MICAH,
BOOK
OF
struction
of
Jerusalem;
but
certain
elders
cited
against
the
priests
and
proptiets
the
precedent
of
Micah
the
Morashtite,
who
had
made
a
similar
prediction
In
the
days
of
Hezekiah,
and
yet,
so
far
from
being
put
to
death,
had
led
his
people
to
repentance;
In
citing
this
case
the
speakers
quote
the
words
with
which
Mlc
3
closes
{see
Jer
26,
esp.
vv."-").
Of
course,
the
citation
of
this
single
verse
does
not
prove
that
even
the
first
three
chapters
of
the
Book
of
Micah
were
then
In
cir-culation
in
their
present
form;
but
the
narrative
in
Jeremiah
shows
that
Micah,
a
century
after
he
prophesied,
ranked
as
a
prophet
of
judgment,
and
Micah
1-3
is
pre-eminently
prophecy
of
judgment.
The
two
verses
(2'2')
which
interrupt
the
general
tenor
of
chs.
1-3
with
a
promise,
represent
Israel
as
scattered,
and
appear
to
pre-suppose
the
Exile;
they
are
certainly
not
part
of
the
preceding
prophecy,
and
probably
are
an
insertion
in
the
book
after
the
time
of
Jeremiah.
It
is
held
by
some
that
the
Book
of
Micah
known
to
Jeremiah's
contemporaries
also
lacked
the
following
portions
of
chs.
1-3:
—
l'-s»-
'■
!»-"
25.
Note,
for
example,
that
1'
stands
most
awkwardly
before
1',
which
may
give
the
reason
for
1',
but
certainly
not
for
1'.
Yet
the
grounds
given
for
deleting
these
passages
In
order
to
recover
the
earliest
form
of
the
Book
of
Micah
are
by
no
means
In
all
cases
equally
conclusive.
For
the
teaching
of
Micah,
see
preceding
article.
Two
not
quite
identical
questions
now
naturally
arise:
Did
the
Book
of
Micah
in
the
time
of
Jeremiah
extend
beyond
ch.
37
Do
chs.
4-7
contain
any
proph-ecies
of
Micah?
The
answers,
so
far
as
they
can
be
given,
must
rest
mainly
on
Internal
evidence.
What
suggestion
the
narrative
of
Jer
26
offers
in
this
connexion
may
best
be
put
In
the
form
of
a
question.'
Could
the
elders
have
cited
(Jer
26'*)
the
words
of
Mic
3'=
if
those
words
were
then,
as
now,
immediately
followed
(Mlc
4'-*)
by
a
glowing
description
of
the
future
glory
of
Jerusalem?
Would
they
not
thereby
have
given
the
priests
an
opening
to
say
that
Micah's
life
was
spared
because
he
repented
of
his
blasphemy
against
their
city
and
spoke
of
its
glory?
Chs.
4.
S
appear
to
be
a
cento
of
brief
prophecies,
several
of
them
being
fragments
as
follows:
4'-'-
'•
«-8.
9.
10.
u-13.
51.
2-6.
7-s.
10-H.
The
flrst
of
these
(4i-<)
stands
also
In
the
Book
of
Isaiah
(22-<).
Neither
In
Isaiah
nor
in
Micah
Is
the
passage
connected
either
with
what
precedes
or
with
what
follows;
owing
to
mistransla-tion,
EV
indeed
suggests
that
4'-'
Is
the
contrast
to
3'^;
'but
for
'but'
In
4'
must
be
substituted
'and'
as
in
RV
Itself
In
Is
2'.
The
verses
contain
a
prophetic
poem
of
20
short
lines
(two
of
which
were
omitted
in
Isaiah)
;
as
the
same
Psalm
(14=53)
was
included
in
two
separate
collections
of
Psalms,
so
this
poem
was
not
unreasonably
thought
worthy
by
two
editors
of
prophetic
literature
to
be
Included
In
their
collections.
It
Is
impossible
to
examine
here
in
detail
the
remaining
sections
of
these
chapters;
some
seem,
if
naturally
interpreted,
to
pre-suppose
the
dispersion
of
Israel
at
the
ExUe;
see
e.g.
49-8
57^
where
promises
of
a
bright
future
are
made
to
Israel,
who
has
already
been
reduced
to
a
remnant;
some
passages
contain
the
expectation
of
a
judgment
on
the
nations
in
general
(4"
5"),
which
is
certainly
more
conspicuous
in
the
later
prophets
than
In
those
of
the
age
of
Micah;
in
4"-"
Ziou
seems
to
be
regarded
as
inviolable
—
a
point
of
view
strikingly
different
from
that
with
which
Micah
was
popularly
identified
(Mic
3'',
Jer
26'8).
In
5'"-"
there
is
little
or
nothing
incon-sistent
with
an
eighth
century
origin;
read
by
them-selves,
without
v.",
they
are
not
necessarily
a
prophecy
of
promise,
but
rather
of
judgment.
Here
(and
per-chance
in
5'),
if
anywhere
In
chs.
4.
5,
we
may
look
for
Micah's
work;
for
though
so
early
an
origin
of
these
verses
is
not
certain,
neither
Is
it
certain
that
they
are
a
piece
of
late
reproductive
prophecy.
Turning
next
to
chs.
6.
7,
we
remark
first
that
since
Ewald
the
allusion
to
sacrificing
the
firstborn,
and
MICHAEL
certain
other
features,
have
been
commonly
considered
to
point
to
the
period
of
Manasseh
as
that
in
which
chs.
6.
7
were
written
—
a
date
which
would
not
quite
necessarily
exclude
Micah's
authorship,
for
Manasseh
began
to
reign
about
695
B.C.
In
6>-'
some
points,
such
as
the
use
of
'burnt-offer-ing'
(not
'
sin-offering')
and
the
nature
of
the
allusion
to
Balaam,
may
be
more
easily
explained
if
the
passage
be
at
least
pre-exlllc.
The
classical
prophetic
definition
of
religion
with
which
this
section
closes
(6'),
though
it
embraces
and
summarizes
the
fundamental
teaching
of
Amos,
Hosea,
and
Isaiah,
does
not
pass
beyond
it—
a
fact
which
is
thoroughly
compatible
with
Ewald's
theory,
though
not,
of
course.
In
Itself
a
proof
of
its
correctness.
But
it
is
more
than
doubtful
whether
chs.
6.
7
should
be
treated
as
a
single
prophecy;
6»-i»
and
?'-•,
though
scarcely
a
continuation
of
6>-',
are
not
obviously
separated
from
It
at
all
widely
in
situation
or
time.
On
the
other
hand,
as
compared
with
7'i-
'-'k
show
a
marked
difference.
Wellhausen
(cited
by
Driver,
LOT'
332
f.)
has
tersely
summed
this
up.
'7^"^
consists
of
a
bitter
lamentation
uttered
by
Zion
over
the
corruption
of
her
children:
and
the
day
of
retribu-tion,
though
ready,
is
yet
future,
7'.'
In
V-^"
'
Zion,
indeed,
Is
still
the
speaker;
but
here
she
has
already
been
over-powered
by
her
foe,
the
heathen
world,
which
is
persuaded
that
by
its
victory
over
Israel
it
has
at
the
same
time
van-quished
Jahweh
(7'°).
The
city
has
fallen,
its
walls
are
destroyed,
its
inhabitants
pine
away
in
darkness,
i.e.
in
the
darkness
of
captivity
(7*-
").
Nevertheless,
Zion
is
still
confident,
and
though
she
may
have
to
wait
long,
she
does
not
question
her
final
triumph
over
the
foe
(7^-
8.
loa.
n).
She
endures
patiently
the
punishment
merited
by
her
past
sins,
assured
that
when
she
has
atoned
for
them,
God
will
take
up
her
cause
and
lead
her
to
victory
(7^).
What
was
present
in
7'-*,
viz.,
moral
disorder
and
confusion
in
the
existing
Jewish
State,
is
in
7'-™
past:
what
is
there
future,
viz.,
the
retribution
of
7*'',
has
here
come
to
pass,
and
has
been
continuing
for
some
time.
Between
7'
and
7'
yawns
a
centuiy.'
Briefly,
then,
the
history
of
the
Book
of
Micah
seems
to
have
been
this:
a
summary
of
the
teaching
of
the
prophet
Micah,
not
improbably
prepared
and
written
by
himself,
was
well
known
in
Jerusalem
at
the
end
of
the
seventh
century
—
a
century
after
the
lifetime
of
the
prophet.
This
small
book
was
re-edited
and
pro-vided
with
its
present
expanded
title,
and
enlarged
by
the
addition
of
a
collection
of
prophetic
pieces,
some
of
pre-exlllc,
and
several
of
post-exilic,
origin.
It
is
not
necessary
to
suppose
that
this
added
matter
was
orig-inally
attributed
to
Micah,
though
subsequently
it
came
to
be
regarded
as
his
work
In
the
same
way
as
Isaiah
40-66
and
Zee
9-14
came
to
be
looked
upon
as
writings
of
Isaiah
and
Zechariah
respectively.
The
final
stage
in,
the
history
of
the
book
was
its
incor-poration,
probably
towards
the
close
of
the
3rd
cent.
B.C.,
in
the
great
prophetic
work
'The
Book
of
the
Twelve.'
It
is
impossible
to
determine
through
how
many
stages
of
editorial
treatment
the
book
passed,
but
some
of
these
stages
certainly
fell
within
the
post-exilic
period.
The
most
convenient
Enghsh
commentaries
are
those
by
T.
K.
Cheyne
in
the
Cambridge
Bible,
and
R.
F.
Horton
in
the
Century
Bible,
"The
discussion
and
new
translation
from
an
emended
text
in
G.
A.
Smith,
Book
of
the
Twelve
Prophets,
1.
355
&.,
will
be
found
most
valuable
and
helpful.
G.
B.
Gray.
MICAIAH.—
See
Micah.
MICE.
—
See
Mouse,
and
Magic,
569>>.
MICHAEL
('Who
Is
Uke
God?').—
1.
Father
of
the
Asherite
spy
(Nu
13").
2.
3.
Two
Gadites
(1
Ch
6'").
4.
The
eponym
of
a
Levltical
guild
of
singers
(1
Ch
6").
5.
Name
of
a
family
in
Issachar
(1
Ch
7'
27").
6.
Eponym
of
a
family
of
Benjamites
(1
Ch
8'=).
7.
A
Manassite
chief
who
joined
David
at
Ziklag
(1
Ch
122°).
8.
A
son
of
king
Jehoshaphat
(2
Ch
21^).
9.
The
