a result of adherence to, and the preaching of, the Gospel (13:11), Mark adds fraternal hostility to the list of familial animosity
(cf. Enoch 56:7; 100:1, 2), and stands together with Luke by making the hostilities mutual rather than the young against the old (cf. Enoch 99:5).
The textual tradition in the three citations is difficult to untangle, but neither Matt, Luke, nor Mark presuppose a differ ent textual tradition than the one preserved in the MT. The
influence upon the Gospel texts by contemporaneous Jewish apoca lyptic texts (Enoch 56:7; 99:5; 100:1, 2; Jub. 23:19; 4 Ezra 5:9; 2 Apoc. Bar. 70:3), and possibly among the Gospels themselves, as well as the occasional influence from the versions, can account
for the widely divergent appropriations of Jesus’ words by the individual Gospel writers. Mark is the farthest from the MT and the least influenced by the versions. The chiastic structure in Luke’s passage, a device Jesus often employed, suggests that this may be the most primitive of the Gospel traditions (cf. Gundry, Use, p. 79; and, less certainly, Marshall, p. 549). Luke, how ever, conforms more closely to the LXX than the other Gospels. Matt's text appears to be assimilated to the Mican passage, even
to the extent of including the final line of Mic 7:6 (contrast Luke and Mark).
Why are the passages given an eschatological setting? The Mican passage is a straightforward lament over the general deprav
ity of a society where even familial relationships cannot be trusted. The LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta all support the MT in this. The Targum, however, inserts Hinn njiyi, "in that day." This phrase, or its equivalent, in the Tg of Micah marks the
verses as eschatological; Mic 7:6, however, is an insertion inde pendent of an underlyingNinn Dipi . The Mishnah preserves the tradition that, "With the footprints of the Messiah [the signs
which herald the coming of the Messiah] presumption shall increase and dearth shall reach its height..." (Sota 9:15). It is not clear why Mic 7:6 was appropriated by Jewish Apocalyptists, but by following this early Jewish exegesis, Jesus lays claim to messianic authority and issues a warning that persecution is part and parcel of belonging to the messianic community (cf. Allen, p. 389).
C. Matt 23:23 (cf. Luke 11:42).
Matt 23:23 is the fourth in a series of "woes" against the "scribes and pharisees." There are considerable differences between Matt's version and Luke's, two of which are particularly relevant to the present study. First, for "dill and cumin" Luke has "rue and every herb."^^ In the Mishnah not every herb is to be tithed ("rue" is specifically mentioned, Seb. 9:1; Schlatter suggests that this implies the possibility of doubt on the matter of tithing rue, cf. Marshall, p. 497). After discussing the difficulties between Matt, Luke, and rabbinic tradition, Marshall concludes, "The two lists probably reflect different recensions of Q (rather than M and Q traditions), and in both cases the
pharisees are attacked for meticulous observance of the Law, cer tainly for going beyond the requirements of the OT and possibly for going beyond the oral law..." (p. 497). Matt's version reflects a greater knowledge of rabbinic tradition (as preserved in the Mishnah), whereas Luke seems dependent upon his source.
The second difference concerns the "weightier things of the Law" (omitted by Luke).^^ Both Gospels preserve KpCoLQ from their source(s), but Matt inserts ëAsoç and Tljv nCOTHV , whereas Luke preserves the tradition of his source (Xljv ÔyÔnav TOO 0£OU is not a Lucan phrase; Marshall, p. 498, Gundry, Commentary, p. 464). The changes appear to be due to Matt's reworking of
the tradition; one must ask on what basis he does this.
Gundry argues that "mercy" (cf. Luke's use of èAenpOGÙVnV, "charity, alms," in 11:41!) replaces "love for God" in the tradi tional woe, since "mercy" and its cognates occur frequently in Matt, and in Matt 22:37-39 "neighbourly love" is put on par with loving God. However, "faith," for Matt, is directed toward God (Gundry, Commentary, p. 464), hence functions essentially as "love for God" in the traditional woe, Gundry mentions this but argues that "faith" acts to compensate for the insertion of "mercy" and its replacement for "love of God" (Commentary, p. 464).
Matt's three-fold saying, however, is remarkably reminiscent of the three-fold requirement from God in Mic 6:8: "To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." Moreover, Matt appears to go beyond the traditional saying, a device he also used in 10:35 where he supplants a Jewish apocalyptic saying in the
Gospel tradition (Mark 13:2), by quoting the OT passage which under lies it (Mic 7:6).^^ Gundry says that it is "part of Matthew's style to allude often to the OT" (Commentary, p. 463). Also, the similarity in parenesis between the Mican passage and the Gospel tradition— both Micah and Jesus berate their audience for outward manifestations of worship, while neglecting the "weightier" matters of the Law— suggests that Matt may again be grounding a dominical
/ t
saying more firmly in its OT background. The jibe would not be lost on a careful reader.
If this is indeed an allusion to Mic 6:8, it shows no linguis tic or theological affinities with the versions. The LXX employs KpCpa for PSB/P, whereas Matt's text has KpCoLV (both terms are
used frequently to render p g p R ). Both the LXX and Tg render the enigmatic oy liD*? y]%n somewhat paraphrastically. The LXX
reads "to be ready to walk..." and the Tg adds "fear," to avoid the starkness of walking "with God."
One objection against viewing Matt 23:23 as an allusion to Mic 6:8 is that the final word in the Matthaean saying is not equal to "walking humbly with your God" (although Gundry mentions Matt's frequent use of OT, he does not see this verse as an allu sion to Mic 6:8). However, since yjyn only occurs in Mic 6:8 and Prov 11:2 in the OT, it is difficult to ascertain precise nuances of meaning. For Matt, faith is directed towards God; Bultmann says, "In primitive Christianity nCoXLÇ became the
leading term for the relation of man to God" ,(TDNT, vol 6, p. 205). Thus the term "faith," though not a translation of yjyn , may be seen at Matt's exegesis of the phrase since both terms are concerned with the proper relationship with God. Viewed in this light, the two passages correspond more closely than at first appearance.
The Matthaean passage also helps in elucidating Mic 6:8, or at least showing one possible understanding of it. The Mican passage is sometimes seen as a rejection of ritual observance. Since the "Law" is often abrogated in the NT— Jesus himself makes a point of breaking the law on numerous occasions (e.g.. Matt
12:Iff.), one might expect support for this interpretation of Mic 6:8 in the NT. Both Matt and Luke, however, uphold ritual observance in the final clause of the verse; Luke's TtapeLVaU^^ "do not neglect," is synonymous to Matt's pfj 6@GLVaL , "do not forsake." Thus in these passages ritual observance is not set against inward piety, but each grows from the other.
Allusions to Micah outside Matthew
A. Luke 1:33 (cf. Isa 9:7)
Mic 4:7 is a prophecy of the eschatological rule of Yahweh