W. Wolff concluded that the form and the relations to the surrounding verses distinguish 6:1 from the instances in 1:2 and 3:1, 9.95 This gives some indication that not all the summonses are used identically, yet the uniqueness of any one instance or the similarities between two of the occurrences are not clear-cut. However, even if the nature of their use need not serve to differentiate between the examples, as Hagstrom has done, it is plausible that the occurrence of the summons to hear at the start of three pericopes caused the arrangement into three sections. Yet this explanation also fails, for it does not allow for new sections at 3:9 and 6:9, where there are other summonses to hear. The problems these occurrences cause as signals for making the division chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7, are seen especially in the close correspondence between the imperative “hear!” in 3:1 and 9. Compare who is addressed in each and the similarity of topic: Hear, O heads of Jacob and leaders of the house of Israel, Is it not for you to know justice? (Mic 3:1) Hear this, O heads of the house of Jacob and leaders of the house of Israel, Who abhor justice and distort what is right… (Mic 3:9)

Who is to say that Mic 3:1 should start a major section, while 3:9 should not? The two instances seem almost identical in function in their context. And how are we to be sure that these summonses are central to the ordering of the book? The summons to hear in 1:2 is even directed to the nations and not Israel. This ¿ts with the immediate context of the

1

94. Ibid., 39–48. 95. Wolff, Micha, XXXII, 142.

160

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

opening of the initial passage, for the Lord is calling the peoples as witness, but does not dictate an overall direction for the whole section to follow, a section which concerns the people of God. Rather, the mention of the nations gives special emphasis to the pericope of which it is a part. It is sound to see the occurrence of the summons to hear as an indicator of the start of a new oracle, and only adduce it as a major structural indicator in con¿rmation of an arrangement for the whole that is primarily founded on other features in the text. As already mentioned, there is doom in chs. 4–5. This, too, deviates from the pattern of a neat threefold alternation of sections of doom followed by sections of hope, in which ch. 3 has judgment while chs. 4–5 recount the glorious future. There have been several detailed analyses of Mic 4–5 or 3–5, notably those by Nielsen (1954), Renaud (1964), Willis (1969, 196996), and Allen (1976). Each of these has acknowledged and tried to account for the presence of the elements of doom in Mic 4–5. The problem is that the doom is intermixed in so many places that it becomes dif¿cult to decide where to begin and end sections (see further in Chapter 6). In addition, there are problems with taking chs. 3–5 all together as a major unit. Hagstrom pointed to similarities of tone and content that link chs. 1–2 with 3, as well as to the function of “and I said” (:/œ™  š#, 3:1), which, in his opinion, also links the sections.97 Furthermore, chs. 3–5 most naturally seem to represent two sections of the book which each have their own characteristic features of structure and style, as well as clear shifts of theme (3:1–4:8 and 4:9–5:14; see the exposition of these segments, pp. 227–45). Micah 3:1–12 portrays the corrupt leadership of the people. A sharp contrast is made with the description of God as king in 4:1–8. This contrast and the way the theme of the second passage responds directly to the theme of the ¿rst, seems to bind 3:1–4:8 together as a unit. Micah 3:1–4:8 ends with a promise to the remnant. That which follows, 4:9–5:14, is of an entirely different nature. It is unlike 3:1–4:8, which was arranged in a clear and distinct order (the sinful leaders in 3:1–12—God’s perfect kingship in 4:1–8) and dealt with a uni¿ed topic—leadership. In contrast 4:9–5:14 seems to be a jumbled mix of oracles of hope and doom, which can ¿nally be resolved adequately only by perceiving the symmetrical arrangements of both the doom and hope sections. In addition, the theme shifts to defeat and victory in war. Near

96. Willis, “Micah 3–5,” 191–214; Willis, “The Authenticity and Meaning of Micah 5:9–14,” ZAW 81 (1969): 353–68. 97. Hagstrom, Coherence, 36. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

161

the end of this segment (5:6–8) is again a mention of the remnant. Why should these chapters not, instead, be read as two sections—3:1–4:8 and 4:9–5:14—with different themes, varied structures, and each section featuring God’s work with the remnant at or near the end? It would at least be consistent with the pattern set by the placement of oracles which refer to the remnant at the end of the ¿rst and last sections of the book (2:12–13; 7:18–20). The beginning (1:2–2:13) and ending (chs. 6–7) sections also deal with their own distinct themes. As Willis and Allen argued, there are internal parallels between chs. 1–2 and 6–7. This can establish that Mic 1–2 and 6–7 are independent units. However, it does not establish that 3–5 is a unit of its own. Based on the different themes and structures of the two segments of Mic 3–5, it is reasonable to suggest that there are actually two independent units within chs. 3–5. (b) Basis: The Placement of the Remnant Passages. Micah 1–2; 3:1–4:8; 4:9–5:14; and 6–7 Con¿rmation in the Four-Fold Alternation of Doom and Hope [Scholars: R. Rendtorff (1985); K. Cuffey (1987, 2000); H. Kee, et al. (1997); J. Rogerson (2003);98 P. Redditt (2008)]

This understanding of the structure of the book is also grounded in a desire to adhere to the ¿nal form of the text for the discussion. As a result, 2:12–13, in its present place in the text, can be acknowledged as a hope section. The key distinguishing element in this reading, however, is in the observation of the placement of the passages which mention a remnant (see Figure 4.5 below). Each of these occurs in a section of hope. Based on careful exegesis of the remnant passages, the reader can discern that the content of the book is actually arranged in four sections, each of which begins with doom and ends with hope (doom [1:2–2:11] and hope [2:12–13]; doom [3:1–12] and hope [4:1–8]; doom [4:9–14] and hope [5:1–14]; doom [6:1–7:6] and hope [7:7–20]). A con¿rmation of this reading is to be found in the fact that each of these sections of hope, which in some way or another refer to a remnant, answers directly to the concerns raised in the immediately preceding section of judgment.

98. With the slight variation that his outline of the book is chs. 1–2; 3:1–4:8; 4:9–5:8; 5:9–7:20, based on understanding 5:9–14 as an oracle of judgment instead of as a promise of salvation. John Rogerson, “Micah,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. J. Dunn and J. Rogerson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 703. 1

162

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

1–2

3:1–4:8 x x

x

x

4:9–5:14

6–7

Basis: Adherence to ¿nal form of text (with acknowledgment of the role of 2:12–13 in the order of the ¿nal form) Basis: Placement of passages which mention a remnant x References to a remnant always in a section of hope x The section of hope always responds directly and thematically to the concerns and issues raised in the immediately preceding section of doom Basis: Arrangement of content in four sections, each of which begins with doom and ends with hope (doom [1:2–2:11] and hope [2:12–13]; doom [3:1–12] and hope [4:1–8]; doom [4:9–14] and hope [5:1–14]; doom 6:1–7:6] and hope [7:7–20]) Con¿rmations: x Symmetry of sections in an ABBA order, so that chs. 1–2 and 6–7 resemble each other in strategy; while 3:1–4:8 and 4:9–5:14 each stand out as unique and are to be distinguished from chs. 1–2 and 6–7 in strategy x Presence of catchwords and concepts which link sections at the primary junctures x Focus on what is auditory/audible at the start of each section Figure 4.5 The Outline Proposed for the Book of Micah by Dividing into Four Sections: Chapters 1–2; 3:1–4:8; 4:9–5:14, and 6–7 [Rendtorff; Cuffey; Kee et al.; Rogerson; Redditt]

Additional con¿rmations are to be found in several supporting lines of evidence. First, the sections are arranged symmetrically in an ABBA order. Chapters 1–2 and 6–7 resemble each other in strategy with a developed section of doom that makes its case blow by blow and draws our attention ever downwards in tone and emotion; followed by hope that presents a sharp contrast, in 2:12–13, with a brief and sudden, but sharply delineated, response and in 7:7–20 in an extended hope that grows in a crescendo to the theological climax of the book. Quite unlike the sections that Àank them, 3:1–4:8 and 4:9–5:14 each stand out as unique in their arrangement and are to be distinguished from chs. 1–2 and 6–7 in strategy. The simplest structure in the entire book is found in 3:1–4:8: three parallel oracles in the doom (3:1–12) and a bold statement of God’s sovereign rule in the hope (4:1–8). This is followed by the most complex structural scheme in the book in 4:9–5:14: a symmetrical structure for the material proclaiming doom in 4:9–14 followed by a different symmetrical structure in the portion of hope in 5:1–14. Unique to this third section of the book (4:9–5:14) is the way in which elements of doom and 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

163

hope are intermixed throughout, so that hopeful references are found in the symmetry of doom (4:9–14) and allusions to judgment are incorporated into the section of salvation (5:1–14). Second, con¿rmation can also be found in the presence of catchwords and concepts that bridge the sections—“head” between 2:12–13 and 3:1; female personi¿cation (Daughter Zion, Daughter Jerusalem, woman in labor) and rulership (dominion, kingship, no king, ruler perished) between 4:8 and 4:9; “hear” between 5:14 and 6:1. Third, also note the focus on the auditory dimension at the beginning of each section, with the placement of prominent summons to “hear” at the beginning of three main divisions (1:2; 3:1; 6:1) and the loud cry of distress and the woman in labor in the other section (4:9). Thus based on the placement of the oracles which refer to the remnant and the manner in which each passage that mentions the remnant treats a topic that addresses the concern of the preceding section of doom, this work will propose and present a detailed analysis of this structure for the book (see Chapters 5 and 6). This understanding of the arrangement of the book will allow the reader to trace a four-fold alternation between doom and hope and will account for a signi¿cant amount of other detail in the text. Since the following two chapters will make the case for this reading of the book, and evaluate what it implies for interpreting Micah and for perceiving its coherence, there will be no further detail here beyond this overview explanation, other than to register this in the lineup of suggested options for a coherent structure for the book.99 (c) Basis: Rhetorical Analysis and Issues. A series of recent studies has utilized rhetorical criticism to full advantage in examining the structure of the book. These have particularly noted the presence of syntactic connectors as indicators of junctures in the text, as well as sought to reconstruct the rhetorical situation that led to the particular discourse we now have. These are united by the concern to utilize rhetorical analysis, but are each distinct from the others in the overall structures that are propounded and in the particular evidence adduced to support each structural scheme, rendering it dif¿cult to summarize them together. Rather each needs to be seen in its own light. 99. Some time after the dissertation had been turned in (May 1987) it came to my attention that Rendtorff had apparently adopted this structure in his The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985, translation of German from 1983), 228–30, without such a detailed argument to ground it. This had not been available to me when doing the research and writing, so please note that Rendtorff and I came to the same conclusion independently of each other. My detailed argumentation in favor of reading the text in this way is in Chapters 5 and 6. 1

164

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

(i) An Overall Symmetry. Micah 1; 2; 3; 4–5; 6; 7:1–7; 7:8–20 A Chiasm Centered on Restoration [Scholars: D. Dorsey (1999)]

In a thorough study of the literary structure of the Old Testament and the complex arrangements found in individual books throughout, Dorsey proposes that we view the book of Micah to be structured in an overall symmetry with three corresponding sections on either side of a central focus on “glorious future restoration.” The beginning and end of the book mirror each other, with Mic 1:1–16 concerned with approaching defeat and destruction, while 7:8–20 depicts the reversal of the same. Within these are two sections that feature the people’s corruption and depravity (2:1–13 and 7:1–7), Àanking an exposé of the corruption of the leadership (3:1–12 and 6:1–16). This leaves Mic 4–5 as the highlighted center that is focused on Yahweh’s own righteous reign which will bring glory in a restoration. He also maintains a sensitivity to the rhetorical features which delineate each of these sections. Chapter 1 is an effective attention-getter; ch. 2 is marked as a new unit by the cry of “woe”; ch. 3 begins with the call to hear that commonly is used to delineate the beginning of prophetic messages. The central passage, Mic 4–5, introduces an entirely new theme: “God’s future good plans for Israel under the leadership of Yahweh and his own rulers” and is structured in seven stanzas in their own symmetrical arrangement. Chapter 6 is introduced by another summons to hear; 7:1–7 by an introductory “woe” (that mirrors the “woe” at the start of ch. 2, even though each is a different Hebrew word); and 7:8–20 is marked off by a change in mood to joy at coming restoration. This results in a structure as follows: a

coming defeat and destruction (1:1–16) b corruption of the people (2:1–13) c corruption of leaders (3:1–12) D CENTER: glorious future restoration under Yahweh’s own strong and righteous rule (4:1–5:14/15) cƍ corruption of leaders (6:1–16) bƍ corruption of the people (7:1–7) aƍ future reversal of defeat and destruction (7:8–20)100

1

100.

Dorsey, Literary Structure, 296–300.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

165

There are many strengths to Dorsey’s understanding of the structure of the book. Since his approach is so different from that of the proposals which follow in this section, evaluation of Dorsey will be included in this section, while the evaluation of the other readings of the book will be reserved for collective reÀection at the end. The initial focus on judgment is balanced and resolved by ¿nishing the book considering rebuilding. This recognizes the importance of these themes and suggests that the book’s overall intent is “to encourage, not dishearten.” This structure also recognizes a movement within the text of posing dilemmas and then answering them.101 At the same time it has certain weaknesses that make it inadequate to explain the overall arrangement of the book. The proposal overlooks the role of Mic 2:12–13 as a prophecy of salvation, and concludes it is warning and not hope merely in a footnote. The treatment of the order of chs. 4–5 combines the judgment and promise together in a way that seems to cancel out the impact of the ominous threats of coming doom. Chapter 6 addresses a more general audience than primarily leaders. His symmetry obscures the way in which 7:1–7 picks up the tone and themes of 6:1–16 and continues to develop them, as well as uses a different term for “woe” than did 2:1. Although he notes a delineation between 7:1–7 and 7:8–20 based on a change of mood to joy, the same transitions of mood from doom to joyful hope between 2:11 and 12 and between 4:14 and 5:1 do not factor into any shifts between major sections. Further, the use of common markers, such as the summons to hear and the placement of references to the remnant, is uneven. The summons to listen begins his sections c and cƍ. Yet the occurrence of a summons to hear in 1:2 does not appear to play a role in the delineation of the ¿rst section (1:1–16) as a unit. A prominent role seems to be assigned to the summons to hear in 3:9 in the text, but it does not begin a major segment in Dorsey’s symmetry, neither does the instance in 6:9. The mentions of the remnant are to be found now at the end of his b and aƍ, but they are embedded in two places within d. (ii) A Thematic Inclusio. Micah 1 and 7 Flanking Internal Subunits: 2, 3, 4:1–5:3, 5:4–14, and 6 [Scholars: L. Luker (1987)]

Lamontte Luker gave careful attention to the textual indicators that delineate the organization and Àow of the book. He noted the three traditions that connect chs. 1 and 7: the presence of lamentation, the 1

101.

Ibid., 299–300.

166

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Divine Warrior, and personifying the people as a woman. God descends to ¿ght in Mic 1, with the expectation that he is coming to defend Samaria and Jerusalem, but in reality he comes against the capitals and other sister cities, all depicted as women. This issues in a lament. As the book closes, ch. 7 begins with a lament, as Daughter Zion wails alone, but ¿lled with the hopeful expectation that the Divine Warrior will return to ¿ght on her behalf. Within the enveloping context of a woman who laments due to the approach of the Divine Warrior (chs. 1 and 7) stand chs. 2–6 which cohere because of the same tripartite imagery. This sets apart chs. 2–6 as an internal core, which also carries through these three themes. The Divine Warrior will destroy Jerusalem (3:12), be exalted in the future reign of justice that draws the nations to the divine presence and word in Jerusalem (4:1–8), and ¿nally sits as judge and king, whose approach to punish is depicted in ch. 6. The laments of chs. 1 and 7 are echoed in the mourning and its gestures of 3:4, 7 and in the lament of the woman in response to God’s coming judgment in the latter part of ch. 6. The personi¿cation of Zion/Jerusalem as a woman is carried through in the feminine pronominal suf¿xes of 3:11, and then in the feminine verbs and pronouns of 4:8–5:3, and the address to the city as a lady in ch. 6. His analysis detailed the development and interconnections, especially making use of wordplay, assonance, and alliteration, found in the oracles of chs. 2–6. In an “un-English” but Hebrew style, wordplay and paronomasia have been used by the redactor to cement the prophetic oracles around these three traditions. Each of the internal sections is coherent, as he delineates by tracing their content and structural indicators. Luker observed the way in which repeated catchwords form bridges between sections, as “head” and “heads” in chs. 2 and 3, or the mountains that melt in 1:2, the mountain of the LORD destroyed in 3:12, and then exalted in 4:1, or the way in which 4:1–5:3 share the themes of the age to come, the vocabulary of the remnant, and -L+fš with 5:4–14. Note how this resembles Willis’ vertical coherence or Hagstrom’s linear connections. He concludes that these features are determinative for discerning the structure and override the use of the alternation between doom and hope, or the oft-cited con¿rmation sought in the presence of the summonses to “hear”. He thus divides the text into the following subunits: Mic 2; 3; 4:1–5:3; 5:4–14; 6.102

1

102.

Luker, “Beyond Form Criticism.”

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

167

(iii) Separation of Beginning and Ending Markers. Micah 1:1 and 1:2–7:20 Subunits: 1:2–16, 2:1–5:14, 6:1–16, and 7:1–20 [Scholars: M. Sweeney (2000, 2001)]

Marvin Sweeney explains the ¿nal form of the book as constructed in order to address a central theme, the future of Jerusalem/Israel in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile. The ¿rst unit to be treated is the superscription (Mic 1:1), which introduces and characterizes that which follows. This makes 1:2–7:20 the “second major structural component of the book of Micah,” which in turn is understood in a synchronic reading to be broken down into four subsections based on the presence of syntactical indicators: 1:2–16; 2:1–5:14; 6:1–16; 7:1–20.The main body of the book, then, is a prophetic announcement about Yahweh’s plans for the anticipated exaltation of Zion at the center of the nations. Since he asks about the ¿nal form, Sweeney dismisses any scheme for understanding the book on the basis of a reconstructed history of redactional growth.103 His reading of the book is derived both from a Àow of the argument and textual indicators that indicate connecting links between chapters, or indicate that a chapter begins anew with its content and is not in continuity with the prior. The structure of the text must be de¿ned in relation to its content and formal features, such as syntax, semantics, genre, and the interrelationship of its contents as conveyed by its formal structure.104 Since there is no syntactic connector between chs. 1 and 2, and instead 2:1 begins anew with the exclamation of “woe” ('L!, 2:1), Sweeney treats the two chapters as separate segments of the book. Hence, 1:2–16 is the ¿rst sub-unit and is a prophetic announcement that God’s punishment of Samaria and Israel will serve as a paradigm of the coming punishment of an unrepentant Jerusalem/Judah. The long central section of 2:1–5:14 offers an overview of the way in which God will punish and then restore his people, in which Zion and the Davidic monarch will emerge as central ¿gures in Yahweh’s plans to establish sovereignty over the nations of the world at Zion. Micah 2:1–13 introduces the section with a woe speech that ends with the exile of the Northern Kingdom. The prophet’s contrasting announcement of divine plans to exalt Jerusalem is unfolded in Mic 3–5. Each successive chapter 103. Though he seems to misunderstand the grounds on which the arrangement in 1–2/3–5/6–7 was derived as coming from that same line of reasoning, which it was not. Sweeney, “Micah,” 345–46. 104. See also Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 290. 1

168

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

through ch. 5 is tied with what went before by the links formed by the conjunction waw in 3:1 (:/œ™  š#, “and I said”) and 4:1 (! š'!š ’#, “and it will be”) and the formulation in 5:1 (!kš ™ ’#, “and you,” linking ch. 5 with 4 through the address to Bethlehem Ephrathah). Chapter 6 is delineated as its own unit by the lack of any syntactical link to the preceding material and by the imperative call to attention in the summons to hear of 6:1 which begins the new section. Micah 6:1–16 appeals to the people of Israel and Judah to return to God and explains Yahweh’s expectations of justice as a prelude to the process. Chapter 7 begins with another “woe” ™ “woe is me,” 7:1). Since it has no (this time using a different word, '+™ +’ , syntactic connector with ch. 6, it marks off a new structural component beginning here. Micah 7 closes the book with the prophet’s “song of con¿dence” that God will be faithful to Israel. Once the punishment is complete, he will act on Israel’s behalf and will indeed exalt Zion, even as a result of the impending punishment, thus highlighting divine faithfulness to Israel.105 In his work on King Josiah, Sweeney also suggests that this current arrangement of the book reÀects the concerns and hopes of the period of King Josiah’s reign, offering a supporting coherence derived from an underlying perspective of a background setting (discussed below, pp. 180–81, as an example of coherence arising from perspective).106 Micah 1:1, 1:2–7:17, and 7:18–20 Subunits: 1:2–2:13, 3, 4–5, and 6:1–7:17 [Scholars: E. Ben Zvi (2000)]

Ehud Ben Zvi started from the form of the text as we have it today and began by de¿ning what exactly the book is. The book of Micah is, of course, a book, and more speci¿cally a prophetic book claiming an association with a prophetic ¿gure and to be the word of Yahweh. Like the other prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible, the ¿nal form of Micah is intended to be understood as a unit by itself, since each prophetic book begins with a “strong textually inscribed request to their primary readership” to see it “as distinct from the others” in the presence of the superscription in 1:1. The book of Micah was produced to be “read and reread and meditated upon.”107 Titled “Yahweh’s word,” it was composed as Scripture, to be treated as an authoritative writing.

1

105. 106. 107.

Sweeney, “Micah,” 342–43, 345–47. Sweeney, King Josiah, 287–90, 300. Ben Zvi, Micah, 4–5, 8.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

169

According to Ben Zvi, the structure of the book has only three primary sections: a title (1:1) to introduce the book; the body (1:2–7:17/20) consisting of readings, or literary units de¿ned by textual markers such as openings, conclusions, coherence, or common theme; and a conclusion (7:18–20) which provides hope to the readers and demarcates the book as a literary unit. The sets of readings which comprise the body of the book are 1:2–2:13; 3:1–12; 4:1–5:14; 6:1–7:17. Presumably the rereading of the readings proceeded sequentially according to the order of the book, but awareness of the other readings would inform the way a rereader would understand any particular one, which creates a net of interwoven meanings and cross-references. All the distinctly marked readings belong to the whole book of Micah, and their “Sitz im Buch plays a most signi¿cant role in the shaping of their meaning or meanings.”108 (iv) Rhetorical Use and Situation. Micah 1:2–16, 2, 3:1–4:8, 4:9–5:14, 6:1–7:7, and 7:8–20 [Scholars: C. Shaw (1993)]

A fresh approach to the coherence of the book of Micah appeared in Charles Shaw’s The Speeches of Micah. Shaw sought evidence for a proposed historical setting for each section of the book, grounded in an understanding of the role of the prophets and the accompanying realization of the rhetorical and persuasive nature of connected prophetic speech. What appear to be independent sayings (individual oracles) are actually the building blocks from which the speaker constructed his discourse.109 Shaw appropriated rhetorical criticism, focusing on the functions of discourse as persuasion, in order to formulate the historical setting presupposed by each of the discourses found in the book of Micah. Based on this analysis of the text, exploring the rhetorical situation and accounting for the variety of persuasive styles and methods, he reached the conclusion that the text contains the following discourses: 1:2–16; 2:1–13; 3:1–4:8; 4:9–5:14; 6:1–7:7; 7:8–20.110 Micah 1:2–16 forms the ¿rst unit of discourse, and is marked off by the need to incorporate both capital cities in the address, by the uni¿ed movement from theophany to lament in response, and the function of 1:8–9 which forms a bridge. It is

1

108. 109. 110.

Ibid., 3–4, 7–8. Shaw, The Speeches of Micah, 11–22. Ibid., 32–220.

170

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

also a distinct unit separated from what follows by focus.111 The entirety of ch. 2 can be read as a uni¿ed prophetic speech once the Àow is understood.112 His argument for the Àow and integrity of the next two units, 3:1–4:8 and 4:9–5:14, is compelling. Both 3:1–12 and 4:1–8 are uni¿ed within themselves, but the number of clear links between the sections and a presupposed common rhetorical situation of the inevitability of the disaster for Jerusalem binds the entire discourse together into one.113 Micah 4:9–5:14 is a distinct and “deliberately structured unit” because of the arrangement and Àow of the oracles, by maintaining the common themes of the nations that de¿le and destroy, a time of distress followed by victory, and God or the messianic leader as a source of victory. Important vocabulary is repeated and the section evidences a clear progression of thought.114 The rhetorical situation takes the three genres present and de¿nes 6:1–7:7 as a single unit of speech. Throughout the material a breakdown in social order is presupposed, while other features set this discourse apart from what precedes and follows.115 The ¿nal discourse unit, Mic 7:8–20, is a unity due to common stylistic features, structuring of the sections, elements of the lament genre throughout, and the assumption of a similar situation with a defeated and powerless community waiting on Yahweh alone to intervene to restore and vindicate.116 Differences within the book of Micah are to be explained in reference to changing circumstances in the time of Micah (as was outlined in Figure 2.7). Shaw sought to show the unity of each discourse, and also explain the way in which each speech addresses “a unique matrix of events and circumstances.” Micah 1:1, 1:2–16, 2–3, 4:1–8, 4:9–5:14, 6, and 7 [Scholars: C. Sharp (2011)]

Carolyn Sharp treated the book of Micah as “a brilliant piece of Hebrew rhetoric.” Her reading of the text was driven by the rhetorical features and usages present in the text, which she allowed to de¿ne the structure of the whole book. Assuming that Mic 1–3 was the secure core of material that all will accept as from the prophet, she observed salient features of Mican rhetoric—its use of strategic ambiguity, sarcastic

1

111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116.

Ibid., 36–39. Ibid., 71–78. Ibid., 100–109. Ibid., 131–39. Ibid., 165–72. Ibid., 196–200.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

171

quotes of opponents that express the contrary position and then critique it, “brutal ironic reversals” which showcase God’s power, and complexity in treating the pathos and promise in Jerusalem’s circumstances— pain and fear leading to hope. These are also found in 4:6–6:16, which indicates that these chapters are also Mican. Sharp traces the Àow and thematic development of the book, while noting the rhetorical features that bind the text together into these sections. The sections are internally consistent, bound together based on common features within the oracles of each section—the cascade of downward movement and verbs that begins in the heavenly temple and comes to earth, then follows the arrival of God’s judgment reaching to Jerusalem (Mic 1); the combination of two ironic sections with reversals that mock the false con¿dence of Israel’s unjust leaders, followed by of¿cial and prophetic corruption leading to the downfall of Jerusalem (chs. 2–3); a glorious promise of restoration of the temple and the nations coming to the LORD there (4:1–8); anguish over Zion’s loss of faith and threats to God’s people juxtaposed with the strength to come with the advent of messiah and the defeat of the nations (4:9–5:14); a rhetorical lawsuit that indicts Israel for greed and ingratitude, followed by a declaration of punishment in kind (ch. 6); and a dialogue between the prophet, Zion, and God that ¿rst laments and confesses sin, then promises restoration, victory, and forgiveness (ch. 7). The resultant end of the book’s “story” is the prophet bringing his people and God into a renewed covenantal relationship.117 *** (v) Evaluation of Rhetorical Analysis This last series of structural proposals each breaks down the body of the book into sections that differ from prior proposals and from each other. These are largely the result of rhetorical analysis. An evaluation of Dorsey’s unique symmetrical reading was provided in the section that described his proposal. Some comments about the others are in order. A reconstruction of an underlying situation addressed by the rhetoric may play a large role in explaining the meaning and Àow of the text (as with Shaw’s reconstructions of eighth-century settings or with Ben-Zvi’s posited post-exilic setting for the literati who reread the text). A rhetorical analysis pays close attention to indicators within the text, especially from syntactic connections (Luker, Ben Zvi), and rhetorical strategies (Sharp). The careful reader of the text will want to raise questions about the details of reconstructed rhetorical situations. Shaw’s proposed 1

117.

Sharp, “Micah,” 8–83.

172

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

settings are provocative in the detail with which he worked them out, and underline the possibility that the general outlines of reconstructed redactional histories, although widely accepted, may yet be all wrong. Part of his contribution has been to demonstrate how much earlier the situations might have been that led to all components of the text we have, even stemming from early in the eighth-century career of the prophet Micah. In a similar, though different, vein Ben Zvi offers a reconstruction for the other end of the formation process, which is certainly also insightful as to the use of the texts in relation to their formation. These proposals have all been distinguished for their careful attention to the hard data of the text with the observation of phenomena such as the presence or absence of syntactic connectors or the word bridges that join two adjacent sections (for example, Sweeney), or the sustained use of such literary features as wordplay and allusion (Luker), or the role of themes coupled with rhetorical features of expression (Sharp). The central issue in examining any of these analyses is whether or not the textual links and syntactic connections enumerated are actual indicators of the structures which they advocate. In addition, in some instances the question needs to be raised whether the presence or absence of a syntactic connection at a chapter boundary may simply be looking for the evidence in the wrong place in the text. For example, Sweeney’s insightful analysis of the book overall still might be questioned in relation to where and how he desires to draw the boundaries between sections within the book. Does a “woe!” at the beginning of ch. 2 or ch. 7 mark off a new major section, or simply a new oracle? The conjunction waw at the beginning of 3 follows a shift from contrasting content in 2, but the waw conjunctions that begin chs. 4 and 5 are seen to link what follows closely with what precedes. Thus should the “and I said” of 3:1 be seen as a link with ch. 2, rather than as an indication that at this point an entirely new movement within the book begins? Does not the accompanying summons to “hear” (3:1) reinforce that this is an entirely new section, especially when that same summons to hear indicates exactly that at 1:2 and 6:1? The observations made in each one of these studies are stimulating and hold the scholar more closely to the text’s own mode of expression. At the same time it is less clear what each of these syntactic features is meant to indicate about the structure and the Àow of the book. (5) Evaluation of the Proposals for the Structure of the Book of Micah. So what do we make of this rapidly growing body of proposals and adduced evidence? How well do these allow us to see any coherence in the ¿nal form of the text? Given the variety of schemes which have been 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

173

suggested for understanding the ordered arrangement of the sections of the book, and in recognition of the fact that the broad categories have been evaluated as they were each explained in the preceding pages, it will be most manageable to reÀect on the evidence in summary form at this juncture, rather than responding to each detailed proposal in turn. Many of the reasons for adopting a certain outline are shared by different scholars, or are even adduced by proponents of several outlines. Can we arrive at an overarching sense of the textual features that need to be accounted for to determine if there is a structure that has been encoded into the text by whoever it was who put it into its ¿nal form? Early in the period of historical-critical study of the text, the book was understood either as a unity or divided into segments based on the way in which its materials were thought to have evolved in the reconstructions. This accounts for the early outlines of 1–5/6–7 (Ewald), 1–5/6:1–7:6/ 7:7–20 (Wellhausen), and 1–3/4–5/6:1–7:6/7:7–20 (Stade). Stade’s conclusion that genuine Mican material was only to be found in chs. 1–3 effectively gave the book a schema of organization in two segments, 1–3/4–7, based on the historical development of the text. This also has led to a number of studies adopting the structure 1–3/4–5/6–7 to explain the book (Marti and many). The weakness of such an approach is that although it reÀects interesting speculations about the (actually unknown) history of the material and traditions of the text, it does not provide an explanation for the ¿nal form of the text. At some point presumably an individual, whether the prophet Micah in the eighth century, his contemporary disciples, or a much later editor/redactor, collated the oracles and collections available at the time and provided some editing to tie them together into the whole book as a unit, such as we have today. The ancients who performed this for the prophetic books did so without any regard for the speculations of much later historical-critical scholarship about the text’s development and growth. Particularly in the case of the structure chs. 1–3/4–5/6–7, there are some scholars who have grounded this in an explanation of the content of the text (Kessler, Andersen and Freedman, Simundson, Jenson, Helmbold; usually on the lines of seeing chs. 1–3 as judgment, doom, disaster, chs. 4–5 as salvation and future hope, and chs. 6–7 as some combination of these themes). This more adequately can provide an account of the ¿nal form of the text of course, but it too suffers from signi¿cant weaknesses. First, as long as 2:12–13 is understood as a passage of promise, which it must be due to the consistent treatment of the remnant theme throughout the book, this overlooks the function that these verses play in the overall structure, providing a response of hope to 1

174

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

the preceding oracles of doom. Second, chs. 4–5 are not well accounted for by subsuming them all under the rubric of hope. The text intermixes threat of disaster with future promise in 4:9–5:14 (see e.g., the transitions between 4:11 and 12–13, or 5:1 and 2). Micah 4:1 seems connected with the preceding ch. 3, while 3:1–4:8 seems to be comprised of a very different type of material, all laid out in regular and clear patterns, while 4:9–5:14 presents a dif¿cult mix for reading. Similarly to distinguish the ¿rst two sections on the basis of content and then to categorize the third section as a mix of those two earlier distinguished forms of content seems inconsistent. The arrangement according to the pattern of 1–5/6–7 was found early based on developmental growth of the traditions (Ewald, and continuing later, as in Mays, Metzner, or Wagenaar) and was developed and championed on historical grounds relating to different geographical origins (chs. 1–5 from the South, chs. 6–7 from the North—Burkitt, van der Woude). For similar reasons as were explained above such explanations do not provide a full answer as to the ¿nal form of the text. There have been expositions of the Àow and theological message of the text in the light of this arrangement, notably in Mays, Hagstrom, and Jacobs. These must be evaluated on the criteria of best accounting for the data and indicators in the text to explain its Àow. Supporters of this structure for the book of Micah have found con¿rmatory evidence in the function of the summons to “hear” in 1:2 and 6:1 (see Hagstrom’s detailed defense of the uniqueness of these two summonses), as distinguished from the other occurrences of this same imperative, as well as in the resultant double alternation of doom and hope (Longman, Brueggemann). The challenges for this understanding of the structure of the book are manifold. The theological expositions seem forced, especially certain elements of Mays’ program. It seems that there is little difference in actual usage between the summonses to “hear” in 1:2 and 6:1 in comparison with the others in the book (especially 3:1, but also the instances in 3:9; 6:9) which undermines their use as criteria to indicate the start of major sections of structure. The neat two-fold alternation between doom and hope does not ¿t the contents of the text in chs. 4–5, where after hope in 4:1–8, the text paints a dreary scene of defeat intermixed with hope, so that doom resurfaces right in the midst of a section of supposed hope. Towards the end of the ¿rst section is a passage concerning God’s work with the remnant (5:6–8), as there is at the very end of the book, at the close of the second section (7:18–20). This seems to point to the use of remnant promise and hope as a consistent means to round off sections of hope and to respond to the preceding doom segments. How, then, can 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

175

this proposed structure for the book take into account the importance and function within the text of the two other passages that refer to the remnant (2:12–13 and 4:6–8)? The outline explained and supported in such detail by Willis, chs. 1–2/ 3–5/6–7, has been argued by its proponents with close attention to the concerns of the ¿nal form of the text. It does take account of the placement and function of 2:12–13 in the ¿nal form. This results in a three-fold alternation of doom and hope (Otto’s ABABAB structure of contrasts), which has been further analyzed to bring out their symmetry. Micah 1–2 parallels chs. 6–7 in the form and proportions of doom and hope, while chs. 3–5 are set off with a different structure, resulting in an ABA symmetry for the entire book. Con¿rmation has been sought in the three summonses to “hear” which occur at the beginning of each section (1:2; 3:1; 6:1). Coffman sought historical support for this structure by linking each section with one of the kings of the superscription. The true challenge for proponents of this structure is to show how other indicators of the text ¿t within this schema. For example, there are other instances of the summons to “hear” that are found in 3:9 and 6:9. Why should these not signal the beginning of major new sections? Or, how adequate really are the analyses of the middle section, which is admitted by all parties to be a dif¿cult read? Do they adequately account for the unique intermixing of doom and hope that we ¿nd especially in chs. 4–5? There are also obstacles for this view of the structure of the book in that it fails to take into account the placement and function of two of the passages referring to the remnant, 4:6–8 and 5:6–8. In the other two instances (2:12–13 and 7:18–20) these have brought major sections to an end and given a very speci¿c thematic response to the specter of doom that preceded each. Why would there be two within one section in that case? The proposal of a structure in terms of 1–2/3:1–4:8/4:9–5:14/6–7 will be examined for its exposition of the message of the book and its adequacy in accounting for the evidence found within the text in the next two chapters. No further comment will be made at this juncture. There were other proposed structures examined, each breaking down the body of the book into sections that differ from prior proposals and from each other. These alternative structural schemes are either variations derived from one of the primary proposed structures examined in more detail, or are largely the result of rhetorical analysis, which pays close attention to indicators within the text, especially from syntactic connections, and rhetorical strategies. In some of these proposals the reconstruction of an underlying rhetorical situation looms large in holding the text all together. Though questions about the details of 1

176

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

reconstructed rhetorical situations can always be raised, it is in the attention to the solid details of the text that these proposals have been distinguished. The core issue for the supporters of any of these analyses is whether or not the textual links and syntactic connections enumerated really do point unambiguously to the structures which they advocate and in some cases to the backdrop settings which they postulate. (6) Moving Forward. Where are we left? Each understanding of the structure of the book of Micah thus far seems less than satisfactory. The text is admittedly quite dif¿cult when asking the question of coherence. Is it possible to provide an explanation which would account for all the details? What is needed to argue for a coherent text based on and arising out of the structure? A proposal for the structure and order of the book of Micah as we now have it must include explanations for the following features of the text. First, it must account for Mic 2:12–13, as an oracle of salvation, located where it is in the book’s present form. Second, it should allow the contrast between 3:12 and 4:1 to have its effect, as well as allowing the same for the shift which occurs at 7:7. In both cases a sharp juxtaposition showcases two different sides of the same issue or question. Third, it needs to be able to explain all the occurrences of the summons to hear and their functions. Fourth, it must provide an understanding of the presence of oracles of doom interwoven with hope in chs. 4–5. Fifth, it should account for the differences between parts of the book, such as the unique forms and style of Mic 6–7, or the ordered clarity of 3:1–4:8 and the apparently confused state of 4:9–5:14, or the differences in subject treated from section to section. Sixth, it needs to be able to account for all four passages that mention the remnant in a context of promise, their strategic placement, and their functions within the progression and Àow of the book. c. Textual Coherence from Perspective Some scholars understand the book of Micah by seeing a common set of assumptions, a uni¿ed ideological environment, or a particular set of historical circumstances behind each part. These features, held in common by all parts of the book, provide consistent explanation for what is being said and are the indicators of a coherence of perspective. (1) Examples. Most reconstructions of the redactional growth of the book of Micah involve seeing some sort of coherence arising from an underlying perspective that informs the different parts of the book, often 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

177

serving as an interpretive key to meaning. The underlying shared situation is the circumstances thought to have given rise to the text’s form at various stages and periods. As Hillers has pointed out, this explains the presence of apparently contradictory elements through a diachronic approach that assigns disparate pericopes to different sources and periods.118 A. van Hoonacker’s (1908) explanation of the book based on the developing circumstances of the history of the end of the eighth century B.C.E. (a uni¿ed background situation) is an example of ¿nding coherence that is derived from perspective.119 E. Hammershaimb (1966) suggested a coherence of perspective of a rather loose nature. We can understand the seemingly contradictory components of prophetic books—the doom and the hope—when we see the consistent assumption which underlies both. Preaching doom is not an end in itself, but has the wider aim of awakening the hearers to the impending danger, in the hope that they will repent and will receive God’s mercy. This view ¿ts well with the promises, which also are an incentive to obedience. Hammershaimb even went a step further by suggesting that the backdrop to Mican speeches of both kinds is the royal festivals held in the Jerusalem temple, where both calls for righteousness and promises for the Davidic line would have been natural.120 J. Willis’ (1969) proposals as to the circumstances of the Palestinian exilic community in which the book was given its ¿nal form offer a coherence of perspective,121 though he did not pursue in detail how this would affect a passage by passage reading of the book. I. Willi-Plein (1971) saw an explanation for the words of the text in the situations of the redactors at each stage of the development.122 A. van der Woude’s (1969, 1973) reconstruction of the running debate between Micah and his opponents provided a situation common to all of Mic 2–5 as a background.123 T. Lescow (1972) saw a coherence arising from an underlying perspective for reading the book’s ¿nal form in the circumstances of the 118. Delbert R. Hillers, “Imperial Dream: Text and Sense of Mic 5:4b–5,” in Huffmon, Spina, and Green, eds., The Quest for the Kingdom of God, 137–39 and Micah. This approach can be clearly seen as far back as the work of Ewald (1876), who traced the coherence he saw in chs. 1–5 and the lack of coherence of 6–7 to the origins and background of the book. 119. Van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes, 339–53. 120. Hammershaimb, “Some Leading Ideas,” 42–43, 45–50. 121. Willis, “Structure,” 40–42. 122. Willi-Plein, Vorformen, 110–14. 123. Van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute,” 247–60; “Micah IV 1–5,” 402. See the further development of this concept in the work of Kenneth Shoemaker. 1

178

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Samaritan schism and the material’s liturgical use.124 L. Allen (1976) thought that the book was issued for use in temple worship so as to let the congregation voice their prayers, an assumed perspective that helps understand their appropriation of the book.125 T. McComiskey (1985) offered a coherence from perspective for the whole book in his explanation of the sections and their features according to the circumstances of the period of the eighth-century prophet.126 B. S. Childs (1979) posited that a discernible inÀuence from the circle of tradents that collected and edited Isa 1–39 underlies the arrangement of the whole book of Micah. Many of the book’s features could be understood in relation to the interests of these tradents. The common circle standing behind both books explains items such as the judgment and salvation pattern, the liturgical inÀuences, and the similar formulae and style of the redactional material. Childs further speci¿ed the background by locating this group in Jerusalem during the period from the seventh century until the early post-exilic period.127 H. W. Wolff (1982) unfolded a detailed plan of redactional growth for the book. The parts were all connected by the underlying background perspective of the development and branches of a Jerusalem school of salvation prophecy and universalist tradition, which used and edited the Mican corpus.128 Wolff’s (1978, 1978, 1981) proposal that Micah was an elder of the land offered another coherence derived from the viewpoint of a common perspective underlying each part, though this time only for what he believed to be the genuine oracles. It did explain the content of those particular pericopes by unlocking the intellectual and social milieu from which Micah came.129 Note that to ¿nd a coherence from an underlying perspective that is maintained through speci¿ed oracles is true of any scholar who identi¿es a group of oracles as authentic and thus derived from a similar set of circumstances and time period. Wolff is distinguished, however, by the detail and creativity with which he painted the portrait of the prophet.

124. Lescow, “1–5,” 73, 74, 80, 83–84; “6–7,” 209–10. 125. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, 256. 126. McComiskey, “Micah,” 397–445; see also McComiskey, “Exegetical Notes: Micah 7,” Trinity Journal NS 2 (1981): 62–68. 127. Childs, Introduction, 434–36. 128. Wolff, Micha, xxxvi. 129. Wolff, “Wie verstand,” 407–15; “Micah the Moreshite,” 77–83; Micah the Prophet, 17–25. See also the critique of Wolff’s proposal in van der Woude, “Three Classical Prophets,” 49. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

179

D. R. Hillers (1984) rejected any coherence arising from a structure for the book of Micah, since it exhibits “an apparent incoherence of thought,” which makes it “dif¿cult to understand how Micah hangs together in a logical, systematic, or historical way.” He stated that “nothing like an overall plan or structure is discernible.”130 He did notice aspects of a coherence arising from internal linkage in his observation of the catchword and thematic links that join the oracles.131 Hillers’ commentary is especially noteworthy, however, for the coherence from perspective which he discerned. He sought “a unifying explanatory approach” in the social situation of a movement of revitalization. The oracles, whether from Micah or others in the group, reÀect themes typical of such a movement. He interpreted the passages of the book in the light of the nature of such a millennial movement. The “disparate elements…appear more closely connected on the assumption that the prophet was somehow associated with a movement of revitalization.”132 Micah’s and his associates’ participation in such a group serves as the backdrop for understanding all of the book. It is to be assumed throughout. Shaw’s study of the persuasive force of rhetoric in the book of Micah drew conclusions concerning the historical settings presupposed by the discourses comprised of the individual oracles found in the text. The differences between the discourses can be explained based on the shifting circumstances of the last half of the eighth century B.C.E. He identi¿ed a proposed backdrop for each discourse, arranged in the book in a way that approximates a chronological sequence, beginning with 1:2–16 from prior to the death of Jeroboam II in 747 B.C.E. down to shortly after the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.E. (See Figure 2.7 for the posited background settings.)133 Schibler noted the regular alternation of negative and positive passages as key in understanding the structure of the book. Those with a negative tone predominate by a proportion of 72 verses compared to 30 of positive cast, evidently because there were more people that the prophet needed to afÀict in their complacency and fewer faithful who needed comfort in their afÀictions. In other words the different materials do not reÀect different authors and settings divergent by centuries, as much as they reÀect different audiences of complacent disobedience 130. Hillers, Micah, 8a. 131. Ibid. 132. Ibid., 7b. His intent was “to seek possible connections between the seemingly disparate materials in Micah,” 5a. 133 . Shaw, Speeches of Micah, 221–25. 1

180

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

alongside the faithful but oppressed in one setting from the eighth century (an underlying perspective from a reconstructed rhetorical audience). He also draws attention to two very different principal events from Micah’s era that would have been a focus for his proclamation: the Assyrian invasions, especially under Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E.; and the efforts of Hezekiah to unify, expressed in terms of a remnant from the Northern Kingdom. In most cases, the different parts of the book, with their varied character, were put together in relation to one or the other of these two events, which provide a background setting perspective which once seen enables interpretation.134 Adducing parallels with Sumerian poetry and the later phenomenon of Greek theatre, Joyce R. Wood (2000) found coherence in the ¿nal form of the book of Micah derived from the concept that the book was poetry performed in public as drama in seventh-century B.C.E. Jerusalem. Prophecy in Micah is drama and the poetry of Micah evinces a dramatic quality. Understanding this as the backdrop of its performance gives a unity to the text in spite of the presence of multiple speakers and addressees, and the expression of varied thoughts. Enactment as drama provides an explanation for the radical confusion and disorientation in the text with separate episodes, which will have “a jagged or staggered movement” as the text goes through frequent temporal and grammatical shifts. The variety found in the text does not provide evidence of oracles originally disparate in time and authorship that were later assembled into one work, but rather demonstrates that the poetry found in the book is drama, and the text as we have it is suitable for performance. The setting was the city gate on the occasion of the autumn festival, with the entire city gathered together to celebrate the agricultural year. Wood describes the three parts of “Micah’s play” and offers an exposition of how it would unfold in a public performance.135 In Sweeney’s work on King Josiah, he also suggests that this current arrangement of the book reÀects the concerns and hopes of the period of King Josiah’s reign. The scenario of the downfall of Assyria presented in Mic 5, along with the rise of a Davidic ruler, are related to themes of concern at the time of the restoration program of King Josiah. Possibly an earlier edition of the book of Micah was composed for or read in relation to these circumstances at the end of the seventh century B.C.E. This earlier form of Micah gave prophetic legitimation to Josiah’s restoration

134. Schibler, Le Livre, 28–30. 135. Wood, “Speech and Action.” See how this idea is also unfolded in the work of Utzschneider, which was unavailable to me at the time of writing. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

181

program as the anticipated outcome of the divine purposes in the aftermath of Assyria’s collapse. Only when the remnant of Jacob, which he believes refers to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, has reassembled and been reconstituted in Jerusalem, will it be possible to defeat the invading Assyrians under the guidance of a new Davidic monarch. Josiah is the anticipated monarch of the book of Micah. He is the one whose reign is expected to enable reuni¿cation and restoration in Jerusalem to occur.136 A rather different historical reconstruction of background connects together the sections of the book in the work of Ehud Ben Zvi. He began by de¿ning what the book is. It is of course, a book, and more speci¿cally one in the genre of a prophetic book—one that claims an association with a prophetic ¿gure and that claims to be the word of Yahweh. As a prophetic book the ¿nal form of Micah is intended to be understood as a unit by itself, since the superscription (1:1) alerts the reader to see it “as distinct from the others.” Since it is a written text, the book is aimed ¿rst at those who are competent to read it. “Moreover, the book of Micah was not produced to be read once and then put aside, but rather to be read and reread and meditated upon.”137 It was composed as authoritative Scripture. The expectation of reading and rereading leads naturally to copying and recopying the text, and eventuates in its preservation. The text is also a product, the production and transmission of which incorporated a number of activities—writing, editing, copying, distribution, reading, rereading, and studying. Besides communicating the theological tenets of postmonarchic Israel, these texts also afforded the literati of the day with an essential role in society as they were engaged in the process of writing, copying, reading, rereading, and studying. Ben Zvi makes much of the importance of our understanding the rereading of texts, since people reread a text in a way that is signi¿cantly different from a ¿rst reading. When rereading even the ¿rst line, a person is already then aware of the book in its entirety. The rereader is likely to make connections in understanding the book “in multidirectional and cross-linked paths” and not only in a linear sequence. Such texts will evidence a degree of literary sophistication, shown in features such as double meanings and ambiguity. It is also noteworthy that rereading necessitates a particular strategy for reading: “Careful reading, studious and meditative…as opposed to rushed reading.” Such a mode of reading is well suited to a text containing networks of various mutually informing readings, multiple connotations, puns, and multivalent expressions.

1

136. 137.

Sweeney, King Josiah, 287–90, 300. Ben Zvi, Micah, 4–5, 8.

182

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Such rereading of the book in an ancient Israelite context was carried out in a community of (re)readers as an interpersonal affair.138 The primary readership of the book of Micah, for whom it was composed and at whom it was aimed, is to be located within postmonarchic Israel. The book was produced in a social setting which would have authors and readers who were capable of producing, reading, and rereading this text. The authors and readers must be found among those who bore the highest level of literacy, who are usually associated with urban centers and life circumstances which allow them to pursue this sort of work. References to and explanations of the exile and accompanying loss of the land, as well as promises of salvation, indicate that the book’s setting is after the monarchy has ended. The book as a whole is to be dated to a time after 586 B.C.E. The Zion-centered theology in the book, along with the necessity of having resources adequate to train and maintain cadres of literati, suggests that we look to Jerusalem as the location of this activity, especially Jerusalem in the Persian II period (c. 450–332 B.C.E.). These postexilic literati, who produced and consumed the book as God’s word written, saw the text portray a substantially different period in Israel’s past when God’s word was oral. “In one period Yahweh’s voice resonated orally; in their times Yahweh’s word is a written text.” Since the majority of the population was unable to read the text, the literati become the brokers of divine knowledge, mediators between Yahwwh who provides such knowledge and Israel who needs that instruction.139 The fact that some of the events foreseen by the speaker in the text have come to pass would enhance the authority of the text for those promises of salvation which were still to be ful¿lled. The image of the monarchic period in the text indicates how the postexilic community of literati imagined that period, its social conditions, and the prophet Micah.140

138. Ibid., 5–6. 139. Ibid., 8–11. See also Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the Literature of the Hebrew Bible,” in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete (ed. W. Aufrecht, N. Mirau, and S. Gauley; JSOTSup 244; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1997), 194–209, for a more thorough explanation of the thesis that the bulk of the Old Testament was produced in ¿nal form in Persian II Jerusalem (450–332 B.C.E.) by a limited number of literati. In that setting they would have had limited resources and time, using pre-existing sources and editing texts rather than composing anew, thus explaining the diversity of literature found in the Old Testament broadly, as well as the emphasis on the written text as authoritative. 140. Ben Zvi, Micah, 10–11. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

183

Based on this reconstruction, Ben Zvi posits that the intention of the book is to instruct the community of Persian period rereaders about Yahweh’s relationship with his people and Jerusalem, to explain his past punishment of Israel, and to share hope for the future action of Yahweh to save.141 (2) Evaluation. Scholars have sought to reconstruct the underlying settings and circumstances that are in the background of speci¿c passages or are traceable throughout the entire book. This is a valid means of developing modern knowledge about the prophet Micah and the book bearing his name, in spite of the immediate observation that this has assumed quite a variety of differing forms. Some explain the oracles we have in the book by relating their occurrence in the ¿nal form of the book to particular times and places in history. Several provide explanations for the contents by positing circumstances in the eighth century B.C.E., as in the studies of Van Hoonacker, McComiskey, and Schibler. Shaw’s rhetorical-historical analysis offers painstakingly detailed descriptions of settings during the lifetime of the prophet himself. Others link the arrangement and contents of the ¿nal form of the book with settings in history subsequent to the ministry of Micah: during the reign of Josiah (Sweeney), during the exile (Willis), in the post-exilic era (Ben Zvi), or related to the Samaritan Schism (Lescow). The unfolding of the redaction of the materials over a long period of time provides a uni¿ed understanding of the contents of the book in the work of Willi-Plein and Wolff. The growth and appropriation of a canon of Scripture provides an underlying explanatory viewpoint to understand the book for Childs, who traced the inÀuence of the redactors of the Isaiah tradition on the book of Micah, and in Ben Zvi’s exposition of the literati of Persian period II in post-exilic Jerusalem who edited, preserved, read and reread, and taught from the book. The other common way to approach the underlying situation has been to posit a speci¿c setting within ancient society that offers a unifying means of interpreting the texts in the book. Van der Woude relates chs. 2–5 to a debate with competing prophets. An explanation for what is in the text in the light of a suggested setting in worship and ancient Israel’s world of thought is found in Hammershaimb and Allen, and in a performance of the text as drama in Wood’s article. More detailed explanations of the sociological background have been formulated by Wolff in arguing that Micah was an elder of the land and by Hillers as he links the prophet and the oracles with a millennial movement of revitalization. 1

141.

Ibid., 11.

184

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

What is the reader to make of the range of varied perspectives used to provide a common viewpoint from which to read the oracles of the book? The initial challenge of course arises from the fact that beyond the superscription in 1:1 the book of Micah has little in the way of notes that offer any explanation of historical circumstances. This is not always the case in the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, for the ¿nal form of books may assign settings to oracles and events explicitly (see Isa 7:1–2 as an example). For the book of Micah there is little guidance as to the setting oracle by oracle, thus leading to creative speculation. The ¿rst hesitation to register when examining the proposals for coherence derived from perspective is that it is not clear that the book assumes one uniform background situation for every passage. A priori, it might. Yet even if all the material came from one prophet, a working life-span could include a broad variety of situations, ranging in the case of Micah throughout the extent of the latter third of the eighth century. Accordingly, such a unity of perspective could be problematic from the start. It is a challenge for any explanation of the book in terms of a coherence arising from perspective to be able to account for all parts of the book with equal cogency. For example, Wood can explain much of chs. 1–3 and 6–7 as prophetic drama, but leaves chs. 4–5 out of the reconstructed use. The book of Micah is unlike some other books, for it is not clear what background circumstances we are to understand for many individual pericopes, let alone for the book as a whole. Whereas for much of certain other books, such as Nahum, Habakkuk, or Joel, or speci¿c passages in books such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, at least the general background situation is spelled out rather clearly— the fall of Nineveh, the rise of Babylon, or a locust plague, as well as the Assyrian incursions, or the ¿nal decline of Judah—while the historical backdrop to Micah is much harder to discern. Much of the content is general enough that it could have been generated in response to situations which recur over the years, such as preaching against oppression (Mic 2:1–11) or child sacri¿ce (6:7). Others seem more speci¿ed, yet are susceptible of varying interpretations as to their Sitz im Leben. For example, Mic 1:2–7 refers to Samaria’s fall. Was this written before 722 B.C.E.? How far in advance? Or did the prophet look back in retrospect on the fall of Samaria and draw parallels with a later threat to Jerusalem? Was the threat imminent, i.e., Assyrian armies marauding through Judah in 701 B.C.E., or was it a prediction of a disaster at some time in the future that had not yet arrived? References to an exile (1:10–16; 2:10; 4:10) can be understood differently, too. To which exile is reference made—one at the time of the fall of the North, one as the result of Sennacherib’s 701 B.C.E. invasion, 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

185

or the Babylonian exile, of which there were at least two or three stages? Clearly the idea that a reference to an exile must pertain to the sixth century and the Babylonians is too facile. People in the ancient Near East were often the victims of warfare, which on many occasions resulted in the deportation and resettlement of the population. Thus, there were many exiles, as we indeed already know from the explicit record of the historical books and corroborations from archaeological study. In eighthcentury B.C.E. Israel and Judah there were prominent and sizeable resettlements of exiles: the deportation of Galilee and Gilead in the north in the 730s B.C.E.; the exile resulting from the fall of Samaria and the end of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C.E.; the large numbers of captives resettled in Mesopotamia in the wake of Sennacherib’s devastating invasion of Judah in 701 B.C.E.142 The (reconstructed) settings or viewpoints for the book of Micah are dif¿cult to demonstrate with any certainty. Scholars point to these reconstructions of the historical circumstances (McComiskey, Shaw, Schibler, Sweeney, Ben Zvi) or backdrop of use of the book (Hillers, Wood) as indicators of a coherence from perspective that can be linked with any speci¿c text or traced throughout the book, but it is dif¿cult to demonstrate that these indicators exist at all. Furthermore, the pericopes of the book are of such varied nature and contents that they are often thought to derive from circumstances many years apart, thus making it dif¿cult to assume a single life-setting behind the whole. For example, Mic 1:2–7, with its references to Samaria, is generally accepted as having arisen for the most part in the eighth century B.C.E. On the other hand, a number of historical-critical scholars have understood 7:7–20 to derive from the post-exilic era. The circumstances underlying each passage would thus be vastly different one from the other if the posited settings are accurate. Note though that this does not rule out a uni¿ed set of assumptions on the part of the ¿nal redactor that could give a text of composite origin the connectedness of an ongoing perspective of thought and concerns from a particular school of 142. See Stephen Stohlmann, “The Judean Exile After 701 B.C.E.,” in Hallo, Moyer, and Perdue, eds., Scripture in Context II, 147–75. His focus is on the exile under Sennacherib at the end of the eighth century. There were a large number of deportees, “a number comparable to the 8th century Israelite exile to Assyria and the 6th century Judaean exile to Babylon.” The eighth-century prophets spoke a word of hope with a promise of return to the exiles of their day. “The seed for the promise of the return in the 6th century was sown with the promise of the return to the 8th century exiles from both Israel and Judah” (pp. 174–75). For the Sennacherib texts, see ANET, pp. 287–88, and COS, vol. 2, pp. 302–303.

1

186

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

tradition, as Childs suggests with canonical use or Ben Zvi with the production of the text, or in the case of Hillers’ invocation of a millennial movement. What some proposals for a coherence that arises from the vantage point of a common perspective have done is to offer one plausible way to understand the text. It can be read in this way with pro¿t, as it may explain the logical conceptual connections between portions that at ¿rst might seem disparate on the surface, as in the proposals from Hillers, Schibler, or Ben Zvi. Inevitably, however, the situation or viewpoints supposed as underlying Micah are secondary reconstructions (much as are redactional schemes of growth). This is less direct than, and a step removed from, interpreting the text based on clear and explicit indications of its background, as are to be found in certain other prophetic books. In addition, there may be—indeed there are—other ways that we might try to understand the text, based on original and creative reconstructions of the underlying perspective. Why should we not formulate and test those? Indeed we should, for it is often helpful to try, but this does not imply that any of these are more secure than the others or in any way more proven. D. Hillers himself underscored the problem with such proposals for Micah when he cautioned concerning his own proposal that such “a movement in eighth-century Judah is as hypothetical as anything in redaction-criticism, of course; the difference is that what is posited, or deduced from the Micah text, is a recurring and typical state of affairs.”143 The bene¿t is that it gives us a signi¿cant new understanding of the book. As we read, we are enabled to see that the “disparate elements…appear more closely connected on the assumption that the prophet was somehow associated with a movement of revitalization.” This is “a hypothesis which also promises to deepen our understanding of individual passages.”144 Note the tentative nature of such a proposal. He labels it a hypothesis, based on an assumption, and uses inde¿nite words such as “somehow.” Hillers himself thus admits that this type of proposal must remain hypothetical, since the lack of speci¿c historical data does not allow any greater de¿niteness.145 There is the further question as to what extent we can assume that similar materials in a book come from continuing groups (e.g., Wolff) or organized movements (e.g., Hillers). How speci¿c can we be, given the lack of informative notes and details concerning the setting? Could the

1

143. 144. 145.

Hillers, Micah, 4a–b. Ibid., 7b. Ibid.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

187

inÀuence of the same traditions on different people at different times (Childs), or the impact of general trends in Israelite thought and culture (Hillers, Ben Zvi), or the person and ministry of one prophet in the background of each oracle (McComiskey, Shaw, Schibler), also have spawned such collections of like materials? To think a certain thought is not restricted to the boundaries of one group or era. Different people have come to similar conclusions, undergone parallel experiences, and felt related emotions during different historical periods.146 Childs has pointed to similarities between Micah and Isaiah, as have others.147 The question remains unresolved, however, as to what these parallels mean. Where are they from? Do they imply inÀuence from the same circle of tradents that edited Isa 1–39? Or are these the result of people in a circle of Mican disciples reading and coming under the inÀuence of the corpus of Isaian materials, which would be a rather different situation. Could stylistic resemblances be the result of the use of similar styles of editing and writing, e.g., by different scribes trained in similar manners? Or could such parallels arise from the impact of certain trends and impulses that predominated in Israelite culture at certain periods, as in the eighth century, and have inÀuenced the ministries of both Micah and Isaiah? Further, to invoke the canonical perspective is not without dangers. Childs provided a theological interpretation of the book of Micah under the inÀuence of the Isaiah traditions. In his view the ¿nal form of the book does not come from Micah, and thus the coherence is later, at least exilic. In interpreting Micah, Childs made use of several different levels of canonical inÀuence. Canonical criticism properly includes the whole canon, even both testaments. Yet with Micah, Childs seemed to operate on two other levels. There is a controlling prophetic canon, but more speci¿cally, he focused on the inÀuence of the Isaiah materials on the book of Micah. This is a much more immediate and restricted context within the canon. His method begins to overlap, or at least be full of implications for, redactional criticism, and not only canonical criticism. Further, does Childs’ canonical approach beg the question of coherence? Does he ¿nd coherence by de¿nition? Is he bound to uncover connecting links within and between the books simply because a book exists as a unit in the canon? 146. Compare the many people over the centuries who have discovered echoes of their circumstances and feelings in the psalms, such as those of lament. 147. For example, Cheyne, Micah, 12. See Gary Stansell, Micah and Isaiah: A Form and Tradition Historical Comparison (SBLDS 85; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), who studied themes in Mic 1–3 in common with the oracles of the prophet Isaiah in order to determine if there was any inÀuence of one on the other and what were the commonalities or distinctives of each prophet. 1

188

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Certain analyses suffer from being over-re¿ned in their conclusions. Shaw’s detailed reconstructions of historical settings in the eighth century B.C.E. are based on texts with little concrete to indicate the background. Though he made admirable use of multiple methods, Wolff was more speci¿c than the limited body of evidence would seem to allow in order to reconstruct a history of editing. D. R. Hillers has expressed the problems well, in that it is evident that there is a great lack of ¿xed points in the scheme of Wolff. We have only one form of the book, and nothing like direct evidence for the variety of text-forms the theory calls for. Moreover, we have no evidence for the existence of the groups of tradents supposed to be involved, or the worship situations in which they are supposed to have functioned.148

Similar criticisms can be leveled against virtually every proposal for seeing a connectedness in the parts due to a situation reconstructed from redaction-critical analysis. The evidence in the book of Micah is not clear or detailed enough to allow proposals to be very secure. They must remain hypotheses due to the tenuous nature of the reconstructions. Many are plausible, but it is exceedingly dif¿cult to have any certainty as to which actually reÀects what happened in history. Note that this only lessens our con¿dence in aligning too quickly with any one such proposal. It shows how involved the issues are, but in no way lessens the value or necessity of pursuing such study. Then as an example of a reconstructed historical and sociological setting, and in a similar vein, Wolff’s proposal that Micah was an elder of the common people offers some perspective on the background that is quite plausible. However, as Hillers has elsewhere pointed out, the evidence does not always show all that Wolff hoped it did. For example, the designation “Moreshite” is applied to Micah only in materials far removed from him in time (Jer 26:17; Mic 1:1). How are we to be sure that he acquired this epithet on travels to a place other than his home town, as Wolff assumes, and that it was not used in later writing to distinguish him from others of the same name (e.g., Micaiah/Micah ben Imlah)? Thus, as Hillers notes, “you cannot prove from this whether Micah ever left home.”149 It may also reÀect the perspective of editors outside of Micah’s hometown or region, rather than the prophet’s contemporaries who actually encountered him. 148. Hillers, Micah, 3b. 149. Delbert R. Hillers, Review of Hans W. Wolff, Micah the Prophet, CBQ 44 (1982): 502. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

189

Hillers’ own proposal, besides the vagueness inherent in any such reconstruction from limited data (discussed above), also has other de¿ciencies. Hillers argued that the book makes conceptual sense from the standpoint of a particular ideological group, presenting a special argument for a particular reading of the book. Hillers has shown that the book evidences some plausible similarities to material one might expect to be produced by a millennial revitalization movement. He has not shown, however, that the author(s) were necessarily part of such a group. Though his work suggests that it is possible to see Micah as a millennial prophet, he has by no means established that this is the most compelling ideological context. Some of his parallels are even questionable. Further and more detailed examination of his application of these by anthropologists and biblical scholars might disqualify Micah from consideration as a millennial prophet. For example, such movements are characterized by a rejection of the old order in an attempt to create a new age.150 If this is so in the case of the book of Micah, why could W. Beyerlin (1959, 1960) so convincingly trace the importance of the old traditions in the preaching of Micah?151 A prophet of a New Age will not necessarily treasure and seek to maintain the old traditions. Micah was concerned to evaluate society on the basis of covenant traditions. He called for a return to the old standards, not their dissolution. He warned of the approach of doom caused by their disobedience, but quite probably would have welcomed the repentance of the sinners instead of their overthrow and the dissolution of society. d. Textual Coherence from Theme (1) Examples. A few scholars have even ventured that the book of Micah, as we now have it, manifests a connectedness due to the presence of a central meaning throughout. In these proposals there is a main theme or major motifs that bind the parts together into a unity. This, as noted in Chapter 3, is the most meaningful of the four types of coherence which were de¿ned, as it is most directly tied into the communicative purpose of the piece. E. Hammershaimb (1966) suggested that all the material in the book was aimed in the same direction. He argued that the preaching of doom was intended to bring reformation and cause the hearers to turn to the merciful God. The promises are not inconsistent with this, both the preaching of judgment and promised hope working “hand in hand” to call the audience closer to their covenant God. Both ¿t into the concerns

1

150. 151.

Hillers, Micah, 5–7. Beyerlin, Die Kulttraditionen Israels; “Kultische Tradition.”

190

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

of the reconstructed royal festivals of Jerusalem. Here calls for righteousness and justice, as well as promises based on God’s choosing the Davidic line, would be centered on the kingship.152 This understanding of the backdrop of the book would not only provide a coherent underlying perspective for interpretation, but offers an explanation of the contents as all centered on a common thematic focus. J. T. Willis (1969) hinted at there being a coherence of theme, but never developed this in a detailed explanation of the Àow of the book. The book was “purposefully arranged” to help “a speci¿c worshipping… community” deal with “a particular type of problem in its own historical situation.”153 The materials of the book were arranged “to produce a message which he [the arranger] felt to be relevant to a certain Jewish community.” Although Willis never crystallized and expressed what this message was, he seems to have thought that it dealt with contrasts between the present situation of the people in Palestine during the exile and the nature of their future.154 H. W. Wolff (1981, 1982) did not suggest that the whole book dealt with a single literary theme. He did, however, trace a Àow of thought in line with the history of redaction that was akin to the development of a theme. The theme would be the prophet Micah’s denunciations and the issues these raised. The denunciations are recorded in chs. 1–3. Micah 4– 5 contains later sayings which respond to the questions raised by the proclamation of Jerusalem’s destruction in 3:12. Chapters 6–7 offer a “further echo” of the prophet’s message. The materials here are encompassed by a new question, “What shall we do now as we live in God’s presence…”155 Wolff appears to be saying that there is a Àow of thought through the whole course of the present book. This Àow comes not from Micah, but from the section by section arrangement of developing thoughts from different periods, interacting with the basic theses of Micah’s preaching. This approximates a coherence of theme. The theme is Micah’s message—that doom would come to Jerusalem. It is developed ¿rst by showing that destruction was not the ¿nal word and there is a future beyond the ruins. Second, the contents extend the theme even further by then addressing the question as to how to live in the present, knowing that both destruction and, beyond that, a glorious future, are part of God’s purposes for his people (chs. 6–7).

1

152. 153. 154. 155.

Hammershaimb, “Some Leading Ideas,” 43, 45–46. Willis, “Structure,” 13. Ibid., 40–42. Wolff, Micah the Prophet, 14–15. Cf. idem, Micha, XXIX, XXXIII.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

191

So far, none of these three has offered a proposal of a well-worked out connectedness for the book based on a clear central theme that appears in all parts and results from some individual’s intention to communicate a speci¿c message. J. L. Mays (1976, 1977) has proposed such a coherence derived from a common theme. He argued that there was an arrangement of the material which employs them in a movement of proclamation that Àows through the entire book. The structure of this arrangement does not…have the clarity and coherence of an original composition where the movement of thought creates the material. But there does seem to be a discernible pattern in the material which is the result of an accumulative and sustained intention to say something which incorporates all the smaller parts into a larger message.156

Each of the sections “is arranged so as to unfold a revelation of Yahweh’s way in the world.” In each section there “is evidence in the arrangement and shaping of the material that a persistent intention has been at work to bring the individual units under the control of broader kerygmatic purposes.”157 Between Micah and the early ¿fth century B.C.E., these traditions were interpreted and extended “in a process which was the expression of a con¿dence that Micah’s words were the word of Yahweh, the announcement of a divine purpose which transcended Micah’s time and moved toward the establishment of Yahweh’s reign in the world. The pro¿le of that con¿dence is the proclamation of the book as a whole.”158 Mays even went so far as to spell out the way in which the two sections—one to the nations (chs. 1–5) and one to Israel (chs. 6– 7)—and their component parts all contributed, in their order and context, to the proclamation of this message.159 In the work of Mignon Jacobs her explanation of the Àow of the text and its conceptuality amounts to an explication of a clear theme for the book. In setting out to ¿nd out the extent to which the book of Micah exhibits conceptual coherence, Jacobs offered a well-thought-through delineation of what that coherence is. The conceptual framework of an author or redactor generates the conceptuality of a text, of which coherence is an extension. Conceptuality is the overarching idea that accounts for what is said. The text determines the extent to which coherence is present and discernible. For discerning the extent of conceptual coherence, she employed the method of concept-critical analysis, which seeks “to reconstruct the conceptuality of the extant text in light of its literary

1

156. 157. 158. 159.

Mays, Micah, 3. Ibid. Ibid., 21–22. Ibid., 3–12.

192

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

integrity.” The focus is on the text as we have it now. First the scholar must discern the various concepts within the book growing out of the individual units and each of their conceptualities. This method searches for those features characteristic of a concept and the typical semantic indictors of that concept. The “interrelationship of the various conceptualities toward an overarching conceptuality” is the conceptual coherence of the book. That is, the array of supporting concepts contribute to the governing concept, or the conceptual coherence, of the book.160 As a result of her in-depth analysis of the text of the book, Jacobs isolated several major concepts which overlap and contribute to the conceptuality of the whole work. In the text she can point to justice as that which has been violated and is the sin to be punished. Responsibility has been abused and serves as a measure of the injustice. Judgment is God’s response to the sin of his people. Putting these together Jacobs arrived at a clear statement of what constitutes the conceptuality of the book of Micah. It entails both judgment and hope. It is proposed that the conceptuality of the book of Micah concerns the fate of Israel. Israel’s fate is affected by Israel’s sin on the one hand and God’s response to that sin on the other. The reality is that Israel has sinned and is judged for its sin. Thus Israel’s existence is threatened by the judgment. The ¿nal word, however, is not the judgment, but the hope that beyond the judgment lies a future in which the existence of Israel is a reality… Within the dynamics [of Israel’s relationship with God] the sin–judgment and promise–hope dynamics are to be understood as the conceptual framework of God’s justice in judgment and God’s mercy in preserving and forgiving Israel.161

(2) Evaluation. The ¿rst observation to make is that few have actually argued for any coherence of theme, or something approaching that. This does not mean that there is not one to be found, but is certainly indicative of the challenge of the task. The material is usually assumed to be diverse in origin, nature, and contents. This is much more the case than would be true for, say, the book of Haggai. This would make it all the more dif¿cult to sense connections of meaning which are carried consistently through all the parts. Again, it does not imply that it cannot be done, only that such a task is dif¿cult and must be approached with precision and care. If someone in the course of the development of the text has arranged the oracles of the book of Micah so that all components

1

160. 161.

Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 6–57, 227–28. Ibid., 222–23.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

193

contribute to the expression of a coherent theme, that theme will be able to be traced in the text and would certainly be reinforced/strengthened by the presence of coherence arising from some or all of the other three sources of coherence in the textual dimension. It would also be an open question as to the originator of this coherence in the ¿nal form of the book, with the possibilities ranging from the eighth-century prophet himself down through the years with the collating and editing work of circles of prophetic disciples and redactors. The ¿rst three examples above—Hammershaimb, Willis, and Wolff— did not really argue for a clear-cut theme developed in its different aspects by the various parts. They either hinted at such or suggested a theme or center focus without developing the way in which that was worked out in the text. Mays’ suggestion explains the arrangement of the material of the whole book as connected by a common theme. His ideas are certainly plausible, especially that an early post-exilic redactor crafted the material to communicate a very speci¿c message. The problems come with the details of his presentation. He understands the theme to be developed in two parts (Mic 1–5 and 6–7). I have already questioned the adequacy of viewing the text’s structure according to this scheme. The development of his theme does not really seem to ¿t with what the passages are saying, either. Were the occurrences of the verb 3/™ fš (“hear”) in 1:2 and 5:14 actually intended to form an inclusio? Or are these simply two instances of the same common verb occurring at two different points in the book? If they were intended to be taken together as an inclusio they might function to connect the intervening parts into one unit. Does – in 1:2 necessarily “Hear, O peoples, all of them” (-Xš Vž -']– 4™ K3/’ f) address the whole of chs. 1–5 to the nations/peoples? This is problematic for at least the following reasons. The summons to the peoples in 1:2 may create a setting for the following pericope, rather than for all the diverse material contained in chs. 1–5. Most material in chs. 1–5 is unquestionably addressed to Judah/Israel. Even the references to the nations in chs. 4–5 serve to encourage an Israelite audience with the greatness of their God’s power over the whole world. The function of addressing the peoples (e.g., as witnesses to God’s case) is a rhetorical feature in passages directed to the people of God. Each of these mentions of the nations in chs. 1–5 makes sense in a message to the people of Judah/Israel. In 1:2, the peoples are called to be witnesses of God’s accusations and punishment of Israel and Judah. Their presence is a rhetorical feature which gives added solemnity and force to the proclamation which follows. God’s audience and jury are the peoples 1

194

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

of the world! In 5:14, note that the nations are in the third person and are not addressed directly as in 1:2. Here even in the prominent ¿nal member of the inclusio the threat of punishment on the disobedient nations serves to comfort and reassure God’s people in their present afÀictions. Jacobs determined the conceptual coherence that was present in the book through a detailed analysis of features in the text and how they contributed to the conceptualization of the book’s message, resulting in the statement of a central theme on which the book focuses. This leads to several questions. The conceptuality which Jacobs identi¿ed can be summed up in terms of the people having sinned, and thus facing the threat of judgment for their sin, with the ¿nal word given to God’s compassion that ensures that judgment will not be the ¿nal word, but rather is found in the hope that there is a future of salvation and restoration beyond the judgment. This is true. It does reÀect what is in the text of Micah. It can also be argued that this is essentially a summary of the common message found in each book of the prophetic corpus. Is the stated conceptuality of the text more than a statement of common prophetic themes? What distinguishes the message of the book of Micah from that of the other prophetic books? Up to the present, then, few have tried to see a coherence of theme in the book of Micah. Though each of these proposals uncovered indicators of a connectedness of theme, I would suggest that none has fully or satisfactorily accounted for the data of the text itself. 3. ReÀections on the Dimensions of Historical and Perceptual Coherence Seen in the Book of Micah Much of the analysis in this chapter has been devoted to the indicators of coherence adduced directly from the text of the book of Micah, and hence within the textual dimension of coherence. This is natural since most of the claims for coherence in the book are based ¿rst on data derived from the Hebrew text. Nor has there been much history of discussion of the other two dimensions of coherence, historical and perceptual, in any context resembling that of a communication model for hermeneutics of the biblical text as de¿ned in this work. However, even if there has not been an appropriation of this terminology, the discussion has certainly impinged on these dimensions.

1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

195

a. The Historical Dimension Regarding the historical dimension of the book’s coherence many of the studies have considered the process leading up to the ¿nal form of the canonical book, from the prophet to author to editor(s) and arrangers, often addressing the origins of coherence in the way in which redactional connections were built into the text at different points in the growth of the materials into the ¿nal form of the book, or were encoded in the text at the point of editing that created the ¿nal form. These theories of redactional development have been explained as providing an understanding of the historical dimension of coherence and have already been discussed at several junctures. Ultimately the limit on such research is that it is speculative. With redactional growth incorporating elements of coherence prior to the ¿nal form these are each a reconstruction, founded on data in the text one hopes, but nonetheless based on evidence that does not unambiguously necessitate that particular reconstruction. Often these are founded on evidence in a postulated text form which does not exist today, and may not ever have existed in the case that the reconstruction of the origins does not reÀect what happened. One need only notice how the same indicators are used to ground the arguments for differing redactional schemes. It is also clear that there may be fresh ways of reconstruing the same evidence that result in yet a different picture of the transmission and growth of the book. However, the more recent discussion of the signi¿cance of the book of Micah within the canon as a component of the Book of the Twelve, or more broadly as part of the prophetic corpus, or as part of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament canon or the Bible, has extended our consideration of the historical dimension of coherence into the period past the formation and settled acceptance of the ¿nal form of the book as it now stands.162 At this juncture a few comments on this canonical chapter of the historical dimension are in order. Understanding the historical development which led to the present pattern allows us better to interpret the shape of the canonical text. Childs evaluated proposed models (Lescow, Willis, Jeremias, Renaud, van der Woude) and rejected them in that they are based on an erroneous assumption that the written tradition was “actualized” by updating it to apply to a new need that had arisen within a later historical setting. As noted in Chapter 1, he proposed that the major force behind the editing process was “the inÀuence exerted upon its editors by the larger corpus 162. Of necessity, the discussion in Chapter 1 and in this chapter’s evaluation of coherence in the textual dimension has dealt especially with a number of the proposals based on an understanding of redactional growth. 1

196

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

of other prophetic material, particularly the oracles of Isaiah.” Instead of the redactors intentionally updating the material to “actualize” the tradition for a later historical situation, rather The editors of Micah sought to understand God’s purpose with his people Israel by means of interpreting the growing body of sacred literature. Thus the effect of the changing historical situation was mediated through an interpretation of scripture and was only an indirect inÀuence. The direct force in the shaping process came from one set of traditions upon another.163

The Mican tradition was transmitted by tradents resembling or identical with those who were redacting parts of the Isaianic corpus. Childs adduced evidence for this by tracing the connections and overlap between Isaiah and Micah: temporal overlap and geographical proximity, common elements in message and theology, and elements of redactional similarity. These editors were apparently located in Jerusalem and were at work from the early seventh century throughout the early post-exilic period.164 In a section entitled “The effect of the canonical process on Micah,” Childs assessed the effect of the redaction on the interpretation of Micah’s prophecy. The tradents’ communicative intentions are evident as seen in how they arranged the oracles in a “theological pattern” of judgment alternating with redemption in order to describe “the full plan of God with Israel.” The book incorporates Micah’s message into “a larger theological framework,” by extending his original proclamation to testify to “the larger intent of God with Israel.” The book’s canonical shaping interpreted the original oracles’ meaning by putting them into a framework, so that the Events assumed a typological dimension within a recurring pattern. The judgment…was only illustrative of a continuing plan of God. Judgment and salvation for the people of God lay in the future as much as in the past. By placing the original oracles within a conscious pattern, the canonical editors rendered a theological judgment on how Micah’s oracles were to be understood by every succeeding generation of Israel.165

These canonically shaped oracles were also used in the liturgy of the worshipping community as they stood “in between God’s judgment and salvation.” The present shape also interprets the book by putting it in a larger context shared by Isaiah, as the two were meant to be heard

1

163. 164. 165.

Childs, Introduction, 431–34. Ibid., 434–36. Ibid., 436–37.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

197

together for mutual enrichment, and are connected more closely with each other than by both simply being a part of the Hebrew prophetic canon.166 Burkard Zapff’s attention to passages which are crucial to understanding the whole book (Mic 2:12–13; 4:6–7; 5:6–7; and 7—all passages that mention the remnant), seen as examples of “Fortschreibung,”167 allowed him to consider the redactional intentions of this process in the book of Micah (which he designated FSM, for “Fortschreibung im Michabuch”), as well as its possible implications for the book’s position in the Book of the Twelve and for understanding any history of editing that goes beyond the individual books to link them all together.168 Chapter 1 referenced the emerging discussion of the meaning of the book of Micah as part of the book of the Twelve. Evidently our “Minor Prophets” were once transmitted on a single scroll, and counted as only one book in enumerating the Hebrew canon. The Twelve was the fourth book of the Latter Prophets, alongside Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Scholarship on the topic seeks to understand whether the Twelve are to be interpreted not only as individual books, each associated with the ministry of a Hebrew prophet, but also be read as one unitary work with its own message, the Book of the Twelve. Does this entity show evidence of editing that tied it together more tightly into a whole, one new and overarching book?169 Can the Book of the Twelve be read as a uni¿ed and coherent work in and of itself?170 Obviously the scope of the discussion on this topic goes beyond the con¿nes of Micah studies, but bears signi¿cance for the way interpreters read the text of Micah and ¿nd coherence in the historical dimension for the book within the canon. Many proposals for reading the Twelve spell out the implications of 166. Ibid., 437–38. 167. That is, passages composed for their current context and closely linked with the earlier material that surrounds them. 168. Burkard Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton (BZAW 256; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997). 169. For initial summaries of the voluminous discussion thus far, see Sweeney, “Twelve, Book of the,” 788–806, and Schart, “Twelve, Book of the: History of Interpretation,” 806–17. 170. Note for example, Rolf Rendtorff, “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity,” in Nogalski and Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, 75–87, and, in the same volume, Paul House, “The Character of God in the Book of the Twelve,” 125–45, as examples of holistic reading strategies for the Twelve. Also in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, see John Watts, “A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–3 and Malachi,” 209–17, for an exploration of a framework meant to Àank the beginning and end of the Twelve and express key theological themes. 1

198

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Micah being located where it is in the canonical sequence of the Twelve. Passing mention of a few of these will have to suf¿ce, since this topic could become the focus of a complete research program of its own. P. Redditt’s reconstruction of the rise of the Book of the Twelve culminated in both a diachronic understanding of the questions of the text’s prior historical origins and development and a synchronic treatment of the Twelve as one work, reading straight through all the books with the goal of discerning a broad plot and signi¿cant themes that can be followed from Hosea to Malachi.171 He thus provided a reading of Micah in the context of the canon. In tracing the plot of the Twelve, he advanced the idea that the book of Micah anticipates the fall of both Assyria and Judah. Although its setting is Judah of the eighth century B.C.E., the collected materials evidence a period of growth from the eighth century down to the late sixth century and derived from a series of at least two other editorial hands. He analyzed the book’s location in the orders of the MT and LXX and considers issues of the use of intertextual references in the text. In the sequence of the Masoretic order, the book of Micah picks up on Jonah’s pondering the salvation of Assyria and instead anticipates its fall, and primarily emphasizes the punishment of Judah.172 In a similar vein, Stulman and Kim’s introduction to the prophets treats the book of Micah as the ¿nal book in what they style an “anthology of dispersion and diagnosis” that begins with Hosea in the canon order of the Twelve. Sensitive to the context of the Twelve as a whole they point out that the reader’s attention begins with Samaria, then shifts to Edom and on to Nineveh, and now ¿nally back to Zion. The focus of the Twelve has gone from nation to nation, but throughout the primary themes are continued: “The call for justice, the need for repentance, and the promise of newness and restoration.” A reading in sequence gives these motifs even greater momentum. Since the book of Micah is located at the central core of the Twelve, the effect is that “Judah and Jerusalem literarily take the center stage of the Twelve.”173 The accusations of sin are no longer addressed to other peoples, but are now directed at the Jerusalemites. The doctrine of retribution explains the coming disaster as God’s punishment, thus maintaining moral coherence. Serious blame is laid at the doorstep of the spiritual and political leaders of Judah. All the 171. Redditt, Introduction, 197–208. 172. Ibid, 249–83, especially the section “Micah: Punishment of the Divine Daughter,” 266–81. 173. Louis Stulman and Hyun C. P. Kim, You Are My People: An Introduction to Prophetic Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 2010), 210–11. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

199

same, the book refuses to give up hope. Instead the book of Micah expresses “buoyant con¿dence in Jerusalem’s future. The concepts of judgment and hope for Zion and her offspring are not mutually exclusive.” Zion will be resurgent, God’s people will persevere and prevail, led by a kingly messiah who will bring in the new era characterized by “peace, justice, and security.” Their hope is to be found in and grounded on the very attributes of the character of Yahweh. The juxtaposition of doom and hope creates the book’s overarching structure.174 Paul House considered the literary devices which make the Book of the Twelve a deliberate unity. He offered an analysis of the Twelve as a uni¿ed narrative, and delineated the manner in which typical narrative elements such as plot or characterization could be found through the reading of these books in sequence. In progressing through the Twelve there is a thematic development: the ¿rst six focus on the sin of Israel (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah), while the next three speak of Israel’s punishment (Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah), and then the ¿nal three envision its restoration (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).175 James Nogalski, a pioneer in the research on this topic, explains that six of the twelve contain dated superscriptions and appear in a sequence. There is a pre-exilic group of four: Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, interconnected through the patterned naming of the kings of both Israel and Judah, as well as a post-exilic group of two: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, tied together with formulae that refer to speci¿c days early in the reign of Darius II. Four other prophetic books (Nahum, Habakkuk, Jonah, and Malachi) show awareness of the chronological framework even though their superscriptions do not mention kings. Nahum and Habakkuk are between Micah and Zephaniah to ¿ll in the chronological gap between the eighth century and the reign of Josiah, while Jonah is placed where it is to precede Micah and Nahum which each presuppose the fall of Assyria and to follow closely after the books of that prophet’s contemporaries Hosea and Amos. Malachi presumes the Persian era as setting. Joel and Obadiah function thematically and contextually instead of within a chronological progression. Joel begins with a call to repentance (1:2–2:17) which reÀects the end of Hosea (Hos. 14:18) and ends (4:16, 18 MT) with citations of Amos 1:2 and 9:13. Obadiah ¿ts the context thematically as well in that it is juxtaposed with Amos, which also makes signi¿cant reference to Edom. Both of these prophets focus on the Day of the LORD. The result of this arranging is an invitation to the reader to hear the Twelve in the context of the story of Israel and

1

174. 175.

Ibid., 210–16. House, The Unity of the Twelve.

200

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Judah, beginning with the eighth century and extending all the way down to the Persian period. Nogalski enumerates the indicators of redactional intention that these books were meant to be joined and seen as one: catchwords, or the use of signi¿cant words in adjacent books to evoke recurring themes; juxtaposing promise and judgment to provide a continuing thread as reading from one book to the next; catchwords that draw parallels between the fates of two entities, whether in adjacent writings or more broadly within the Twelve; and allusions to other texts both within the Twelve and outside.176 There has not been unanimity in the ¿eld as to reading the Twelve as one book. Ben Zvi has raised serious questions about the process and suggested that the books are meant to be read each as its own unit and not as one ongoing work. The way that the books have been composed indicates that the reader is to associate the entire text of each work with one particular prophetic personage. The presence of the superscriptions, or titles/incipits, at the start of each constitutes a textually inscribed request that the reader view the book as distinct from the others. The conclusions of the prophetic books mark them off from that which follows as a distinct entity. Besides these explicit textual indicators each book has its own Àavor, created by one or more systems of crossreferences and idioms that are common within the book, but rare in other books. The presence of distinctive language also served to individualize the “persona of the prophet to whom the book is attributed.” This latter increases in signi¿cance once one realizes that those who were responsible for the literary activity that would generate the books we now have 176. See the works by Nogalski cited above, p. 48 n. 127. Others have carried out similar research on the use and distribution of themes through the extent of the Book of the Twelve. See, for example, Edgar Conrad, “The End of Prophecy and the Appearance of Angels/Messengers in the Book of the Twelve,” JSOT 73 (1997): 65– 79, who studies the signi¿cance of the appearance of (angelic) messengers in the Persian section; Craig Bowman, “Reading the Twelve as One: Hosea 1–3 as an Introduction to the Book of the Twelve (The Minor Prophets),” Stone-Campbell Journal 9 (Spring, 2006): 41–59, who argues Hosea’s primary position in the Twelve establishes a reading strategy for all of the books together, one centered on themes introduced in Hos 1–3; Aaron Schart, “The First Section of the Book of the Twelve Prophets: Hosea–Joel–Amos,” Int 61, no. 2 (April 2007): 138–52, who sees in the ¿rst three books of the Twelve a sequence that ¿lls in information missing from a canonically contiguous context; Reed Lessing, “Amos’s Earthquake in the Book of the Twelve,” CTQ 74 (2010): 243–59, who studies the signi¿cance of earthquakes in the Twelve; Anthony Petterson, “The Shape of the Davidic Hope across the Book of the Twelve,” JSOT 35, no. 2 (2010): 225–46, who traces the expressions of hope for a future king from the house of David. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

201

were also likely reading, rereading, and editing the other prophetic books. Rather than positing different circles responsible for the varied characteristics of the books, since they are probably derived from a smaller circle, it is likely that the members of the literati determined to shape each prophetic character in a way that was unique, thus setting the book of that prophet apart from the others as well.177 As a result Ben Zvi views the “unity of the Twelve” in a totally different manner. The unity in the Twelve is found not in a book redacted so as to be read as a coherent textual whole, but rather coherence is found within the historical dimension in the work of a small social group, the educated literati who worked with and redacted, then read and reread the prophetic books for their own use. Such origins for the ¿nal form of the books make a shared discourse, shared linguistic heritage, intertextuality, and shared ideologies all quite likely.178 Knud Jeppesen views the formation of a prophetic book as an instance of inner biblical interpretation, in the case of Micah extending down into the period of the exile. Micah 3:12 is the center of the Book of the Twelve, placing emphasis on what would have been seen after 587 B.C.E. as the ful¿llment of the prophecy of devastation of Jerusalem. The center of the book of Micah is 4:12 which asserts that the people of foreign nations do not know the plans of Yahweh, contrasting ch. 3’s path to the arrival of disaster with ch. 4 showing the way to overcome the disaster, and hence a prophecy of hope. The destruction of Zion and the scattering of the people is not Yahweh’s ¿nal plan. Thus Mic 3–4 is closely tied together and serves overall as a prophecy of hope. The editing which connected Mic 3 with 4:1–5 intended to showcase that the disaster to befall Zion was not the ¿nal word, and God would return with great mercy.179

177. This same evidence could just as easily be adduced to make the argument that the personalities of the historical prophets are still very much in evidence. 178. For further on the debate about reading the Twelve as either a whole, or as twelve individual books, see the works cited above, p. 48 n. 128. Examples of works that do not assume a seamlessly uni¿ed theological thread or reading strategy throughout the Twelve include E. Ray Clendenen, “Textlinguistics and Prophecy in the Book of the Twelve,” JETS 46, no. 3 (September 2003): 385–99, and Mark Biddle, “Obadiah–Jonah–Micah in Canonical Context: The Nature of Prophetic Literature and Hermeneutics,” Int 61, no. 2 (April 2007): 154–66. 179. Knud Jeppesen, “ ‘Because of You!’: An Essay About the Centre of the Book of the Twelve,” in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements (ed. E. Ball; JSOTSup 300; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1999), 196–210. 1

202

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

In enumerating the verses in the Book of the Twelve the scribes determined that Mic 3:12 was the center of the whole. Zapff took this a step further and argued that the book of Micah is the theological core of the Twelve Prophets as well, thus central due to its subject matter and position, marked with the grace formula from Exod 34. It denotes a dividing line within the Book of the Twelve, as the focus of theme turns with Micah generally to the restoration of Zion and the return of the Diaspora. The grace formula is evoked in the beginning, middle, and end of the Twelve, with a special concentration in Jonah, Micah, and Nahum. Important themes are concentrated in Micah, such as the future prospects of Israel and Zion, a ¿nal puri¿cation of Israel, or Israel’s future relationship with the nations. The themes seem to have been inspired by the contents of the book of Isaiah so that Micah serves as a reminder of important statements from Isaiah within the Book of the Twelve.180 If the Twelve are to be read as one entity, it would seem natural to seek a unifying theme that brings all twelve books together. The work of LeCureux considers what a theme is and then examines the Minor Prophets to discover if there is one central thematic focus, through observation of word repetition and the positions of the twelve books. He concludes that indeed there is a unifying and possibly controlling theme for the Twelve to be found in the call to return (Kf) especially in its use in the phrase “Return to me and I will return to you.” The distribution of the occurrences is notable, in that these are concentrated at the beginning and end of the Twelve. The editors of the text in the Masoretic tradition desired that all readers of these books would sense the urgent necessity of the command to return. This is a controlling theme that places the message of the entire Book of the Twelve in perspective. LeCureux brings Micah into his study through an examination of the three instances of the verb in the book, which focus attention on Yahweh and his actions.181 180. Burkard Zapff, “The Book of Micah—the Theological Center of the Book of the Twelve?,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights (ed. R. Albertz, J. Nogalski, and J. Wöhrle; BZAW 433; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 129– 46. In the same volume Biddle reconstructs a redactional history for Mic 4–5 which he believes reÀects a debate over the exercise of political power as a theological category and situates this in the context of the book’s place within the Twelve, in Mark Biddle, “Dominion Comes to Jerusalem: An Examination of Developments in the Kingship and Zion Traditions as ReÀected in the Book of the Twelve with Particular Attention to Micah 4–5,” 253–67. 181. Jason LeCureux, The Thematic Unity of the Book of the Twelve (Hebrew Bible Monographs; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Phoenix, 2012), 22–23, for summary, and 153–57 on Micah. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

203

When looking at the historical dimension post-¿nal form, i.e., in the canonical formation of the Book of the Twelve or of the Prophets or of the Hebrew Bible, scholars point to evidence in the text to indicate connections within the broader context of the canon. Once again, this suffers from the limitations of not really being able to know securely the intentions of the person(s) who incorporated these elements of coherence, or even when they were at work, and if they were connecting the book of Micah intentionally to other works around it in an ordered canon or merely af¿rming and picking up on common shared themes that were tenets of ancient faith. One notes that the sources of coherence are essentially the same when discussing the historical dimension. Coherence arises from internal links, structure, perspective, and theme. Internal links or a structure that brings coherence may point a scholar to a redactional history for the book’s materials, or may be carried out on a broader basis within the canon and external to the book of Micah itself, as in the work of Nogalski in ¿nding catchword connections between the Twelve or in House’s proposal of a structural outline for the Twelve. The underlying perspective offering coherence is often the basis for conclusions about the redactional history of the text, or the history of the growth of the canon (Redditt’s reÀections on the placement of Micah after Jonah), or signi¿cance as part of the canon shaped, reread, and studied by a small group of educated literati in the Persian era (Ben Zvi). The themes discovered in the book may be linked to certain places in the history of the book and its message (House, Jeppesen), or found across the boundaries in the text to unite Micah with other books in the canon (see the work of Jeppesen, LeCureux, Nogalski, or Zapff, for example). Attempts to read the Twelve as a coherent and uni¿ed work offer valuable insight into the order of the books in the canon sequence. The juxtaposing of Jonah’s portrayal of the salvation of Assyria with Micah’s anticipation of Assyria’s fall is likely to be signi¿cant in discovering the intentions of the arrangers of the canon (Redditt). That 3:12 is the center of the Twelve emphasizes the ful¿lment of the prophecy of devastation in the events of 587 B.C.E. (Jeppesen). Placing the book of Micah at the focal point of the Twelve allows Judah and Jerusalem to be on “center stage” (Stulman and Kim). Studies of the distribution of the grace formula (Zapff) and the call to return (LeCureux) bring out the importance of those concepts in the minds of those who organized the materials of the Twelve. At the same time the proposals for reading straight through the book of the Twelve as a work with an intentional literary structure tend to diminish the richness of the messages of each individual prophet and book. To say that Micah’s position in the Twelve shows its focus to 1

204

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

be the sin of God’s people (House) or is to be read in tandem with the story of Israel and Judah (Nogalski) may have the unfortunate effect of canceling out the strong emphasis on restoration that the structure and contents of the book seem clearly intended to communicate. b. The Perceptual Dimension The plethora of views about the developmental history of the book, the settings of its parts, the connections with other works in the canon, or even of its structure and coherence as a unit attest to the reality of the perceptual dimension of coherence. Readers construct coherence, and do so in many different ways. The challenge is our distance from the original text and its setting. That readers see coherence in a variety of ways does not mean that there was no coherence, only that at this remove in culture and history and language, it is dif¿cult for a contemporary student of the book to be certain about what was the intention behind the inclusion of particular indicators of coherent connections. As we read the text and construe it as coherent (the perceptual dimension), our place is to observe the indicators of coherence with careful diligence and to ground our theories about the historical dimension, from origins in a prophetic ministry to stages of redactional growth and ¿nally canonical context/ usage, in the hard evidence that is to be found in the textual dimension. 4. Evaluation of Studies Speci¿cally on the Coherence of Micah Before concluding this chapter, a few remarks about the studies explicitly on the coherence of Micah are in order. The works of J. T. Willis, D. G. Hagstrom, and M. Jacobs have each addressed themselves directly to the issue of the coherence of Micah. Since that is the topic here as well, there is a need both to give credit for each of their seminal contributions to the discussion and also to delineate that which makes this work unique. J. T. Willis offered a study done in great detail, including interaction with a broad scope of scholarship in languages inaccessible to many other scholars. He discussed coherence in terms of what he labeled both vertical and horizontal coherences. His research thus provided extensive evidence for connections within and between the sections. This was also a con¿rmation of his observations about the overall structure of the book and the parallels from one section with the others. His ideas are certainly stimulating and bene¿cial to consider, especially in relation to coherence that arises from internal linkage and from structure. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

205

However, the size of the pile of evidence accumulated is not an adequate basis on which to argue the point, for, as already noted, how does one determine how much evidence is enough? In the end, such a judgment is subjective. Again, there is the question of intention. Were all of these correspondences intended or were some present by chance? And further, one should ask what these demonstrate. Certainly these features are present in the text, but it is already clear that one feature may be adduced as evidence pointing to several different understandings of structure, underlying perspective, or central theme. One need only think of the appropriation of the prominent summonses to hear in Mic 1:2; 3:1, and 6:1 that are seen as support for several different schemes of structure. No doubt these are important, serving as signi¿cant markers of divisions within the text, and do contribute to the structure. But a more comprehensive consideration of all the sources of coherence and their relation to the form of the text as a whole is needed in order to adjudicate which proposed structure the presence of these summonses actually supports. Further, as Hagstrom suggested,182 Willis tends to overdraw the parallels between the sections of the book. An emphasis on the af¿nities between the sections can result in the loss of their individual distinctiveness. This may be a reason why Willis only hinted at there being a coherence of theme. A full-scale commentary on the book would be necessary to follow through on and develop the Àow seen. In addition, as already explained, the conclusions as to the structure of the book are not the most convincing way to account for all the features in the ¿nal form of the book. Finally, I believe that Willis’ study would have bene¿ted from a more conscious reÀection on what coherence is. The lack of this may explain his ¿nding connections in the text that arise primarily from internal linkage and from structure, while leaving us with only tantalizing hints as to coherence from perspective and from theme. D. G. Hagstrom’s study is in many ways similar to Willis’ work. He did reÀect on what comprises coherence and was thus more selfconscious about following through on his initial method with exacting precision. His procedures were well-ordered and he followed a clear pattern in building and developing his case. However, here too it is appropriate to raise some questions. The ¿rst, again, has to do with the quality of his evidence. For example, is the destruction of idols in Mic 1:7 and 5:12 really very impressive as a frame for the intervening portions?183 Does the superscription function to

1

182. 183.

Hagstrom, Coherence, 16. Ibid., 156.

206

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

connect the whole book together?184 As with Willis, the quantity of evidence in and of itself may not be convincing. There needs to be consideration of the quality of the evidence adduced and some evaluation of how con¿dent we are that these links were intended, as well as reÀection on what they actually demonstrate. How much could be by chance? Were they intended for the reasons for which he uses them in building his case for a particular structure? Certainly the links of coherence Hagstrom pointed out were not presented as constituting a coherence of theme, though it seems that he saw his work to be supportive of that of his advisor, J. L. Mays, in this regard. Mays did argue for a coherence arising out of a common thematic development in reading through the book. This immediately raises a further question. If the book has been so intricately crafted as all his numerous linkages would suggest, would a coherence of theme not be more evident? Certainly, in the light of Hagstrom’s results, one would expect that the coherence of theme Mays had proposed would extend to the smaller levels of the text, for example, the connections between sentences. Yet Mays himself cautioned that the coherence he saw does not “have the clarity and coherence of an original composition where the movement of thought creates the material.”185 Is Hagstrom’s work intended then as a revising of Mays’ conclusion? Mays saw a coherence for the overall progress of the book from a redactor’s hand. What Hagstrom saw is present to a greater “depth” within the text. There are exegetical problems with the views that Hagstrom adopts. As with Willis, Hagstrom’s conclusions about the divisions of the book are not a convincing way to account for the book’s present shape. In each case the inadequacy of the understanding of the structure of the whole is suf¿cient to call for further research into the issue. It is not the best option for Hagstrom to side with Mays in understanding Mic 2:12–13 to be negative, as explained above and in Chapter 5. These verses are a break in the context because they are positive, incorporating a reference to the remnant which is used elsewhere in the book to mark a signi¿cant transition in thought. As a result, they serve to mark chs. 1–2 off from 3, which moreover deals with new material and employs different forms and internal structure. It is dif¿cult, also, to begin each of his sections with a summons to hear (1:2; 6:1) and then exclude 3:1 with its summons from being the start of a signi¿cant new section.

1

184. 185.

Ibid., 217–21. Mays, Micah, 3.

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

207

Hagstrom’s study by design did not carry the analysis through to the point of ¿nally asking the historical questions. It was doubtless wise to eliminate these issues at the start, in order to focus on the issue from a literary standpoint. However, to ¿nally leave the matter at that is unsatisfactory. The historical implications of the detailed coherences that he observed would be fascinating to pursue. When did these features arise? From whose concerns? By what were they stimulated or motivated? Could the coherence any of us see simply have been the result of a fertile modern literary imagination? Does he accept all of Mays’ conclusions as to the book’s redactional growth and structural layout? Surely the data of his examination of the text would suggest some re¿nements for Mays’ work. M. Jacobs built on studies which preceded hers and narrowed her focus to the delineation of the conceptuality found in the text of the book and the resultant conceptual coherence of the book of Micah. She treated coherence in a consistent and meticulous manner, providing insights both into the nature of coherence and the exegesis of the biblical text that are well-grounded and helpful. Her conceptual criticism is a well thought through and clearly explained methodological approach to the question of coherence in a text and its relation to the message of a book overall. The one hesitation that must be registered with this method of analysis is that it is too narrow. Conceptuality essentially distills a coherence that arises from theme, yet there are other sources for coherence in a text. Jacobs subsumes these under the central idea of conceptuality, but it is possible that these connections in a text would not serve an overarching conceptuality. It would be helpful to incorporate her results in this arena into a broader de¿nition of coherence that would open research to additional features of the text. To limit the focus of the discussion of coherence to concepts alone seems to allow little room to account adequately for the connectedness that arises from links that may not tie everything together under one theme. Levels of linkages less than the panoramic view of the whole, that may not express a focal theme for the book, as well as connections effected by literary features, all should be taken into account in a study of coherence. Throughout the book, the de¿nition of coherence is too restricted and hence, restricting in the study of the text. Again, her analysis of the phenomena in the text is well carried out, thorough in its execution and thoughtful in analysis. As mentioned above, one does question whether her statement of a conceptuality (a theme) for the book of Micah goes beyond the lowest common denominator that is found throughout the prophets: the people have sinned and 1

208

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

are called to repent; if they do not, judgment will come; but this is not the ¿nal word as God will restore and work with the faithful remnant of his people. Jacobs has written a thoughtful piece of scholarship that has advanced the study of the coherence of the book of Micah signi¿cantly. She has taken a rather more narrow view of coherence than others and developed a rigorous approach to ¿nding its indicators in the text. Her thorough analysis of the book’s ¿nal form delves into the minute details and at the same time considers the overarching picture. In discussing conceptuality she has developed a detailed and sophisticated approach to doing a topical and thematic study, re¿ned in methodology and conclusions. The data from the ¿nal form of the text and from studies of crucial concepts are integrated together in a discussion of the overall conceptual coherence of the book. Jacobs’ work is a prerequisite for methodology and theory for further study of the nature of coherence and its expressions in the book of Micah, in the other prophetic books, and beyond. In both Willis’ and Hagstrom’s studies, much attention was given to the small units as making sense. Willis proceeded from the overall scope of the book to examine these levels of smaller scope as con¿rmation for his observations about the whole book. Hagstrom started by establishing the connections within and between the smaller units and built up to his arguments for coherence on broader levels based on that initial stratum of coherence. However, one would expect the smaller levels to be coherent to a certain degree anyway. Otherwise, we would have a loose jumble of disconnected phrases and sentences. If the paragraphs or pericopes made no sense, the book would communicate very little. How likely is it that any such work would be treasured and preserved? Rather, the question of coherence found in a prophetic book of the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible seems to be much more crucial at the levels of broader scope. Does the book in its major sections or as a whole have a uni¿ed message or intentional structure? Is there a Àow that develops the thoughts, or even a theme? The fact that the small units are coherent does contribute to that overall framework, but the issue becomes relevant for the communicative design of the whole only once we reach the level on which the smaller units are connected (or not) with each other on a broader scope. I have learned much from the ground-breaking work of J. T. Willis, D. G. Hagstrom, and M. Jacobs on the coherence of Micah. The work of Willis and Hagstrom has been especially instructive about the nature of coherence derived from internal linkages and its implications for discerning a coherence arising from structure. Their detail is an example to 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

209

emulate and their procedures have been stimulating both for examining the text of the book of Micah and reÀecting on how people have discovered coherence therein. Jacobs’ study is essential in its application of the idea of conceptuality to the collected oracles in the book of a Hebrew prophet. Her in-depth presentation of the interlocking details of the text and its structure point the reader towards discerning the themes, or conceptuality, of the book. The total picture of conceptuality which clari¿es what all the component concepts are intended to communicate shows the book’s conceptual coherence, or in other words, the coherence that arises from its focal theme, or themes, as they are expressed in tandem to create one unitary message throughout. However, this project is signi¿cantly different from these preceding studies. All address the same topic, but proceed in differing ways and with varied concerns. In this study, I have tried to give more consciously reÀective attention to the nature of coherence in broad terms than has been the case elsewhere in studies of the book of Micah. In particular, the question of the various sources and dimensions of coherence has been brought into focus in order to consider how this can increase our understanding of the issues for the book of Micah. The signi¿cance of the question of coherence of theme has been treated in a different manner from the approach in Jacobs and examined more fully than in either Willis or Hagstrom. Further, I desire to discuss, in the end, the implications of my interaction with the text for historical questions, and thus carry my observations as to the book’s connectedness a step farther than simply the literary considerations. 5. Conclusions Quite a number of scholars have seen coherence from internal linkage and from structure in the text of Micah. Included here are the extensive researches of Willis, Hagstrom, and Jacobs, along with noteworthy studies such as those by Luker, Shaw, Andersen and Freedman, Sweeney, and Ben Zvi. In the arena of coherence that arises from internal linkage, few have pointed to recurrent literary features as a source of connectedness, possibly since the forms used in the book of Micah are not at all uniform. Much variety has been incorporated. Acknowledging the exceptions to be found in the work of scholars such as Hillers, Mays, Schibler, and Jacobs, fewer scholars have discerned any coherence from perspective or central theme.

1

210

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

The pursuit of the question of the coherence of the book of Micah has no doubt bene¿tted tremendously from new winds blowing in Micah studies within the most recent half century, which reÀects some of the trends in the ¿eld of Biblical Studies incorporating literary and rhetorical methods into the broader ¿eld at large. There have been a growing number of scholars with “holistic concerns,” who search not only for discontinuities in the text, but also ask about and emphasize that which connects and holds the oracles together. As of late, there have been more who have argued for coherence from perspective, whether by a re¿ned picture of the circumstances behind redactional development (e.g., Wolff), inÀuence from other books of the canon and the groups editing them (e.g., Childs), or a common ideological environment (e.g., Hillers). More have been willing to say that they discern a structure and then try to support that from the text. In particular, the division into chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7 has recently enjoyed increasing popularity (e.g., Willis, Rudolph, Allen, Childs, Waltke), as have the results from applying rhetorical analysis to the text (e.g., Luker, Shaw, Dorsey, Sweeney, Sharp). A few have even argued for a coherence arising from a focus on a common theme. Note that most of those mentioned in that connection have written in recent decades, from the last half of the twentieth century onwards (Hammershaimb, Willis, Mays, Wolff, Jacobs, Cuffey). Why have so few tried to support a coherence derived from a focus on and development of one main theme in the book? Most probably this indicates that the material in Micah is challenging to synthesize. It is easier to uncover connections of the kind found in arguing for a coherence of internal linkage or to make the case for an overarching structure for the material in the whole book. These data are in the text “on the surface.” Though their interpretation and signi¿cance may be disputed, the presence of the features is a given. Not surprisingly, many more have found these types of coherence. On the other hand, a message and its Àow and structuring may be dif¿cult to discern, but that does not mean that it is not there. Also, this situation is reÀective of general trends in the ¿eld of Biblical Studies. The concern to ¿nd connections has not found such widespread interest and acceptance until recent decades. It is only natural that a focus on dividing the components of the text—into different sources or periods of origin, into different forms, or into different redactional strata—would not emphasize the features providing connectedness. Doubtless, then, two signi¿cant factors explain why few have contended for a coherence of theme in the book of Micah. It is hard to see one’s way through the dif¿culties of the text in order to arrive at a clear statement of a thematic focus. In addition, patterns in the ¿eld of Biblical Studies overall sustain such choices in attention. 1

4. An Evaluation of the Coherence Found

211

What, then, has been established by the evaluation of the various studies in this chapter? There are plentiful inter-connections within the book of Micah, linking its component parts on many levels. There are internal links in the text as it now stands. Willis and Hagstrom have pointed to an abundance, though many may prove to be rather unstriking. The validity of each of these and their functions within the context have not been fully clari¿ed. Also, it seems evident that some sort of structuring has occurred. Most perceive some evidence for arrangement but do not agree as to what the arrangement is. The problem is to ¿nd the best way to account for the data, i.e., the features present in the text that support or indicate an overall structure. Each proposal that has been made thus far leaves out some aspect or other of the data from the text. Note that internal links and overarching structure are more immediately visible in the text than would be a coherence from perspective or theme. It is not surprising, then, that a coherence of either of these two latter types has not been as well established, or as frequently argued, as a coherence arising from the other two sources, seeing that the case for coherence of perspective is made from the reconstructed backdrop which underlies the phenomena of the text we have, while that for a common theme is made by distilling how all the parts point to the same topic consistently. What is needed? What course should be followed in further examination of the book of Micah? The ¿rst step will be to pay close attention to the dimension of the coherence that is textual. A solution to the presence or absence of coherence in the book of Micah must deal with the structure and offer an adequate explanation for the textual features present. If such a structure is present, is there a coherence from internal linkage that con¿rms or strengthens that of the coherence derived from structuring, i.e., by showing that the sections of the whole are coherent in and of themselves? Does the structure give rise to our understanding some coherence from a theme? Does what we discover as to the other three types of connectedness bear any implications for seeing a coherence from perspective? Then secondly it will be important to consider the historical and perceptual dimensions of the coherence of the book of Micah. Are there any hints that are of help in reconstructing a background setting? Are there any clues that point to the historical growth of the materials as they were assembled and edited (in stages?) leading to the ¿nal form of the book’s oracles? And of course what is seen is a modern reader’s perception of coherence in the text. Is there any way that we can discern whether or not a particular indicator was intended, or only the product of our desires on this end? If it was intended by an 1

212

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

ancient prophet preaching, or by one who recorded his oracles, or collected and arranged and edited them, it will be of value for interpreting the book and understanding/hearing its message. If it is merely a product of the imagination of today’s reader, it would be interesting, but possibly more a comment on our own psychology of perception rather than the passions and concerns of ancient Hebrews.

1

Chapter 5

THE COHERENCE OF MICAH: A NEW PROPOSAL BASED ON THE REMNANT PASSAGES

1. Introduction The book of Micah manifests a coherence derived from the clear enumeration of a theme in the textual dimension, supported and con¿rmed by the coherence which comes from the structure of the book and from the preponderance of internal links which can be discerned. Furthermore, there may be a coherence arising from a common perspective underlying the whole book. This may have implications for understanding coherence in the historical external dimension of the text, and prove insightful for thinking about the perceptual dimension of coherence as well. The theme is that although God’s people may face punishment for their sins, God is committed to forgiveness and restoration. That this is the driving force behind the way in which the ¿nal form of the book has been structured and edited can be deduced and observed from several lines of evidence. Paramount among these is the strategic placement of the four passages which refer to the remnant of God’s people, who are the central object of his work to bring restoration. Each of these mentions of the remnant is towards the end of a section offering hope for the distant future beyond the expected consequences coming as punishment for the people’s rebellion. Both the layout of the structuring of the oracles in the book and the sequential unfolding of the message of the oracles as a whole reinforce this as the critical element in the way the book has been put together to speak to its audience and readers beyond that ¿rst context. To see the placement of the hope passages, each of which contains reference to a remnant as the locus of God’s working, results in understanding the text to have a four-fold alternation between the proclamation of doom and hope (not two- or three-fold as in other schemes, which fail to account for the placement of Mic 2:12–13 and the intermixing of elements of judgment and promise in chs. 4–5). In addition, it will be demonstrated that each sequence of judgment oracles focuses in on one area in which God’s people will suffer consequences

214

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

(land, leadership, warfare, and covenant relationship with God). Each segment of hope not only contains a reference to the future of God’s working to save the remnant, but addresses explicitly the very theme of the immediately preceding section of doom in turn. The components of each of the four sections have been arranged so that all the oracles in the section in some way relate to one common aspect, an area in which sin has destroyed, but God restores. The next two chapters of the present study will be devoted to this proposal. First, Chapter 5 presents the argument that the book of Micah is organized around the four passages which refer to the remnant, or mention God’s working on behalf of the remnant. These four references, or promises, to the remnant allow us to sense the Àow and development of thought throughout Micah. Grasping their signi¿cance delimits the sections and clari¿es the connections between them and makes plain the way in which each part has been integrated around a central theme. Although the thesis that the remnant passages are the center of integration for Micah has not previously been advanced, attention to these passages will show that the book of Micah has a well-crafted and intentional coherence in its ¿nal form. The idea was derived from observing that the topics of the ¿rst two remnant promises—the spatial concept of regathering (Mic 2:12–13) and leadership (4:1–8)—respond to the topics of the preceding sections of judgment—the dislocated geography (1:2–2:11) and the corrupt rulers (3:1–12). This observation led to posing the same question about the other occurrences of the remnant promises (5:6–8 [Hebrew versi¿cation] and 7:18–20), and their relation to the previous oracles of doom. This resulted in the discovery that in these instances, as well, there is a topical correspondence between the sections of hope in which these promises were found and the problems raised in the preceding sections of doom— victory (5:1–14) responds to defeat (4:9–14) and God’s forgiveness (7:7–20) resolves the tension created by the people’s complete inability to please God (6:1–7:6).1 The perception of this movement back and 1. This is not meant to imply that others have not seen any of these links and connections in juxtaposed sections, merely that to put them together comprehensively grounded in the placement of passages about the remnant is a new reading of the ¿nal form of the book, a reading which is faithful to the text in the way it has been structured and edited when it was given its ¿nal form. For example, Mays, Micah, 5, did ¿nd that the material collected in Mic 2 turns around the theme of the land and that the focus of ch. 3 is on the leaders. However, he failed to see (1) that the material in ch. 1 is also assembled according to the same theme as we ¿nd in Mic 2 and (2) that Mic 2:12–13 is a response to this theme in 1–2. Nor did he note the

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

215

forth, between a problem raised by the people’s sin and God’s resolution of that problem, provides an interpretive aid to discern the message of the book of Micah in its ¿nal form. This study has various limitations. It is not a full-scale, detailed commentary on the text. Rather, it offers a treatment of the shape and message of the book in its ¿nal form. The focus will be on the broad sweep of how the book as a whole has been laid out, the structure of the whole, and the means used to provide connections at all levels of the text. This will lead to a consideration of the possible underlying perspective that might inform the book, as well as reÀection on the implications that this reading of the text as coherent might have for discerning a theme that ties the whole of the book into a unity. Chapter 5 presents this reading of the text of the book of Micah understood through the lens of the strategically placed passages that concern the remnant. Chapter 6 evaluates this reading in terms of the analysis of the nature of coherence presented in Chapter 3. Discussion of the implications this might have for understanding the origins of this coherence and the possibilities of discerning intentionality, the role of the reader in perceiving coherence, the history of the book’s growth and development, as well as its theology will be reserved for Chapter 7. The numerous studies on speci¿c passages of the book will be referenced in the notes, but a detailed interaction with these needs to be reserved for a full-scale commentary. The presentation in Chapter 5 and the analysis offered in Chapter 6 will also not speculate about the historical personage, Micah,2 nor will there be consideration of text-critical questions, unless they are immediately relevant to the discussion.3 signi¿cance of the remnant promises for our grasp of the book’s present shape and the further insights which that would grant us for understanding how Mic 4:9–7:20 has been structured thematically. 2. See Eric Mitchell, “Micah—the Man and His Times,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 46, no. 1 (2003): 57–76, and Rex Mason, “Micah the Man,” in Micah, Nahum and Obadiah, 23–26. Also consult I. H. Eybers, “Micah, the Morasthite: The Man and His Message,” OTWSA (1968): 9–24; Elmer A. Leslie, “Micah the Prophet,” IDB 3:369–72; Wolff, “Micah the Moreshite”; Wolff, Micah the Prophet; Wolff, “Wie verstand.” H. Bardtke, “Die Latifundien in Juda während der Zweiten Hälfte des achten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (zum Verständnis von Jes 5, 8–10),” in Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer (ed. A. Caquot and M. Philonenko; Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1971), 235–54, clari¿es some of the socioeconomic backdrop for the prophet’s life. Note too Beyerlin, “Kultische Tradition,” and Kulttraditionen Israels, on the sources of Micah’s thought. 3. For summaries of the text-critical questions and evidence consult Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 3–5, 29, and Waltke, A Commentary on Micah, 16–19. See

216

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

In surveying (Chapters 1 and 2) and evaluating (Chapter 4) prior scholarship on the coherence of the book of Micah, it is clear that the competing proposals about the book’s structure and organization do point out a number of features that are actually present in the text, and so are helpful, even if the conclusions drawn are different. Other studies that seek to reconstruct the possible historical situation in the background of different sections of the book have relied on sparse and ambiguous indicators in the text to make their case. “For centuries biblical scholars have been trying to attach dates to these kinds of texts, to plug these texts into known history. It cannot be done.”4 Rather than focusing on the complex historical process of growth that gave us the canonical form of the book, it seems more manageable, if more modest, to take the surviving written form of the prophecy as the one thing that can be a given object of study, common to all of us. Wherever or whenever we search for the beginnings of the book of Micah, we have very little to go on apart from this ¿nal (canonical) text. When that was essentially ¿nished is not known… When it is claimed for such research that “the majority of scholars agree” on some result or other, the settling of issues by opinion poll might be reassuring to some, but the way the census was taken is seldom reported.5

Hence, these next two chapters will focus on the literary unity of the book as a whole.

Matthieu Collin, “Recherches sur l’histoire textuelle du prophète Michée,” VT 21 (1971): 281–97, and Lawrence A. Sinclair, “Hebrew Text of the Qumran Micah Pesher and Textual Traditions of the Minor Prophets,” RevQ 11 (1983): 253–63. Collin saw evidence for the representation of three textual families in the Micah material from Qumran, while Sinclair only found the Egyptian (LXX) and Palestinian (seen in the MT and Qumran). See also G. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Minor Prophets,” JTS 39 (1938): 264–68; Joseph Ziegler, “Studien zur Verwertung der Septuaginta im Zwölfprophetenbuch,” ZAW 60 (1944): 107–31; Ziegler, “Der Text der Aldina im Dodekapropheton,” Bib 26 (1945): 37–51; and K. Vollers, “Das Dodekapropheton der Alexandriner,” ZAW 3 (1883): 219–72; 4 (1884): 1–20, esp. “Michaias,” 1–12. On the implications of the Qumran discoveries, see J.-T. Milik, “Fragments d’un Midrash de Michée dans les Manuscrits de Qumran,” RB 59 (1952): 412–18, and E. Vogt, “Fragmenta Prophetarum Minorum Deserti Iuda,” Bib 34 (1953): 423–26. On versions other than the Septuagint, there is Dennis Magary, “Translation Technique in the Peshi৬ta of the Book of Micah” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1995), unavailable to me at the time of writing, and Hans F. Fuhs, Die Äthiopische Übersetzung des Propheten Micha (Bonn: Hanstein, 1968). 4. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 26. 5. Ibid., 21–22.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

217

2. The Essential Elements of the Proposal There are four passages which make explicit reference to the remnant (=':– — f)—Mic ’ 2:12–13; 4:6–7; 5:6–7; and 7:18. Each of these mentions of or promises concerning the remnant occurs in a larger section of positive content (except in the ¿rst case, in which the two verses comprise the entire segment of hope)—2:12–13; 4:1–8; 5:1–14; and 7:7–20— constituting the Mican words of hope. Such a de¿nition of the limits of the passages of hope also marks off the sections of doom—1:2–2:11; 3:1–12; 4:9–14; and 6:1–7:6. As one reads through the book, each negative portion deals with a topic, unique to that part, but always a portrayal of the results of human sin in some area of life—whether in the dislocated environment of the people (1:2–2:11), in their corrupt leadership (3:1–12), in their defeat in battle (4:9–14), or in their disrupted spiritual relationship with God (6:1–7:6). The truly remarkable aspect of the organization of the book is that each of the positive portions, containing a mention of or promise to the remnant, offers a direct divine resolution to the problem raised in the immediately preceding oracles of doom. God will regather his exiled people to their proper surroundings, which their sin had once de¿led (2:12–13). The Lord will replace their wicked leadership and rule as their king himself (4:1–8). Though the people are unable to face the crisis, God will lead them on to victory (5:1–14). To resolve the problems created by their total inability to please him, God will graciously forgive their sins (7:7–20). The canonical form of the book of Micah has been organized around these four remnant passages of hope and promise. The presence of these passages discloses the four-fold alternation between doom and hope that is foundational to hearing the message of the ¿nal form. Their direct response to the problems raised by the oracles of doom enables the reader to understand the Àow of thought in the book and to see the connections between the parts. The topic of each of the four sections is clari¿ed and offers from that vantage point a clear view of a central theme that is dealt with by each of the parts. Viewed in this way, the book of Micah is coherent. 3. A Brief Exposition of the Book of Micah a. The Central Theme of the Book of Micah The ¿nal form of the book of Micah has a major theme which might be crystallized in words such as “The God who restores.” Whoever arranged the book into essentially its present form had a theological intent,

218

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

desiring to communicate something about the Lord God. No matter how stained, de¿led, and destroyed human sin might render the earthly scene, and notwithstanding the fact that he is a just God and will send judgment for the rebellion, the Lord God of Israel is of such a nature that he restores. He will, in his own time and way, reknit and reassemble everything that human rebellion has unraveled. In each area of life, God resolves, recreates, and restores. He makes things become the way that they should be according to his original divine design and intentions.6 b. The Message of the Final Form of the Book of Micah The superscription at the head of the book, 1:1, identi¿es how the reader is expected to perceive the oracles which follow. It offers a context in a literary sense both as the ¿rst component that marks the beginning of this piece of literature that is the book of Micah, but also suggests a context for reading the material that follows by relating its contents to a particular setting in history. The oracles in the canonical book of Micah are linked with a particular person named Micah, a prophet of Yahweh who originated in the town of Moresheth-Gath in the Shephelah of Judah.7 His ministry is located in the latter third of the eighth century B.C.E. as de¿ned by the reigns of the three kings enumerated—Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. This suggests that in its canonical form and location the book, is to be read and construed ¿rst in relation to concerns and events of the eighth century B.C.E. in the kingdom of Judah. (1) Micah 1:2–2:13—The God Who Regathers His People. The problem is set up in 1:2–2:11. The sins of God’s people have drastic consequences for their surroundings. The three main pericopes here unfold for the reader (or hearer) that the Lord will judge his own (1:2–7), that the prophet feels deep pain and anguish at the approaching punishment (1:8– 16), and that speci¿c sins with the land will be repaid with separation from the land (2:1–11). Our gaze and the tone of the passage move 6. This theme is consonant with the broader expression of the theme proposed for biblical theology by James Hamilton, Jr., “The Glory of God in Salvation Through Judgment: The Centre of Biblical Theology,” TynBul 57 (2006): 57–84; developed in greater depth in Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010). 7. Karl Elliger, “Die Heimat des Propheten Micha,” in Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 9–71, sheds light on the region from which Micah came in a study of the place names in Mic 1:8–16. See also Joachim Jeremias, “Moresheth-Gath, die Heimat des Propheten Micah,” PJ 29 (1933): 42–53, and J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament: A Concise Commentary in XXXII Chapters (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 446, section 1338.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

219

steadily downward (see Fig. 5.1). The descent proceeds from God leaving his heavenly8 dwelling to tread upon the heights, to come down to judge the sinful capitals of North and South, to the prophet’s inner emotional response to the impending disaster, to the evils in the lives of God’s people that have brought all this on them. The Lord’s “descent” as judge from heaven to earth is portrayed in spatial terms in 1:2–7.9 All the peoples are summoned to let God be a witness against Israel.10 After this ominous start the text begins the picture of God’s descent. He leaves his dwelling, his temple in heaven, and comes down to the heights of the earth. The geographical features disintegrate beneath his terrifying presence.11 The text as we have it notes at this juncture that all this is due to the sins of God’s people, and even hints that idolatry has played a role in the mention of the “high places of Judah.” Two speci¿c place names are mentioned, Samaria and Jerusalem, along with designations for the two kingdoms. The picture ¿rst focuses on Samaria and the way in which she will be (or has been) laid low. All of it will be a desolate ruin, with vineyards in place of palaces and the stones dumped into a valley. The divine judgment will be so complete and ¿tting that even the idols, which cause Samaria to be likened to a prostitute,12 and which had spread to Judah (v. 5d), are destroyed.13 8. Since he descends to the high places of the earth (Mic 1:2–3), the text apparently implies that he started in heaven. 9. Note the explanation and exposition of how this is easy to follow that is found in Freedman, “Discourse on Prophetic Discourse.” In addition, Ehud Ben Zvi, “Micah 1:2–16: Observations and Possible Implications,” JSOT 77 (1998): 103–20, suggests that the text indicates that the book reÀects a composition as a written text rather than reÀecting the oral proclamation of a prophet from the eighth century. 10. Seeing God punish his own people is to awaken their consciences. If he so treats Israel and Judah, why would he spare those who are not his people? Note the features here of the reconstructed Israelite lawsuit. The audience is still Israel and/or Judah, for the nations and earth are referred to in the third person, -Xš )ž and IY š /. ’ See John T. Willis, “Some Suggestions on the Interpretation of Micah I 2,” VT 18 (1968): 372–79. 11. G. Köbert, “môrƗd (Mi. 1,4) Tränke,” Bib 39 (1958): 82–83, suggested, based on an Arabic cognate, that here this refers to a “drinking trough.” This would also better maintain the parallel with wax melting before ¿re as part of a person’s unassuming daily life. 12. Even the reference to ! š1L$ 0 š1=’ ˜ , “the wages of prostitutes,” may be linked with small images made from payment given to a prostitute. Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Allusion, Irony and Wordplay in Micah 1, 7,” Bib 65 (1984): 103–5, and J. P. van der Westhuizen, “The Term ’ètnƗn in Micah,” OTWSA (1968): 54–61. 13. See Jan Wagenaar, “The Hillside of Samaria: Interpretation and Meaning of Micah 1:6,” BN 85 (1996): 26–30, on the parallels with Jerusalem’s fate in 3:12.

220

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

1:2–7 God descends from heaven to earth to punish the people 1:8–16 A lament over the coming punishment 2:1–11 An exposé of the sins with land that have brought the punishment

2:12–13 The Lord will regather the people to their proper surroundings Punishment = Separation from the land

Figure 5.1 A Schematic Representation of the Development of Micah 1–2, Noting the Steady Descent of Subject and Tone in Micah 1:2–2:11 and the Accompanying Resolution in 2:12–13

As a response to God’s descent from his heavenly temple to earth to judge the very center of the sin, the next verses, Mic 1:8–16, contain a lament. Here Micah is portrayed in deep sorrow over the agonizing Alfred Jepsen, “Kleine Beiträge zum Zwölfprophetenbuch,” ZAW 56 (1938): 85– 100, 57 (1939): 242–55, and 61 (1945/8): 95–114, esp. “2. Micha” in 56 (1938), suggested that vv. 6–7 originally were part of Hosea due to similarities in speech usage. Probably the two books stood next to each other at an earlier stage of the collection of the Twelve. This would eliminate from Micah any reference that would indicate a ministry before Samaria fell, Jepsen thus dating his work to the period of Manasseh, and restricting its scope to Judah. Volkmar Fritz, “Das Wort gegen Samaria Mi. 1, 2–7,” ZAW 86 (1974): 316–31, thought that Mic 1:2–7 came from post-exilic cultic prophecy. The theophany of vv. 2–4 introduces the word of judgment in vv. 6–7. The two parts are linked by v. 5a, while v. 5b is a secondary addition. The post-exilic redaction that added most of chs. 4–7 placed this passage at the head of the book.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

221

vision of coming doom.14 The description includes the prophet’s dress and details his mourning over various places that will fall or be threatened. The poison that diseased Samaria is also found in Judah, even in its capital, Jerusalem. In what is probably the most dif¿cult passage textually of the whole book, the grief is given forceful expression by means of an extended series of word-plays on the names of places which will be threatened.15 These examples of paranomasia, or puns on the names of the towns, are of two types: puns based on the sound (e.g.,

14. Though note Timothy Beal, “The System and the Speaking Subject in the Hebrew Bible: Reading for Divine Abjection,” BibInt 2, no. 2 (1994): 171–89, who argues that the subject of the lament in 1:8 is Yahweh himself and not the prophet. On the historical connections between the two segments of the ¿rst chapter, see Karl Budde, “Das Rätsel von Micha 1,” ZAW 37 (1917/1918): 77–108, and Georg Fohrer, “Micha 1,” in Das ferne und nahe Wort (FS L. Rost; ed. F. Maass; BZAW 105; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967), 65–80. 15. For determination of the identity of the places mentioned, see Elliger, “Die Heimat,” 9–71; Simons, Geographical and Topographical Texts, 470–74; Matthew Suriano, “A Place in the Dust: Text, Topography and a Toponymic Note on Micah 1:10–12a,” VT 60 (2010): 433–46; Nadav Na’aman, “ ‘The House-of-No-Shade Shall Take Away its Tax from You’ (Micah I 11),” VT 45 (1995): 516–27, on Assyrian background and date. A. S. van der Woude, “Micah I 10–16,” in Caquot and Philonenko, eds., Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, 347–53, understood there to be two speeches, vv. 10–12 dealing with small villages near Jerusalem, and vv. 13–15, which focuses on towns in the region from which Micah came. On matters of the text, consult William Graham, “Some Suggestions Toward the Interpretation of Micah 1:10–16,” AJSL 47 (1931): 237–58, who saw the passage as replete with allusions to fertility cults; Paul Haupt, “Micah’s Capucinade,” JBL 29 (1910): 85–112; Wilhelm Rudolph, “Zu Micha 1, 10–16,” in Wort, Leid und Gottesspruch (FS Joseph Zeigler; ed. Josef Schreiner; Forschung zur Bibel 2; Wurzburg: Echter, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972), 233–38, who gives special attention to the use of the Septuagint for resolving the textual dilemmas; Seigfried J. Schwantes, “Critical Notes on Micah 1:10–16,” VT 14 (1964): 454–61. An emendation for 1:10 is suggested in Amitai Baruchi-Unna, “Do Not Weep in Bethel: An Emendation Suggested for Micah I 10,” VT 58 (2008): 628–32. In discussing the apparent incoherence of Mic 1:10–16, Freedman, “Discourse,” 141–58, made the suggestion that the inconcinnities of these verses are the result of their being a transcription of Micah’s ecstatic outpourings. He posits a coherence of perspective for vv. 10–16, arising both from the underlying circumstances of the crisis of 735 B.C.E. and from the passage being a transcript of prophetic ecstasy. B. J. van der Merwe, “Micah 1:12 and Its Possible Parallels in Pre-exilic Prophetism,” OTWSA (1968): 45–53 discussed the nature of the hope in v. 12. For the issue of date, note also Aage Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (2 vols.; Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gads, 1949), 148.

222

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

 š$)’ ™ +’ ' –$)’ ™ '=— Cš , v. 1416) and puns based on the interplay of concepts (e.g., the inhabitant of Shaphir, “beauty,” connected by contrast with “shameful nakedness,” v. 11).17 The crucial item to notice is that the places are in the spotlight. The lament plays with their sounds and meanings—they are what is threatened and destroyed, and their inhabitants will be carried into exile away from them. A geographical feature, the cities and towns, once again receives prominence in these verses. In ch. 2, the descent in focus continues, as does the concentration on locational and spatial concepts. In Mic 1, God was envisioned as descending to the earth, the natural and human-made features of which gave way before him. Then the prophet bewailed the coming judgment in terms of its effect on various places. Now, in 2:1–11, our gaze is brought to rest on the basest picture of all—the sins of God’s people that have brought the punishment down on their own heads. Curiously, these sins are de¿ned as offences in their use of and dealings with the land. Again, it is their surroundings which suffer from the corrupting inÀuence of rebellion and hardness.18 16. A. Demsky, “The Houses of Achzib: A Critical Note on Micah 1:14b,” IEJ 16 (1966): 211–15 proposed that 2 Chr 4:21–23 allows us to understand “houses” as “factories” in a place called Chozeba or Achzib. The point of the pun, then, is that royal factories will disappoint the king. 17. Note that the arrangement of the types of pun seems to be chiastic! A

Sound – Gath, K' –Ek™ B Sound – Acco (?), LV’ k– C Sound – Ophra, :6š 4š D Concept – Shaphir, shameful nakedness E Sound – Tsa’anan, !š 8’ š' F Concept – Etsel, support gone Fƍ Concept – Maroth, worn out hoping Evil has come to Jerusalem (not a pun) Eƍ Sound – Lachish, f)˜ :˜ +š Dƍ Concept – Moresheth-Gath, parting gifts Cƍ Sound – Achzib,  š$)’ ™ +’ Bƍ Sound – Mareshah, f:œ— Q!™ Aƍ Sound –Adullam, Lš' ,4™ , andLV’ The arrangement, if this be a valid observation, would testify to the intricacy with which the lament has been crafted. It also would draw attention to the middle, thus highlighting the concepts of frustration, weakness, and weariness all accompanying the threat’s penetration to the very heart of Judah. 18. See H. M. Weil, “Le chapitre ii de Michée expliqué par Le Premier Livre des Rois, chapitres xx-xxii,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 121 (1940): 146–61, for the argument that Ahab’s dealings with Naboth over the property of the vineyard form the backdrop to this chapter. Though this gives a concrete and vivid example of

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

223

The exclamation of woe in Mic 2:1 serves to mark this off as a separate oracle, distinct from the preceding “geographical lament.” J. T. Willis (1970) has argued that 2:1–11 belongs together as a unit. Micah 2:1–5 is the original message. This message, however, provoked a response from the opposing prophets in vv. 6–7. Micah is represented as replying to their accusations in vv. 8–11. This repetition of the message would explain the similarities between the sins mentioned in 2:1–5 and 8–11, as well as the presence of the threat of captivity in both vv. 4–5 and 10.19 We are told in 2:1–5 of the schemes of those who desire and appropriate ¿elds and houses. Verse 2 reads: They covet ¿elds and seize them, and houses, and they take them away. They exploit a man and his household, a man and his inheritance.

The prophet then acts as messenger for the Lord and unveils the punishment to come in return for their rebellion. God is sending an inescapable calamity (v. 3). The people will lament over this evil, moaning in particular about the fact that they are losing their land! “He exchanges the portion of my people…to the faithless he divides our ¿elds” (v. 4) and, thus, there will be nobody in later generations to receive the land as heir (v. 5).20 Thereupon, the text preserves for us a response (0K6'P– ™', 2:6) from the opposing prophets against what Micah was saying. the importance of land in a way similar to the discussion in these verses, the actual evidences on which it is based involve assumptions which cannot be substantiated, neither is it easy to bridge the gap in time and geography between the Naboth incident and Micah’s ministry. Ehud Ben Zvi, “Wrongdoers, Wrongdoing and Righting Wrongs in Micah 2,” BibInt 7 (1999): 87–100, proposes a setting for the use of this chapter in the postexilic period. 19. J. T. Willis, “Micah 2:6–8 and the ‘People of God’ in Micah,” BZ NF 14 (1970): 77–90. 20. J. T. Willis, “On the Text of Mic 2, 1a Į-ȕ,” Bib 48 (1967): 534–41, proposed that “on their beds” (Mic 2:1) is an idiomatic expression for “in their dreams,” and thus portrays their consuming passion for doing evil. Thus retaining the MT as is allows us to see the principle of ius talionis at work in Mic 2:1–5—the rich (v. 1), then God (v. 3), devise evil, dealing in each case with the land (vv. 2, 4–5). Albrecht Alt, “Micha ii, 1–5. īǾȈ ǹȃǹǻǹȈȂȅȈ in Juda,” in Kleine Schriften III (ed. Martin Noth; Munich: Beck’sche, 1959), 373–81, interpreted the social ills here in the light of the cleavage between the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants of Judah. On the text of v. 4, note the emendation proposed by Bernhard Stade, “Micha ii, 4,” ZAW 6 (1886): 122–23. See as well William McKane, “Micah 2:1–5: Text and Commentary,” JSS 42 (1997): 7–22.

224

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah “Do not prophesy,” they prophesy, “Do not prophesy about these things [i.e., the doom foretold in vv. 1–5], Will he not turn back disgrace?21 Is the house of Jacob cursed?22 Does the spirit of Yahweh grow impatient? Or are these his doings? ‘Do not my words do good to him who walks uprightly?’ ” (Mic 2:6–7)

This may be portrayed as their actual words, or as a quote used rhetorically by the prophet to state what they would be likely to feel.23 They protest that a prophet ought not to prophesy such doom, for it does not ¿t with their concept of who the covenant-keeping God really is (vv. 6–7). The prophet reminds them that the people’s behavior must be “in line” to expect the Lord’s protection (vv. 8–11).24 It certainly has not been so, and he points especially to evicting women and children from houses. They force the helpless to change locations and surroundings (v. 9).25 As 21. Cf. Willis, “Micah 2:6–8,” 77. 22. Besides the possibility of emending to :#:!, see Albert Ehrman, “What Did Cain Say to Abel?,” JQR NS 53 (1962–63): 164–67; Ehrman, “A Note on the Verb :/,” JQR NS 55 (1964–65): 166–67; and Ehrman, “A Note on Micah II 7,” VT 20 (1970): 86–87, for the evidence that :K/š can mean “cursed.” Note that this accords well with the present context, for it allows us to understand v. 7 as a series of questions from the opposing prophets, all intended to undo the predictions of gloom from Micah. The ¿rst three expect a negative answer, while the fourth, a “word from the Lord” of these opponents, expects af¿rmation. A. S. van der Woude, “Micha II 7a und der Bund Jahwes mit Israel,” VT 18 (1968): 388–91, thought that it is to be read :'/– ˜ !˜ as a terminus technicus of the covenant relation between Yahweh and Israel, based on Deut 26:17–18. The opponents of Micah then are disputing his judgment by pointing to God’s obligation to his own not to allow any such calamities to happen. We could also translate “Is it said, O house of Jacob…?,” and then understand the following questions as quotes that expose ideas that Micah’s opponents rejected. 23. On the exact nature and boundaries of the quote, the relation with the rest of Mic 2:6–11, as well as the interconnections with the whole of 1–11, see E. Neiderhiser, “Micah 2:6–11: Considerations on the Nature of the Discourse,” BTB 11 (1981): 104–7; Willis, “Micah 2:6–8”; van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-Prophets,” 244–60; van der Woude, “Micha II 7a und der Bund Jahwes mit Israel,” 388–91. 24. In Mic 2:8, on the meaning of +K/=’ , ˜ see Joseph Reider, “The Etymology of Hebrew MNjL or MƿL and Its Bearing on TMƿL and ’ETMƿL,” HUCA 12–13 (1937–38): 90–93; of :˜ , — see A. Büchler, “:˜ — = Fell in LXX zu Micha 2, 8,” ZAW 30 (1910): 64–65; and on the signi¿cance of “people,” see Willis, “Micah 2:6–8,” 85–87, and E. A. Speiser, “ ‘People’ and ‘Nation’ of Israel,” JBL 79 (1960): 157–63. 25. Note too the taking of a robe in v. 8, presumably as a payment for a debt. Might the debts also be linked with property rights?

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

225

repayment, the Lord God promises to send them away into exile. They, too, will lose their present place and live in different surroundings. The pericope then closes with a return to the subject which started it in v. 5— the opponents. They are characterized as empty and deceptive, interested in strong drink, either for pleasure or to induce inspiration for prophesying.26 The Divine Judge descended to the earth, the prophet mourned for the people/places, and the people were indicted for their misappropriation of the land. The promised penalty would consist of loss of and removal from the land. The people’s sins had de¿led their surroundings, all of which suffered as a result—the mountains, valleys, cities, individual properties, and the land as a whole. Suddenly, the dark picture is illuminated by a brief burst of radiant light—a sudden reversal, a guarantee that God will regather “the remnant (=':– — f) ’ of Israel” in Mic 2:12–13.27 The topics in this oracle indicate that it is indeed an oracle of salvation. The people’s release from the pen evokes freedom. The scattering mentioned earlier (1:1; 2:4, 10) is reversed. The vocabulary of totality (TXš V, ž š “certainly gather”; 7C— 9™ ” 7C— 9,™ “all of you”) and togetherness (5œ2“ ˜ 5œ2, “certainly bring together/assemble”; %™ ™', “all together”), pointedly describe the undoing of the dispersion in the exile. In contrast to the cruelty of exile, the shepherding imagery (!:š 8’ Cš 0œ 8V, ’ “like sheep in a ’ “like a Àock in the midst of its pasture”) brings to pen”; L:’ Gš !™ TL=C’ :˜ 4— V, mind salvation and the Lord’s care and protection. In the ¿nal form of the text it is the Lord, their shepherd, who is “at their head” and “their king,” not armies leading away captives.28 The image of the place teeming with people is hopeful, as a promise of numerical strength, while the “one who breaks out” (7:œ— a!) ™ and leads the people through the gate is leading them back from exile. Mention of the gate picks up on earlier references to a beleaguered gate (1:9, 12) and reverses them now with a gate offering an open way to freedom from exile.29 These pictures are in 26. Jean-Marie Durand, “In Vino Veritas,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 76 (1982): 49. Cf. too André Gunnel, “Ecstatic Prophesy [sic] in the Old Testament,” in Religious Ecstasy (ed. Nils G. Holm; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1982), 187–200 (195). 27. Mark Biddle, “ ‘Israel’ and ‘Jacob’ in the Book of Micah: Micah in the Context of the Twelve,” in Nogalski and Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, 146–65, considers the signi¿cation of the terms “Israel,” “Jacob,” and “Judah” in Micah. 28. It is easier to understand “their king” here to connote the Lord, and not a human king, due to the parallel structure. 29. The clear parts of this text (12 and 13d–e) are positive in content. The unclear lines (13a–c), with the picture of “the breaker” leading the people through the gate,

226

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

vivid contrast with what has come before in 1:2–2:11, sounding a new tone and completely reversing prior references to “gate” or the use of “scatter.” Indeed, this sharp juxtaposition of images and ideas parallels that which the reader ¿nds at each juncture between doom and hope (with a reference to God’s work with a remnant), as found between 3:12 and 4:1; between 4:14 and 5:1; and between 7:6 and 7:7. As will be seen, there are other promises to the remnant in the book of Micah (4:6–7; 5:6–8; 7:18–20). Each of these is unquestionably hopeful in tone. This salvation oracle serves as a balance and answer to the doom of 1:2–2:11, as well as to round off the ¿rst section in the arrangement of the whole. The section thus concludes with hope.30 The initially surprising observation is that 2:12–13 responds directly to the theme of 1:2–2:11, which had explained that the consequences of the rebellion would affect the environment and geography of the people. God’s descent from heaven to earth, the impact on the features of the landscape, and the disaster approaching the towns of Judah are all grounded in the injustice with land and houses portrayed in Mic 2 and can be read as positive just as well as negative. It seems most prudent to allow the immediate context of v. 13a–c to tip the scales in favor of their being understood in a positive sense. Mendecki, “Die Sammlung und der neue Exodus in Mich 2, 12–13,” Kairos 23 (1981): 96–99, has proposed that the reference to the gate (:4™ f) ™ is a pun on the name of Babylon (Akkad. bâb-ilƯ, “gate of the god[s]”). If this is the case, it would also imply that the march is out of exile, instead of into captivity, for the pun would indicate that the people are leaving Babylon. 30. See the discussion of Mays’ interpretation of these verses as originally an oracle of judgment in Chapter 4. Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 365–67, also argues that this is an oracle of judgment that depicts the exile. Condamin, “Interpolations,” 383–86, proposed that these verses originally stood after Mic 4:7. Karl Budde, “Micha ii and iii,” ZAW 38 (1919/1920): 13–14, thought they were brought here from another place in the book. They are similar to, but not a part of, Mic 4:6–8. Mendecki, “Die Sammlung und der neue Exodus in Mich 2,12–13,” traced the inÀuences of Deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel on these verses. See Watson, “The Hebrew Word-pair ‘sp//qbs,” on these two verbs. Also see Gershon Brin, “Micah 2,12–3: A Textual and Ideological Study,” ZAW 101 (1989): 118–24; Claude Mariottini, “Yahweh, the Breaker of Israel (Micah 2:12–13),” Perspectives in Religious Studies 28 (Winter 2001): 385–93; William McKane, “Micah 2:12–13,” JNSL 21, no. 2 (1995): 83–91. For a treatment of the ambiguities of this oracle and the dif¿culties of determining how to read it, see Carolyn Sharp, “Contested Hermeneutics: Theological ReÀections on the Undecidability of Micah 2:12–13” (paper presented to SBL Annual Meeting, Israelite Prophetic Literature section, November 19, 2006; text furnished courtesy of author) and its revision in her section entitled “Contested Hermeneutics and the Undecidability of Micah 2:12–13,” in Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 169–76.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

227

ultimately result in the loss of the land in exile. Now the response here is that God will regather the “remnant of Israel,” or all of Jacob. He will bring them together (2:12). That is, he will undo the scattering of the exile and reorient their spatial relations and location. The Lord will ensure that this happens by leading them along himself (v. 13). He guides his people to the right place. The overall impact of chs. 1–2, then, after the conclusion in 2:12–13, is that Yahweh is a God who punishes and restores. In particular, God will restore the surroundings or environment which the people have de¿led and upon which they have brought down judgment. Human sin with land (2:1–11) has brought about the judgment on their geographical features (1:2–7) and their towns and cities (1:6–16), which consists in a geographical separation from this terrain and its locales (2:3–5, 10). Even though this be the case, God will eventually regather from exile that group of people whom he will constitute as the faithful remnant. He ends the disorder and spatial dispersion of the exile, regroups them, and leads them along (2:12–13). All of chs. 1–2, then, has a common theological message to communicate. The whole has been arranged so as to play on the theme of the people’s environment and geographical surroundings. They corrupt it and lose it. God restores them to it. (2) Micah 3:1–4:8—The God Who Rules His People. The ¿rst section ended with the picture of God leading his people back to their proper location. He is “at their head.” Not only does this provide a positive resolution to the preceding problems, it also leads us into the topic to be highlighted in the subsequent section, Mic 3:1–4:8. The focus throughout this section is on leadership. In this second part, human sin is exposed as it is concentrated in the ranks and actions of the leadership (3:1–12). God will renew Israel by restoring proper leadership (4:1–8). He will replace their wicked rulers and be king over the people himself. Thus, both of the ¿rst two sections of the book end with God leading his own people and a defocusing on human leadership. In Mic 3:1–12 are oracles of doom, which proclaim judgment on the people’s leaders for their wickedness and corruption. This section is tied š œ :C, ’ 2:13; 'f — :,š 3:1), to 1:2–2:13 by the use of the catchword “head” (-f which also reÀects the theme of leadership present both in the preceding pericope (2:12–13) and in 3:1–4:8, where it serves as the thematic center. In addition, the waw-consecutive statement “and I said” (:/œ™  š#) in 3:1 provides a link in the syntax.31 The new section is marked off by 31. See Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 357.

228

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

the presence of a catchword, by the use of “and I said,”32 by the shift back to negative content after the positive segment, by its position immediately after a promise to the remnant, by the forceful summons to listen, and by the new focus of content. The civil leaders are addressed ¿rst (3:1–4).33 The rulers have inverted values and callously take advantage of their subjects. They are pictured as skinning, pounding, and slicing their charges in order to prepare them as if for a meal (vv. 2–3). Their coarse and evil acts have sealed their future. They will look to God for help, just as the people had once looked to them, and the Lord will ignore them. The following message concerns the prophets and diviners who mislead the people (3:5–8).34 They offer spiritual direction only for sel¿sh gain (v. 5). Therefore, the Lord pronounces their recompense—a long, hard night of unproductive prophetic work (v. 6). The prophets and diviners may try to receive messages from God, but God will not send any. They will be ineffective at performing their appointed tasks (v. 7).35

32. See J. T. Willis, “A Note on wă’ǀmar in Micah 3,1,” ZAW 80 (1968): 53–54, who thinks that :/œ™  š# (“and I said”) may be a redactor’s way of indicating his own arrangement of the oracles. Cf. Karl Budde, “Eine folgenschwere Redaktion des Zwölfprophetenbuchs,” ZAW 39 (1921): 222–23, who said that this was the only ¿rst person speech of the prophet in the genuine book. 33. On the issue of the prophetic involvement in, and interaction with, politics, and for a treatment of this passage in that light, see Dirk Kinet, “Prophet und Politik,” BK 38 (1983): 144–49, esp. pp. 146–47. 34. On the distinctions between true and false prophecy, and speci¿cally the issue as discussed in this passage, see Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Wahre und falsche Propheten in Israel,” BK 38 (1983): 139–44. Consult also J. Todd Hibbard, “True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy,” JSOT 35 (2011): 339– 58; James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic ConÀict: Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion (New York: de Gruyter, 1971); Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Ivo Meyer, Prophet gegen Prophet (Biblische Beiträge 9; Fribourg: Verlag Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973); Eva Osswald, Falsche Prophetie im Alten Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1962); T. W. Overholt, “Jeremiah 27–29: The Question of False Prophecy,” JAAR 35 (1967): 241–49; and Gerhard von Rad, “Die Falschen Propheten,” ZAW 51 (1933): 109–20. Margaret B. Crook, “Did Amos and Micah Know Isaiah 9:2–7 and 11:1–9?,” JBL 73 (1954): 144–51, saw parallels in Mic 3:1– 8, as well as in Amos 5 and 8, with Isa 9:2–7 and (especially) 11:1–9. Crook suggested that Micah knew the Isaianic passages and sought to reverse their sentiments. 35. Jennifer K. B. Maclean, “Micah 3:5–12,” Int 56 (2002): 413–16 (414) suggests that these were not imposters but apparently prophets who had once received insight from God; Innocent Himbaza, “ ‘Se couvriront-ils la moustache?’ (Michée 3:7),” BN 88 (1997): 27–30.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

229

A sharp contrast reminds the audience that the true prophet is not like that. Instead, he is guided by the Spirit of the Lord to expose the sins of the people (v. 8). True spiritual leadership does not merely proclaim a message tailored to what the hearers want or are willing to pay for. It tells of the situation “as it really is,” no matter how painful that may be. The prophet begins the next oracle with another emphatic summons to hear (see 3:1 in the present context), then joins the two strands of civilian and spiritual leadership together, and confronts the complete range of rulers (3:9–12), the civil rulers (v. 9) and the priests and prophets (v. 11). He condemns their perversion of justice, their violence, and their corruption (vv. 9–11). All the while they presume on the Lord, assuming that he is covenantally obligated to them no matter how they may live (v. 11d–f). For such transgression among the leaders, once again a judgment is pronounced. Not only will they not ¿nd aid from their leader, the Lord (v. 4); not only will they be unable to perform the duties for which others look to them (vv. 6–7); but also, in the climax of this third pericope, we learn that God intends to annihilate their capital, Jerusalem (v. 12). Due to the evil of its leaders, Zion, the center of their power, will be destroyed and will be left uninhabited, to become overgrown.36 Micah 3 contains three pericopes, each built on the same pattern of address, indictment, and announcement of verdict/judgment (see Fig. 5.2). The ¿rst two looked at speci¿c sectors of the leading persons, the last, made emphatic by a second call to hear, combines them, adding the priests. Once again, human rebellion against God has created an ugly situation. This time, the sinners are the leaders. Inadequate leadership and corrupt government have imperiled the cause of justice and given free rein to the greedy and self-seeking.

36. J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament: Researches and Theories (Leiden: Brill, 1952), 235–36, saw the three references to the city in v. 12 as describing three different hills or quarters of the city: “Zion” is the City of David or the southeast hill, Jerusalem refers to the southwest hill with many private dwellings, while the “mountain of the house” describes the Temple quarter. Mark Leuchter, “The Cult at Kiriath Yearim: Implications from the Biblical Record,” VT 58 (2008): 526–43, suggests there is a veiled reference also to the cult at Kiriath Yearim in v. 12.

230

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

vv. 1–4 Civil leaders

vv. 5–7 Spiritual leaders (prophets)

vv. 9–12 All leadership

Address: 1a-b

Focus of oracle: 5a

Address: 9a-b (11a-c indirectly)

Indictment: 1c–3

Indictment: 5b-f

Indictment: 9c–11

Verdict/Judgment: 4

Verdict/Judgment: 6–7

Verdict/Judgment: 12

v. 8 Micah’s Ministry

Figure 5.2 A Diagram of the Parallel Structures of the Three Pericopes in Micah 3, with the Intervening Description of Micah’s Calling and Ministry in Verse 8

In terms of the present thesis, the book has been arranged in the ¿nal form in order to make a kerygmatic point about the Lord as the God who punishes, yet restores. Here Yahweh will restore the proper and holy kind of leadership. How does he do this? The answer is found in 4:1–8, the positive segment of 3:1–4:8, which immediately follows and responds to Mic 3, and which again concludes with a promise to the remnant (4:7). That these sections, 3:1–12 and 4:1–8, belong together is con¿rmed both by the presence of the initial conjunction waw in the temporal formula “and it shall be in the latter days” (-'/– šQ!™ =':– %” ™ C’ ! š'!š ’#, 4:1)37 as a syntactical link with ch. 3, and by the observation of the common theme of leadership that unites 3:1–4:8. The promise concerning the remnant, along with the eschatological vision, helps to distinguish 4:1–8 as hope and alerts us to the way in which God will respond to the situation that has been distorted and twisted by human sin within the leadership of the people, as was related in the prior section of doom (Mic 3). This section of salvation is also distinguished from the immediately preceding 37. John Willis, “The Expression be’acharith hayyamim in the Old Testament,” ResQ 22, no. 1–2 (1979): 54–71, explains the phrase as signifying an indeterminate future, to be translated “in the days to come.”

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

231

material by the stark contrast in tone as the reader is confronted in successive oracles with the visions of Jerusalem’s utter devastation and then her glorious future restoration and rise to global prominence as God’s capital city.38 At some future time the Lord will replace the totally inadequate human leadership and rule over the people himself. The passage includes two pericopes, both prophecies of future bliss under God’s reign. The Lord will rule the nations of the world (4:1–5) and his people, especially as they will comprise the remnant (vv. 6–8). If, as argued here, this book was arranged for an audience that would consider themselves the people of God, it is quite unlikely that the ¿nal redactor would have envisioned the book gaining a hearing among the nations at large. Thus, since the audience would have identi¿ed itself as the remnant in all likelihood, the promises in vv. 6–8 would have spoken directly to their felt needs and situation.39 The ¿rst ¿ve verses contribute to the exaltation and elevation of their God and King, but actually build up to the pericope about Yahweh’s rule over the remnant, making 4:6–8, in some sense, a climax to the whole of 3:1–4:8. In 4:1–5, then, the text asserts that God will rule the world.40 This has implications, in the sharp contrast with the preceding announcement of 38. See Renée R. Jensen, “Micah 4:1–5,” Int 52 (1998): 417–20 (418), as to how the juxtaposition is not contradictory, but heightens the dramatic impact, as well as McFadden, “Micah and the Problem of Continuities and Discontinuities in Prophecy,” who explains how 4:1 is in continuity with the preceding 3:12. 39. Jensen, “Micah 4:1–5,” 417, addresses also the prophet’s aim as being the evocation of an alternative reality/world in people’s imaginations. Erin Runions, “Playing It Again: Utopia, Contradiction, Hybrid Space and the Bright Future in Micah,” in The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation (ed. F. Black, R. Boer, and E. Runions; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 285–300, uses notions of utopia and the creation of hybrid space to raise questions about the actual meaning of 4:1–8 and challenge her own ideology. This reading stems from her own frustrations in the present day, which she reads back and imposes on the text, an exercise that may open insight into how people read for meaning and coherence (in the perceptual dimension of the question), even though not offering insight into the historical dimension in its interest in the ancient setting and intention. 40. On the authenticity and origin of this oracle, see, among many, Richard Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1999), 290–307; Rick Byargeon, “The Relationship of Micah 4:1–3 and Isaiah 2:2–4: Implications for Understanding the Prophetic Message,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 46, no. 1 (2003): 6–26; Bernard Gosse, “Michée 4,1–5, Isaie 2,1–5 et les rédacteurs ¿naux du livre d’Isaie,” ZAW 105 (1993): 98–102; Budde, “Verfasser und Stelle”; E. Cannawurf, “The Authenticity of Micah IV 1–4,” VT 13 (1963): 26–33; and H. Ringgren, “Oral and Written

232

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

judgment (3:12), for the city of Jerusalem and its Temple Mount. In 3:12, the prophet had proclaimed their total extinction as a result of the leaders’ sins. Now a new government is coming in. God carries out a divine overthrow and assumes the throne of Zion. As an effect of the new king’s glory and purity, the once-destroyed city and Mount Zion are raised to a new height of pre-eminence (v. 1). This is now the seat of the Lord’s government. Thus, it achieves prominence as the center of the world. Following this lifting up, the nations come streaming to Jerusalem (v. 2). There they will learn God’s ways, as they hear his law and word. There he will arbitrate their disputes, settling them with perfect justice (vv. 3–4). This will eliminate the need for war and render all weapons useless. Thus, the peoples will convert their weapons into agricultural implements and live in peace and security. Juxtaposed with this glorious and vibrant vision is the stark reality of the day in which the arranger of the book lived. Not all the nations were obedient yet. Accordingly, he appended an exhortation to God’s people. They are to live in a manner consistent with the character and expectations of Yahweh for the interim (v. 5). This conclusion to the vision of the pilgrimages of the Gentiles shifts the reader’s focus back to God’s people, who are the subject of the following and climactic promise (4:6–8). Here we ¿nd another word ’ God’s own have from the Lord for the remnant, again =':– — f—though been afÀicted and battered, and can be designated the lame and castout,41 nevertheless, he will create the remnant out of the lame. Those cut Transmission in the Old Testament,” Studia Theologica 3 (1950): 34–59. For suggestions as to the interpretation, see Robert Gordis, “Micah’s Vision of the EndTime,” in Poets, Prophets and Sages: Essays in Biblical Interpretation (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1971), 268–79; E. H. SchefÀer, “Micah 4:1– 5: An Impasse in Exegesis?,” in Old Testament Essays (ed. H. L. Bosman and F. E. Deist; Praetoria: Department of Old Testament, University of South Africa, 1985), 46–61; Hans W. Wolff, “Swords into Plowshares: Misuse of a Word of Prophecy,” Currents in Theology and Mission 12 (1985): 133–47; and van der Woude, “Micah IV 1–5.” 41. Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Further Examples of Semantic-Sonant Chiasmus,” CBQ 46 (1983): 31–33 saw Mic 4:6 as an example of semantic-sonant chiasmus, in which both assonantal (especially in the sounds with which the words of each pair begin and end) and semantic similarities are combined: A B ™ I’ll gather (!6š 2œ’ ) the crippled (!4š +œ— c!), Bƍ Aƍ The cast-out (!%š š –^!) ™ I’ll collect (!8š C— 9™ ). ”

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

233

off will be transformed into a strong nation under the kingship of Yahweh, who will rule over them from Mount Zion.42 Just as the reign of God had implications for the destroyed Temple Mount (4:1, cf. 3:12), so the positive response in this section (4:1–8 within 3:1–4:8) closes with an explanation of the implications of God’s being king for the city of ˜ and the kingJerusalem and its inhabitants (v. 8).43 Dominion (!+š fš /’ /) dom, or royal power (=)˜ +˜ /’ /), ™ will once again be in Jerusalem, just as was the case before the exile. Thus in 3:1–4:8 the clear progression of topic and its resolution allows us to sense indications of a deliberate structuring to reinforce a theme. The issue is leadership. Chapter 3 sets up the question. The leadership in all areas has been corrupt and given to pursuing personal ends, rather than those of the Lord or the best interests of the people. So the prophet threatened them with severe punishment, resulting in their personal ineffectiveness as leaders and, ultimately, in the razing of Jerusalem, their seat of government. Who, then, will lead God’s people? God himself will rule, according to 4:1–8. This portion is the response to the problem raised by the ¿rst half. God will be rid of the inadequate leaders, and will rule as king from his throne in Zion. The scope of his dominion will encompass the nations of the world and his own people, as these latter comprise the remnant. (3) Micah 4:9–5:14—The God Who Leads His People to Victory. The third section is centered on the conjoined themes of present defeat followed by, and actually leading to, God’s ultimate victory for his own. The start of a new section is signaled by the change in theme, content, and tone (positive to negative) from 4:1–8, by the placement of the promise to the remnant in 4:6–8, by the occurrence of the ¿rst of three exclamations beginning with “Now!” (!kš 4™ in 4:9, compare 4:11 and 4:14 [English 5:1]) and by the clear contrast in organization of the two sections. Micah 3:1–4:8 was arranged in clear and discrete segments. Three parallel pericopes indicted the leaders (3:1–12) and two others proclaimed God’s coming rule over the nations and his people (4:1–8). In contrast, in 4:9–5:14 it is much harder to decide which material should be grouped with which. Quite a number of competing readings of the 42. Norbert Mendecki, “Die Sammlung der Zerstreuten in Mi 4, 6–7,” BZ 27 (1983): 218–21, traced the presence of traditions stemming from Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah in these verses. 43. On the exact location of the places in Jerusalem addressed in v. 8, see H. Cazelles, “Historie et Géographie en Michée IV 6–13,” in 4th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Papers 1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967), 87–89.

234

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

structure of this section have been proposed.44 The verses could be linked with each other in a variety of ways and seem to intermix contents of hope and doom all throughout. The organization is anything but simple, unlike 3:1–4:8. The gap between the two sections is bridged in part by the use of a “pun” as a catchword in the !kš ™ of 4:8 and !kš 4™ of 4:9, by the use of words about leadership—especially derived from the root (+/ (!+š fš /’ /, ˜ =)˜ +˜ /’ /™ in v. 8; T+˜ /, ˜ T8— 4L' ” in v. 9)—and from the use of female personi¿– C, ™ “daughter of Zion,” and -– +š fK: š ’'¡=C, ™ “daughter cation or imagery (0LQ8¡= of Jerusalem” in v. 8; !š +L', — “like a woman giving birth/in labor,” in v. 9), all occurring in the end verse of the second major division/section (4:8), and the beginning verse of the third division/section (4:9). The proportions and character of the negative and positive parts of each of the major sections of the book are unique to each. Here there is an introductory oracle of doom (4:9–14) which receives an answer of promise (5:1–14 [using the Hebrew versi¿cation]). In the ¿rst section of the book, the doom was extensive (1:2–2:11) and the promise brief (2:12–13); the second cycle presented a more balanced division, but with the doom (3:1–12) somewhat longer than the promise (4:1–8). Now, the third time around, the pronouncement of doom is somewhat shorter than the hopeful passage. In this section, each half is structured in a similar symmetrical pattern. The hopeful elements (4:10f–g, 12–13) appear in the oracles of doom, and the preaching of disaster (5:2a–b, 4b–c, 5d–e) is present in the hopeful part. Their place in the context of each half has subordinated them to the larger purposes of the message of doom or hope. With both the section of doom and that of hope, the key to understanding the message is to discern the symmetrical structure on which each is set up. The ¿rst observation to make is that the passage intermixes doom and hope, alternating between lines proclaiming judgment and then in turn salvation. Elsewhere in the book this content, doom and hope, was delineated in distinct, larger sections of one or the other. Here the intermixing of the two renders the text dif¿cult to read, and makes following the development of the Àow a challenge. Yet it is also this observation that provides the clue to reading with understanding, once

44. For example, Renaud, Allen, and Dorsey have proposed symmetrical structurings, each differing from the other; van der Woude, “Three Classical Prophets,” 49–52, explained Mic 4:1–5:9 as part of a conversation between Micah and his opponents. There is something to be learned from each of these, but none account for the features found in the text comprehensively.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

235

the arrangement of the doom and hope is traced. For the section that proclaims coming judgment (4:9–14), and focuses on total human inability to face the situation that will come, the arrangement is as follows: Defeat: Exile coming (4:9–10e)

A B

God’s plans: Rescue from exile (4:10f–g) C

B‫މ‬ A‫މ‬

Hostility: Hostile nations gathered (4:11) God’s plans: Zion to thresh nations (4:12–13)

Defeat: Siege and humiliation (4:14)

As would be expected, after the prior passage has ended with a promise of restoration for the remnant, bright hope is followed by a proclamation of disaster which signals the start of the next section of judgment. The doom, in this instance, concerns defeat at the hands of an enemy (4:9– 14). The picture painted is one of a painful siege and fall to gloating enemies. This section proclaiming the judgment to come is organized in a symmetrical pattern (see Fig. 5.3). Two layers surround a central core. The ¿rst, or outermost, layer consists of announcements of crisis, humiliation, defeat, and exile (4:9–10e and 14). The second layer looks beyond the punishment to be endured and sees the Lord God’s greater purposes beyond, viz., deliverance for his own and recompense for the hostile nations (4:10f–g, 12–13). This leaves a center core, 4:11, describing the hateful desires of the besieging nations whose action against Israel is the doom proclaimed in this section.45 Con¿rmation of this structure is found in several other textual features. First, the assignment of the positions of prominence in this section con¿rms that it is indeed the proclamation of judgment, in that the declarations of defeat are placed ¿rst and last, while the depiction of hostility suffered is in the center. Second, the use of the recurring “now” ™ is found in 4:9, 11, and 14, i.e., as a marker for the beginning of (!kš 4) each of the subsections that clearly express doom. Third, the section of doom is bounded by a verse on either side that begins with “and you” (4:8; 5:1).

45. Note that v. 13 could go with either of the layers, depending on whether it is read as ironic and sarcastic, and thus leading up to the defeat indicated in v. 14, or at face value, and hence as part of a positive layer along with v. 12.

236

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

9

A Defeat

Now why do you cry out loudly? Do you have no king? Or have your counselors perished? That pain has seined you like a woman in labor? 10 Writhe and moan, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in labor, For now you will go out from the city, And you will dwell in the ¿eld, And you will come to Babylon.

B God’s plans

There you will be delivered, There Yahweh will redeem you from the power of your enemies.

C Hostility

B‫މ‬ God’s plans

A‫މ‬ Defeat

11 But now, many nations are gathered against you, Who say, “Let her be de¿led! May our eyes see their desire against Zion!”

12 But they do not know the thoughts of Yahweh, Nor do they perceive his plan, For he has gathered them like grain to the threshing-Àoor. 13 Rise and thresh, O daughter of Zion, For I will make your horn iron, And I will make your hooves bronze, And you will crush many peoples, And (lit. “I”) will devote their plunder to Yahweh, And their wealth to the Lord of all the earth.

14

Now gather in troops, O daughter of troops, The siege has been laid against us, With a rod they will smite the ruler of Israel on the cheek.

Figure 5.3 The Symmetrical Arrangement of Micah 4:9–14. [The outermost layer (A and A‫ )މ‬announces coming defeat and humiliation. The second layer (B and B‫ )މ‬sees God’s grander purposes beyond the humiliation. The center core (C) focuses on the hostile nations’ hatred]

An initial question in Mic 4:9 gains our attention. Following a section marker in the prominent word “now” (!kš 4), ™ the prophet asks for an explanation of the shrieking and agony of God’s people. Could it be because they have no leaders to guide them? The mention of rulers picks up the theme of the previous section and starts to turn it in a new direction. The rulers here are expected to protect and lead the people in battle, else they will suffer an ignominious defeat and be conquered. In

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

237

the envisioned crisis, however, the leaders are not there when needed. The people lack any true political or military heads to show them the way. The terror and agony of the situation are pictured as pains of childbirth46 which the people must endure (v. 10). The punishment of exile is mentioned again: “For now you will go out from the city, and you will dwell in the ¿eld, and you will come to Babylon” (4:10b–d). An intervening word of promise begins with a reference to the distant land of their exile, Babylon, from the prior line, picked up now with a repeated -f, š “there.” Only after they bear the consequences of their sins in that place can they experience the Lord’s deliverance from their enemies (v. 10f–g). Deliverance will follow an exile in Babylon: “There you will be delivered, there Yahweh will redeem you from the hand of your enemies.” At that point, that is, in and thus from exile, Yahweh will redeem them from their enemies. The center of this negative oracle, marked once again as a word of judgment with the initial !kš 4™ ’#, “and now,” looks at the besetting crisis circumstances. Many nations have come with hostility against God’s people, desirous of the de¿lement of Zion.47 This is the crisis God’s people are facing. We next read that the nations do not grasp God’s plan and his people are called upon to emerge triumphant in battle, “threshing” the enemies (4:12–13). Here the text once again sounds the hopeful note that God’s plans go beyond the disasters at hand. His ideas are bigger. He gathered them together, a direct reference to v. 11,48 as though they were sheaves to be threshed. They thought they had come to attack Israel, but missed the purpose of the Lord, that they would be given into God’s hands. There follows a summons to the daughter of Zion to “thresh” her enemies (4:13), an oracle summoning the people to tread down their enemies in victory, as the concrete expression of God’s purposes from v. 12. Its contents are positive and it is part of the innermost layer surrounding the core.49 46. Julius Lewy, “Lexicographical Notes. I. %1 ‘To Groan’,” HUCA 12–13 (1937–38): 97–98, suggested that '%œ–  is an imperative of a root %1, meaning “be dismayed, consternated,” or possibly “to moan, groan.” 47. On the names and expressions in these verses and those immediately after, see Cazelles, “Historie et Géographie,” 87–89, and P. Bordreuil, “Michée 4:10–13 et ses paralleles ougaritiques,” Semitica 21 (1971): 21–28. 48. Note the use of the synonymous word-pair 79 // 52 in vv. 11–12. Elsewhere these are often used in parallel. Here their occurrence creates a uni¿ed picture of circumstances. 49. Another reading of the meaning of v. 13 is possible, but not likely. The one who arranged the passage into its present form may have seen these words as a quote

238

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

The verse before, v. 12, has assigned the initiative entirely to God in his sovereign plan to bring victory, and v. 14, right after, announces the unexpected failure of Israel. The context, then, sets a tone. God is responsible for victory, not the people. Their own efforts apart from God are doomed to meet with disaster. The call to Israel is continued in v. 14, where the text bids them to array themselves for battle to counter the siege.50 This is yet a third word of doom within this segment (4:9–14) as ™ signals. The end of the verse is soberthe use of the initial “now” (!kš 4) ing, for we suddenly learn that the ruler of the people will be humiliated. All their efforts are in vain! Though they have con¿dence that they will thresh, though they band together their troops to ¿ght, they will be unable to win based on their own efforts. Micah 4:9–14 depicts the dilemma faced by God’s people. The mentions of disaster both envelope and occur in the center of the passage, thus receiving a special prominence. Just as words of doom are on all sides of these verses, so the enemies surround the Lord’s own. The symmetrical arrangement provides a structural picture that reÀects the siege with which the passage deals.51 God’s people are not faring well. They are unable to face the situation which confronts them. Hostile enemies surround them and certain defeat, humiliation, and exile await. But Yahweh is a God who punishes and or imitation of a summons to Israel, with an assurance of victory, such as would have been spoken by an “of¿cial prophet” (for the opponents of Micah). Thus, in its use by “the other side” in this context, the verse would be intended as negative and would belong with the following verse as part of the outermost layer of this portion of doom in Mic 4:9–14. The verse calls the people to a victory and buttresses this with a pious sounding motivation—devoting the plunder to the Lord. That this is to be understood here in an ironic manner in the ¿nal form of the text could be seen from the contrast of the immediately surrounding verses with the contents of the ™ at the beginning of v. 14 marks verse itself. However, the placement of “now” (!kš 4) that off as the start of the subsection of judgment, as has already been the case in 4:9 and 11. To read v. 13 as sarcastic or ironic ignores this as a marker. 50. Randall Pannell, “The Politics of Messiah: A New Reading of Micah 4:14– 5:5,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 15 (1988): 131–43, attempts to read 4:14–5:5 as a contrast between two philosophies, violent and non-violent, for responding to oppression. Siegfried J. Schwantes, “A Note on Micah 5:1 (Hebrew 4:14),” AUSS 1 (1963): 105–7, discussed the textual problems of the verse. 51. Note that there is no speci¿c accusation of a sin in this section of doom. The essential element in the negative sections of Micah is the announcement of coming judgment. The speci¿cation of the cause is at least to be found in the sins exposed in the other doom passages. It may be, however, that here the sin is implied to be a failure to trust in God, which is expressed and clari¿ed in the corresponding segment of hope in the listing of all the false objects of hope from which God will purify the people (see 5:9–14).

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

239

restores. The book proclaims his character as the God who will not, in the end, leave the loose ends hanging for his own people. Though they face defeat now, God will yet bring victory (Mic 5:1–14). In this response of hope, the prophet enters the arena of warfare and the military, in which the people have already been shown to be woefully inadequate (4:9–14). Now the text picks up the theme of God’s plans to redeem after judgment (vv. 10e–f and 12[–13]) and promises that God will lead them to victory. He is the sole source of deliverance and triumph. The symmetry of the arrangement is once again crucial to following the development of thought: A

God’s solution: A divine leader (5:1–4a) B Victory: God’s people triumph under him (5:4b–5) Time: The coming Assyrian invasion (4b–c) Deliverers (plural, human): 7 or 8 shepherds (4d–e) Victory: Rule Assyria (5a–b) Deliverer (singular): He will deliver (5c) Time: The coming Assyrian invasion (5d–e) Aƍ God’s solution: Human agents (5:6–8) The unstoppable remnant Summation: Victory is certain, but God is the one we trust God’s people cannot win themselves (5:9–14) For God’s people: He will remove all false objects of trust (9–13) For the disobedient: Vengeance (14)

The means of God’s delivering his people—a messianic king (Mic 5:1– 4a) and the remnant (5:6–8)—surround a center which proclaims the subjugation of the world powers (5:4b–5—see Fig. 5.4). Finally 5:9–14 concludes the section with a clari¿cation of some of the concepts communicated in 5:8. The two oracles about God’s solution, to be found in a divine leader and the human agents who lead the remnant, echo each other as they surround the core about the triumph over Assyria. Both have a general reference to the world outside of Judah, “the ends of the earth” (v. 3) and “in the midst of many nations” (vv. 6, 7), in contrast to the speci¿c naming of one Gentile people and nation, Assyria, in the center (vv. 4b–5). Both refer to a remnant, in the synonymous phrase “the remainder of his brothers” (#'%š ˜ :=˜ ˜' ’#, v. 2) and in the customary mention of the “remnant” (=':– — f) ’ in vv. 6 and 7. Note that 5:1–4a ends with a line beginning with “and he will be” (! š'!š ’#), while 5:6 and 7 each begin with the identical verb form (! š'!š ’#), which also marks the ¿rst line of the oracle in 5:9–14. That 5:4b–5 is a unit is con¿rmed by the identical “when he enters our fortresses and when he tramples” in the ¿rst and last lines (4b–c and 5d–e). Further con¿rmation of the intentional structuring of the section overall can be seen in the ways in which 5:9–14 is linked

240

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

with 5:6–8: the initial verb “and it will be” echoing the start of 5:6 and 7; the use of “cut off” from 5:8 further in vv. 9, 10, 11, and 12; the picking up of the vocabulary “hand” from 5:8 in vv. 11 and 12, as well as he allusion to “in the midst of” (5:6 and 7) in “from the midst of” in vv. 9, 12 and 13; followed by a concluding reference to the “nations which have not obeyed” in v. 14, echoing the “ends of the earth” in v. 3, “Assyria” in vv. 4b–5, and “many nations” in vv. 6 and 7. In juxtaposition with the humiliation of their leader (Mic 4:14), the prophet goes on to unfold God’s ¿rst solution for the dilemma, a messianic leader (5:1–4a).52 From the insigni¿cant home of David, Bethlehem, will arise a new ruler to guide God’s own.53 This messiah has existed from long ago. His arrival is good news, for it spells the end of the time of apparent abandonment by God (v. 2). The reference to the child being born is a double allusion—to the birth of the messianic ¿gure and to the end of the agony of the people in their defeat (picking up the depiction of agony as a woman’s labor pains in 4:10). His presence will reunite God’s people. He will lead them as would a shepherd,54 in close dependence on the Heavenly Father (vv. 3–4a). His reign will deal so effectively with their defeat that they will experience security and peace, while his reputation and honor will reach to the ends of the earth. 52. For further on this and the following oracle, see D. Bryant, “Micah 4:14– 5:14: An Exegesis,” Res Q 21 (1978): 210–30; J. Coppens, “Le cadre littéraire de Michée V, 1–5,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), 57–62; O. Loretz, “Fehlanzeige von Ugaritismen in Micha 5, 1–3,” UF 9 (1977): 358–60; A. Welch, “Micah V:1–3 (Eng. 5,2–4),” ExpTim 13 (1902): 234–36; and John T. Willis, “Micah IV:14-V:5—A Unit,” VT 18 (1968): 529–47, who argued that Mic 4:14 belongs with 5:1–5. Margaret B. Crook, “The Promise in Micah V,” JBL 70 (1951): 313–20, saw evidence for dating the original form of these verses to the time of Athaliah. 53. See Theodor Lescow, “Das Geburtsmotiv in den messianischen Weissagungen bei Jesaja und Micha,” ZAW 79 (1967): 199–205, who said that the woman in labor is not a reference to the birth of a messiah, but rather has in view the end of the crisis and the return of the exiles; H. S. Pelzer, “Some Remarks Regarding the Contrast in Micah 5:1 and 2,” OTWSA (1968): 35–44, analyzed the meaning of “judge” and “ruler”; John T. Willis, “8' '+ (// in Micah 5:1,” JQR 58 (1967/1968): 317–22; and A. H. van Zijl, “Messianic Scope in the Book of Micah,” OTWSA (1968): 62–72. 54. For further on the connections between shepherding and ruling see J. J. Glück, “Nagid-Shepherd,” VT 13 (1963): 144–50, esp. 148–9, 150, according to whom the ¿gure of shepherd-king expresses an ideal leadership both in the intimacy of relationship between the leader and his charges and in the implication of a divine appointment to that role.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

241

Figure 5.4 The Symmetrical Arrangement of Micah 5:1–14 [Two pericopes concerning the agents God will use to bring the people to victory surround a center core which proclaims their triumph. Micah 5:9– 14 clari¿es and expands on some themes from vv. 6–8, especially from v. 8, notably (1) victory from God, (2) the application of ‘cut off’ to God’s people, and (3) the defeat of the nations.]

Then, under his leadership, the people will be victorious (Mic 5:4b–5).55 The structure of the passage makes this the centerpiece. These lines are also arranged symmetrically (see Fig. 5.5). The beginning and end both refer to the crisis of Assyrian invasion (vv. 4b–c, 5d–e). Within this are two glances at the rulers who will lead the people on to victory. First, there are the human leaders, the seven shepherds/eight leaders of men (v. 4d–e).56 Then there is a reference to a singular subject who will deliver them (+'c– !– ’#, v. 5c). I understand this to pick up the only example 55. For possible parallels to this pericope from the surrounding ancient Near Eastern environment, see K. Cathcart, “Notes on Micah 5, 4–5,” Bib 49 (1968): 511– 14; Cathcart, “Micah 5, 4–5 and Semitic Incantations,” Bib 59 (1978): 38–48; and Francesco Saracino, “A State of Siege: Mi 5:4–5 and an Ugaritic Prayer,” ZAW 95 (1983): 263–69. 56. Hillers, “Imperial Dream,” proposed that - be read as -: and that the reference be understood as being to Syrian buffer states on which the people of Israel and Judah relied as protection against the Assyrians.

242

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

of a solitary ruler in this immediate context, the messianic ¿gure of the preceding passage (5:2).57 Then, at the very center is the assertion that they—the leader God sent and the people’s leaders—will devastate (K3:š ’#, lit., “graze on,” a play on the -'4œ– : of v. 4 and !4š :š ’# of v. 3) the land of Assyria, or Nimrud, by force (v. 5a–b). That is, they will conquer and exercise dominion over their old enemies. Thus, the center pericope of the symmetrical arrangement of 5:1–8 highlights the concept that God’s people will be victorious under him. At the very center of the section is found the con¿dence of victory. A The coming invasion

When Assyria comes into our land, And when he treads within our palaces

B Deliverers (plural)

Then we will raise up against them Seven shepherds, eight leaders of men

C The victory B‫މ‬ Deliverers (plural) A‫މ‬ The coming invasion

And they will devastate the land of Assyria with the sword, The land of Nimrod at its entrances, And he will deliver from Assyria,

When [Assyria] comes into our land, And when he treads within our borders.

Figure 5.5 A Diagram of the Structure of the Core (Micah 5:4b–5) of the Third Section of Promise in the Book of Micah [Sets of virtually identical clauses border the unit, each dealing with an incursion of Assyrians. Within this are found references to leaders who will be God's agents for bringing the people to victory. The ¿rst, multiple leaders raised up from a human source, points ahead to the part which the obedient remnant (also agents from a human source) of vv. 6–8 has in the plans of God. The second, a reference to a singular leader, harks back to the preceding vv. 1–4a, and God’s sending of a messianic ¿gure.] 57. Note the interlocking structure. The second reference, to the messianic leader, points back to the prior passage (Mic 5:1–4a). The ¿rst points ahead to the idea of God using human leaders other than this one special ruler from Bethlehem, echoing God’s empowering of the remnant in vv. 6–8.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

243

God’s solution for the people’s problems in Mic 5:1–4a was a divinely appointed ruler. Micah 5:6–8 echoes that by unfolding a further aspect of the solution. Continuing in the vein of the leaders raised up by the people in v. 4d–e, God will also work through and use humans. In particular, interest once again focuses on the remnant. The remnant is to be an unstoppable force for the Lord when operating under his guidance and in faithful dependence on him. Note that the picture is of the remnant in relation to the peoples (vv. 6b, 7a–b), that is, those hostile forces that were arrayed against them in the crisis assumed by the section. The remnant will be like dew or showers, it will not wait for man (v. 6), and instead will be like a lion from whose advance none can escape (v. 7). This is a depiction of the “inexorable progress of the remnant,”58 structured in two parallel verses, each of which starts with the “remnant of Jacob” (a double use of œ94” ™' =':– — f), ’ locates it among “many nations” (twice -'C– :™ -']– 4™ :˜ 9˜ C’ ), likens it (with V) ’ to a natural phenomenon, “dew,” then a “lion,” and draws out the implication of the simile (with an :f˜ ” relative clause). Constituted by (2:12–13) and ruled by (4:6–8) God, thus owing their origin and direction to him, they will be a victorious force in relation to the peoples who once terrorized them. They will be so unstoppable that the references to the remnant can be followed with a certain and absolute promise of victory (v. 8). ’ the movement of a With this third promise to the remnant (=':– — f), third section draws near to an end. Yet the person responsible for the ¿nal form of the book included 5:9–14 as a passage subordinate to 5:6–8, to guard against any misapprehension.59 There seem to be three concerns which vv. 9–14 pick up and expand upon, especially from v. 8. First, lest the promises of inexorable progress and victory of vv. 6–8 should make the people think that they would accomplish all this of their own accord and effort, 5:9–14 contains a reminder that God’s people cannot be victorious by themselves. The futility of their efforts apart from God’s purposes has already been asserted in 4:14. In the ¿rst instance their inability to conquer in their own efforts was stressed. Now we see their inability to win apart from a total reliance on the Lord. He assures the people that he will cut off and destroy all on which they might be tempted to rely instead of on God—weaponry (v. 9), defensive forti¿cations (vv. 10, 13b), occult practices (v. 11), and idols (vv. 12–13a).60 58. McComiskey, “Micah,” 431. 59. See, on these ¿nal verses Willis, “Structure of Micah 3–5,” and Willis, “Authenticity and Meaning.” 60. On the seemingly odd sequence of Asherim and cities in v. 13, see P. J. van Zijl, “A Possible Explanation of Micah 5:13 in the Light of Comparative Semitic Languages,” OTWSA (1968): 73–76, who suggested that Hebrew :3 was related to

244

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

All of this represents a puri¿cation so that the people will trust in the Lord God alone, and in nothing else. Otherwise, their efforts and armies will count for nothing. The key ingredient in their victory will be a total reliance on Yahweh. Second, vv. 9–14 pick up the idea of “cut off” (=:™ V) š from v. 8. Here God declared his intention that the enemies will be cut off. The following verses amplify the meaning of this verb and apply it pointedly to God’s people. Yes, he can cut off the nations, but his holiness is so searching and his power so great that he will also perform the same actions on his own people. Note, however, that the direction of his work on his own people is quite positive. It is to purify them and not to harm. He will root out sin by leaving them none of those items in which they once trusted. This is even explicitly stated as the object of God’s actions: “So that you will no longer worship the work of your own hands” (v. 12c–d). Third, the verses continue and repeat the idea, from 5:8, that defeat will come to the enemy nations. In v. 8 the passive and stative forms imply that God is the actor. In v. 14, God is unambiguously the subject of the action, which is portrayed in terms of vengeance for disobedience. This is the carrying out of God’s purpose and plan on the nations, which had already been alluded to in 4:12. The mention of vengeance for disobedience is also an indirect warning to God’s people to obey, so that they will not be a nation “that has not heard.” But in the context, it appears that by (or at) the time of the envisioned punishment of the nations, the Lord will already have carried out his purging process on the people, and they will then obey. In its ¿nal form and position within the book, 5:9–14 is to be understood as a word of hope. It explains the promise from v. 8. “In that day” is used, as in 4:6, again in a context of hope. Vengeance on the nations is an indirect promise to the Judeans. The removal of all the objects of false trust is an assurance that God is committed to creating a right trust in him alone in the hearts of the people. The whole of this positive section has been laid out with order and symmetry. In an arrangement similar to that which was present in the accompanying section of doom, the promise of victory was highlighted (5:4b–5) by its prominence at the center of descriptions of the means by Ugaritic ƥr and meant “woodland, tree,” making the reference in the second line be to wooden images. Also, Knud Jeppesen, “Micah V 13 in the Light of a Recent Archeological Discovery,” VT 34 (1984): 462–65, was reminded of the Kuntillet !Ajrud discoveries and thought that the Asherim were possibly consorts of Yahweh and that the mention of “cities” referred to the “variety of outward personae” in which Yahweh would have been worshipped at different places.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

245

which God intended to bring about the triumph—his own messiah (5:1– 4a) and the people as the remnant (5:6–8). Lest there be any misunderstanding, a reminder is added that the people can only win in complete dependence on Yahweh (5:9–14). He is the only worthy object of trust, source of security, and the ultimate force behind the coming triumph. Thus, the third section closes with a clear af¿rmation of God’s victory, the answer to the crisis and coming defeat that beset the people in the passage of judgment (4:9–14). Both parts of this section are laid out in a similar symmetrical structure. Its actual movement concludes, in a sense, with reference to the remnant, in that 5:9–14 is an explanatory addition to this promise. (4) Micah 6:1–7:20—The God Who Forgives His People. At last, the reader reaches the heart of the matter. The ¿nal section, chs. 6–7, traces the problems to their very roots in the inner character of the people. It is at the source, the wellsprings, of their thoughts and deeds, that we can pinpoint the festering disease. All the de¿lement has spread outward from their spiritual lives, from their utter refusal to obey and inability to please the Lord. This problem, set up in 6:1–7:6, can ultimately only be resolved by God’s own initiative in a wholly gracious act of forgiveness, 7:7–20. This fourth section centers and turns, then, on God’s forgiveness, explained in his restoring their spiritual relationship with him. The text picks up the K3/— fš of 5:14 and continues the thought by the opening call of the fourth, and ¿nal, section,  š1¡K3/’ f– (6:1). This use of the catchword principle not only connects the two pericopes, but also marks the start of a new section, as does the presence of the summons to hear, the shift from positive to accusing contents, and the placement of 6:1–8 after mention of the remnant (5:6–8) and an explanation of that salvation oracle (5:9–14). The ¿rst half of the ¿nal section (6:1–7:6) once again heralds the sins and their consequent punishment, this time focusing on how the people’s rebellion has made a wreck of their spiritual lives, severed their ties with the Lord, and resulted in chaos in their relationships. The second half (7:7–20) rises, in a mysterious key, from the ashes of the disaster of their own making, and ascends, in a crescendo, to the ¿nale of the book at the very end—God’s full and gracious forgiveness and faithfulness. The section as a whole moves ¿rst in descent—in atmosphere, object in view, and moral tone—from God pressing his case (6:1–8) to the sins of the people (6:9–16) to the unmanageably distorted situation that characterizes their lives (7:1–6). The ¿nal unit, 7:7–20, ascends in tone and spirit from the depths of v. 6 to the most sublime heights of God’s undeserved forgiveness and trustworthiness (see Fig. 5.6).

246

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

7:18–20 God is a forgiving God!

6:1–8 God’s case against the people

7:14–17 Anticipation of God’s care

6:9–16 The people’s sins

7:1–6 The hopeless situation caused by sin

7:11–13 The day to come

7:7–10 Waiting until judgment has been borne

Figure 5.6 A Schematic Representation of the Descent and Ascent of Focus and Tone of the Fourth Section of the Book of Micah, Chapters 6–7

This conceptual structure of descent and corresponding ascent reminds us of the similar patterns observed in the ¿rst section (chs. 1–2), where our gaze moved down from the approach of God, to the prophet’s heartrending lament, to the speci¿c sins of the people which were bringing the exile on them. Only then did the one who arranged the oracles in the present order allow the reader’s direction of gaze to turn suddenly upwards to apprehend God regathering the people. The overall conceptual structure, the summons to hear, and the elements of the lawsuit all turn our minds back to the ¿rst section. The ¿rst and fourth sections frame the book. The initial unit (6:1–8) is a dialogue in the form of a lawsuit that includes the Lord (vv. 1–5), a representative of the people (vv. 6–7) and the prophet (v. 8). Yahweh is portrayed as bringing charges against the people. The presentation of the case is done in vocabulary reminiscent of

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

247

legal proceedings in a court.61 The mountains and hills are to hear the people’s pleading and the Lord’s indictment (vv. 1–2). God’s case begins with an attention-gathering question as to what he had done to tire or offend the Israelites (v. 3). It expects the listener to respond indignantly with a mental “Nothing, of course.” Instead of having burdened them, God was the origin of many and farreaching bene¿ts throughout their history (vv. 4–5). He is depicted as recounting some of the highlights, or central foci, of the ancient traditions about the constitution, protection, and leading of the nation Israel in its early years. The exodus from Egypt, the people’s leadership, protection in the incident of Balaam, and entry to the land to conquer62— all comprise this reminder of the history of Yahweh’s covenant63 faithfulness to his people. The people collectively, or a representative, 61. On the issue of the nature and presence of judicial terminology, and the question of the covenant lawsuit, refer to B. Gemser, “The rîb- or Controversypattern in Hebrew Mentality,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (VTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1955), 120–37; Julien Harvey, “Le ‘Rib-Pattern,’ réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture d’Alliance,” Bib 43 (1962): 172–96; Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78 (1959): 285–95; J. Limburg, “The Root ': and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” JBL 88 (1969): 291–304; K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rib-Pattern) (JSOTSup 9; Shef¿eld: University of Shef¿eld, 1978); G. Ramsay, “Speech-Forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles,” JBL 96 (1977): 45–58; Michael de Roche, “Yahweh’s rîb Against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Preexilic Prophets,” JBL 102 (1983): 563– 74. More recently, Richard Davidson, “The Divine Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 21, no. 1–2 (2010): 45–84. 62. L. Ballard has pointed out that the numerous allusions to Israel’s past history in chs. 6–7 serve to hold this section together. She observed that these references are arranged in a symmetrical order that follows the historical chronology in the ¿rst half: beginning in Mic 6:4a–b with the period of the Exodus and Sinai, followed by allusions from the period of wilderness wanderings and entering the land (6:5a–b), and then with reference to the monarchy of Israel (6:16a). A lament occurs in the center of the section (7:1–7) is followed by historical references in the section of hope, picking up the same periods as were in focus in ch. 6, but now in a reverse chronological order: allusion to the period of the monarchy (7:12), evocations of the wilderness and entering the land (7:14a–b), the Exodus and time at Sinai (7:15, 18– 19), ¿nally reaching to the even earlier period of the Patriarchs. (7:20). Ballard, “Intertextuality.” 63. Even the use of “know” (v. 5) may be an example of covenantal language, see Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew YƖDA’,” BASOR 181 (1966): 31–37 and Herbert B. Huffmon and Simon B. Parker, “A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew YƖDA’,” BASOR 184 (1966): 36–38. The Israelites are to recognize God’s claims and authority and thus af¿rm their loyalty to him.

248

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

are pictured as responding to this list of gracious acts with questions as to what they can do to make restitution to God (vv. 6–7). If they have been unheedful of their covenantal obligations, what is it that the Lord requires? A string of possibilities are suggested. Does God desire proper gifts (v. 6c–d), abundant gifts (v. 7a–b), or inconceivable gifts (v. 7c–d)? All the options offered show the people’s misconception and externalization of what the Lord wants. Finally, the prophet replies with a simple statement of God’s desires—justice, mercy, and a humble life under the Lord.64 God wants their hearts and actions more than their sacri¿ces. From this drama of God in court with his people, reminding them of his grace and his expectations (as opposed to theirs), the next pericope (6:9–16) moves the audience’s view a step down.65 From God as the center of action and initiative, we refocus on the people. From God’s mighty acts and character, the reader’s focus descends to the people’s sins. God again calls for them to hear, addressing an unspeci¿ed city (v. 9).66 The prophet acts as God’s messenger, presenting the divine 64. On the interpretation of this well-known passage, see Esteban Voth, “What Does God Expect of Us? Micah 6–7,” RevExp 108 (Spring 2011): 299–306; G. W. Anderson, “A Study of Micah vi, 1–8,” SJTh 4 (1951): 191–97; Alfons Deissler, “Micha 6, 1–8: Der Rechtsstreit Jahwes mit Israel um das rechte Bundesverhältnis,” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 68 (1959): 229–34; and Paul Watson, “Form Criticism and an Exegesis of Micah 6:1–8,” Res Q 7 (1963): 61–72. On vv. 6–8 speci¿cally, see Walter Brueggemann, “Walk Humbly with Your God: Micah 6:8,” Journal for Preachers 33, no. 4 (Pentecost 2010): 14–19; Martha Moore-Keish, “ ‘Do Justice’: Micah 6:8,” Journal for Preachers 33, no. 4 (Pentecost 2010): 20–25; J. Hyatt, “On the Meaning and Origin of Micah 6:8,” ATR 34 (1952): 232–39; Theodor Lescow, Micha 6, 6–8: Studien zu Sprache, Form und Auslegung (Arbeiten zur Theologie, I Reihe, Heft 25; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1966); B. Elmo Scoggin, “An Expository Exegesis: Micah 6:6–8,” Faith and Mission 2 (1985): 50–58; HansJoachim Stoebe, “Und demütig sein vor deinem Gott: Micha 6,8,” in Wort und Dienst (Jahrbuch der Theologischen Schule Bethel; FS P.D.W. Brandt; Bethel bei Bielefeld: Verlagshandlung der Anstalt Bethel, 1959), 180–94; Wolfgang Werner, “Micha 6,8—eine alttestamentliche Kurzformel des Glaubens? Zum theologischen Verständnis von Mi 6,8,” BZ 32 (1988): 232–48; and John T. Willis, Review of T. Lescow, Micha 6, 6–8: Studien zu Sprache, Form und Auslegung, VT 18 (1968): 273–78; and J. Hertz, “Micah vi:8,” ExpTim 46 (1935): 188. 65. On Mic 6:9–16, see Jepsen, “Kleine Beiträge,” who taught that the verses were directed against the royal house; and R. Tournay, “Quelques Relectures Bibliques Antisamaritaines,” RB 71 (1964): 514–24, 531, who suggested that later Judean scribes had retouched a passage which had originally been about the South, so that it dealt with the North, under the inÀuence of anti-Samaritan emotions. 66. Knud Jeppesen, “The Verb yƗ‘ad in Nahum 1,10 and Micah 6,9?,” Bib 65 (1984): 571–74, takes yƗ‘ad to mean “designate, appoint” and the ¿nal words of the verse to be a rhetorical question as to who had appointed the city’s destiny.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

249

evaluation of what is happening. He condemns their substandard ethics which allow them to deceive and take advantage of others in business (vv. 11–12). For this, they will be destroyed (v. 13) and frustrated as their work is undone and their efforts are lost (vv. 14–15).67 He also makes a second indictment—this time of the extensive accommodation to the culture around (v. 16)—for corrupt customs from the North have penetrated the Judean kingdom.68 As a consequence of this, the passage closes with further threat of ruin and mockery. From the actual sins and the punishments they merit, the next pericope bends our sight to the lowest point of all. Here (7:1–6) the text portrays the disastrous results of sin and the ever-deepening entanglement of the people in a downward spiral of spiritual rebellion and insensitivity. This is the lowest ebb of the entire book.69 The people of God are completely unable to please God. Their spiritual realm has been totally ruined and thus the entire scope of life and relationships as well. The prophet wails at his misery, for he can ¿nd no godly persons remaining (vv. 1–2b). All do exactly what they desire for their own bene¿t, with no care for the impact on others (vv. 2c–3). They are no better than brambles (v. 4a–b). In the background once again we hear the ominous note that punishment is coming (v. 4c–d). This will entail confusion and not being able to trust even those who are closest (v. 5). Then, brieÀy (v. 6), the oracle returns to the sins that are bringing the judgment.70 It is so terrible that the disease has permeated family relationships. They not only hunt each other, but also:

67. On the meaning of %f™ ˜' (v. 14) compare A. Ehrman, “A Note on %f™ ˜' in Mic 6:14,” JNES 18 (1959): 156, and Ehrman, “A Note on Micah VI 14,” VT 23 (1973): 103–5, who, on the basis of an Arabic cognate, said that it referred to a violent disorder of the bowels (such as dysentery), which caused them to eat, but not be satis¿ed. On “wine” (fL:'=) – in v. 15, see O. Loretz, “Hebräische TJRWŠ und JRŠ in Mc 6, 15 und Hi 20,15,” UF 9 (1977): 353–54. Also Kevin Cathcart and Knud Jeppesen, “More Suggestions on Mic 6,14,” SJOT 1 (1987): 110–15. 68. Note in passing that this is one of the most telling arguments against chs. 6–7 being a northern work. Of course the customs of Omri and Ahab would be followed in the North, but it is especially reprehensible when those in Judah import their evils. On the rendering of the opening verb of v. 16, see M. Baldacci, “The Eblaite PN iŠ-ta-mar-dda-gan and Mic 6, 16a,” Aula Orientalis 5 (1987): 144–46. 69. On the whole of ch. 7, see Bo Reicke, “Liturgical Traditions in Mic. 7,” HTR 60 (1967): 349–67, and McComiskey, “Exegetical Notes.” 70. D. L. Büchner, “Micah 7:6 in the Ancient Old Testament Versions,” JNSL 19 (1993): 159–68, traces the way the verse has been used subsequent to the Hebrew Bible.

250

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah A son dishonors his father, A daughter rises up against her mother, A daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, A man’s enemies are the men of his house. (Mic 7:6)

In moral and spiritual conception, the book of Micah takes us no lower than this point. The sins are not only directed against each other, but even involve harm from those in the immediate family. Family bonds of love and ties of loyalty are no longer meaningful. Is the problem beyond resolution? If God is a God who punishes yet restores, how can he restore this? He does indeed restore and resolve, he even transforms, but only by his own initiative and free grace. The people’s problem is that they seem unable to please him. What is God’s answer? Yes, there is punishment coming, but there is far more. God will take action himself and will forgive them. He will completely wipe the slate clean of their sins (7:7–20). These verses divide into four pericopes (vv. 7–10, 11–13, 14–17, 18– 20), which are all tied together by the common development of a strand of thought and by the ever-intensifying tones of relief and celebration of God’s forgiveness.71 The passage starts on a minor, mysterious note, as the speaker, a representative for the people or for Zion as their place of abode (see v. 11, which addresses the city), determines to wait for the Lord and bear the punishment his rebellion deserves (7:7–10). The emphatic “but as for me” (' –1” ™#, v. 7) marks the transition to the response of hope from the portrayal of the bleak circumstances which preceded. He is con¿dent that God will respond in spite of the circumstances of vv. 1–6 and so warns those against him not to rejoice at his fall, for he will arise and reemerge into the light (v. 8). He is determined to endure the punishment he has merited until the Lord has puri¿ed and vindicated him. Then the enemies will see and be trampled (vv. 9–10). So the section of promise begins with the punishment and devastation wrought as a result of sin clearly in 71. For more on the interpretation and setting of Mic 7:7–20, see W. J. Wessels, “Micah 7:8–20: An Apt Conclusion to the Book of Micah,” Verbum et Ecclesia 24, no. 1 (2003): 249–59; Gunkel, “Close of Micah”; Jan Dus, “Weiteres zum Nordisraelitischen Psalm Micha 7, 7–20,” ZDMG 115 (1965): 14–22, who dates the verses to the time right after the Philistine capture of the ark at Ebenezer (!), based on the question “Where is your God?” (v. 10) and on the reference to God dwelling on Carmel (v. 14) as a Northern answer to the question of v. 10; Otto Eissfeldt, “Ein Psalm aus Nord-Israel (Micha 7, 7–20),” ZDMG 112 (1962): 259–68; and John T. Willis, “A Reapplied Prophetic Hope Oracle,” VTSup 26 (1974): 64–76, who reconstructed the tradition history of the passage.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

251

the background. Nonetheless, the speaker is con¿dent that God will reverse the situation and will restore. A prophetic response follows (7:11–13). Here, the prophet ¿rst addresses the city, and promises the rebuilding of her walls, her expansion, and her prominence as a center to draw people from all directions. They “will come to you [masc. sing.], from Assyria and the cities of Egypt, from Egypt to the River” (v. 12b–c). In contrast, the rest of the earth will be desolated because of the wickedness of its inhabitants. Next, the dialogue continues with a prayer (v. 14) that the Lord would act as shepherd by guiding and providing for the people.72 The unit continues with an answer from the Lord (v. 15), that he will demonstrate his wonders as he had in the exodus from Egypt. Then the prophet provided an expansion, or commentary, on the effect that this will have on their enemies (vv. 16–17). They will be ashamed and come trembling before the Lord.73 When we read in 7:17 that the nations will fear the Lord and come humbly before him, we are poised for the climax of the book. Now that oft-recurring theme of the nations, who have been the enemies and will someday pour into Zion on pilgrimage, has reached its resolution. The peoples stand before the Lord in dread, and acknowledge his greatness. Finally we come to the last passage to offer hope in terms of the remnant. We expect a reference to the remnant now as the book comes to an end, for a mention of the remnant has concluded each of the preceding major sections of the book. Our attention shifts back to God’s own people and the book reaches its climax as the last oracle (vv. 18–20) vividly recalls the nature of Yahweh. The pericope starts with a pun on the full form of Micah’s name by asking “Who is a God like You?” Then the traits and qualities of this incomparable God are spelled out, picking up on

72. Pierre Van Hecke, “Living Alone in the Shrubs: Positive Pastoral Metaphors in Micah 7,14,” ZAW 115 (2003): 362–75, explains the picture in God’s people “living alone in the shrubs” as a description of their positive situation in the future once God intervenes to become their shepherd. The references to Carmel, Bashan, and Gilead would be particularly poignant if the original Sitz im Leben of this oracle were in the latter half of the eighth century B.C.E., immediately following the loss of those areas by the Northern Kingdom. Compare Otto Eissfeldt, Der Gott Karmel (Sitzungsbericthe der Deutschen [Preussischen] Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst; Berlin: Akademie, 1953), 7–8; and Alfred Jepsen, “Karmel, eine vergessene Landschaft?,” ZDPV 75 (1959): 74–75. 73. M. Barré, “A Cuneiform Parallel to Ps. 86:16–17 and Mic 7:16–17,” JBL 101 (1982): 271–75, pointed to parallels in wording with an Amarna text, where “to eat dust” means “to be humiliated.”

252

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

vocabulary from the list of attributes of Yahweh enumerated in Exod 34:6–7.74 What does he do for the remnant of his inheritance? “He forgives (gœ— 1) their wickedness and passes over (:œ— 3) their transgression” (v. 18). He does not remain angry for long, since he delights in showing ˜ Once more he will have compassion on his own and steadfast love (2˜ %). forgive their sins (v. 19).75 Indeed, the forgiveness will be so complete and ¿nal that it is likened to God throwing down all the sins into the deepest parts of the sea. In so doing, the Lord will prove his faithfulness to the covenants made with the patriarchs. (v. 20). He will grant truth to ˜ to Abraham, according to his oath of old. Jacob and steadfast love (2˜ %) And so the book closes at its highest point. God restores his own to their right relationship with him. This is what they needed. Forgiveness penetrates to the root of all their problems. God’s complete forgiveness of their sins lets them enjoy what they never could on their own— communion with and shelter under their God. The initiative comes from God himself, he is the source of ultimate and inward restoration. This is now the fourth time that we have passed through a cycle, starting with the negative picture of the people’s problem in their sin and the accompanying indictment/punishment. Each cycle then went on to make a positive statement about God restoring the particular area left in havoc by sin. The people’s sins with the land bore consequences for their surroundings and resulted in their exile from the accustomed environment (1:2–2:11). The Lord promises, thereupon, that he would regather the dispersed and restore them to their rightful surroundings (2:12–13). The focus then narrowed to the sinful leaders who oppressed all the nation (3:1–12). God resolves the problem of their inadequate leadership by himself ruling the people as king (4:1–8). The people are unable to face the present crisis on their own efforts. Instead, they suffer defeat and exile (4:9–14). Yet, God has a solution, combining his messianic ruler with the people’s efforts, to work out his plans for ultimate victory under him (5:1–14). The fourth time the problems are portrayed in terms of the inner corruption that renders the people unable to offer anything pleasing to God (6:1–7:6). The Lord, however, will restore the remnant spiritually and link them to himself in close relation. He will accomplish this by forgiving their transgressions and iniquities absolutely (7:7–20). What human failings have destroyed, God rebuilds. He is pictured as restoring 74. On the reuse of the formula from Exod 34, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 349–50, 417, 425, 430, 437. 75. Or “trample.” For a discussion, see R. Gordon, “Micah vii 19 and Akkadian kabƗsu,” VT 28 (1978): 355.

5. The Coherence of Micah: A New Proposal

253

their surroundings, their leadership, their cause as victorious, and their relationship with him. Each section of hope is directed to the remnant. These four references to the remnant thus provide the crucial interpretive aid which is needed to understand the way in which the book of Micah was constructed in its ¿nal form. To see this enables us to hear more accurately the message intended by that redactor or arranger who put the oracles into what is essentially their present form.

Chapter 6

AN EVALUATION OF THE NEW PROPOSAL FOR THE COHERENCE OF THE BOOK OF MICAH

1. Introduction The previous chapter suggested that the message of Micah is best understood when we perceive the signi¿cance of the placement of the four remnant passages in the sections of hope. These references allow us to sense a development of thought in the present form of the book, which was intentionally arranged in order to communicate a speci¿c theological theme, namely, that God is the one who punishes yet restores what human sinfulness has corrupted. In evaluating the new proposal it is assumed, of course, that the proposal rests on plausible exegesis. In order to evaluate the new proposal this chapter will consider the types of coherence suggested, with reference to the classi¿cation laid out in Chapter 3. Does this connectedness of theme in the text provide an understanding of the book’s structure that accounts well for all the data in the text as we have it? What objections might be raised to understanding the book’s shape in this way? Are they forceful or not? Would such a thematic and structural coherence ¿nd any con¿rmation in features of internal links within and between the sections of the book? This will provide grounds to consider the implications which the data of the text, according to the new proposal, would have for reconstructing a background situation in which the book’s present arrangement might have been created (rendering a coherence that is the result of a common underlying perspective). At this point, it might be helpful to recall the work of J. T. Willis (1969), D. G. Hagstrom (1988), and M. Jacobs (2001) on the coherence of Micah, and to show yet another way in which this study’s pursuit of the question has been different. Figure 6.1 presents a diagram of the sequence of procedure for each plan of study. As already detailed, Willis started by observing a coherence grounded in the structure of the book of Micah. From that understanding of the material’s arrangement into divisions of chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7, he proceeded to ¿nd many examples of connections of internal linkage present in the text. He argued that

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

255

these tended to con¿rm his ideas about the book’s structure. Then, based on his two types of coherence, Willis hinted that there was a theme uniting the whole and ventured to speculate about a background situation that tied the text together in what amounts to a coherence derived from perspective.

Figure 6.1 A Comparison of the Different Sequences in Which the Types of Coherence in the Textual Dimension of the Book of Micah Have Been Examined in the Studies Addressed Speci¿cally to the Issue of the Book’s Coherence [Note that the classi¿cation of the kinds of coherence is my own. Willis, Hagstrom, and Jacobs did not use this particular terminology to discuss the question. Instead, this chart and the discussion in the text represent my analysis of their work according to the categories formulated in Chapter 3 of this study.] 1

256

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Hagstrom started with the observation of features that contributed to a coherence of internal linkage, seen in many small connecting links between and within the sentences, paragraphs, and chapters. Hagstrom used this to con¿rm and argue for his thesis that there is also a coherence of structural linkage, in which the book has been arranged into sections of chs. 1–5 and 6–7. He did not go beyond this point to offer any suggestions as to a coherence of theme or perspective. Jacobs, on the other hand, saw what we have referred to as a coherence derived from internal links or structure as textual indicators of coherence. The coherence derived from perspective is a “conceptual framework that gives actualization to the text,” while coherence from theme is what she refers to as a text’s conceptuality. Thus she acknowledges the same features observed here but subsumes them all as “essential aspects of a single albeit complex phenomenon,” the conceptual coherence of the text. Jacobs assembled the evidence from structure and internal linkages, such as word frequency, and built on that an analysis of the concepts which constitute the message of the book. This was all aimed at formulating a statement of the conceptuality of the book, or a clear expression of a coherence that arises from having a central theme that informs all the parts of the work. The work of other scholars who have made signi¿cant statements about the coherence of the book has also been noted, even if they were less deliberately conscious of the theoretical underpinnings of coherence. Luker’s well worked-out proposal noted the presence of dominant themes which lent coherence to the ¿rst and last chapters, with the result that they formed an inclusio around the inner core of chs. 2–6. The same three themes which were prominent in the outer chapters were carried through in the core as well. Thus the presence of themes which tie the book together led to a determination of the structure, followed by tracing the way in which internal links caused the text to cohere and develop as one progressed through each of the subunits in chs. 2–6. So, for Luker, a coherence derived from the presence of a common set of themes points to a structure for the whole, which is then supported by internal links which tie the smaller subunits together in succession. Although Luker’s argument was entirely based within the textual dimension, Shaw operated more within the historical dimension when he claimed that the book of Micah is coherent based on a common underlying perspective in historical settings. He read the text through the lens of rhetorical theory, especially as it demonstrates how the discourses found in the book were effective for the purpose of persuasion. Shaw delineated how the individual oracles were meant to be read in combination as 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

257

discourses, each with its own theme and structure, that were used in particular historical settings in order to persuade an audience. This provided the basis for proposed reconstructions of the historical circumstances and events presumed to be in the background of the proclamation of each discourse (an underlying perspective that ties the parts of the book together and allows for an understanding of the structure). This proposal begins, as did Willis’, with observations about the coherence based on the structure of the book of Micah. However, unlike either of the other two programs of research that was explicit about coherence (Hagstrom and Jacobs), the observed arrangement leads into a case for coherence arising from theme. Based on grappling with the overall scope of the whole book’s order and message, a search for con¿rmation of the book’s connectedness on lower levels of scope follows, particularly as found in the presence of internal linkages, which are present in the text, in a way that is consistent with the understanding of the book’s shape and theological intent. Finally, based on the presence of coherence grounded on these three sources come proposals for understanding a coherence of perspective for the book of Micah. 2. The Textual Dimension of Coherence: Internal Coherence a. Coherence from Structure (1) Observations About the Arrangement of the Book. The proposal to guide the reading of the book of Micah by the strategic placement of the passages which mention the remnant is of course deeply rooted in the indicators which can be found in the text. The evaluation of the textual dimension of coherence should be assigned ¿rst priority in that light, and will occupy most of the attention in this chapter, though comments on the historical and perceptual dimensions of coherence will round out the discussion. Since this study starts from and is based on a unique understanding of the book’s structure, it will evaluate this proposal from the perspective of structure as a source of coherence. The exposition of the text was carried out in the light of the placement of the four passages which proffer hope linked in each case with a reference to the remnant. The placement of these promises is an indicator of the coherence of the ¿nal form that is derived from the structure of the book (see the de¿nition of coherence and discussion of its sources in Chapter 3). Each of these promises responds speci¿cally to the area undone by human sin in the immediately preceding section of doom (see Figure 6.2 on the arrangement of the book). 1

[The major sections of Micah are shown, along with the major topic of each. The divisions of the negative and hopeful subsections of each section are also represented.]

A Graphic Representation of the Structure of the Book of Micah, According to the Understanding of the Placement of the Four References to the Remnant as the Crucial Interpretive Aid in Reading the Final Form of the Book

Figure 6.2

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

259

Understanding the book in this way allows several further observations about the way the book has been arranged. Note that these following points are not essential to the argument, which is based on the development of the message of the book. First, there is an ordering in a sequence of negative and positive oracles. Four times the indictment of sin and/or the threat of punishment are followed by a vision of future restoration. This pattern of hope succeeding doom is reinforced by the realization that towards the end of each section of hope is the mention of the remnant set within the promise of a divinely guaranteed future for God’s people. Patterning is also visible in the heightening that occurs as one progresses through the book. There is a lengthening of the size of the positive sections as one reads through the book.1 Further, there is a heightening or intensifying of the theme, coupled with a movement from the external to the internal.2 In addition, the sections are arranged in an ABBA, or chiastic, pattern, in that the structures of the ¿rst and last sections parallel each other,3 while the two intervening sections are arranged in unique ways unlike the pattern of the ¿rst and last sections. 1. A count of the lines in BHQ revealed a progressive increase in lines per section of hope from 5 to 19 to 29 and 29 in each successive segment of promise. The word count varies in succession from 30 to 130 to 172 to 166. 2. From the externals of the land and surroundings (Mic 1:2–2:13), we moved to the matters affecting the people’s lives as a nation—their leaders (3:1–4:8) and victory (4:9–5:14), to the inner relationship that, in its corruption, has caused the problems and that, in its reconciliation, offers the only deep and lasting remedy (6:1– 7:20). The last section, dealing with spiritual matters, is the climax (see the exposition of the book in Chapter 5). Thus, the order which I propose for the book of Micah would probably be classi¿ed as climactic (see the explanation of this category above, p. 95), since the length of the positive sections and the development of the theme build up to the end. That the book has progressed and moved forward is especially clear when one compares chs. 1–2 with 6–7. The speci¿c development of the middle section is harder to de¿ne. At points, it probably would be classi¿ed as an associational order. There are elements present which contribute to a logical order, as well. For example, since the leadership in place has failed in its call to maintain justice (Mic 3:1–12), God will be enthroned as king of Zion (4:1–8), and of course leadership needs to be provided before the nation can be victorious, so logically Mic 3:1–4:8 precedes 4:9–5:14. 3. The structures are parallel in their sequence of descent in tone, subject, and mood, followed by a resolution. The sections are linked even more closely by the presence of similar features—the summons to hear, the elements of the lawsuit, the occurrence of the mountains, similar forms used (see Willis, “Structure,” 13, 31–32, 34), and the greater length of the section of doom than the section of promise. A count of lines in BHQ gives some sense of the proportions. Micah 1:2–2:13 has a negative–positive line distribution of 59 lines:5 lines (358:30 words) while 6:1–7:20 1

260

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

(2) Possible Objections. Since two- and three-part schemes for dividing the book of Micah into sections have long been dominant, no doubt objections will be raised to a four-part understanding of the structure. (a) Historical Objections. First, it might be said that prophecies of doom and of hope do not make coherent sense combined with each other. No matter what the source of each oracle, the book as we now have it contains two irreconcilable opposites. This objection is not a cogent one. Though at one time the presence of both elements in prophetic books led many to sense a sharp dichotomy between the doom and hope, this is no longer an issue for most scholars. It is widely accepted that this is not by itself an adequate way of understanding a text’s message or discerning its history. Warnings of judgment to come may actually serve to point the audience to God’s mercy, and to the possibility that repentance will avert his wrath. This was already worked out speci¿cally for Micah in the work of E. Hammershaimb (1966).4 Doom and hope can co-exist in the same text and complement each other without being contradicting. In fact, this study has explained the way in which the sections of hope respond to speci¿c themes in each preceding section of doom. Second, one might object that to divide the text of the book according to the placement of the remnant promises does not result in sections corresponding to the difference between the genuine and secondary materials. This is especially an issue in the case of the ¿rst three chapters, which all would agree are, on the whole, genuine. The “remnant” division proposed in this work groups both types together in the same section (e.g., Mic 4:1–8 is taken with ch. 3) and separates segments of the same type (e.g., chs. 2 and 3 are assigned to different sections). Though others pursue coherence at a level prior to that of the ¿nal redaction (e.g., Willi-Plein and Renaud), the concern in this study is not with the various forms that occurred during the development of the book, but rather with the arrangement of the ¿nal form. From analyses here and in the works of others, it is seen that there are indicators of some structuring that was imposed on the book as a whole. How was it understood by that redactor who gave it essentially its ¿nal shape? How was it intended to be read? Whoever the redactors may have been, it is unlikely that they had any clue as to original versus secondary material or the way has 46 lines:29 lines (a negative–positive word distribution of 282:166). In contrast, Mic 3:1–4:8 is more evenly balanced (28:19 lines and 166:130 words) and 4:9–5:14 gives more space to hope (16:29 lines and 92:172 words). 4. Hammershaimb, “Some Leading Ideas,” 41–50. 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

261

in which the material had been edited prior to that day, and thus would not have been able to order the material in a way that would intentionally parallel or accurately represent the book’s redactional growth. Even if the ¿nal redactor had known the book’s redactional history (which seems unlikely), why would he have arranged it so as to mirror that growth? Would it not seem more compelling to an ancient editor to communicate a message about God and participation in covenant relationship with him to his audience, instead of tracing the historical development of the text, which was probably not a concern of theirs to begin with (and really is not accessible to us in any direct way). Third, though many would grant that chs. 6–7 are a unit with uniform features and thus possibly coherent, are not chs. 1–5 far too disparate in the kinds of material present to make any arguments for connectedness? It is possible that Mic 1–5 is of disparate origins for the various parts. The pericopes may once have concerned situations that were not connected with each other. The issue, however, is whether or not the ¿nal form of Micah speaks as a whole. This has indeed happened. The features of the text traced are presumably the result of a careful and thorough editing or redaction which turned all the material in a similar direction. This does not rule out the possibility that the individual components of the pieces originally had various historical referents. The material in chs. 1–5 certainly can be read as connected, witness the efforts of van der Woude for chs. 2–55 or Mays’ contention that the inclusio in 1:2 and 5:14 holds the intervening material together.6 Though van der Woude’s and Mays’ studies do not sustain this proposed reading of the text, their studies do show the possibility of ¿nding connections in the text of chs. 1–5. Further, I am arguing that chs. 1–5, though all related to a central theme (God the [punisher and] restorer), treat different aspects of that theme. The various sections approach the topic from unique angles, thus allowing for the presence of different material and subjects, which have been arranged in the ¿nal form to serve a speci¿c purpose. Fourth, it may be objected that this analysis relies too heavily on a short oracle of uncertain interpretation, 2:12–13, which really is a later interpolation and/or has lost its original place within the book. However, again let it be said that the issue is the ¿nal form of the book. To provide an analysis that engages the text in its present shape, we cannot change the data. Though conceivably correct as to the historical development, to relocate 2:12–13 would remake the text into a form

1

5. Van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute”; “Micah IV 1–5,” 402. 6. Mays, Micah, 4.

262

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

other than its ¿nal one, which is the focus of interpretation here. The verses are there as they are and produce a shift from negative material (2:11) to positive (2:12–13) to negative again (3:1).7 (b) Structural/Literary Objections. More serious are the objections based on features of the present shape of the text. There are ¿ve basic objections that are likely to be raised in relation to literary and structural issues. – should start each section, and indeed First, a summons to hear (K3/’ f) is found in 1:2; 3:1; and 6:1. If, as proposed, the promises to the remnant determine the structure, then the third section (4:9–5:14) does not begin with such a summons. This objection will be raised by those who divide the book into three parts—chs. 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7—each section beginning with a summons to hear (1:2; 3:1; 6:1), and by those who divide into two sections—chs. 1–5 and 6–7—with summonses marking a new division at 1:2 and 6:1. In response, the summons to hear is not a crucial indicator that a new part is starting. The summons to hear is not restricted to major sections, but occurs also in 3:9 and 6:9, at the start of two oracles (3:9–12 and 6:9–16) that none seem to claim start a new major section, and in 6:2, in continuation of 6:1. Neither the two-section nor the three-section analysts can utilize this as a criterion with full consistency, since the cases in 3:9 and 6:2, 9 each occur in the midst of their sections. Instead, the summons to hear was used to indicate the beginning of an oracle, or short grouping of oracles. This accounts for each one of the instances— 1:2; 3:1, 9; 6:1–2, 9. It so happens that three of those oracles were put ¿rst in their respective sections, thus placing the summons “Hear!” – at the major junctures of 1:2; 3:1; and 6:1. Possibly a summons (K3/’ f) was felt to begin a particularly powerful oracle. If this were so, it would explain why three such oracles were placed ¿rst in their sections—the power of the message and its importance for the oracles which follow made it stand out, and led to each of these being placed at the head of its respective section. Coincidentally these forceful oracles also began with 7. This of course builds on the argument that this passage is to be interpreted as a salvation oracle that gives promise and hope, and as has been explained, the arguments that these verses are negative in intent is not the best way to read this text. To read this oracle as a prophecy of salvation, rather than judgment, is consonant with the way in which each of the other references to a remnant appears in passages that offer hope based on the future work of God and with the propensity of the one who created the ¿nal form of the book to arrange material with sharp juxtapositions between judgment and answering promise. 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

263

a summons to hear. The presence of the summonses is to be explained by their function in and connections with the oracle that immediately contains them, and not in relation to the start of a new major section. The summonses were not the criterion that determined the start of a new section.8 The crucial indicator that marks off the beginning of a new section is in the content seen in the shift in topic following each mention of the remnant, as occurs in the start of the third section at 4:9, where topic and arrangement change distinctly after the remnant promise in 4:6–8, but no summons to hear is present. In addition, note that the summons to hear are an outstanding way to grab an audience’s attention and thus are appropriate for this reason to be the leading imperative in an oracle that begins a new major section. In the third section, which does not begin with the summons to hear, there is a strong interjection to gain the attention of the listener or reader: “Now why do you cry aloud?” Note ™ which is that the ¿rst word of this oracle and hence this section is !kš 4, not only an attention-grabbing way to begin, but also will be featured as key in understanding the structure of the combined oracles that follow. “Now” will recur in 4:11 and 14, then be echoed in a pun with “you” in ™ and further echoed in the sounds of ! š'!š ’# that provide 5:1 (!kš 4™ and !kš ), a framework for 5:1–14, found in 5:4, 6, 7, 9. Of course, this section curiously enough ends with a form of the verb “to hear,” so that even if it is not found at the start, it does come at the end both to round off the section with a focus on the nations who have not listened (the opposite of what the summons at the start of the other sections calls the audience to do) and also to serve as a bridge into the major section which follows and immediately begins with two instances of the summons to hear (6:1–2). Second, the objection could be raised that prophetic books are often arranged on a pattern of a collection of the oracles of doom succeeded by those of hope. If this is so, any arrangement according to the location of the remnant promises would deviate from the basis on which many prophetic books (e.g., Ezekiel, Amos) have been ordered, both because the sequence of doom–hope in Micah keeps recurring multiples times and because promises to the remnant are a different type of material upon which to base the book’s arrangement.

8. It is possible that in an earlier form of the collection of Mican oracles, there was a tripartite arrangement which marked off the beginning of each major section with a summons to hear. This was then obscured, or overridden, by the addition or shifting of materials in creating the ¿nal form with its four-part arrangement. 1

264

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Strikingly, however, the book of Micah would actually ¿t in with this pattern, but as a special case. The promises to the remnant are a means of proclaiming hope in response to the negative sections. Thus the book has been arranged on the same basic criterion, passages of judgment followed by passages of a hopeful nature. Reading the book guided by the placement of the concept of the remnant results in a pattern of doom followed by hope, only the pattern occurs four times rather than once. Others, however, have seen the book as in two cycles of doom–hope (chs. 1–3 [doom], chs. 4–5 [hope], 6:1–7:6 [doom], 7:7–20 [hope]) or in three (chs. 1–2, 3–5, 6–7, each section being a complete pair of doom and hope). No one sees just one sequence of doom–hope in Micah. Where the new proposal differs is to propose that there are actually four cycles. This ¿ts in with, and tends to con¿rm, the generally expected sequence of oracles of doom followed by promise, but reÀects a more intense and sophisticated literary redaction at work than that which arranged other books into only two collections, one of prophecies of judgment, against God’s people and against foreign nations, followed by another of hopeful oracles. Third, the objection could be raised that this scheme for understanding the book is too re¿ned. Is it not too intricate and worked-out to be possible? By no means! Such an intentional arranging of pericopes in a book the length of Micah is within the capabilities of a redactor. The redaction, though “thoroughgoing,” is not unparalleled.9 A redactor collected oracles of judgment according to their topic and followed those with positive oracles which seemed to respond to that particular topic. Such a reading of the book is not any more re¿ned than the text allows. It still leaves room to admit that we do not have a perfect grasp of the meaning of each part of the text. This is to be expected in a book from an ancient culture distant from ours, not free of text-critical questions, and whose editor(s) treated even older traditions with respect. A redactor giving the book its ¿nal form would not necessarily alter everything to make it conform smoothly into a unit.10 Yet I have argued that there was an overall arranging of the whole for the purpose of communicating a message. That such is possible can be seen from the ¿nal shape of books 9. Compare, for example, the structure perceived in Isa 40–55 by Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 28–30, or the development of thought seen by George A. F. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, 271–73. 10. As Mays pointed out, although there is a discernible arrangement of the material, nevertheless the “structure of this arrangement does not, of course, have the clarity and coherence of an original composition where the movement of thought creates the material.” Mays, Micah, 3. 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

265

such as Nahum or Habakkuk, and arguably, even a work such as the canonical book of Isaiah. In these books, though the material may be of disparate origin, nevertheless it is rather well focused on a central theme or message, presumably consonant with the focus of the original burden and message of the prophet standing at the fountainhead of that stream of tradition. Fourth, some will see the new proposal as ignoring hints about structure that are found in the book itself and as overburdening the word =':– — f’ as a structural indicator. Examples of structural clues would include Mays’ usage of the inclusio in 1:2 and 5:14 to hold the ¿rst ¿ve chapters together as a unit, or his use of the pivots at 3:12–4:1 and 7:7 to indicate movement within the sections, or Hagstrom’s conclusions as to the uniqueness of the instances of the summons to hear in 1:2 and 6:1. Actually, the new proposal seeks to account for and explain these features within the larger context of the whole book. Hagstrom’s arguments about “Hear!” merely are an example of the similarities between chs. 1 and 6 in their beginnings. The shift at 3:12–4:1 is important, as is the one in 7:7. Rather than being the only two key transitions within major sections of the book, they represent two of four different places where a transition is made between negative and positive content within a section. The other similar shifts can be found at 2:11–12 and 4:14–5:1. In addition, how can we be assured that the occurrences of “hear” singled out in 1:2 and 5:14 are intended to be an inclusio? Might these not be simply two occurrences of the verb in the book, without an intention to connect as the beginning and end of one section? The “hear” of 5:14 clearly does, however, function as a catchword that links it with 6:1, the beginning of the next major section. Chapters 1–5 are composed of material too diverse in topic to be lumped together easily as one section. This, however, does not mean that there are not connections present between the parts of these chapters. The ¿nal form of the text is replete with links and connections. The issue is to discern which are intended and what the intended function might have been. This proposal takes such structuring hints into account, but explains them in a different way from most other scholars. Nor does the new proposal overburden =':– — f’ (“remnant”) as a structural indicator. It is not the isolated occurrence of this one word that marks off the sections (as is often the case for K3/’ f– , “hear,” when it has been used as the foundational criterion as a structural indicator), but rather the placement of whole pericopes of hopeful material which contain references to the =':– — f. ’ My analysis depends on the content and thematic development that arises from the alternation of negative sections with these promises. 1

266

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Fifth, it will be objected that my analysis of chs. 4–5 is problematic. There can be several aspects to such an objection. Are not chs. 4–5 predominantly hopeful and composed of so many common and interrelated strands that the material cannot be separated into two different sections? Micah 4:9–14 seems a strange section of doom, also, for it contains no speci¿cation of the sin which is the cause of the coming judgment. Nor does 5:9–14 seem to ¿t with the structure seen for 5:1–8. In addition, the presence of 5:9–14 means that the remnant reference is not right at the end of the section, as is the case in the other divisions proposed. Is not this inconsistent with the suggested pattern? Finally, some will also object that the structure I have suggested for 4:9–5:14 is too complex to be plausible. To the objection that Mic 4–5 is predominantly hopeful and composed of material with such similar strands that it should not have a major division in its midst, note the following. Clearly, these chapters contain much that is hopeful. It is also just as clear that not all the material is promise (see, e.g., 4:9, 10a, 11, 13–14, and 5:2, 4b–c, 5d–e). The presence of the negative must be taken into account in any treatment of these chapters. Further, there is a drastic change in tone, from future glory to present crisis, and in structure, from simple to complex (or confusing) between 4:8 and 9. Admittedly, there are common strands present in both 4:1–8 and 4:9–5:14, such as the references to the nations. These, however, do not indicate that the two passages are to be grouped together in one section. Nor do they imply that the two treat the same topic. Rather, there is a shift in theme from leadership to defeat and victory in warfare. This, coupled with the change in tone and structure, clearly mark the two parts off as distinct from each other. Even a strand in common, such as the nations, is treated quite differently in each part. In 4:1–8, the nations come on pilgrimage to submit to Yahweh, while in 4:9–5:14 they are the hostile attackers of God’s own (4:11) and the future objects of his wrath (5:14). Though both parts refer to the nations, the actual content and attitudes are drastically different in each of the two sections. The strands held in common do not unite both parts into one major section focused on a single topic. Rather, they serve to connect the book, and thus render it coherent, as one moves forward from one section to the next. That there is no sin speci¿ed in Mic 4:9–14 does not imply that this is not a section of doom. The verses have an unmistakably negative kerygma. There are several possible explanations for the phenomenon that this segment lacks an enumeration of the sin. Micah 4:9–14 might imply the sin without stating it explicitly. In particular, the people suffer 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

267

defeat because they have not yet learned to trust fully in God alone. He is referred to, after all, as the source of their salvation (4:10) and the one who has a plan larger than the nations can grasp (4:12). Indeed, this is what God will correct in his people, according to the response of the hopeful section in 5:9–14. Or possibly the non-mention of the sin may indicate that detailing the sins is not a part of the major thrust of the message of this section of the book in its ¿nal form. The emphasis is placed, rather, on the approach of the resultant doom. The people have already sinned, as has already been enumerated in the ¿rst two major sections (1:2–2:13; 3:1–4:8). The purpose of this part of the book (Mic 4:9–14) is to talk of the punishment that is a sure result of the sin and to offer hope for the future beyond the judgment. I will answer together the objections that 5:9–14 does not ¿t with the structure seen in 5:1–8 and that the presence of 5:9–14 does not let this third section end with a promise to the remnant. It would be possible to account for the placement of 5:9–14 by proposing that it was added subsequent to the redaction which gave the book essentially its present shape. In this case its addition would actually have disturbed the intended arrangement. However, in the present writer’s analysis the concern is to explain the ¿nal form, and 5:9–14 is accounted for as an explanatory addition to 5:6–8. This can be seen from the themes which are picked up, especially from v. 8, and are continued through vv. 9–14, such as the need to rely on the Lord, the idea contained in the verb “cut š and the promise of defeat for the enemy nations.11 Whoever off” (=:™ V), put the book into essentially its present shape wanted to guard against the reader’s understanding the promise in 5:6–8 to mean that the people would be victorious in their own power, apart from God’s help. Thus, 5:9–14 is subordinate to the remnant passage of vv. 6–8. It expands and elaborates on the promise. The passage about the remnant is, as a result, actually at the end of the thought development of this section. To the objection that the proposed structure for 4:9–5:14 is too complex, it must be noted that the suggested arrangement is straightforward and reÀects the markers of structure embedded in the text itself. Recall that other major studies have developed an understanding of these chapters in some detail. Selected views as to the divisions made and their interrelations are summarized in Figure 6.3.

11. Would adding an appendix to a symmetrical structure violate standards of composition? We really cannot say that it was unacceptable in their eyes to do so. This may be an example that provides textual evidence that such an ordering was quite acceptable for an ancient Hebrew. 1

268

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Nielsen, 1954 3

4

5

1–4

5

6–8

9–14

6

1–5

6–8

9–14

Renaud, 1964 3

4

5

1–4

6–7

8–14

6

1–5

6–7

8–14

Willis, 1969 3

4

5

3:9–4:5

6

6–8

9–10 11–13

4:14–5:5

6–8

9–10 11–13

4:14–5:5

6–8

9–14

6–8

9–14

Allen, 1976 3

4

5

3:1–4:5 echoes 1–2

6

4:9–5:5

echoes 6–7

Dorsey, 1999 3

4

5

6

1–5

6–7

8–10

11–14

1–4a

A

B

C

D

C‫މ‬

1–5

6–7

4b–8

9–14 B‫މ‬

A‫މ‬

Jacobs, 2001 3

4

5 8 9–14 4:8–5:8 4:6–5:14

6

1–3 4–5

6–8

9–14

Cuffey, 2015 3

4

5 4:9–14 symmetry— doom

3:1–4:8

6

5:1–14 symmetry— hope

4:9–5:14 a major section of the book

Figure 6.3 Diagram of the Ways that the Studies by Nielsen, Renaud, Willis, Allen, Dorsey, Jacobs, and This Present Study Have Dealt with the Material in Chapters 3–5 or 4–5 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

269

E. Nielsen (1954) and H. Renaud (1964) both saw chs. 4–5 to be concentrically arranged in two layers of material surrounding a central nucleus. Their marking off the boundaries of the pericopes differed only slightly: Nielsen saw 4:5 as a bridge between vv. 1–4 and 6–8, while Renaud assigned 4:8 and 5:8 to the pericopes which follow them, rather than to the pericopes which mention the remnant.12 J. T. Willis (1969) differentiated the pericopes based on the length of the segments of doom or hope. He did not see any concentric structure, but rather treated the chapters as a linear series of seven successive pericopes. He also recognized the connection between the ¿rst verses of Mic 4 and what precedes, so that he de¿ned the limits of the ¿rst pericope as reaching back to 3:9.13 L. C. Allen (1976) made a synthesis of these two approaches to the text. He argued that the chapters were arranged in a concentric manner, two layers around a center core, as had Nielsen and Renaud. He also followed Willis’s procedure of classifying the pericopes based on the length of the portions of doom and hope in each. This latter method con¿rmed his concentric ordering because he extended the scope of the ¿rst pericope to include all of ch. 3. When he did so, the pericopes were arranged concentrically according to the relative amounts of doom and hope in each. Then he linked chs. 3–5 with the structure of the whole book by pointing to the parallel in structure between the outer pericopes (3:1–4:5 and 5:9–14) and chs. 1–2 and 6–7 (all having a division of doom longer than that of hope).14 However, each of these proposals is lacking in some aspect or other. Both Nielsen and Renaud do not give enough weight to the connection of ch. 3 with 4. Commendably, they each did recognize the importance of the mention of the remnant, but interpreted them as a ring around the center, rather than as the indicators of the end of a section’s thought and a response to the immediately preceding judgment. Nielsen grouped together material that has few actual connections. It is true that there is a reference to the end of war in Mic 4:3–4 and to the end of military forti¿cations in 5:9–10, but does this mean that the larger passages in which these are found are to be taken together? One pericope is about the exaltation of Zion as the center of God’s rule, the other concerns the abolition of all that is falsely relied upon in ¿ghting. The passages deal with different topics in actuality. War ends in 4:1–4 due

1

12. Nielsen, Oral Tradition, 84–91; Renaud, Structure, 5–26. 13. Willis, “Structure of Micah 3–5,” 191–214. 14. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, 257–60.

270

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

to the effects of God’s reign, while the weapons are destroyed in 5:9–14 to do away with sources of con¿dence other than the Lord God. The two similar concepts function differently in each context. Even an apparent parallel, such as the mention of the nations in each of these oracles, is only an external similarity, for the nations fare quite differently in each. In 4:1–4 they come in homage to the Lord, while 5:9–14 has them as the objects of his avenging wrath. Renaud’s interpretation of the text is problematic, too. Is 5:9–13 about the destiny of the nations in the eschaton? It appears to be directed towards Israel instead. Renaud’s reading of this entire section as treating the eschatological age is questionable.15 Though references to a far and distant future are certainly present, Renaud has overdrawn this. Willis is to be commended for seeing and incorporating into his scheme the connection of Mic 3:9–12 with 4:1–4. This, however, runs into the immediate problem that 3:9–12 cannot be separated from 3:1–8. The parallel structure, addressees, and topic of the oracles in Mic 3 bind them to each other. Further, if these chapters have been so carefully edited that the lengths of doom and hope all work together so neatly to distinguish the oracles, why were the oracles not arranged in some more meaningful order? It might appear that Willis is trying to account for an unmanageable text. Might the sequence not reÀect more of a structuring of the whole or a development of theme in speci¿c ways? And if chs. 4–5 are indeed a section of hope, why would they end on such a pronounced note of doom, according to Willis’s understanding of 5:9–14? Willis also neglected to account for the presence and impact of the promises concerning the remnant found in 4:6–8 and 5:6–8. Why are they where they are? Why are there two of them? Are there any connections between the two? Do they perform similar functions in relation to the surrounding context? Though the occurrence of two such promises is very noticeable, Willis’s scheme does not account for their presence and possible parallels. Allen accounted for the connection between Mic 3 and 4 and succeeded in keeping all of ch. 3 together. However, is all of chs. 3–5 really of the same material? Actually, there seems to be a clear division as tone and topic shift from positive to negative and from concerns of leadership to scenes of warfare, between 4:8 and 4:9. The preceding material has a different structure, clarity, and theme from that which follows this juncture. Why must we keep all of Mic 3–5 as one unit? This question is especially pointed in light of the function of the remnant

1

15. Willis, “Structure of Micah 3–5,” 200, raises the same question.

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

271

passages of 2:12–13 and 7:18–20 to bring sections to a close. There are two such promises here in chs. 3–5. The ¿rst of these occurs right before the already noted shift at 4:8–9. Would not this indicate that a section is ending here and that chs. 3–5 actually contains two major sections of the book? Further, if Allen’s suggestions are correct as to the concentric structure, why is the ¿rst division (3:1–4:5) so much longer than its counterpart at the end (5:9–14)? This disparity in length would appear to unbalance totally what appears to be a neatly symmetrical arrangement on its inner layers.16 Again, as did Nielsen and Renaud, Allen noticed the oracles with promises to the remnant and acknowledged their importance, but failed to see their actual function in the progression of the ¿nal form of the book. Two other studies of the structure of the book should also be mentioned in this context. Dorsey saw chs. 4–5 as a symmetrical exposition of hope with three layers surrounding a core in which Yahweh will reverse Israel’s current hopeless situation (4:11–14). The outer layer features Yahweh and the nations, establishing his reign over all the nations (4:1–5) and establishing his “transforming control” over them (5:9–14). Within this the two remnant passages are also seen as echoing one another with good news (4:6–7 and 5:4b–8) and immediately around the central core are oracles featuring rulership from an earlier time which comes to Migdal-eder by Bethlehem (4:8–10) and a king from an earlier time who comes to (sic, not “from”) Bethlehem (5:1–4a).17 Another thoroughgoing, though quite different, consideration of the structure of these chapters is contained in Jacobs’ study of conceptual coherence. She understands chs. 4–5 to have only two (unequal) units—a statement of the establishment of Yahweh’s universal reign in Zion in 4:1–5, followed by movement towards the actualization of this promise in 4:6–5:14. This second unit begins with the promise of the restoration of the remnant (4:6–7), followed by the resolution of the present circumstances (4:8–5:8) and a vision of future puri¿cation (5:9–14). In tracing the path towards the resolution of the present distress, an introduction (4:8) is followed by a frank depiction of the threat of captivity and deliverance (4:9–14). The subsequent oracles depict the promised leadership to come (5:1–3), then their victory over Assyria (5:4–5) and the remnant’s rule while still in captivity (5:6–8).18

16. Note that my proposal is based ¿rst on the sequence of topics and thus the content, and then ¿nds support in the symmetry observed. 17. Dorsey, Literary Structure, 298. 18. Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 143–56.

1

272

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

For each of these proposals, why do they depart from using a clear sequence of doom followed by hope as a criterion for dividing the book into sections? Willis and Allen, at least, used this as an indicator in chs. 1–2 and 6–7. In chs. 3–5, the text clearly starts with doom (3:1–12) and follows that with promise (4:1–8). The hopeful material ends clearly at 4:9. Micah 3:1–4:8, then, should constitute one section of the book. The sequence of judgment, then future glory, is carried through also in 4:9– 5:14. This latter passage is more complicated because the double symmetrical structures of doom (4:9–14) and of hope (5:1–14) each have the other type of material mixed in, hope found in the segment that foresees judgment and doom in the background while proclaiming the future salvation. However, these “intrusions” of hope in the doom and doom in the hope in reality are clari¿ed and subordinated to the overall purposes of each half by the ordering and context. In 4:9–14 the thrust is on doom since this is given the places of prominence in the symmetry, occurring at the beginning (vv. 9–10) and the end (v. 14) and in the center (v. 11). Then in 5:1–14 the core (5:4b–5) centers symmetrically on the deliverers and the victory they will bring. Both oracles surrounding this central core are devoted to the idea of victorious leadership, the Davidic ruler God will send (5:1–4a) and the unstoppable human agents, the remnant (5:6– 8). Even though the assumed backdrop is one of threat and hostile incursions—temporary abandonment (2), Assyrian invasion (4–5), a need to be rescued (7), enemies and foes (9)—the direction is clear, as leaders sent from Yahweh and raised up among the people lead to victory and provide deliverance. Thus, the overall section of the book, 4:9–5:14, too, follows the doom–hope sequence, which is a criterion for dividing the rest of the book into sections, with judgment pronounced in 4:9–14 and salvation announced in 5:1–14. Thus, it seems most natural to consider these verses their own unit within the book. In addition, why should there be two promises to the remnant in one section, as would be the case in each of the other schemes for understanding the symmetry and structure of Mic 4–5? There are only two other references to the remnant in the book (2:12–13 and 7:18–20). In the scheme proposed in this work, there is one promise to or mention of the remnant in each of these sections, Mic 1–2 and 6–7. Each section thus ends with a mention of the remnant. Was this intentional? A hint that it was purposeful may be obtained by looking at chs. 3–5. Here, too, the same scheme is at work. The promise of 4:6–8 concludes the section 3:1–4:8, already marked off by the sequence of doom (3:1–12), hope (4:1–8), and return to doom (4:9). The remnant promise in 5:6–8 occurs in the other section, 4:9–5:14, and, as argued in Chapter 5, concludes its 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

273

movement in thought, even though this oracle is not at the absolute end of the section.19 The proposal of this study for understanding the arrangement of the book of Micah best accounts for what we ¿nd in the ¿nal form of chs. 3– 5. As just mentioned, each of the other suggestions encounters serious dif¿culties in explaining all of the data. The structuring around the remnant references and/or promises, however, provides a simpler and more natural way to deal with the phenomena of chs. 3–5. As already explained, the shift in tone, structure, and content at 4:8 and 9, coupled with the placement of the two remnant passages, gives warrant to divide these chapters into two sections—3:1–4:8 and 4:9– 5:14. The structure and progression of the ¿rst is rather straightforward. That of the second is much harder to discern. To explain the structure of 4:9–5:14 it may help to start at the core of the positive section and work out from there, for it is at that point that the pattern on which this section was arranged is clearly expressed. Micah 5:4b–c and 5d–e are nearly identical: When Assyria comes into our land, And when he treads within our palaces. K1'=œ— 1/’ :’ ™ C’ Tœ :’ –' ')– ’# K18— :’ ™ ’ Lš'¡'V– :Ki™

and (From) Assyria, when he comes into our land, And when he treads within our borders. K1+K — ’C– Tœ :’ –' ')– ’# K18— :’ ™ ’ Lš'¡'V– :Ki™ /—

The repetition serves to frame the intervening material and to mark off vv. 4b–5e as a unit. This led me to ask about their relation with the material on either side. Micah 5:1–4a deals with the people’s deliverance under a ruler sent from God. Micah 5:6–8 tells of the triumph of God’s own as they comprise the remnant. Thus, two references to victory surround vv. 4b–5e, which is a central core telling of the victory and which is distinguished as a unit by the framework provided by vv. 4b–c and 5d–e with their references to the crisis that precipitated the need for war. The oracles around this core detail two ways that the Lord God will work to bring victory: through a leader he will send (5:1–4a) and through his use of the people (5:6–8). The mention of the remnant is not to be linked with that in 4:6–8 (Nielsen, Allen) or 4:6–7 (Renaud) as a parallel layer in a structure encompassing all of chs. 4–5. Rather, it is a parallel on the human level to the means of victory described in vv. 1–4a. 19. Mic 5:9–14 is a subordinate addition that expounds on and quali¿es several concerns picked up from v. 8. 1

274

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

Moving back to the next material encountered, in 4:14 there is a clear reference to defeat. In v. 14a the people tried to ¿ght, still playing on the same theme of warfare and crisis seen in 5:1–8, but in this instance, they fail (v. 14b). Here is a segment of rather different content and nature. The people suffer defeat in battle, as opposed to the victory seen in ch. 5. The already-mentioned drastic shift at 4:8–9 from positive to negative, from a clear ordering to one less clear, and from a treatment of leadership to a treatment of the need for victory in battle, marks off the beginning of this section of doom. Its end was de¿ned already by the shift to glowing hope for the future as one comes to 5:1. Thus, it extends from 4:9 to 4:14. Upon examination, it is clear that this section too has a symmetrical arrangement of two layers that ring a center core. References to the people’s defeat and exile frame (4:9–10d, 14) and compose the core (4:11) of this passage. The inner layer points forward to the coming hope section by suggesting that God’s plans go beyond the present crisis (4:12–13) to include the salvation of his own (4.l0e–f). This leaves only 5:9–14 unaccounted for. These verses elaborate on 5:6–8, connected with the preceding verses by virtue of their being subordinate and explanatory. Thus, while Allen extended the scope of the structuring to include ch. 3, this proposal cuts the section to its shortest yet. The section with the most disputed material begins at Mic 4:9. This keeps Mic 4:1–8 with 3:1–12, the topics of which (negative and positive aspects of leadership) naturally belong together, anyway. This also allows there to be two distinct sections, each following a doom–hope sequence and containing a hopeful reference to the remnant, as is the case with the other sections of the book (chs. 1–2 and 6–7). As Nielsen, Renaud, Allen, and Dorsey have sensed, the pericopes are symmetrical in arrangement. But each of these studies discerns only one symmetry to explain the whole, chs. 4–5 in the case of Nielsen, Renaud, Dorsey, and Jacobs, with Willis extending the section to include 3:9–5:14 and Allen to include all of ch. 3 as well. This new proposal for understanding the structure is simpler in conception and more natural in that it associates together materials of very similar topic in two symmetrical orderings in sequence. The other proposals all encounter snags in that they miss the presence of two separate symmetrical arrangements in a section shorter than they had thought. Micah 5:9–14 does not really function within the symmetrical arrangement of 5:1–8. Rather, it resembles an appendix, that is, it is subordinate to the thought, especially of v. 8. Understanding the book of Micah based on the placement of the remnant passages therefore offers an attractive solution to the intricacies of chs. 3–5. It accounts for the apparent mixing of doom and hope and 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

275

allows for the sharp transition at 4:8–9. It explains the function of 5:9–14 in relation to the rest. It also maintains the strength of the connections between Mic 3 and 4:1–8. Willis and Allen were correct to argue that chs. 3–5 are different from chs. 1–2 and 6–7. Where they erred was in then concluding that Mic 3–5 must comprise only one section. (c) Objections Based on Content. In considering the development and structure of Mic 2–5 Wagenaar raised three objections to deriving the book’s structure from the passages which mention God’s future work with the remnant. He critiqued the use of the term “promise” to describe the form of the passage that refers to the remnant at the end of the book. Instead, he points out that this merely consists of a clause that mentions the “remnant” in 7:18 and “may hardly be considered as a promise for the remnant.” Micah 7:18–20 is a hymn that exalts Yahweh for his attitude to the remnant. This misunderstands what was meant by “promise.” The intent was not to delineate a category of form, but to pick up on the theological content of hope for the future. Indeed, it is hard to see how the clause mentioning the remnant in a hymn of praise to Yahweh does not offer promise for a hopeful future! For this reason, in this work these are denoted less frequently as “promises” and rather simply by using the descriptive language that these are passages that refer to or mention the remnant. The key throughout is the concept of the remnant, that there will still be a people of God in the future, and God will yet again work on their behalf, whatever the form of each individual use of the term. Further, he suggested that the oracle of hope in 2:12–13 is not concluded by a promise to the remnant, but consists entirely of this promise. This is not a problem for this proposal in that his observation simply notes the fact that the ¿rst section of hope encountered in reading the book is quite short. That the words of salvation consist entirely of the remnant passage makes them stand out in stark contrast to the weight of judgment approaching in 1:2–2:11 and also ¿ts well with the increasing size and clarity of the hope that the book holds out as the reader progresses. A third concern for Wagenaar was the addition of the oracle of salvation in 5:9–14 following the remnant passage, since this might not be an oracle of salvation, and even if it were, the arrangement would result in an unbalanced composition. That this passage is hope and not doom is explained in Chapter 5’s exposition (pp. 243–45). That the addition of 5:9–14 results in an unbalanced composition imports a modern standard of coherence and composition to render a judgment of an ancient work. By this point it is clear that whatever their standards for writing 1

276

The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah

and creating coherence in a text, their standards differ from ours. It is better to observe what is actually there in the text and begin to discern why this made sense to an ancient reader than anachronistically to employ a modern feel for what would be seen as good writing today to evaluate the Àow of a work from several millennia past. (3) Accounting for the Data. Chapter 4 laid out the features of the book of Micah with which an adequate interpretation of the structure would need to deal. Does understanding the book as divided into Mic 1–2; 3:1– 4:8; 4:9–5:14; and chs. 6–7 account for each aspect of this data? It does indeed. To read the book of Micah as arranged around the promises to the remnant accepts 2:12–13 where and as it is. This oracle is the positive response to the judgments which preceded in 1:2–2:11, and appropriately closes the ¿rst major section of the book. There is no need to reinterpret the intent as negative, which seems forced and unconvincing (see above, Chapter 5). The verses are understood as they are naturally read, i.e., hopeful in tone, and in their actual location within the present form of the book. They contrast with what surrounds them and con¿rm that a shift in topic is occurring at this juncture. Their beginning signals the break between the two main subdivisions (negative and positive in content) of the ¿rst section. Their end is an appropriate place for ending a major section, as these verses are tied more closely to the prior passages, in their being concerned with the same spatial topics, than to what follows. This proposal for understanding the book of Micah also allows the contrast between 3:12 and 4:1 to have its proper effect within the second division. There is a clear shift as we pass by this stark contrast. The vividness of the contrast and the manner in which 4:1–8 responds to ch. 3 ties the two together and marks the end of the doom and the start of the promise. However, it is not an appropriate juncture at which to divide between major sections, since the material on both sides of the shift is connected by addressing one and the same theme—leadership. This then serves as an indicator of the boundary between the two subdivisions within a major section of the book. The suggested outline also allows for the effect of the shift at 7:7 in a similar manner in the concluding section (chs. 6–7). There is a change here from negative to positive, but each of the two parts responds to the concerns of the other, and maintains a common theme, in relation to spiritual concerns. Here, too, the outline indicates a secondary break— between subdivisions of a section rather than between sections. 1

6. An Evaluation of the New Proposal

277

This proposal for the arrangement explains the occurrences of the summonses to hear, as well. A summons to hear can be found in 1:2; 3:1, 9; 6:1–2, and 9. As already noted, instances of K3/’ f– have been selected in the past as indicators of the start of major sections, either for a threepart understanding of the book (chs. 1–2, 3–5, 6–7) or for a two-part scheme (chs. 1–5, 6–7). The summons to hear does appear at the head of three of the proposed major sections (1:2; 3:1; 6:1), but not at the beginning of another, in 4:9. Why not? How does this proposal account for the data? The summons to hear is not an indicator of the beginning of each new major section in the book of Micah. In the ¿nal shape of the book the summonses are incidental to any overall design.20 Whoever arranged the book into its present form did not utilize the summonses as a heading for each section. Rather, as explained, the summons “Hear!” was used as an indicator of the start of smaller units, such as an oracle or small group of oracles. This accounts for its presence in 3:9 and 6:9, as well. Several of the summonses appear at the start of major sections because the oracles which they head were placed as the ¿rst oracle in the sequence. Part of the reason that these oracles are selected to appear at the head of their respective sections is that they incorporate such a strong appeal for attention. In the cases of 3:9 and 6:9, the oracles started with the same summons and were placed “on the inside of” a main section. In the case of 4:9, the lead oracle happened to be one that did not start with “Hear!” It may be noted, of course, that it does begin with a question about audible sound: “Now why do you cry aloud?” Is it possible that this was seen as in some way an equivalent to beginning a section with a summons to hear as it inverts the direction of the sound? It does not ask for people’s attention to what will be spoken, but asks the suffering people why they are so plainly audible. They are not listening, but providing the sound that the reader is asked to imagine hearing.21 None of the other proposed structures succeeds in consistently incorporating all the instances of the summons to hear. A three-part division fails to utilize the summonses in 3:9 and 6:9 to begin new major sections. A two-part plan also leaves out that in 3:1. Thus, none of the other orderings consistently ¿ts the data, if a summons to hear is taken to be a signi¿cant indicator of the start of a new section.

20. This does not rule out the possibility that the summonses to hear were a key structural indicator in an earlier form of the collection. This then might have been obscured in the arranging of the ¿nal form. 21. Note also that this section, 4:9–5:14, ends with the use of the same verb (3/