Abstract
Johannes C. de Moor’s contribution to the Historical Commentary on the Old Testament series is a welcome addition to the scholarship on the book of Micah. As always it begins with an excellent introduction to the issues surrounding the study of the prophet, including how much can be attributed to the prophet himself and how far he was influenced by contemporary Neo-Assyrian prophecy. With this, de Moor notes 12 points of similarity between biblical and extra-biblical poetry, of which the sixth is described as ‘an extremely important new datum’ (p. 6), noting that the real addressee of the prophecy was the ruling king, queen or magistrate and thus it is vitally important that the prophecy be understood within its historical context. There is often a great deal of scepticism among scholars about the original nature of much biblical prophecy (particularly among the writing prophets), and thus a reluctance to accept that much can possibly be original. Dr de Moor asserts that more has been preserved of Micah’s own words than is often admitted, as well as identifying six passages which he believes are later editorial additions to prophecies that may be regarded rather as remnants of Micah’s teaching. These redactional additions have the purpose of mitigating Micah’s harsh message. The redactor grouped the prophecies in such a way as to alternate salvation and doom. Editorial additions are printed in a smaller font size, and the textual units are separated by horizontal lines or blank spaces to indicate the פ and ס we find in the manuscripts. In order to establish the best possible manuscript tradition for his commentary, de Moor has checked more than 100 manuscripts. He dates the authentic prophecies to the period between 734 and 700 BC and the redactor’s messages of salvation to the rather later period of 628–400 BC. These are presented in a helpful tabular form outlining the prophecy and its result.
The commentary itself follows the structure familiar to this series: author’s translation; essentials and perspectives; scholarly exposition; exegetical comments. The exegetical comments section contains the vocalised Hebrew text and uses a variety of sources, with a few quotations included in French and German, others being translated. Attention is also given to the reception history of Micah in the texts of Qumran, Church Fathers and rabbinic sources, such as Rashi and Ibn Ezra. It is a pity that the commentary is marred by a number of orthographical and syntactical errors as well as inconsistencies of spelling, which could have been avoided. None of these change the meaning or make the text illegible, but they spoil the overall impression.
The Hebrew text and English translation are often presented side-by-side, which is a very good way of enabling the reader easy access to both languages, as well as highlighting the sparse and condensed nature of the Hebrew language. This is made visible at first glance for the Hebraist and non-Hebraist alike. We also find a very interesting reference to Hans Fallada’s Jeder stirbt für sich allein and its similarity to Micah and his time (p. 327), thereby showing again the relevance of prophetic literature to the modern era as well as its own time.
The book concludes with the usual thorough bibliography (works in 6 languages) and a list of the 52 black and white illustrations and photographs that we find throughout.
Scholars of Micah or prophetic literature will certainly gain much from this book, and many university libraries with courses on the prophetic corpus will also wish to acquire a copy. Whilst much in the book is aimed at the specialist, the interested non-specialist will also gain much from it.