Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary

Abstract

Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Frances I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman. AB 24E. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Pp xxv + 637. $42.50. commentary on Micah is, like previous volumes in Anchor Bible series by same authors, a traditional philological enterprise. A fairly short introduction discussing text and ancient translations (pp. 3-5), place of book in corpus of twelve minor prophets (pp. 6-7), literary units of book (pp. 7-14), paragraph markers in Hebrew manuscripts (pp. 14-16), and organization of materials in book (pp. 16-29) is followed by a painstaking literary and linguistic analysis of individual units of book (pp. 101-601). commentary is complemented by an extensive bibliography (pp. 31-99) and some indices (pp. 603-37). Andersen and Freedman deliberately focus on present text of book of Micah, as that is only form of book known to us (pp. 16-17, 21-22). According to them, oracles have been arranged in three books: chs. 1-3: The of Doom; chs. 4-5: The of Visions; and chs. 6-7: The of Contention and Conciliation. long-standing discussion on composition of book of Micah thus seems to have come full circle, as their arrangement matches traditional threefold division of materials in book (doom [chs. 1-3], hope [chs. 4-5], and doom and hope [chs. 6-7]), challenged by J. T. Willis, L. C. Allen, and others in past three or four decades. repetitious Summons to Hear in 1:2; 3:1; 6:1 and awkward position of Oracle of Salvation in 2:12-13 occasioned these scholars to divide book of Micah into three sections each composed of Oracles of Doom (1:2-2:11; 3:1-12; 6:1-7:6) and Oracles of Hope (2:12-13; 4:1-5:14; 7:7-20). Andersen and Freedman readily accept presence of these and similar structural features in text, but are inclined to attach more weight to long-range inclusions they perceive in oracles against Samaria (1:6-7) and Jerusalem (3:12) in Book of Doom, oracles focusing on disarmament, which open and close Book of Visions in 4:1-5 and 5:9-14, and resolution of covenant dispute in Book of Contention and Conciliation (pp. 23-24). random selection of a few inclusions out of many, however, may hardly do justice to multitude of structural features in present text of book. Andersen and Freedman may well be right in asserting that numerous links and patterns that may be perceived cannot be reconciled with one single outline or plan, but they turn as a matter of principle a blind eye to possibility that these sometimes conflicting structural features may hint at different layouts for book in various stages of its composition history. Their rigorous concentration on present form of book is equally questionable with regard to dates they attach to oracles. To be sure, they explicitly refrain from dating individual texts: It cannot be done (p. 26). In fact, however, they uncritically date bulk of materials in accordance with superscription: the days of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, to decades immediately before fall of Samaria as book betrays no knowledge of this incident (pp. 185-86, 386-87, 390-91). Again, Andersen and Freedman readily acknowledge that book contains materials from Neo-Babylonian era-although they find no evidence that hints at a date later than fifth century (p. 20). In view of acclaimed focus on present form of book, however, it may come as a surprise that they stop well short of dealing with book of Micah as a product from exilic or early exilic period. Once it is decided that [t]o extent that chapters 4-5 are a distinct `book,' we almost have a case of `all or nothing.' main act of composition must have been performed during or shortly after Micah's lifetime, or else during Exile . …