Marco conceptual

structure of chapters 4 and 5 are in general; "Now chaps 4-5 are admittedly the most difficult chapters in the book of Micah in which to demonstrate coherence" (Willis, p. 275).

Willis argues in his study of the structure of Micah that "in their present form [i.e., chapters 4 and 5] they exhibit a coherence which must be attributed to a purposeful attempt to arrange them in an orderly fashion" (p. 227). Willis' study, in spite of significant points of disagreement (cf. Willis, pp. 277- 289), is built upon the study of B. Renaud.^ The analysis by Willis centres on the affinities between the seven (Renaud argues

for six) pericopes of chapter 4 and 5: 3:9-4:5; 4:6-8; 4:9-10; 4:11-13; 4:14-5:5; 5:6-8; and 5:9-14. These passages share a description of the present hopeless situation juxtaposed with an announcement that Yahweh will give Israel victory over her enemies or restore her to her former prominence. The forms of the pericopes differ, but each contains this contrasting structure.

The coherence of the pericope 4:14-5:5 focuses primarily on 4:14 and its relationship to what precedes and follows. The tension between these verses has long been noted (cf. chapter 2, "A Survey of the History of the Interpretation of Mic 4:14-5:5"). Those who

do not accept the coherence between 4:14 and the following either argue that it is an independent oracle (cf. J. M ‘ P. Smith), is part of the preceding oracle (cf. Luther), is a misplaced oracle which originally followed 4:9 and 10 (cf. Marti), or perhaps belongs more appropriately after 1:10-16 (cf. Vuilleumier).

One need not accept Willis' analysis of chapters 4 and 5 as a whole in order to accept 4:14-5:5 as a unit. Intentional con* strasts within the pericope also indicate coherence. Between 4:14 and 5:1 are contrasts that appear to be intentional and suggest that 4:14 introduces the whole pericope. Willis argues for three such contrasts: (a) between the present "judge," who is treated contu- meliously, and the future "ruler," who comes according to Yahweh's will; (b) between Jerusalem, the political and religious centre of Judah, and Bethlehem, an insignificant town; (c) between reliance on military strength, which ends in failure, and reliance on Yahweh, which ends in success. Furthermore, 13*7 in 5:2 follows from both 5:1 and 4:14, not just from 5:1 (see below). Finally, independent of any affinities adduced with preceding pericopes in chapters 4 and 5, there are unmistakable similarities between 4:9, 11, and 14. All three begin with njy and are addressed to Zion ("Daughter of Marauders" is a derogatory reference to Zion; see below), and all three depict a time of distress followed by a word of promise. It thus appears that 4:14-5:5 forms a coherent unit because of the intentional contrasts within the pericope itself and the affinities with the immediately preceding pericopes.

The coherence of a unit also raises the question of the authenticity and dating of the pericope. Although earlier critics had questioned the authenticity of isolated fragments of Micah, it

2

authentic material. In the most recent commentaries on Micah,

J. Mays follows in the tradition of Stade, that is, that "authentic" material is only found in chapters 1 to 3. There was notable resist-

3

ance to Stade's analysis, which, in the more recent commentaries, can be found in Rudolph, Allen, and Vuilleumier. These commentators find genuine Mican material throughout the book and, as opposed to Mays who argues that Micah prophesied only for a short period of time during Hezekiah's reign (cf. Jer 26:18), they appeal to the whole dating schema of Mic 1:1— that Micah prophesied during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.

We argue in the exegesis below that 4:14 and 5:1 probably stem from Micah and perhaps arose as a result of Sennacherib's invasion of Palestine (cf. 2 Kgs 18ff.). However, 5:2 and 3 appear to be a later, perhaps exilic, redaction which brings Micah's

prophecies into line with those prphecies found in Isa 7:14, 9:6, and 11:1. Finally 5:4 and 5 represent an originally independent oracle of weal which also has been appended to the preceding, probably by the same exilic tradent who appended 5:2 and 3 to 4:14 and 5:1, to show that the nationalism of this oracle (5:4 and 5) can only be accomplished through God's chosen ruler and not according to their own political and military strength.

Numerous philological and syntactical problems confront the exegete throughout the pericope. In 4:14, no agreement on the meaning of T n A HI ’TTAnïl has emerged since the earliest

translations. Also, in 4:14, Qy is often emended to the pi. Bethlehem in 5:1 is sometimes omitted on the basis of the LXX. Moreover, îll’îl*? causes problems for translators. This has been especially true in the Christian tradition, because Matthew quotes this with the addition of a negative particle. Identifying

the antecedents to ’V TOO has elicited various responses through­ out the history of exegesis. In the final stichos of 5:1,

has been the source of heated debate and sometimes fanciful specu­ lation. In 5:2, explaining how ID*? follows from the preceding verse is problematic. The subject of D3iP is unexpressed, as well as to whom the pi. pron. suf. refers. Whether the "woman in

travail" represents Israel or a prophecy of an actual birth is still debated. Mic 5:3 is relatively free of exegetical problems. The major point of disagreement is whether the root of is

n y , as with 113TP? in 5:2, or 317? , as the MT suggests. The enigmatic HT iT>m in 5:4 remains problematical. Some commentators have suggested that should read with the LXX and as a more suitable term parallel to TUYINI Finally, in 5:5 n’finoi is. explained as a lance of some sort, or a fortified barrier. The emendation of to the pl., thus making it conform to the other pi. forms in 5:4 and 5, has been

suggested. Thus, there are numerous exegetical problems to be resolved in this short pericope.

Finally, the question whether we can properly speak of this pericope as a "messianic" prophecy has arisen especially because of modern critical treatments of the passage. This problem, how­ ever, reaches back to the Patristic period, as is evidenced by the comments of Theodore and Theodoret, and , later, in Nicholas de Lyra.

Mic 4:14-5:5 presents interesting problems for the translator