miqueas 1.full

8/12/2019 miqueas 1.full

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/miqueas-1full 1/19

http://jot.sagepub.com/ Testament

Journal for the Study of the Old

http://jot.sagepub.com/content/23/77/103The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/030908929802307708

1998 23: 103Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Ehud Ben Zvi

Micah 1.2-16: Observations and Possible Implications

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

at: can be foundJournal for the Study of the Old Testament Additional services and information for

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 1998Version of Record>>

by Héctor Molano on November 12, 2012 jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jot.sagepub.com/


http://jot.sagepub.com/content/23/77/103


http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


http://jot.sagepub.com/content/23/77/103.full.pdf







http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://www.sagepublications.com/





103-

MICAH 1.2-16: OBSERVATIONS AND POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS*

Ehud Ben Zvi

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2E6

1. Introduction

A full discussion of Micah 1 is beyond the limits of any article, but the

following observations may contribute to a better understanding of the

historical community in which and for which, Mic. 1.2-16 was com-

posed as a written text, namely, the first community of readers and re-

readers.’ The reference to re-readers is a must in this context because

it is most likely that prophetic books were not read once and then put

aside, but read, re-read, meditated upon, edited, redacted, copied and

the like. If this is so, then most of the readers of the book-even

within the community for which the book was written-were in fact

re-readers. It is, moreover, reasonable to assume that the writers of

these books were well aware that this was the case. The present analy-sis thus differs from many

previousstudies2 in its focus on some of

* An oral version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Canadian Society of Biblical Studies held at Montreal, June 1995.

1. On this issue and its implications, see E. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Studyof the Book of Obadiah (BZAW, 242; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1996), § 1.2.2, and

passim. See my previous work, ’Studying Prophetic Texts Against Their Original

Backgrounds: Pre-ordained Scripts and Alternative Horizons of Research’, in S.R.

Reid (ed.) Prophets and Paradigms. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (JSOTSup,

229; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 125-35.2. Within the realm of historical-critical studies see, for instance, K. Elliger,

’Die Heimat des Propheten Micha’, ZDPV 57 (1934), pp. 81-152; G. Fohrer,

’Micha 1’, in F. Maass (ed.) Das ferne und nahe Wort (Festschrift L. Rost; BZAW,

105; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), pp. 65-80; J.T. Willis, ’Some Suggestions on the

Interpretation of Micah I 2’, VT 18 (1968), pp. 372-79; V. Fritz, ’Das Wort gegen








104

the features of the written text of Mic. 1.2-16. The assumptions gov-

erning this paper and setting its research strategy are set out below.

(a) The world presented to the (re-)readers of the book of Micah in

general, and Mic. 1.2-16 in particular is above all a literary world. It

may include direct references to the historical circumstances at the

time of composition, and is likely to contain information about, and

show a perspective that is congruent with, the putative time in which

the speeches are set in the book, that is, the days of Jotham, Ahaz and

Hezekiah, as the community in which the book was written construed

them. Direct historical referentiality cannot be assumed, nor datingadvanced on the basis of the tense of the verbs used by a speaker.

(b) This being so, the most secure starting point in historical-critical

studies of the text of Mic. 1.2-16 is not a possible and still speculativereconstruction of the text of a presumed, original proclamation of a

(reconstructed) historical prophet, but rather the text of the propheticbook3 and its literary world. Thus the starting questions for the typeof study proposed here are not ’Is it likely that an eighth-century

prophet prophesied so and so?’ but ’What kind of story about God, an

eighth-century prophet,Israel, and the like is told to the community

of readers and re-readers of this text? How does this story reflect the

circumstances of and shape the community of re-readers? What are

Samaria Mi 1 2-7’, ZAW 86 (1974), pp. 316-31; J.L. Mays, Micah (OTL; Philadel-

phia : Westminster, 1976), pp. 38-60; B. Renaud, La Formation du livre de Micheé

(Paris: Gabalda, 1977), pp. 9-59; H.W. Wolff, Micah (Minneapolis: Augsburg,1990 [German orig. 1982]), pp. 39-66; D.R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia; Philadel-

phia : Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 16-30; C.S. Shaw, ’Micah 1.10-16 Reconsidered’,

JBL 106 (1987), pp. 23-29 and idem, The Speeches of Micah (JSOTSup, 145;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 32-67; M. Alvarez Barredo, Relecturas

Deuteronomisticas de Amós, Miqueas y Jeremias (Murcia: Instituto Teológico Fran-

ciscano, 1993), pp. 84-89.

Even the simplest overview ofmodem historical-critical research on these verses

shows a vast disagreement among scholars concerning (a) the text of Mic. 1.2-16,

and esp. vv. 10-15, (b) its redactional history, and (c) the historical circumstances

referred to, or reflected by a proposed first layer(s) of the text. Despite substantial

disagreements concerning its precise contents, the latter layer is usually associated

with the historical figure of the eighth-century prophet Micah and his message. Suchan association, of course, defines the set of potential historical circumstances that

may be taken into account as possible (historical) backgrounds for the message of the

(reconstructed) earlier version of the text that later became Mic. 1.2-16 (to be, of

course, distinguished from Mic. 1.2-16).3. Of course, there is a role for textual criticism at this stage.








105

the main features of the intended audience of this text? Is it likely that

the intended audience resembles the actual (re-)readers of the text?’4

2. Observations

2.1 Introduction

It is interesting that already the first verse following the heading of

the book contains at least one case of ambiguity,5 one of unclear ref-

erent (most likely a connoted double-referent), and an apparent

grammatical ’oddity’ involving a change in person.6 It is from these

basic observations that our investigation begins.

2.2 Ambiguity: Significance and Context

It is reasonable to assume that the intended audience of the text would

notice that IDD in 7Db DDD i11i1&dquo; ’7~~h &dquo;i1&dquo;17 may be (re-)read as

’against you’ or ’among you’, or both.’ Modem scholars dealing with

4. Cf. Ben Zvi, Obadiah; idem, ’Studying Prophetic Texts’.

5. I prefer to use the term ’ambiguity’ for any case of potential indeterminacy,

whether it involves ’lasting indeterminacy’ or not. Cf. Ben Zv1, Obadiah, § 1.2.2(pp. 3-6), and see R.A. de Beaugrande and W.U. Dressler, Introduction to Text

Linguistics (London: Longman, 1981 [German original 1972]), p. 84.

6. For instance, in addition to the cases discussed in the body of this paper, one

may draw attention to? in Mic. 1.2 (see Mal. 3.5; Ps. 50.7), and compare it with

?, ’for the booty,’ (Gen. 49.27; Isa. 33.23; Zeph 3.8) and ?, ’forever’ (e.g.,Isa. 30.8; 64.8; Amos 1.11; Mic. 7.18). The text in Mic. 1.2 (and in other similar

instances; e.g., Zeph. 3.8) allowed, and most likely suggested multiple connotations

to the intended audience; cf. E. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of The Book of

Zephaniah (BZAW, 198; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1991), pp. 220-23.7. The mentioned text occurs as a motivation/explanation clause; that is, the ? is

epexegetical. See B.K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical

Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §33.2.2.On the issue of the double divine name here see D. Barthélemy (et al.), Critique

Textuelle de l ’Ancient Testament (OBO, 50.3; Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires;

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), III, pp. 711-12.

8. It is true that the type of discourse in Mic. 1.2 favors ’against you’ as the

salient meaning of the text. Since the context suggests that the indictment is against

Samaria and Judah—or, from a larger perspective, against ’Israel’ /Yahweh’s people(that is, the group characterized in theological/ideological terms)—but neither against?? nor? ?, it seems most reasonable that at least upon re-reading (and

meditating upon), the audience of this book would have wondered about this ?.

See below.

It is also worth noting that? is not marked by its preceding context as pointing








106

this text have often tended to reconstruct an original, univocal readingof the text by allowing only one of these two potential readings.’ In

any case, these scholars have not missed its ambiguity, and indeed one

may conclude that among modern as well as ancient (re-)readers

ambiguity has admirably fulfilled its role as ’attention getter’ .’For

mainly or only to the meaning ’against you’ (to the exclusion or ’among you’ or

’concerning you’). In fact, the text seems to require its intended audience to developa ’clear’ understanding of what the text is about, and of its type, only after they have

read more than Mic. 1.1-2. They need the following verses. But these verses, on the

one hand, contribute to the shaping of a scheme about the text being read in which

the ’default expectation’ is to understand? as ’against you’, but on the other,render this interpretation dubious.

(Mediaeval Jewish interpreters tended to solve the conflicting [re-]reading expec-

tations by limiting the referent of?? to the tribes of Israel [the adduced refer-

ence in this regard is Deut. 33.19] andof ?? to the land of Israel [see Radak

and Abrabanel] rather than by dealing with the possible meaning that? could have

carried. This way of ’solving’ the problem seems less likely to reflect that of the

intended audience of Mic. 1.2-16 than the one advanced here. Notice the ’rarity’ of

their understanding of the pair?? and of? ?.)

9. Thus, for instance, A. Weiser, Die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja,Jona, Micha (ATD, 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 8th edn, 1985),

pp. 232, 235-36; Wolff, Micah: The Prophet (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981),

pp. 32-33 prefers the translation ’among’—and cf. LXX, but see Willis, ’Sug-gestions’, p. 376; whereas Hillers, Micah, p. 17, and probably a majority among

modem scholars, support the meaning ’against’.Of course, there are also some scholars who tend to follow a more intermediate

position. See, for instance, C.J. Dempsey, ’The Interplay between Literary Formand Technique and Ethics in Micah 1-3’ (dissertation, The Catholic University of

America, 1994), pp. 66, 91.One may mention that Redaktionsgeschichte approaches to the text (such as those

advanced by Renaud and Nogalski) do not solve the issue of how? was most

likely (re-)read by the community of (re-)readers for which Micah 1 in its ’final form’

was composed, unless one assumes that these (re-)readers or at least the intended

audience of the book adopted an strategy of (re-)reading based on a diachronic/his-

torical or layer-based arrangement of texts. But if so, if such an arrangement was

meant to be the main interpretative key for the (re-)reading of the text—in itself a

difficult proposal, why did the authors of the text not leave any clear, textually

inscribed markers that might help the (re-)readers of the book to (re-)read it in the

way they intended to be (re-)read? Were they misleading on purpose?For the aforementioned approaches, see Renaud, Formation, pp. 12, 53-54 and

J. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW, 271; Berlin:

W. de Gruyter, 1993), pp. 129-30, 140-41.

10. On ambiguity as attention getter see Ben Zv1, Obadiah, §§2.2.3, 2.3.3, 3.4,








107

the ancient (re-)readers were surely not unaware of the ambiguity,

especially since the text seemed to contradict their ’default’ (re-)readingtendencies (see above). If so, they had to decide whether DDH conveys

a sense akin to ’against you,’ or ’among you’, (or perhaps ’concerning

you’), or a combination of these meanings-or is a case of polyva-lence.

Of course, the more meaningful the differences between the possi-ble (re-)readings, the more important the (re-)readers’ understand-

ing(s) of DDH. In this case the issue at stake is not peripheral in the

theological/ideological discourse of the community(ies) for whom this

text was

composed(or edited in its final form). What kind of scheme

were the ancient (re-)readers expected to develop, by the first verse

after the title,11 about the text they were (re-)reading? The choices

were: (a) the nations (in fact ’all the earth and what is in it’) are con-

cerned with Yahweh’s judgment of Israel, but are asked only to wit-

ness that judgment, without being judged themselves; (b) the nations

are to be judged, convicted and punished, perhaps in addition to

Israel; and (c) a possible combination of (a) and (b), as envisaged in

Isaiah 34.12Perhaps

the choice was deferred

bythe

original(re-)

readers at this point in the text, so as to develop their understanding in

the light of what follows.

If this phrase was understood as a call to the nations to act as wit-

nesses against Israel, then what kind of message did that convey to the

4.3, 5.2.5, 8.3; E. Ben Zvi, M. Hancock and R. Beinert, Readings in Biblical

Hebrew (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993) pp. 120, 151-52, 154-55; idem,

Zephaniah, pp. 84-86; 185-87, 220-23, 227-30; and the bibliographies in these texts.

11. See Ben Zvi, Obadiah, § 1.2.2 (and passim); idem, ’Studying Prophetic Texts’.

12. Of course, contrary to Mic. 1.2, and in this regard only, the meaning of the

call in Isa. 34.1 becomes clear already in v. 2. Compare with, for instance, Jer.

25.30-31. Hillers, Micah, p. 19, and others, suggests that the imagery of the nations

here is a transformation of the conception of the divine council. Even if one would

agree that this type of imagery is ’genetically’ related to that of the divine council,from the viewpoint of a historical critical analysis of the book of Micah, still the case

should be made that the community of readers for which this book was written was

aware of this ’genetic’ relationship, and understood the reference to the nations inMic. 1.1within the context of a (transformed) divine council. No convincing case

has been advanced in this respect, nor does the text suggest that the divine council or

its transformation were actual issues in the horizon of thought of the intended audi-

ence. In contrast, there is clear evidence in the text that points to the underlying pres-

ence of issues raised by the two other approaches mentioned above.








108

(re-)readers? Are the nations called because they have to be concerned

with the divine judgment over Israel?’3 Will they also incur devasta-

tion-in which case is it implied that the nations are about to suffer

because of Israel’s sins?&dquo; Or are they to act as witnesses because theywill enforce God’s punishment over Israel, as explicitly claimed in

numerous instances in prophetic literature?’Significantly, both

approaches find support in ancient Near Eastern material collected byDaniels,16 and all the more by the subsequent text in Micah l. In fact,vv. 3-4 describe a shattering, destructive theophany whose extent is

presented as universal. This theophany is explicitly explained as a con-

sequence of Israel’s wrongdoing. Yet the key term conveying ’univer-

sality’ is somewhat ambiguous: r~t~ in v. 3 seems to convey a meaningcloser to ’earth’ than ’land’ in v. 2, because the same term appears in

v. 2, and there it suggests to the readers a universal referent. Yet

when the word occurs in v. 3, it is in the form of ’~’~t~ ~n1~:;1 (kethib)or Y’1t~ ’’nQH (qere), whose resemblance to 771,71 n1~:;1 in v. 5 was

unlikely tobe missed by (re-)readers attentive to the numerous repe-

titions, puns, alliterations and other worplays that characterize Micah

1. Thus, the text develops a trajectory from a universal ’earth’ to a

land of Judah.17 A (re-)reader aware of vv. 2-7 is thus likely to pon-

der whether Y~t~ in v. 3 means ’earth’ or ’land’ (that is, the land of

Israel); from the viewpoint of v. 2, the former is more likely, but

from the perspective of vv. 5-7, the latter. In fact, ’~’~~ seems to play aJanus role, looking both forwards and backwards in the text, associat-

ing vv. 3-4 with v. 2 on the one hand, and with vv. 5-7 on the other.&dquo;g

13. See the following destructive theophany (and see discussion below).14. Cf. Zeph. 1.18; also cf. Jer. 4.22-28 where even if one accepts that the

salient meaning of ? there was restricted to ’land’ (that is, the land of Israel; see

v. 26, and even v. 25b), the more general connotations of the imagery are quite strong.15. It is worth stressing that a mirror set of questions arises when one approaches

texts such as Jer. 30.10, and see, for instance, Isa. 66.18-21.

16. Cf. D.R. Daniels, ’Is there a "Prophetic Lawsuit" Genre?’, ZA W 99 (1987),

pp. 339-60 (356-58).17. Of course, in this type of instances one may use terms such as ’progression’

or better ’pattern of progression’ (which are relatively common in socio-rhetoricalstudies) rather than ’trajectory’. Yet I am somewhat uncomfortable with the possibleconnotations of the term ’progression’ in relation to a text that (a) contains Janus

markers—see below—and (b) is constantly (re-)read within a community of (re-)readers. Hence, ’trajectory’ will be used in this paper.

18. Cf. Dempsey, Interplay, p. 95.








109

It is worth stressing that the ambiguity created by ’~’~i~ and emphasizedby its double duty function mirrors an ambiguity about the question of

whether the nations will suffer because of Israel’s sins.

Our attention turns now to the second possibility, namely whether

the nations are supposed to enforce the punishment of Israel. The

numerous images of military defeat in ch. I certainly seem to answer

this question. Yet it is worth noting that neither the implied success of

the nations in battle, nor the focus of the description of divine judg-ment against Samaria, Judah or Jerusalem requires the (re-)readers to

think that ’the nations’ are ’off the hook’ or that nothing more will be

said about them

(cf.Mic. 5.4-5, 6-8; 7.15-20; 4.1-5). The nations

summoned in v. 2 may act as conquerors, but still be called for judg-ment, and accordingly the basic ambiguity of this part of v. 2 cannot

be removed. 19

Finally, the prophet is described as having the power and the

authority to summon all the nations, the entire world and all that is in

it (cf. Mic. 6.1 ). This prophetic power and authority are presented as

self-evident, with no need for explanation. The persuasive way in

which this characterization of the

prophet shapesthe

readingof the

book of Micah from the outset is worth noticing. 20

2.3 Unclear Referent: Significance and Context

The phrase iv7p ?:,,’i1 (that is, ’his holy temple’), also in v. 2, is most

likely an intentionally unclear reference that may be (re-)read as indi-

cating a heavenly temple, the Jerusalem temple, or both. The ambi-

guity conveys a close association between the divine and the earthly

temple,21which

would be congruent with the Jerusalem-centred

19. Compare with the common image of Babylon and Assyria as both conquerors

sent by Yahweh and also as worthy of divine punishment, at least partially because

of their conquests.20. Of course, one may claim that this had to be the case, otherwise the book

would not have been acceptable as ’prophetic’. But in any case (cf. Jonah), the claim

to authority is noteworthy; in fact, its ’transparency’ is a most useful device whose

purpose is to strongly characterize the personage of the prophet as it evolves in the

book.21. The reference in Ps. 11.4 is often interpreted as pointing to the celestial

temple, though it is not absolutely necessary. The references in Jon. 2.5, 8 and

especially those in Pss. 5.8; 79.1; 138.2 point to an earthly temple (which may or

may not have ’celestial’ connotations in the discourse of those who wrote and read

these texts) but see Hab. 2.20. Wolff (Micah, p. 55) and others maintain that the








110

character of Micah 1, and with Micah as a whole (e.g., Mic. 1.9, 12;

3.10; 4.1-5, 8-12). In any event, this is a case of an ambiguous refer-

ent in the service of a theological/ideological stance, and the attention-

getting role of ambiguities in prophetic literature is again to be

noted.22

But 1iD’P ~~&dquo;j1is only one of many expressions and terms in Micah

1 that communicate more than one meaning. To mention a few from

elsewhere in this chapter, the word generally translated as ’good’ in

v. 12, ~1t!), may also connote ’sweetness,’ (see above), so it may be set

in opposition to n11r,j, which may refer to ’bitter things’ or to ’rebel-

lion’ or both. 21 Moresignificant,

and with much more at stake, both

W¡&dquo;j1 and ~~1iD&dquo; 71nD in v. 15 allow for more than one interpretation.For instance, iD1&dquo;j1 may mean ’(rightful) inheritor’ or to ’dis-

possessor’;24 ~~1iD&dquo; ’1~~, that is, ’the honour (or glory) of Israel’ may

be understood as Israel’s wealth, might, army, or even Yahweh.25 If

so, v. 15 as a whole, could have evoked more than one possible

reference in Mic. 1.2 is likely to refer to the heavenly sanctuary; but cf.

R. Vuilleumier, Michée (CAT, 11b; Geneva: Éditions Labor et fides, 2nd edn,

1990), p. 16; Hillers, Micah, pp. 19-20.

22. Cf. Song 1.2-3; see Hillers, Micah, p. 26.

23. Cf. A.J. Petrotta, Lexis Ludens: Wordplay and the Book of Micah (American

University Studies, 7.105; New York: Peter Lang, 1991), pp. 77-78.

24. Cf., for instance, Hillers, Micah, p. 28.

25. For instance,? most likely refers to army in Isa. 8.7 and 21.16, and to

wealth in Num. 24.11; Isa. 10.3; 66.12. Yahweh is referred to as the honour/gloryof Israel in Jer. 2.11; Ps. 106.20 (and cf. Deut. 10.21; Ps. 3.4). Notice also the

ironical use of ? in Hos. 10.5.

According to the tradition of tiqqûnêsoferîm, the relevant references to the’gloryof Israel’ in Jer 2.11 and Ps. 106.20 are the result of textual emendation, but tiqqûne

soferim may also ’refer to an exegetical process and not to a textual phenomenon’(E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis : Fortress Press;

Aasen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum; 1992], p. 265), and especially concerning these

verses, see W. McKane Jeremiah I: Introduction and Commentary on Jer I-XXV

(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), p. 34; A.A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms

(NCB; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,

1972), p. 742; H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen 60-150 (BKAT 15.2; 6th edn; Neukirchen-

Vluyn : Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), p. 903. A common line of interpretation associ-

ates? N? with David and the Davidic king (e.g., Renaud, Formation, p. 27;

Wolff, Micah, p. 63). But neither the expression demands nor the context requiressuch an interpretation. Cf. Hillers, Micah, p. 28.








111

scenario.26 The ancient readers (or re-readers) for whom Micah 1 was

first written were presumably left to ponder.

2.4 Grammatical Oddity: Significance and Context

Finally a somewhat ’unexpected’ change of person also occurs in v. 2.

One finds there 0’7~ (that is, ’all of them’) immediately after the voca-

tive. It is true that this is not an extremely odd case, for a movement

to the third person is also found in Isa. 54.1 and Ezek. 21.30 in rela-

tively similar contexts ’27 but still, it calls attention to itself.2’ Gram-

matical shifts involving person, gender, and number are a well known

feature of Micah I and are

especially frequentin vv. 10-15.29 As

Berlin has shown, they serve to enhance stylistic variety,3° but changesfrom the second to the third person and vice versa (as the one in v. 2)also point to a blurring of the differentiation between direct and

indirect modes in the presentation of speeches assigned to different

26. One may also notice the repetition of the initial combination of consonants?

in v. 15, which seems to lead to a climactic?’? ?’ ?. Significantly,in a text so fond of puns, plays on (denoted and connoted) words and of ’witty and

instructive’ (geographical) names as Mic. 1.10-15 (cf. Petrotta, Lexis, pp. 70-85;

Peckham, History and Prophecy [ABRL, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993]

p. 286)? may have evoked in the (re-)readers a secondary, underlying expres-

sion, namely the very common in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible? (cf.

Peshitta). If so, then not only is the texture of the text much richer, but the meanings

evolving out of the (re-)reading(s) of the text within the historical community carry

multiple facets informing each other. Significantly, there is no doubt that the wittyand instructive character of the language present here is a textually inscribed feature

of the text. It seems that it provided an interpretative key to the intended audience for

their (re-)reading of the text. It is likely that such a language was chosen by the

writer(s) from the outset because of its ability to express multi-layered or polyvalentmeanings.

27. See Hillers, Micah, p. 16 and bibliography mentioned there. See also

P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 14;2 vols.; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991), §146.j.2.

28. It is worth mentioning that as with? in v. 2, most modem researchers have

paused to study and discuss the presence of? in this text, which has thus certainlyserved as an ’attention getter’.

29. For a list of examples concerning the latter see, for instance, Peckham, His-

tory, p. 361. (Peckham explains the frequent change in address in terms of choral

quality.)30. A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana Uni-

versity Press; 1985), pp. 40-41; J.L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism

and its History (New Haven: Yale University Press; 1981), p. 22.








112

characters in the text. This confusion of modes of representation asso-

ciates the voice reporting that a speaker (a character in the hook) said

so and so with the

speakerhimself

(or herself),while at the same time

acknowledging their separate existence.3’ The tendency towards a

fusion of voices here-for other cases see below-helps to associate

the reporting voice with the image of the prophet Micah, to whom so

much authority is assigned in this text.32 Yet the merging of voices

maintains the vividness of the direct address so as to communicate to

the readers the impression that the voice who is telling them that

Micah said so and so and even the (re-)readers themselves are-as it

were-actually there.33 Suchan

impression unites the text and its (re-)readers and enhances the claim for the faithfulness of the text, and

indirectly for the ’actual’ greatness of Micah. Both claims strengthenthe authority and legitimacy of the written text, for it is only throughthe reading of this text that people may access the prophet. The

authority claimed by the authorial voice for the character Micah, and

for itself (and perhaps, indirectly, for the writer of the book) builds

up the authority of the written text.

The clear tendency in this text is not to show explicit grammaticalor textual markers alerting the readers of changes of speakers. As a

result, it is often claimed that the speaker in vv. 2-4 is ’the prophet’,and that in vv. 5-7 it is Yahweh, and then again ’the prophet’ in both

31. An acknowledgment that even in direct reported speech in a narrative frame,

the narrator is the one who write the character’s words is reflected, for instance, in

Judg. 16.18, which reads: ?

?

Of course, the stronger the tendency towards consistency and grammatical con-

gruency, the stronger the inclination to ’emend’ the text. Such a trend is observable

in the qere of Judg 16.18. As for ? in Mic. 1.2, the Syriac points to this trend, but

MT is not only the most difficult reading, but also repeated in 1 Kgs 22.28 and

2 Chron. 18.27. See Hillers, Micah, p. 16.

32. One may note, in passing, that the reporting voice is ’invisible’ as it were for

many readers and interpreters of the text who ’perceive’ only the voices of Micah and

Yahweh. Moreover, at least some of these readers tend also closely to associate these

two voices. The ’merging’ of the voices discussed here (see also below) serves as a

textual device that contributes to the shaping of such reading approaches.33. Cf. J. Sanders, ’Affective Functions of Perspective in Biblical Narratives and

News Reports’, in G. Rusch (ed.), Empirical Approaches to Literature: Proceedingsof the 4th International Conference of Empirical Study of Literature, IGEL,

Budapest, 1994 (Siegen: LUMIS, 1994), pp. 291-97.








113

vv. 8-9 and 10-16.34 However, the text does not require readers to

alter their assumption about who the speaker is when they move from

v. 4 to v. 5,35 but then the contents of v. 6 suggest to them the most

likely speaker is Yahweh. Verse 5 turns, in fact, into a ’Janus’ verse,

looking to both what precedes and what follows, and accordingly,creates an area of overlap between the speech of two characters,Yahweh and the ‘prophet’.36 Thus the text is written so to require the

readers to develop a fluid scheme about who talks, to whom, and

about whom in this text. The prophetic ’I’ and the divine ‘I’ merge

into one another.

A similar fluidity is encouraged with respect to those addressed in

this text. These are first the nations, then probably an Israelite or

Judahite audience (though there are no markers), then a list of Juda-

hite cities, and finally a female figure that seems to evoke the image of

’daughter Zion’ (see v. 16). The text never becomes explicit.3’ The

34. For a recent exception, see T.K. Beall, ’The System and the Speaking Sub-

ject in the Hebrew Bible: Reading for Divine Abjection’, Biblical Interpretation 2

(1994), pp. 171-89.35. In fact, since sentences beginning withX-? occur elsewhere in the Old

Testament/Hebrew Bible in Prov. 12.13 and 28.2, 29.6, the language of the verse

may suggest that the speaker is human and not divine. The change from a style that

evokes a hymnic setting to one evoking a wisdom setting suits well the movement

from a description of a theophany to an explication of its reasons, and does not

necessitate the presence of a new character as a speaker, as apparent transgression of

types of discourse or genres are common literary devices to draw the attention of

readers, both in antiquity and in modem times because they play contrary to common

expectations. See, for example, 1 Chron. 23.12-15 and Jon. 1.2-3.36. A comparable instance occurs in vv. 8-9. On somewhat different grounds,

Dempsey (Interplay, p. 83) has recently advanced the claim that vv. 8-9 ’look for-

ward and backward simultaneously’.Vv. 8-9 describe the expected, and correct response to what precedes them: lament

and mourning. Such a response carries almost inevitably some elements of self-

humiliation. A secondary and connoted characterization of Yahweh as (it were?)

suffering and mourning because of Israel and its calamity is not certain in this case,

but surely not unimaginable. See Isa. 63.10 (cf. Judg 10.16); and also E.S. Gersten-

berger and W. Schrage, Suffering (Biblical Encounters Series; Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1980), pp. 98-102. On these issues cf. Beal, ’System’, esp. pp. 180-81.

37. Note in this regard the position advanced by von Orelly (cf. Vuilleumier,

Michée, p. 16) that first half of v. 2 is addressed to the nations, whereas the second

half to Israel (that is that the second person plural referred to by the? discussed

above actually points to Israel). Still, at the least the salient referent there is ’the








114

third person references, mostly feminine, show a trajectory of refer-

ents related in one way or another to the earth, the nations, and espe-

cially to Israel and Judah. A recurrent image in this group is that of

the shameful woman, associated with both actions and consequences.&dquo;Whereas the second person, and most of the third person tends to be

portrayed in a negative way, the first person in Micah 1 is always

presented in a positive and authoritative way.39These considerations suggest that the consistent blurring of differ-

ences between the speakers, on the one hand, and the addressees on the

other, by means of areas of overlap and identity confusion is not onlya stylistic device to get the attention of the (re-)readers of the book,

but serves the purpose of associating certain ’entities’ with one another

in the discourse (mental space) of the (re-)readers: the nations with

sinner Israel and the prophet with Yahweh.

2.5 Additional Ways of Associating Entities in Micah 1

The suggestion that the text creates an association between the nations

and sinner Israel is strengthened by v. 7 which links the two by dif-

ferent means.4° The close bond between God and

prophetis not

onlyconveyed by the zones of overlap mentioned above, but also throughthe specific contents of the text and its precise wording. God’s words

in vv. 5-7 are written in such a way that they presuppose those said by

nations’. For a summary of previous scholarship on Mic. 1.2, see Willis, ’Some

Suggestions’.38. The exceptions are the references related to God (for example, v. 4). Need-

less to say, the recurrent use of the image of the shameful woman reflects (and con-

tributes to) a particular horizon of social thought. This issue deserves, however, a

separate discussion.

39. Lament, mourning and the related self-humiliation are presented in this text as

a positive and rightful response to the proclamations there. If the speaker is described

in such terms, then the speaker is described in a very positive light. See also discus-

sion above.

40. The worship in Samaria is associated with a harlot’s fee, and so seems to be

the worship of the nations. For a different understanding that also enhances the idea

of a similarity between Israel and the nations see Hillers, Micah, pp. 20-21.

A common proposal is to emend? in v. 7 to the pual (for example, BHK, cf.

DCH; the Peshitta, the Tg, the Vg and some Hebrew MSS). Watson maintains that

? is not a verb, but a suffixed noun, which he renders as ’her gathering’ meaning’her pantheon’. See W.G.E. Watson, ’Allusion, Irony and Wordplay in Micah 1,7’,Bib 65 (1984), pp. 103-105. For? as ’what can be bought with "hire/fee"’, see

Isa. 23.18.








115

the prophet in vv. 2-4. In turn, those assigned to the latter in vv. 8-9

presuppose the divine speech in vv. 5-7.41 Moreover, the precisewording that the authorial voice attributes to God and to the prophetincludes some clear cross-references (for example MnT in vv. 5 and 8,

r-IR ’’mQ3 and n71n’ mQ3 in vv. 3 and 5 respectively). A conscious

process of linking one speech to the other likely played a role at the

level of the writing of this section.

Verse 8 links 1~OQ and 1n (that is, lamentation and jackal) on the

one hand, and ~3~ and ~73~’ nn (mourning and ostrich) on the other;

both pairs occur only here in the entire Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.

7£on and ~3~ (lamentation and mourning) on the one hand,

Inand

i1lV’ rim (that is, jackal and ostrich) on the other, are common pairs(cf. Gen. 50.10; Jer. 6.26; Amos 5.16; Est. 4.3; and Isa. 34.13; 43.20;

Job 30.29 respectively) available to the writer. Given that the context

calls for ’lamentation and mourning’ in v. 8, the presence of the first

pair is something to be expected, and so is that the parallel structure

be based on the splitting of this pair. But why would the writer wish

to link lamentation and mourning to ostriches and jackals, just in this

text ?42

Taking into account the pervasive use of word plays and repetitionsof sounds, it is reasonable to assume that 1n (jackal) in v. 8 was chosen

not only because it was contextually possible (cf. Job 30.29-21) but

also because it plays on the word pnn which occurs three times in the

preceding verse. Then, once the word In entered into the text, then

~~3~’ nn its common word-pair, swiftly followed it, and thus the read-

ers of the text were introduced to two word associations that do not

occur elsewhere in the Old Testament/HebrewBible,

7£on -

Inand

~=R - i1:J.!i’ FQ. In sum, v. 8 points to a most likely deliberate effort to

phrase the prophet’s speech so as to develop a literary link to the

speech assigned to God, in the preceding subunit.43

41. Notice? ? in v. 5 and? ? in v. 8. Compare, for instance, with the

recent work of Dempsey, Interplay, pp. 82-83. Dempsey also argues that vv. 8-9

look both forward and backward.

42. The references to? and?’ ? serve to convey an image opposite to that of

’culture’ and city life. But such an image could have been evoked by other animals,and by other parallel lines; the issue remains why only here we have the two associa-

tions mentioned above.

43. For example W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Tech-

niques (JSOTSup; 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press; 1984), pp. 136-44. On the general craft

of composition in biblical Hebrew, see L. Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew








116

The utilization of similar words and expressions to bind togetherdifferent subunits, and in some cases to build a network of cross-

references is well attested in Micah 1. For instance, the expression~~7t~1~’ 1~iV in v. 12 points back to D?iDi1&dquo;-1~ &dquo;~1’ nDv~7D v. 9, in the

previous subunit, or vice versa. The latter subunit is, as we have seen,

linked in turn to vv. 5-7, which in turn presuppose vv. 2-4. In addi-

tion, v. 12, with its unique 1’1 11&dquo; seems to ask its readers to relate

it directly to v. 3. Significantly, the latter conveys the image of

Yahweh’s ’coming down’ (7-l’) for destruction.

2.5

Cross-referencesand

Transformations:The Case

of’Israel’

The most extensively worked, and the most stressed of these trans-

formations or trajectories concerns the term ’Israel.’ This term occurs

four times in Micah 1, in vv. 5, 13, 14, 15. In v. 5 the parallelismbetween ::lp1’’’ 1’iD~::l and ?~1iD&dquo; n’3 m&t3nm (that is, between the trans-

gression of Jacob and the sins of the house of Israel) suggests to the

readers that the terms ’house of Israel’ and ’Israel’ are likely to pointto Jacob, that is, the northern kingdom. The second part of the verse

seems at first to confirm this, for it reads

1i1~iD~i?i1

::lp1’’’1’iD~-&dquo;~

(’what [or who] is the transgression of Jacob? Is it not Samaria?’), yetthe conclusion of the verse brings a nuance, for it reads mQ3 ’01

D?iDi1&dquo; ~i?i1 i11ii1&dquo; (’what/who is the high place [possible connoted

meaning ’grave’, memorial’, or ’burial mound’44] of Judah? Is it not

Jerusalem?’). In other words, from the point of view of the structure

of the verse, X71n’ ni~::l is to ?~1iD&dquo; n’3 ni&t3n as ::lP1’’’ 1’iD~, in the

second line is to ::lp 1’’’ 1’~~ in the first line. It is true that structural

equivalencedoes not mean semantic

equivalence,but

againstthe back-

ground of the two identical references to ::lP1’’’ 1’iD~ and the various

referents of ’Israel’, one must raise the possibility that the text evoked

or reflected an equation of Israel with Judah. The other three refer-

ences to ’Israel’ are in the context of a text discussing the fate of

Judah, and its towns. ?~1iD&dquo; &dquo;1’iD~ in v. 13 (that is, ’the transgressionsof Israel’) can hardly point to the northern kingdom alone. In fact, its

Poetics (Subsidia Biblica, 11; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988), pp. 180-200.44. See Ezek. 43.7 (and cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel [Hermeneia; Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1983 (German original 1969)], II, p. 409); Isa. 53.9 (cf. R.N. Why-

bray, Isaiah 40-66 [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan &

Scott, 1981], p. 178); Job 27.15. Shaw, Rudolph and others emend to? (e.g.,Shaw, Speeches, p. 33, but see Wolff, Micah, p. 42).








117

most likely referent, within the context of vv. 10-15, is either Judah

or a theological concept of Israel that is associated, or equated at the

practical level, with Judah. The referent of ~~1iD~ ’0~’Q, ’the kings of

Israel’ in v. 14, is most likely, at least at the plain level of the text,

’the kings of Judah’. But a text that calls them ’the kings of Israel’

strongly suggests to the audience that Israel is Judah, which means that

Israel here cannot refer to the northern kingdom, but functions as a

theological concept. A similar theological/ideological discourse is

most likely responsible for other occasions in which the expression’king of Israel’ is clearly used in reference to a king or kings of

Judah, in Chronicles (e.g., 2 Chron. 20.34 [cf. I Kgs 22.46]; 21.2;

28.19, 27; 33.18).45 The fourth and last reference to ’Israel’ in chap-ter one is in the expression ~~‘1t~’ 71nD (v. 15). This expression is not

unequivocally ’determined’: it may point to several referents (see

above), but significantly none of them is likely to be the political insti-

tution of the northern kingdom. Israel here may denote either directlya theological/ideological concept of ’Israel’, or Judah, and if so, it

would convey indirectly the concept that Judah is Israel, and accord-

inglyIsrael here would be that

theological concept.46The text here

thus transforms the meaning of Israel from a likely, but not certain,reference to the northern kingdom, to a concept that may include it,

but most likely refers to Judah, to two instances pointing in one way

or another to Judah and theological Israel, so implying their close

association.

I would like to make a passing mention of another trajectory, that

of the words in the construct attached to Israel in Micah l. They move

from MINnrl to

IDVJE,to

1:~n,and

finallyto

71nD. Admittedly,there is

45. Ancient versions, some Hebrew MSS, and Sebirin point to a reading ’king of

Judah’ rather than ’king of Israel’ in 2 Chron. 21.2 and 28.19; but as the evidence

from Sebirin already suggests, the former is the simpler reading from a contextual

perspective. On Sebirin see I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah

(Masoretic Studies, 5; Missoula, MT; Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 62-64, and E. Tov.

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 64.

46. I have discussed elsewhere the centrality of the idea that theological Israel is

to be associated with monarchic Judah, exiled Israel (that is, exiled Judah), and

returnee Israel (that is, the community centered around Jerusalem in the Persian

period). See Ben Zvi, ’Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel as Conveyed by the

Use of the Term "Israel" in Postmonarchic Biblical Texts’, in S.W. Holloway and

L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström

(JSOTSup, 190, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 95-149.








118

more than one way to understand this sequence, especially because of

the multiplicity of meanings created by ~t~~G~’ 71nD. The number of

ambiguousterms, connoted

meanings,word puns that work at more

than one level or direction, and the like that are found in Micah 1

make it improbable that the resulting multiplicity of meanings is an

accident due to ’blind chance’ or happy coincidence. Instead, it seems

that they play an integral and substantial role in shaping the message

of the text for the community of (re-)readers.

3. Implications

First, and to state the obvious, these observations all point to the

’writtenness’ of Mic. 1.2-16. The ’writtenness’ and the associated

demands upon the intended audience presuppose intended, and very

competent, (re-)readers, not one-time listeners. Since it is unlikelythat the actual audience of Mic. 1.2-16 was completely different from

the intended audience presupposed by this text, then these considera-

tions strongly suggests that the actual, historical, rhetorical situation

of Mic. 1.2-16-at least in itspresent

form-is not that of a

livingprophet orally addressing the people, but of a community of readers

(re-)reading and meditating upon a written text. 41 Such a historical,rhetorical situation is consistent with that of the book of Micah as a

whole, which is certainly not an oral text.

This is not to deny that there could have been a prophet Micah in

the eighth century who could have addressed his audience orally. The

point is that neither the (re-)readers of the book of Micah in generalnor

those of Mic. 1.2-16 in particularare

’hearing’ the voice of thatprophet or his words; rather they (re-)read a written text about a per-

sonage Micah, and through their (re-)reading of the text/book-and in

way that is informed by their understanding of the putative time of

Micah-they reconstruct as it were a ’historical’ figure of their past,the prophet Micah. This figure may, may not, or may only partiallyreflect some aspects of the historical prophet Micah, if there was

one-which is likely but still unverifiable. In any case, one cannot

simply assume that the Micah of the text (that is, the Micah ’of thetradition’) fully resembled or even had to resemble a historical Micah

who lived in the eighth century. 48

47. Contra Shaw, Speeches.48. Significantly, much effort in historical-critical studies of Micah has focused








119

Second, the numerous ambiguities, multiple meanings, trajectories,and the lack of certainty about referents point to a text written to be

read and reread by a highly educated group, and written by a member

of this elite of literati.49

Third, written works are written first for people who can read. Of

course, their message may be communicated to others, but always

through the intermediation of those who can read. Moreover, giventhe aforementioned literary features and their demands upon the (re-)

readers, this intermediation cannot be possibly equated with readingaloud to the illiterati.

Fourth,the more the text is considered a

gatetowards divine

knowledge-as prophetic books certainly claim to be-the more the

educated (re-)readers and interpreters (and indirectly those who sup-

port them) play the social role of brokers of the divine for the rest of

the population, and for themselves. In this regard their function is

similar to that of the authorial voice in the book which reports to the

intended audience of the book about ’the word of Yahweh that came to

Micah...’, and to the prophetic voice in Micah which addresses sev-

eral audiences in the world created by the book.The educated

(re-)readers, interpreters and writers, the authorial voice and the propheticvoice are all brokers of divine knowledge. Moreover, the closer the

authorial and prophetic voices in the text are associated with Yahweh,and accordingly, the more solid their role of brokers is, the more

significant is the role of the readers, rereaders and interpreters of the

prophetic text as brokers themselves. 50

Fifth, these observations, though limited to only a few points in

Micah 1, serve to illuminate some aspects of the world of thought that

on the reconstruction of the ’historical Micah’ (see above). One may notice, how-

ever, that the historical figure of the eighth century prophet Micah and his message is

reconstructed on the basis of redactional (or compositional) hypotheses concerning

Mic. 1.2-16, which in turn are often both shaped by the scholar’s perception of what

could have been the most likely message of an eighth century prophet such as Micah.

(It is perhaps worth mentioning that there are clear social, cultural and theologicalreasons for the emphasis on the figure of the ’historical prophet’ in modern histori-

cal-critical scholarship. A study of these reasons deserves a full monograph.)49. As a parenthetical remark, I would mention that this shows that one can learn

more by focusing on the intended audience of the book than on the characterization of

those addressed by Micah in the literary world of the book.

50. These issues have been discussed in a more detailed manner in Ben Zvi,

Obadiah, passim.








120

characterized the community in which the book was written, amongthem:

1. A strong focus on Judah, and especially Jerusalem/Zion.2. An acceptance, at least at some level, of the world view that

Israel is, as it were, Judah, which is consistent with the men-

tioned focus on Zion/Jerusalem, and in my opinion, typical of

the post-monarchic period.&dquo;3. An image of monarchic Judah (and Israel) as a sinful com-

munity worthy of divine punishment.4. An underlying wondering and pondering about the role of

the nations, by themselves, and vis-A-vis Israel, in the divine

economy.

5. A tendency to focus, at least on the surface, either on the

monarchic past or the utopian future, rather than on the post-monarchic present.52

Significantly, all these tendencies are widespread in post-monarchicliterature.53

ABSTRACT

Several textual observations concerning the text of Mic. 1.2-16 suggest that the

intended audience (and likely the actual audience) of the text consisted of a group of

educated literati who assumed the role of brokers of divine knowledge for the largercommunity. This article also points to some particular aspects of the world of thoughtof the community for which this text was written.

51. See Ben Zvi, ’Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel’, esp. pp. 129-49.

52. This tendency is consistent with the relative absence of direct information in

Achaemenid period literature about the actual, present Jerusalem temple as opposedto the plethora of references to both the past and future Temple(s). The ’suspension’of the present in favour of the past and future so common in this literature deserves a

study of its own.

53. My thanks are due to Professor Carol J. Dempsey, University of Portland,with whom I discussed, at length, the oral version of this paper. I am also indebted

to those who were patient enough to listen to this paper at the 1995 CSBS meetingand gracefully enough to comment on it.

miqueas 1.full

Documents