more religious hardly ventured to name the king openly. The reign of Manasseh best complies with these conditions.

The next important contribution to the discussion was made by We. (Bleek's Einl., 4th ed., 1878, pp. 425 f.). He follows Ew. in assigning 61-7 to the reign of Manasseh, but concludes that 77-20 was added during the Exile. He summarises his argument as follows: "Thus the situation in 77-20 is quite different from that in 71-6. What was present there, viz., moral disorder and confusion in the existing Jewish state, is here past; what is there future, viz., the retribution of v. 4b, has here come to pass and has been continuing for some time. What in vv. 1-6 was still unthought of, viz., the consolation of the people, tempted in their trouble to mistrust Yahweh, is in vv. 7-20 the main theme. Between v. and v. ' there yawns a century. On the other hand, there prevails a remarkable similarity between vv. 7-20 and Isaiah, chs. 40-66." (Quoted from Dr.Intr., p. 333.) Ew.'s view, as modified by We., has been accepted fully, or with but slight variations, by Sta. (ZAW., I, 1881, 161 ƒ.), WRS. (Enc. Brit., art. Micah), Che., Kue. (Einl., II, 363 f.), Cor. (Einl., 1891, 183-6), Pont (Theol. Studiën, 1892, p. 340.), Kö. (Einl., 1893, pp. 329f.), Dr. (Intr., pp. 333f.) and Du. (Zwölf Propheten, 1910). Cor., however, for a time maintained the authenticity of these chapters (ZAW., IV, 1884, 89 f.; so also Kirk., Doctrine of the Prophets, 1892, pp. 229 f.; and van H., 1908), urging (1) that everything which may be brought forward in support of their origin in Manasseh's day applies equally well to the time of Ahaz (2 K. 163; cf. Mi. 67). (2) That the origin of the book would be inexplicable if Micah's work ceased with ch. 3, for chs. 4-5 are enough to offset the gloomy tone of chs. 1-3-why then should there be added a section from the time of Manasseh having no inner connection with chs. 4-5? On the hypothesis of the late origin of chs. 6-7, they should immediately follow chs. 1-3, since they give reasons for the drastic punishment there threatened. (3) That 61-70 shows traces of the author of chs. 1–3, having perfect parallels in them (e. g., 19. 13 — 616) as well as in the addresses of Isaiah from the reign of Ahaz. (4) That a late working over of 77-20 must be granted.

Now. at once replied (ZAW., IV, 288 ff.) to Cor. (1) that chs. 6-7 contain no thought not expressed in chs. 1-3 which could serve as a reason for the threat in 312; reasons enough are stated in chs. 1-3; anything further would be superfluous; (2) that ch. 6 cannot be regarded as a continuation of 312 since the representation in 61 a. is wholly different from that in 12. and scarcely consistent with it; (3) that the judgment in 312 comes because of the sins of the leaders, priests and prophets, whereas in 6-7 the charge is quite general (72) and against no special classes; (4) that if chs. 6-7 come from the time of Ahaz, as Cor. declares, they can hardly state the grounds for the judgment in chs. 1-3, uttered in the time of Hezekiah (Je. 2618); (5) that the prophet who so sharply

antagonises the wicked leaders in the time of the comparatively good king, Hezekiah, would not be likely to let them pass almost unnoticed in the reign of Ahaz, an exceedingly wicked king; (6) that "my people' is the object of the prophet's compassion in chs. 1-3, but in chs. 6-7 it is the object of his wrath.

Wildeboer, in 1884 (De Profeet Micha, p. 57), adheres to Micah's authorship, stating (1) that differences in artistic structure and manner of presentation do not necessarily involve different authorship; (2) that as there was human sacrifice under Ahaz and also under Manasseh, it is quite probable that there were some who practised it, at least in secret, in the time of Hezekiah; (3) that in 73 the words "prince," "judge," "great one" are used collectively and thus disprove the charge that the leaders are not denounced in these chapters. In 1887, Ry. defended the authenticity of this material on the following grounds. The chapters were written in the beginning of Hezekiah's reign when conditions were essentially the same as under Ahaz. The religious formalism alluded to in 66. 7. 10-12 is wholly out of keeping with the reign of Manasseh. 71-6 is an independent section and the immorality there described was possible in Hezekiah's day; but if it must be interpreted literally, it is intelligible neither as coming from Hezekiah's reign nor from that of Manasseh. The hope of return from Assyria and Egypt is indicative of pre-exilic origin; in Deutero-Isaiah the place of exile is always Babylon and Chaldæa. But if the chapters must be assigned to Manasseh's reign, it is still reasonable to assign them to Micah, who may have been still living. In 1887 also, Sta. (Geschichte d. Volkes Israel, I, 634), expressed his conviction of the postexilic origin of ch. 6. In 1890, Gie. (Beiträge zur Jesaiakritik, 216 ƒ.) declared himself with Ew. as to 61-7′, but assigned 77-20 to postexilic times. Elh. (1891), on the other hand, endorses the arguments of Cor. and Ry. in behalf of authenticity and attempts to ease all difficulties of connection by placing chs. 6-7 immediately after chs. 1-3 and by rearranging the text in this order: 61-5 71-6 66-16 713 77-12 714-20 In 1892, We. again puts himself on record (Kleine Proph., 2d ed.), still maintaining the possibility of Micah's authorship, even in the age of Manasseh, for 61-8, declaring 69-16 independent of its context and without indications of definite date, assigning 71-6 to the period of Malachi, and following Gie. with reference to 77-20. In 1893, Kosters, in connection with a searching review of Elh.'s commentary (ThT., XXVII, 249–274), suggested the postexilic origin of these chapters, citing many words and phrases as characteristic of postexilic language and thought. These chapters were written to explain the fall of Jerusalem as due to the corruption of the generation contemporary with that disaster, it being no longer believed that the children are punished for the sins of the father. The position of GASm. (1896) is near to that of We., for he holds to Micah's authorship of 61-8, is undecided as to 69-16 and 71-6 and regards

77-20 as a psalm composed of fragments from various dates, of which 714-17 points to the eighth century B.C. by its geographical references, and 711 to the period between the fall of Jerusalem and its rebuilding.

Now., in his commentary (1897; 2d ed., 1905), considers the reign of Manasseh a possible date for 61-76, but denies Micah's authorship even were he then alive. He would locate 77-20 in the period between the decree of Cyrus and the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Dr.Intr. is inclined to agree with Ew. and to deny the necessity of separating 77-20 and assigning it to a later age. Che. (EB., art. Micah), makes both chapters postexilic and finds them concerned with the ubiquitous Jerahmeelites. Sta. gives a long list (ZAW., XXIII, 1903, 164–171), of postexilic parallels to 77-20 and assigns the whole of 6–7 to the postexilic age (in Bibl. Theol. d. Alt. Test., 1905, p. 230).

Marti (1904) calls chs. 6–7 “a conglomerate, held together by the conviction that deliverance must finally come, though the sins of the present demand the continuance of God's wrath." Of this conglomerate 61-5 is editorial expansion; 66-8 belongs probably to the fifth century, possibly to the sixth; and ch. 7 to the second century B.C. Bu. also resolves the two chapters into fragments and places them all in the postexilic age (Gesch., 1906). The last commentator, van H. (1908), insists upon the unity of the chapters and upon Micah's authorship, basing it all upon the hypothesis that the two chapters are concerned with Samaria, not Jerusalem, and finding it necessary to transpose 711b-18 to follow 7° (see ad loc.).

Hpt. (1910) allows Micah only 33 lines of text in chs. 1-3. Chs. 4-7 are assigned to the Maccabaean period (170-100 B.C.), while 12-7 is a poem written in celebration of the destruction of Samaria by John Hyrcanus in 107 B.C. This represents a step beyond the conclusions of the foregoing critics, in that Hpt. leaves Micah less than any previous scholar and is confident in his assignment of the non-Micah material to the Maccabaean period and even to the specific years to which the several poems belong. Unfortunately, this confidence cannot be shared by scholars at large until more definite and convincing considerations are forthcoming.

The conclusions arrived at in the following commentary may be briefly summarised. There is no logical unity within chs. 6 and 7; they resolve themselves into seven sections, no one of which connects closely with either its preceding or its following sections. The possibility of Micah's authorship remains open for 69-16 and 71-8, but is wholly excluded for the remainder. These two sections, together with 613, might be placed in any period of Hebrew history subsequent to the appearance of the great prophets. 6-8 seems

to reflect the wisdom of the sages and to belong in the earlier half of the postexilic age. 77-10 and 714-20 come apparently both out of the same conditions; Israel is suffering but hoping, looking back with longing upon the good old days and praying for vengeance; they are best located in the later postexilic period, after the work of Nehemiah and Ezra. 711-13, however, is wholly detached from its context and is to be explained as coming from the period after the fall of Jerusalem, but before the rebuilding of the city walls. The two chapters thus seem to be a collection of miscellaneous fragments, coming from widely scattered periods and from at least four different authors.

5. The Formation of the Book of Micah.

Various attempts have been made to trace the growth of the book of Micah, starting from chs. 1-3, its original nucleus. The views of Kosters and Elhorst have been already mentioned. Marti considers 41-4 and 66-8, joined together by 45, the first addition to chs. 1-3; since they reveal the closest sympathy with the ethical tone of Micah. This constituted the book as it existed in the fifth century B.C. Somewhere between this period and the second century B.C., by various unknown stages, 48-514 and 69-76 were incorporated. Finally, in order that the prophecy might not end with denunciation, the Maccabaean psalms in 77-20 were added. Cornill (Einl.) follows Kosters in part, making 61-7° the first addition to chs. 1-3. This combined product underwent two revisions, first receiving as insertions 41-4. 11-14 1-3, 6-14, and being completed by the addition of 212. 13 45-10 51. 577-20, from the hand of the final redactor. Sievers, however, finds the growth of the book connected with the length of the various poems which constitute it. In chs. 4-7, as rearranged by Sievers, it happens that the longest poem comes first in each chapter, and the succeeding ones are added in the order of their length. It is quite evident that all attempts of this sort are futile, and that in the absence of any definite data it is impossible to secure general acceptance of any scheme, however ingenious. This portion of the history of the book is lost beyond recovery.

§ 2. THE PROPHET MICAH.

I. His Name.

Little is known of the man Micah. Our sources of information regarding him are very limited, being confined to chs. 1-3 and Je. 2618. The name Micah was doubtless common among the Hebrews; more than a dozen individuals bear it, in one form or another, in the Old Testament. The possession of this name, meaning "Who is like Yahweh ?", is no indication of any unusual degree of religious fervour on the part of the prophet's parents or family; names containing the name of a deity are very common in all Semitic literature, and in the Old Testament are not infrequently borne by individuals whose parents were not noted for religious zeal; e. g., the children of Ahab and Ahaz, to-wit, Hezekiah. No allusion to his family is made in the superscription or elsewhere, a fact which may argue for his humble origin as a man of the people, like Amos; or may merely be another indication of the self-effacing character of the prophets. Concerning the lineage of no less than six of the prophets nothing is recorded.

I

2. His Home.

The appellation "Morashtite" (11 Je. 2618) is applied to Micah to distinguish him from the many other bearers of his name; and particularly from his predecessor, Micaiah ben Imlah, with whom he is confused in 1 K. 2228, where a phrase from his book is ascribed to the earlier Micaiah. This descriptive term apparently identifies his home with Moresheth-Gath (14). This name implies a location in the low hills bordering upon Philistine territory. The list of towns in 110. over which the prophet pours out his grief seems to have been selected from the same region and so to confirm this location of Moresheth. Furthermore, in the Onomasticon and in Jerome's preface to Micah, Moresheth is declared to be a small village to the east of Eleutheropolis, the modern Beit-Jibrin.