* wil ia 7 τς ταν, τ 
 : Ἅ te etek eee ar 
 νυν ἴντα. Ἀρῆμα δα τωρ τι 
 
 
 
 ecb ule as το τωρ σον ἔων δὲ συξυλόωσεσωρύρι σι Rake e oh oie 
 AT ἀρ κῶς nearer Pg ye a ὅν 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 ¢i 
 «ΜῊΝ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 Genie ἯΝ ὙΠ Ν᾿, 
 
 ῃ ἡ ᾿" 
 
 id ui Sint) 
 
 wah 7 
 Ἢ ϊ bare Setar fe whe | 
 ‘yoy oa ἢ os y ( 
 me ot ciel 
 
 
 
 
Α 
 
 ἣν" 
 
 > Sine 9 
 fF bp MI 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 MASSORETIC TEXT 
 
 AND THE 
 
 ANCIENT VERSIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 fi BOOK. OF MICA. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN TAYLOR, M.A. (Lonp.). 
 
 Kal εἰ μὲν καλῶς καὶ εὐθίκτως TH συντάξει τοῦτο καὶ αὐτὸς ἤθελον: εἰ δὲ 
 
 εὐτελῶς καὶ μετρίως τοῦτο ἐφικτὸν ἦν μοι.---2 Macc. xv. 38. 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
 anp 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 1890 
 
LONDON: 
 PRINTED BY GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, LD., 
 ST. JOHN’S HOUSE, CLERKENWELL ROAD, E.C. 
 
Pan PAC Tr. 
 
 
 
 In the writer of an essay on the text of Micah it would 
 be mere affectation to profess that he has attacked the 
 subject without knowing, and to some extent being 
 affected by, the views of others. He would at the outset 
 lie open to the pertinent inquiry into the reason for his 
 selecting this particular portion of the Old Testament. 
 The present writer was fully aware of the existence of 
 two directly opposed opinions, one of which holds the 
 Massoretic Text to be in an extremely unsatisfactory state, 
 whilst the other maintains that it has undergone but 
 little corruption. But it seemed to him quite feasible to 
 work out his own conclusions by careful observation of 
 the phenomena presented by the current Hebrew Text 
 and the Ancient Versions, and then to reconsider those 
 
 conclusions in the light of the various results which his 
 
 ~ 
 
iv Preface. 
 
 predecessors have obtained. In this way a substantial 
 independence would be secured whilst the unpardonable 
 presumption would be avoided of leaving unnoticed the 
 work already done. The consequence of this reference to 
 the criticisms of others has in some cases been the altera- 
 tion or modification of the views adopted and in others 
 the retention and defence of them. Ryssel’s ‘ Unter- 
 suchungen iiber die Textgestalt und die Hchtheit des 
 Buches Micha” calls for special mention in this con- 
 nection. Much of the matter found in these notes is 
 _also to be found in Ryssel. But it is believed that the 
 difference between the modes in which this common 
 matter is handled in the two essays respectively will 
 sufficiently prove that the remarks common to both have 
 not been borrowed. No two men can traverse the same 
 ground on the same quest without being struck by the 
 same prominent features, and it would have been an 
 unworthy yielding to the fear of being accused of 
 plagiarism to delete what had been written on finding 
 that it had been in greater or less part anticipated. 
 
 The result of the inquiry into the character of the 
 Massoretic Text needs hardly any other setting forth than 
 that which is supplied by the lists of proposed emendations 
 which are printed at the close, They indicate the belief 
 
Preface. ν 
 
 that this text is in many passages corrupt, that the 
 ancient Versions supply a considerable amount of help in 
 restoring the original, and that where these fail con- 
 jectural emendations are open to us. To this, however, it 
 must be added that in more than one instance it is im- 
 possible to arrive at anything like assured conviction. 
 
 The course of the inquiry brings out the fact that the 
 LXX ought not to be credited with so overwhelming an 
 influence over the other Versions as is frequently ascribed 
 to it. To mention first the Peshitta. The late lamented 
 Dr. Hatch, in his “Essays in Biblical Greek,” p. 183, 
 says: “The Latin and ‘Eastern Versions of the Old 
 Testament were made not from the Hebrew original but 
 from the LXX Version,” and on the same page includes 
 the Syriac amongst these Eastern Versions, This is a 
 mere obiter dictum, but unless corrected it may prove 
 misleading. Leaving aside all consideration of the other 
 books of Scripture it would be quite enough to read 
 together the Peshitta and the Arabic of this book of 
 Micah—the latter being confessedly a translation of the 
 LXX—to compel the conclusion that the former, though 
 greatly influenced by the highly esteemed Greek Version, 
 is none the less a translation from the Hebrew. But it 
 
 is necessary to go further. More than once Ryssel uses 
 
vi Preface. 
 
 such language as that on p. 100: “die Pesch. wie sonst 
 abhangig von LXX sein kénnte.” That ‘ wie sonst” is 
 not justified by the facts. It might almost be laid down 
 as a rule that where there is a real difficulty in the text 
 the LXX and the Peshitta each pursue their own way. 
 Geiger’s characterization of the Version as a whole, “zum 
 ueberwiegenden Theile nach dem Urtexte abgefasst’’, if 
 qualified by the remark he elsewhere makes, “ Der Syrer 
 folet hier, wie haufig in den Proph., den 70,” is not far 
 from the truth. Sebdk, also, “ Die syrische Uebersetzung 
 der zwolf Kleinen Propheten,” is undoubtedly justified 
 when, in the Introduction, he lays: stress on “ die Zahl- 
 reichen und starken Beriithrungen mit dem gewdéhnlichen 
 judischen Targum.’’ No account of the Peshitta would 
 be correct which left this unmentioned. 
 
 With some modification a similar caveat might be 
 entered against the terms in which the connection between 
 the Vulgate and the LXX has been spoken of. Hatch’s 
 words, quoted above, do not draw the needful distinction 
 between the Old Latin, which was made from the LXX, 
 and the Vulgate. And Ryssel says, on vi. 7, “die 
 Vulgata wie sonst von den LXX abhangig τεὐ. No 
 doubt the influence of the LXX on the Vulg. is deeb aaa 
 
 pervasive. But the best corrective of unduly strong 
 
Preface. Vil 
 
 language on the subject is supplied by Jerome’s Com- 
 mentaries, where the Vulg. is printed along with his 
 translation of the LXX, and the many discrepancies 
 between the two are patent; where also, as well in 
 his treatment of important Hebrew words as in the 
 general course of his task, the great father is seen to be 
 striving after results which shall be “juxta Hebraicam 
 veritatem.”’ 
 
 As a rule this essay has taken no account of the Arabic 
 save when that translation forsakes the guidance of the 
 LXX for that of the Peshitta, or when its renderings 
 have some bearing on the various readings of the Greek 
 Codices. Observations on the latter point confirm the 
 already well-established fact that the type of text usually 
 followed by the Arabic translator is that represented in 
 the Codex Alexandrinus, and this the more markedly 
 when the divergences of this codex from the Vatican 
 MS. proceed from design and not from mere clerical errors. 
 Most of the questions arising out of these divergences 
 must be decided in favour of the Vatican. 
 
 From the textual critic’s point of view the Targum 
 is singularly disappointing. Much might have been ex- 
 pected from the linguistic tact of native paraphrasts 
 
 writing in a cognate dialect. But there is scarcely a 
 
viii Preface. 
 
 difficulty which the Targumists have not evaded, and the 
 points at which one is most anxious to be sure what their 
 text was are the ones where we are reduced to utter un- 
 certainty. On the other hand the so-called Targum of 
 Jonathan can never fail to be interesting as one landmark 
 on the line of Jewish thought, or, perhaps, it would be 
 more correct to speak of it as exhibiting many successive 
 landmarks ; for there are in it elements belonging to many 
 ages. An early writer would not have dared explicitly 
 to name Rome as it is named in the Codex Reuchlinianus 
 at chap. vu. 10. 
 
 In a considerable number of instances it has seemed de- 
 sirable to point out mistakes in the Latin translations which 
 are given in the London Polyglot. No attempt has been 
 made to enumerate all that occur. But the true sense of 
 the Versions is so frequently obscured in the Latin ren- 
 derings that it behoves everyone who notes this to do his 
 part in indicating the danger of an implicit reliance on 
 the translations. 
 
 Working for the most part at a distance from the great 
 libraries involves the disadvantage of having few books 
 available. For the Hebrew text Baer and Delitzsch’s 
 Edition has been consulted, as well as the London Polyglot 
 and Athias: for the LXX the Polyglot, and Tischen- 
 
Preface. ΙΧ 
 
 dorf’s Fourth Edition: for the Vulgate the Polyglot, 
 Heyse and Tischendorf’s Edition with the readings of 
 the Codex Amiatinus, and Martianay’s Edition of 
 Jerome’s Commentaries: for the Targum, Peshitta and 
 Arabic the Polyglot. The letters a, 4, 7, used for desig- 
 nating the various readings of the Targum, are taken from 
 Cornill, who employs them respectively for the Antwerp 
 Polyglot, the Bomberg-Buxtorf Edition, and the Codex 
 Reuchlinianus. His collation of these, so far as they 
 relate to the prophets, is given at pp. 178-202, “ Zeitschrift 
 fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,’ 1887. Unfor- 
 tunately this collation is not to be relied on. ‘ Unter- 
 schiede, wie beispielweise JAND{JANDI, YIN: YT IR, 
 NYIN OVS NYIND VT: II, Owe ID: Sew AT, 
 TF: PIT sind in das folgende Verzeichniss nicht auf- 
 genommen:” that is the principle acted on; and it is 
 a radically mistaken one. It is impossible for a collator 
 to determine beforehand the value or valuelessness of any 
 given variation: that 15 a point which can only be de- 
 cided when the document comes to be used for critical 
 purposes. Hence every variation, however slight, should 
 be noted. Codex Reuchlinianus contains a considerable 
 number of various readings, some of them of real impor- 
 
 tance, which are not mentioned by Cornill. 
 
x 
 
 Preface. 
 
 The following signs and abbreviations have been em- 
 
 ployed :— 
 
 M. T. for Massoretic Text. 
 
 Tare. 
 
 Ar. 
 
 Vulg. 
 
 Cod. Amiat. 
 Jer. 
 
 Comm. 
 
 Lond. Polyg. 
 
 Field 
 
 Pesh. 
 Rich. 
 
 . 3) 
 
 ε 22 
 
 » Targum. 
 
 5a) eraic, 
 
 » Vulgate. 
 
 Codex Amiatinus of the Vule. 
 
 Jerome: or, where the reference is to the 
 Greek text, Jerome’s rendering of the 
 XxX. 
 
 » Jerome’s Commentaries, particularly the 
 
 one on Micah. 
 
 » Lhe London Polyglot. 
 
 Field’s Edition of Origen’s Hexapla, from 
 which are quoted Aquila, Symmachus, 
 and Theodotion, as Aq., Symm., and 
 Theod. respectively. 
 
 Codex Alexandrinus of the LXX. 
 
 Codex Vaticanus of the LXX. 
 
 When MSS. of the LXX are referred 
 to by means of numbers, these numbers 
 are the ones used in Holmes and Parsons’ 
 “ Vet. Test. Graec. &c.” 
 
 », Peshitta. 
 
 » ἃ MS. of the Pesh. in the British 
 Museum, called Rich, 7152, in the 
 Catalogue, and there described as “ per- 
 vetustus et quantivis pretil.” 
 
Preface. xi 
 
 Add. for a MS. of the Pesh. in the British 
 Museum, called Add. 18,715, and said 
 by Dr. Wright to be by a good hand of 
 the twelfth century. 
 
 Eg. ,, a MS. of the Pesh. in the British 
 Museum, called Egerton 704, assigned 
 by Dr. Wright to the seventeenth 
 century. 
 
 Ewald’s Lehrbuch ἃ, Heb. Sprache, and Davies’ 
 English translation of Gesenius’ Heb. Grammar are re- 
 
 ferred to as Ewald and Ges. respectively. 
 
 BoRROWDALE YVICARAGE, 
 
 September 23rd, 1890. 
 

 
Bah, MASSORETIC -PRXT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BOOK OF MICAH. 
 
 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 V.1. No alteration. 
 
 The LXX, καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος, x.7.r., implies the reading 
 TT IAT 7) which appears to have been substituted 
 for 3) TT WS M7 TAT because of the cumbrousness 
 of the text in which ‘7 JWR MM Δ after a long in- 
 terval has to be taken up again by ΓΤ WN, The adop- 
 tion of this reading, however, did not enable the LXX to 
 produce a well-knit sentence: their καὶ ἐγ. Δ. κυρίου... 
 BS ὑπὲρ ὧν εἶδε, K.T.A.—where ὑπὲρ ὧν is probably due 
 to unwillingness to construe the noun of hearing to which 
 WR refers with MM the verb of seeing—is not at all 
 more satisfactory than the M. T., That a various reading 
 should be found in the superscription is not surprising, 
 seeing that this would be drawn up by the editor or 
 editors and would therefore be looked upon as more open 
 to emendation than the words of the prophet himself. 
 But there can be no hesitation in preferring the M. T. 
 The other Verss. all support it: 12) 7) would better suit 
 a second part, or an intermediate member of a series, than 
 
 B 
 
2 The Massoretic Text 
 
 an independent work, and none of the prophets save Jonah, 
 which is a narrative rather than a prophecy, commence 
 thus. 
 
 Mit WN 2.25. M7 WRN ΠῚ ΠῚ results from a 
 mixture of two constructions, JN TT WN 737, Hoseai. 1, 
 and MM WN pT, Isa. i. L: at Amos i. 1, we have a 
 very similar heading, M7 WR .... DIY IAI. Here, 
 as at Hagg. ii. 21 and Zech. i. 1, vii. 4, for 9X the Targ. 
 has DY and the Pesh. Ὧν. The prepositions are rendered 
 by the Verss. with great freedom. To the ‘Ss σιξος Ns 
 of the Pesh. the 5y NDIND of the Aramaic passages, 
 Kzra iv. 7, v. 11, furnishes an exact parallel. 
 
 MwI37. The LXX missed the customary mention of 
 the father’s name, found in such passages as Hosea 1. 1, 
 “ Hosea, son of Beeri”’: it therefore treated ‘377 as a 
 patronymic, tov tod Μωρασθεὶ (varr. lec. Μωραθεὶ, 
 Μωραθὶ, Μωραθίτην). At Jer. xxvi. 18 it has ὁ Μωραθέίτης. 
 The Targ. in both passages has TW!) and the Pesh. 
 agrees with this, against the LXX, in treating the word 
 as derived from the name of a town, although it spells it 
 here baw 3 [SO and there Laas |S. The renderings of these 
 two Versions, which would imply the reading ‘FWD or 
 ‘HWW, are to be accounted for by their having identified 
 Dj) AWN, v. 14, and MW, v. 15. The evidence of 
 the Μ. T. and the LXX in favour of ‘AWS outweighs 
 theirs. This is one of the instances which remind ys that 
 the Ar. was to some extent influenced by the Pesh., for 
 whilst we here have (3l)32 in accordance with the LXX, 
 at Jer. xxvi. 18 its seul is after the Pesh. Thea, 
 
of the Book of Micah. - 3 
 
 which fails to appear in many codices, was omitted because 
 of its similarity in sound to @. 
 
 The sing. βασιλέως, of A, 36, 62, 106,147, Ar., meets 
 with no support in any other Vers., and the probability that 
 it is a mere error of transcription is enhanced by the fact 
 that 95 and 185*, which also read thesing., have τῶν before it. 
 
 The Targ. on this verse paraphrases ΓΙ] TIT by 
 “DIP ἸΏ ΤΙΝῚ) DIN, inserts MAT before M717", and rids 
 itself of any difficulty respecting MM by using 22 ΠΝ - 
 It does not agree with Pesh., which probably follows LXX, 
 in repeating Dy before DIU": the Ar. here forsakes its 
 models; it, also, having no preposition. 
 
 V.2. No alteration. 
 
 DPD ΟΝ Inv. LXX ἀκούσατε λαοὶ λόγους. The 
 correspondence of the two clauses “9 »"ὶ δ᾽ and YIN wp 
 ANID) is strongly in favour of the M. T., as is also the 
 
 > 1s an expression 
 
 fact that “ Hear words, O ye peoples,’ 
 which we do not usually find in the Bible; Deut. xxxii. 1, 
 mentioned by Ryssel, is not a parallel: ἀκουέτω... .. ρήματα 
 ἐκ στόματός μου ; the ἐκ στ. μου makes all the difference. 
 Targ. W192 and Pesh. yoaso also support M. T. With 
 regard to the change from the third to the sccond pers. in 
 the Pesh., it need only be said that it does not rest on a 
 text differing from the Massoretic: at Job xvu. 10, the 
 Pesh. has made the same alteration. On the use of the 
 third pers. in exclamations, see Ewald § 327, la, and 
 Driver, Heb. Tenses, § 198, Obs. The Pesh. itself has 
 been forced to recognise the third pers. in FIND of the 
 
 next clause. 
 
4 The Massoretic Text 
 
 For 05 the LXX cannot have read DO”): against such 
 a supposition there is the difference in sound between 
 > and P and the further consideration that the plu. of Sp 
 is MP. Nor did they actually read Ὁ 2, or defective DD. 
 But it is quite possible that they thought DD ought to be 
 O97: like the Pesh., they may have been offended with 
 the suffix of the third pers. The suggestion that they 
 supplied the appropriate object after Ἰ would not 
 account for their leaving, on this theory, the word D9D 
 untranslated. And the objection to their having thought 
 of 751 that it belongs to the stock of Aramaic words, and, 
 consequently, is not to be ascribed to a writer of Micah’s 
 period is beside the mark. Aramaic words were in sufli- 
 ciently familiar use at the period when the LXX trans- 
 lation was made. 
 
 The LXX alone turns the abstract ΓΝ ΣΟῚ into the con- 
 crete καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐν avtn. The Pesh. msc gives 
 the sense with sufficient accuracy, the => being that of 
 accompaniment. 
 
 Mit IN. A, followed by Ar., ἯΙ only one κύριος. 
 This is partly to be accounted for by LXX having to 
 translate two Heb. words by the same Greek word. In 
 some passages, however, where they have another suitable 
 word available, as in Ps, xxx1. 5, ok mm they have κύριος 
 once only. Cf. also Ps. Ixxxiv. 11, B; Isa. xxviii. 22, 
 Ixv. 15 and Isa.1.7, A. The Targ. here has DTN YF NW; 
 Pesh. “ Lord of Lords”?; Vulg. Dominus Deus. 
 
 sy>is rendered in LXX εἰς μαρτύριον, a sense which 
 the word not unfrequently bears, though it is not suitable 
 here. Jerome’s comment is “ Sive ut in Hebraico legitur, 
 
of the Book of Muah. 5 
 
 in testem, velut apertius interpretatus est Symmachus, 
 testificans. “”AXXos* εἰς μάρτυρα." Field. 
 
 LXX, Pesn. and Vulg., with some Heb. Codd., have ἢ 
 before ‘A°WPiT: the Verss. very frequently supply this con- 
 junction; the Codd. referred to have also the plu. of the 
 verb JAWPT; this has originated, quite unnecessarily, 
 from the desire to provide a plu. verb for the pair of 
 
 nouns. 
 
 V. 3. No alteration. 
 
 VPN NY’ is rendered jin the Targ. M2 WN ὍΔ 
 ΠΣ. The coming forth is rightly interpreted as a self- 
 revelation. We might have thought that the Targ. read 
 N38) a second time in place of 77 in the next clause, seeing 
 that it again uses 7, were it not that all the other 
 Verss. agree with the M. T., and that the two words are 
 not sufficiently alike to be readily confounded. 
 
 A, not followed by Ar., omits καὶ καταβήσεται. The 
 words are so similar to καὶ ἐπιβήσεται that they may 
 have been omitted by accident: on the other hand the 
 apparent contradiction to καὶ ἐπιβ. which they involve 
 may have led to their being dropped. If the latter be the 
 true explanation 77’ was probably looked upon as a 
 duplicate of ΤΊ. 
 
 The Polyg. conculcabit is too strong a translation of the 
 Ar. word here used: at Ps. xci. 12, the more suitable 
 calcabis is employed. 
 
 The Tare. ΝΥΝ DPW! for YIN VIA was no doubt 
 chosen to indicate that the “ high-places ”’ here intended 
 are not those on which sacrifices were offered. 
 
6 The Massoretic Text 
 
 V.4. No alteration. 
 
 καὶ σαλευθήσεται Ta ὄρη. . .. καὶ αἱ κοιλάδες τακή- 
 σονται. For DTT DD) and PAN) DpPaym the LXX 
 read DYVTT WPAN and 92) Oy. Whether they 
 actually found this in their text or themselves introduced 
 it there is not clear. In either case it is not the original 
 order. The M. T.is supported by the other Verss. The 
 motive of the change has obviously been to bring κηρός 
 and τήκω together, as they are found in so many passages. 
 And the parallelism is better kept in the M. T., where the 
 first member of the first half of the verse corresponds to 
 the first of the second half. 
 
 σαλευθήσεται does not seem a good rendering of IYpan, 
 but it is used for so many Heb. words, ΠΩ; yan, 
 17, &e., that we are under no necessity of thinking that 
 it implies a different reading here. The Ar. is no doubt 
 right in taking it to mean a leaping for fear, as it so often 
 does in LXX. 
 
 Jerome’s consumentur for IBID] is very inadequate. The 
 Comm. shows that he felt it so:—‘‘ Consumentur sive 
 tabescent.’? The οὐ before aguae in the common text of 
 the Vulg. is not found in Cod. Amiat. or in the Comm. 
 It crept into the Vulg. through the influence of the LXX, 
 the latter Vers., with the Pesh., having inserted it for the 
 sake of explicitness. Such cases as decurrunt and Ts 
 for the passive Ὁ remind us that we are not to look 
 
 for the exact reproduction in the Verss. of Voices, Num- | 
 
 bers, ὅσο, ; the same is to be said of the LXX sing, ὕδωρ 
 for Ov. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 7 
 
 V. 5. For FINN probably read NNN and for N32 
 read 2 ONO. 
 
 The Massoretic note directs that MNDN be written plene. 
 With this the Vulg., Pesh. and r of the Targ. agree. The 
 common text of the Targ. has the sing. NOM and the LXX 
 has ἁμαρτίαν. The value of the evidence borne by the 
 Pesh. is discounted by its reading the sing. in the place 
 corresponding to this in the second half of the verse, and 
 that of the larg. is diminished by its treating YWD as plu., 
 in opposition to all the other Verss. No doubt the word 
 was originally written defective, and the LXX regarded it 
 as sing. on account of the parallelism: this reason, though 
 not quite decisive, has much force in it, and since it is 
 probable that the Massoretes were influenced by the 
 plu. 3 (on which see below), we should be inclined to 
 agree with the LXX. 
 
 The plu. πάντα ταῦτα of the LXX, which in the Pesh. 
 is made yet more emphatic by being placed at the head of 
 the sentence, brings out the plu. force which the context 
 shows to belong to ΠΝ. 
 
 The use of % in this verse is not satisfactorily explained 
 by Ewald, § 325. He says that the distinction between it 
 and i’) is always observed, and that 9 always inquires after 
 the person, not the thing, even when the language used 
 does not express this. Pusey makes the same assertion : 
 “13 always relates to a personal object, and apparent ex- 
 ceptions may be reduced to this. So AH, Kim, Tanch. 
 Poe.” Sebdk, on the other hand, points out that the 
 Massora remarks that these two particles are used the one 
 for the other, and he refers to Ginsburg’s edition of the 
 
8 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Massora I. 596, “where it is observed that the ΝΣ 
 read % for 9”. This, however, should not lead us, with 
 Sebék, to substitute M2 for 7 in the text. The distine- 
 tion between the two may not have been recognised by 
 Micah. And the presence of YD is the best explanation of 
 the turn which the Targ. gives to the expression :— 
 “ Where did they of the house of Jacob sin, &e. ¥” 
 
 In the two halves of the verse the two pairs of names 
 are not kept precisely parallel: Jacob and Israel in the 
 first are followed by Jacob and Judah in the second, the 
 Jacob in this second pair being connected with Samaria, 
 and the Judah with Jerusalem ; as though Jacob signified 
 the Northern Kingdom, and Judah, instead of being 
 sharply distinguished from Israel, were identical with it. 
 We are not justified in substituting Israel for Jacob in the 
 second of these pairs, as Sebdk would do, on the ground 
 that the Massora calls attention to the interchange of 
 Judah with Israel, e.g. at Ezek. xxv. 8. The Verss. all 
 agree with our M. T., and the explanation of the sudden 
 appearance of Judah here is that Jerusalem, its capital 
 city, was to be mentioned in answer to the question. 
 “FT Ay. D> The Vulg. is the only Vers. which 
 
 vead V222, The Pesh. has ‘And what is the sin of 
 Judah?” The Targ. here, as in the foregoing clause, 
 uses a verb, but it is the verb WN. The LXX has καὶ τίς 
 ἡ ἁμαρτία οἴκου “lovda. Their reading evidently was 
 TTT ΠΣ ONT 1), corresponding to the 2 NNONA) 
 INW above. This reading would explain both the 
 M. 'T. and the Verss.~ It-entirely agrees with the Targ. ; 
 it differs from the Pesh. only by having 2, and this the 
 
of the Book of Micah. 9 
 
 Pesh. may have omitted for the sake of conformity to the 
 immediately preceding clause, APY’ YWH w.* In the 
 margin, opposite TT M2 ANON, an explanatory N32 
 might be inserted; nothing being more likely to suggest 
 itself as the crowning sin of Judah than the erection of 
 high-places in the city which the Lord chose to set His 
 Namethere. Through its similarity in form to 2 this 
 marginal N32 1 took its place, and the now superfluous 
 _DNDM was rejected.t The unanswerable argument in 
 favour of the LXX is that the question am my. Ὁ 
 cannot be replied to by Down RYT | 
 
 The Targ. obtains complete symmetry in its rendering 
 of this verse, not only by its use of two plurals where the 
 Heb. has only one, but also by inserting J. before each 
 proper noun :—“ For the transgressions of the house of 
 Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house of Israel. 
 Where have they of the house of Jacob transgressed ? 
 Is it not in Samaria? And where have they of the house 
 of Judah sinned? Is it not in Jerusalem ?”’ 
 
 V.6. No alteration. 
 Mawr o> yaw ΡΥ. LXX Kal θήσομαι Σαμάρειαν 
 
 * Cod. A of the LXX has secured parallelism in just the opposite 
 way, inserting οἴκου before Ἰακὼβ. The Ar. does not follow it here, 
 but Jerome’s text of the LXX agrees with it. Possibly the οἴκου 
 may have originated in a scribe’s error, catov Ιακωβ being read as 
 οἰκου Ιακωβ. 
 
 {+ The reading in Symmachus: “τίνα τὰ ὑφηλά, Syro-Hex., 
 lSoo3 coal qada| (Field), shows that this corruption of the Heb. 
 text occurred at an early date. 
 
10 The Massoretic Text 
 
 εἰς ὀπωροφυλάκιον: ἀγροῦ. Cod. A ὡς ὁπ. The Ar, does 
 
 A has εἰς and B ὡς. As ‘Y in this passage, so ΤῊ) in 11]. 12, 
 and Dy Ps. lxxix. 1, are rendered ὀπωροῴᾧ. Fuerst 
 explains this by saying that in these three passages they 
 incorrectly read WY, ‘a watcher,’ which is found in 
 Dan. iv. 10, 14, 20. There is something to be said for this, 
 though it is not quite satisfactory. By the ear ‘Y and V)- 
 might easily be confounded, and the plu. of "py does not 
 look unlike Vy. But it is difficult to believe that the 
 LXX committed the same blunder in three passages : VY» 
 in the sense mentioned above, is a word so rarely used that 
 it is scarcely likely the XX would think of it here, unless 
 compelled to do so: VY, moreover, does not mean o7ap. ; 
 in Dan. it is rendered ἄγγελος. At Isa. 1. ὃ, and xxiv. 20, 
 ὁπ. is the translation of M2919, and it may be fairly taken 
 that whilst the LXX were aware that ‘Y has not quite 50 
 specific a meaning as ὁπ, they thought themselves jus- 
 tified in translating thus, because of the similarity in 
 tone and scope of the Isaiah and the Micah passages, 
 There is nothing helpful in Hitzig’s suggestion that 
 the LXX conjectured VY for ἡ in the sense in which 
 the former word is used at Isa. 1. ὃ : and that they should 
 have so conjectured is most unlikely, seeing that 92 is 
 the word there rendered ὁπ. For the rest of Hitzig’s con- 
 jecture: Man lese MY; so dass 2 vor ὍΣ den Accus. 
 des Obj. einfiihre indem die const. wie Am. 5, 17 gewech- 
 selt wird. Also: zum FWelde di. zur Wildniss (vgl. z. B. 
 
 * Aq. eis σωρούς, Symm. and Theod. eis βουνούς. 
 
 A 
 
 \ 
 
of the Book of Micah. II 
 
 1 Mos, 25, 27) die Weinbergpflanzungen, welche vorzugs- 
 weise Culturland ;”’ it may safely be said that the result 
 does not justify fle “change, the text thus obtained mean- 
 ing rather ee will make a field into plantations,” than “ I 
 will make plantations into a field.” 
 
 The Pesh. (wrongly translated zz arvum ruris in the 
 Polyg.) follows the LXX, ou» 1:9» Lua. As illus- 
 trating the connection between this Vers. and the Ar. it 
 may be noted that whereas here both agree with the LXX, 
 at Isa. 1. 8, and xxiv. 20, where the Pesh. adopts another 
 rendering the Ar. follows it. 
 
 The Targ. here bas a double rendering. For 
 
 DID Ὅν ‘wr oyd ὦ ΟῚ 
 it gives 
 
 DD Mayo Ay mM. pon syd ὦ ὙΩΝῚ 
 
 The two points which challenge attention are the super- 
 fluousness of MITE M2 and the omission of 5 before 
 Nay. The best way of accounting for these is to assume 
 that the older Targ. was ΡΠ NWS MN, corresponding 
 pretty closely to the Pesh. us {3,52 Dus, and that 
 92°5 was an alternative, inserted later in the margin. This 
 alternative, being nearer to the Heb. than the older render- 
 ing, found its way into the text, without, however, entirely 
 ousting “¥ ‘1, which were now placed after ‘NM 999, and 
 their insertion in this position caused the loss of 2 before 
 Ay. Some confirmation of this connexion between 
 Ν ΠΣ and ‘y is furnished by 1789 being the Targ. on 
 Ps, Ixxix. 1 for Ὁ»). Ryssel takes an altogether diffe- 
 
I2 The Massoretic Text 
 
 rent view:—‘‘ Um die Weinbergpflanzunge unmiss- 
 verstiindlich als Verwiistungsstiitte . . . zu kennzeichnen, 
 hat der Targumist die Worte DD ‘yD? paraphrisirt 
 durch [ich will machen Samaria] zu der Verwiistungs- 
 statte des Weinbergs (denn ΓΝ M1 ist stat. constr.) 
 oder (wenn dafiir gelesen wird NOVI 12 im stat. emph. 
 oder auch JTS MA im stat. abs.): [ich will machen] 
 zu einer Verwiistungsstatte die Weinbergpflanzungen.” 
 There are two considerations in favour of this view:— 
 1. HVT is in the construct. Ryssel himself, however, 
 places no reliance on the reading, and is prepared to accept 
 either the emphatic or the absolute, nay, is forced to adopt 
 one of these if the better of his two ways of arranging the 
 words is to stand. 2. In that way two corresponding 
 pairs of words are secured :—Samaria, a heap; vineyard 
 plantations, a place of desolation. But to justify this, 5 
 should have stood before ΠΝ as it does before 7). So far 
 as the first of the two alternatives is concerned its heaviness 
 and clumsiness would render it suspicious. And, on the 
 whole, without dogmatizing respecting the precise relations 
 between the Targ. and the Pesh., we are justified in be- 
 lieving that the “αὶ 2 of the one did not belong to a 
 different clause from the ‘>, up of the other. 
 
 The Vulg. turns DDD *yw199 by a circumstantial clause : 
 “cum plantatur vinea.”’? It is not quite clear whether 
 Jer. recognized the plu. or not: amongst his comments 
 both “in plantationem vineae” and “in plantationem 
 vinearum ”’ occur. The other Verss. agree in having the 
 sing., probably because the plu. seemed difficult to under- 
 
of the Book of Micah. 13 
 
 stand.* Vineyard plantations, however, are more in place 
 here than a vineyard plantation. At Isa. lx. 21, on the 
 other hand, the sing, of the Kethib gives a better sense 
 than the plu. of the Qeri. In our passage, as in so many 
 others, the LXX and the Pesh. avoid the asyndeton, in- 
 serting καὶ before φυτείας. 
 
 MIAN 5 ΠῚ. LXX Καὶ κατασπάσω εἰς χάος, κ.τ.λ., 
 of which the Ar., “ And I will cast her stones into an open 
 plain,’ is a weak rendering. The Pesh. Lasjo betrays the 
 influence of κατασπάσω, but its ling is a rendering of 
 δ). This simple explanation is to be preferred to Ryssel’s 
 cumbrous one: he says that Pesh. connected ΔΓ with the 
 Syr. noun linge because they have the root gar in common, 
 and that taking 37 thus in the sense of “to heap 
 together,” they took %3?, without alteration,-as meaning 
 “a heap.” But this is arbitrary treatment of ἢ. The 
 LXX would seem to have vocalized "0 : M.D, Tare. and 
 Pesh. °29 is better; the stones of the city will be thrown 
 into the valley which is close at hand. 
 
 V.7. 983) for M83). 
 
 Targ., Pesh. and Vulg. agree with M. T. in the passive 
 forms 3) and 1W.; LXX has actives: no indication 
 has been given as to who the agents are, and therefore, 
 
 although the active is not impossible, the M. T. is to 
 be followed. 
 
 * “Tn plantationes,” the Polyg. translation of the Targ. ΣΙΩΝ, is 
 one of the many illustrations of the extent to which the renderings 
 of one Vers. affected those of another: it is the translation of the 
 Heb. which has led to this plu. 
 
14 The Massoretic Text 
 
 TPIINN is rendered by Pesh. mANaiy and by Targ. 
 NTMI: they were led to this by the parallel mopp. In 
 the second half of the verse Pesh. has the correct lind 
 both times, and the Targ., which agrees with it the first 
 time, gives a very good paraphrase of the meaning, M29 
 Nay ὙΠΟΞ. In this second half the M. T. has the sing. 
 ON both times; the Targ. bas sing. in the first place, 
 and affords no indication of the number which it recog- 
 nised in the second; Pesh. has the sing. twice; LXX has 
 plu. both times; Vulg. has plu. in the first, following the 
 LXX, but, adopting a different preposition from the LXX, 
 it turns to the sing. in the second case. There is no need 
 to suppose that the LXX read the plu.: after the plu. in 
 the first half of the verse it would seem more natural; in 
 any case ΠΝ is a collective; with the abstract πορνεία, 
 their rendering of (31, it was more suitable. 
 
 Very probably the word TSI) has arisen out of } SAP: 
 Targ., Pesh. and Vulg. all treat it so; that the verb hese 
 aa bein the plu. corresponding to the parallel 121 is 
 not unlikely, and the LXX has shown its sense of this 
 parallelism by making both verbs sing. ; Ewald § 151, 1, ἃ, 
 points out that in the Hophal ἣν is sometimes sharpened into 
 z, and adds “¥3)) Mikha 1. 7, ware als pass. auch wegen 
 des a der zweiten sylbe wirklich passender (es ward gesam- 
 melt) ; einige handschriften lesen wirklich “Ap.” It may 
 be doubted whether there is any exception to the rule that 
 the Piel in pause always has the perfect δ, and this would 
 seem to show that the Massoretes at all events suspected 
 that the Pual was found here. For 121% LXX has sub- 
 stituted DWH, led to this by the belief that this final 
 
of the Book of Micah. 15 
 
 clause is parallel to the one preceding it: for TY they may 
 possibly have thought 5y the true reading. The Ar, has 
 taken their ἐκ in the sense of “because of,” and in 
 order to get as strong a sense as possible has rendered 
 συνέστρεψεν by the very forcible wa! (subvertetur). 
 
 In the first clause of this verse Cod. Reuch. has the 
 reading })\PpT for the PIPT of a and ὁ. no doubt it is 
 correct ; Vp7 is very rare and means “to pierce,” whereas 
 ppt, “to break in pieces,” is the sense required. 
 
 Cod. Amiat. has igni, so also the Comment, 
 
 V.8. No alteration. 
 
 M. T. and Vulg. have all the verbs in the Ist pers. 
 sing.; Pesh. in 2nd pers. sing. fem. imper., referring to 
 Samaria.; LXX in 3rd pers. sing. indic., also referring to 
 Samaria; Targ. in 3rd pers. mase. plu.: the translators 
 could not understand the introduction of verbs in the Ist 
 pers. into the midst of a passage where the 3rd prevails ; 
 each followed his own view as to the precise change re- 
 quired. Kat ποιήσαιτε of A-is the result of a scribe’s 
 error: after ποιήσεται had been written ποιήσαυτε through 
 itacism, the καὶ was inserted to introduce what now 
 appeared to be a verb in a different number and mood 
 from the foregoing. 
 former occurs nowhere else, and it would be natural to 
 alter it into the common form, whereas the 5 is easily to 
 be accounted for by the desire for assonance, bw, TDN, 
 MN). To this desire we must certainly refer the > in 
 M258, a form which the verb does not elsewhere assume, 
 
16 The Massoretic Text 
 
 although analogies to it are not infrequent: Hitzig refers 
 to DN, Ps. xix. 4, Twyw, Ex. xxv. 31, ΠΣ 7, Ezek. 
 xxxv. 9. The Vulg. renders Sow spoliatus; the LXX 
 ἀνυπόδετος ; the Pesh. «ἀφ, by one or other form of which 
 all the Semitic Verss. reproduce 5) at Isa. xx. 2, where 
 LXX has ἀνυπόδετος. The reading of the Targ. in our 
 passage is uncertain: for mow of a, Levy would sub- 
 stitute ΝΟΣ, “sie gehen wie die Ausgepliinderten 
 nackt einher,” but this is merely conjectural; ὁ reads 
 ~waWA and r NWA, of which the first looks like a 
 reading belonging to another recension of the Targ., and 
 the second like an emendation of N*?WA. 
 
 There is much uncertainty and vacillation in the manner 
 in which the Verss. deal with 0°37) and My’ M2. The 
 comparison of a few passages in which these words occur 
 gives curious results. Isa. xili, 22, xxxiv. 18, xlii. 20, 
 Job xxx. 29 and Micah i. 8, may be taken as examples. 
 In the rendering of J the Targ. and the Pesh. are con- 
 sistent throughout, having respectively ΝΣ ΤΥ and oa: 
 Vulg. has draco and siren: LXX ἐχῖνος, σειρήν and 
 δράκων: Ar. 3&3, Usmy Jy, Gel, Gol GY, and in our 
 passage, ὡτῦ. He exactly represents ἐχῖνος at Isa. xiii. 
 22 by 348, but at Isa. xxviv. 13 deserts ἐχῖνος for (sl: the 
 σειρῆνες also, which at Job xl. 20 is represented by ob 
 |, at Job xxx. 29 becomes 69.949} 5... The Ar. trans- 
 lator was not sure what animal the LXX meant. The 
 Vulg., too, presents a curious phenomenon: at Isa. xiii. 
 22, where LXX has ἐχῖνοι, it has szrenes; in the other 
 places, including those where LXX has σειρῆνες, it has 
 
 —_—- 
 
of the Book of Micah. 17 
 
 ~ 
 
 dracones, At Ezek. xxix. 3, both LXX and Vulg. eon- 
 found ΠῚ with 349, as they have done here, andthe Ar. 
 follows the LXX. 
 
 My’ 32 is in all these passages reproduced by the 
 Targ., and the Pesh. has it-in the form |Sa\a 2;> in each 
 case except ours, where it follows the LXX (see below). 
 The Vulg. has struthio throughout, LXX στρουθῶν, 
 θυγάτερες στρουθῶν, and in our verse θυγάτερες σειρήνων, 
 where σειρήν means a bird of doleful note.* Its use here 
 as a rendering of 2’ M12, compared with its employ- 
 ment elsewhere for 71, shows how uncertain the LXX 
 were as to the precise meaning of these words, with which 
 they had not been familiar in living speech. One of the 
 most curious results, however, is that seen in the Pesh., 
 which has not followed the LXX in its treatment of W 
 here, but has followed it in dealing with ‘)’2, and, conse- 
 quently, has substantially the same rendering for both, 
 θὰ and |soza 2,5. 
 
 V.9. MY22 for yi. 
 
 For TWIN LXX have κατεκράτησεν: they seem to 
 have read WX, 3rd sing. fem. perf.; the Ar. so under- 
 stood them, and as the vowel letter ἡ was probably not 
 found in their text we can readily trace their procedure. 
 But their inability to understand this word in other places 
 
 * Jerome’s comments reveal a remarkable error on his part: “ Et 
 lugebunt quasi filiae Sirenarum: dulcia enim sunt haereticorum car- 
 mina, et suavi voce populos decipientia. Nec potest eorum cantica 
 praeterire nisi qui obturaverit aurem suam, et quasi surdus evaserit.”’ 
 Evidently he is thinking of the sirens of the poets. 
 
 C 
 
18 The Massoretic Text 
 
 renders their judgment on it untrustworthy: at Isa. xvii. 
 11, W938 IND is rendered ὡς πατὴρ ἀνθρώπου, at Jer. 
 xvii. 19 we have ἄνθρωπος, at xvii. 16 ἀνθρώπου, at xxx. 
 12 ἀνέστησα (from NWI?): at Job xxxiv. 6, Theodotion’s 
 rendering is βίαιον, just as Symm. and Theod. have βίαια 
 here. Ryssel is of opinion that the LXX thought of a 
 
 τὶ 
 
 verb WIN, meaning “to be manly or strong,” and. urges 
 the analogy of 123. But there is no real analogy; such 
 a passage as 2 Sam. xu, 15, where W3N5) is translated 
 ἠῤῥώστησε, shows too plainly how far removed from such 
 a meaning this root is. There is much more to be said for 
 his suggestion that the Vulg. desperata came from a con- 
 founding of TWIN with MWR, fem. Niph. partic. of WR’ : 
 Jer. 11. 20 and xvii. 12 confirm this. 
 
 All the Verss. for 132) have the sing. It was hardly 
 possible for such languages as Greek and Latin to put it 
 otherwise. Pesh. may have followed LXX here. At all 
 events it is difficult to believe that the M. T., which is the 
 harder reading, would have been introduced in place of the 
 easier sing., and, on the other hand, the plu. is not con- 
 trary to Heb. Grammar. 
 
 Between the two Y the 7 at the end of MY)] might 
 easily disappear: Pesh. and Tare. have the fem., and Ar.* 
 understood the LXX so, or else followed the Pesh.: it is 
 difficult to believe that there is here a change of subject 
 when nothing indicates what the new subject is, and there 
 certainly is no justification for supplying in thought, with 
 
 * The Polyg. translator is in error in representing the Ar as 
 having the plu. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 19 
 
 Hitzig, a synonym of 73% such as AW. The LXX (καὶ 
 ἥψατο) and Pesh. again avoid the asyndeton. They and 
 the Vulg. have the sing. ἕως πύλης, in agreement with the 
 M. T.: the Targ., quite unnecessarily, has the plu.; a 
 city has more gates than one, but it is enough if calamity 
 reaches one of them. 
 
 a and 6 of the Targ. insert the frequently used 2 
 before N17": it is better omitted, with 7. 
 
 eit] Vor i33:read 133. 
 
 aN ON MIA. LXX, of ἐν Γὲθ μὴ μεγαλύνεσθε. They 
 either read or corrected to 19°72N: the Hiph. of 973 is not 
 elsewhere used absolutely for μεγαλύνω, the Hithp. being 
 the form employed, but at Ob. 12 its employment with 5 
 comes sufficiently near the absolute use to account for the 
 LXX having thought of it here. The Pesh. has φορᾷ, 
 as if from 1913: Sebdk conjectures that cOQaal should 
 be read; the corruption would be very easily made, but 
 Rich, Add. and Eg. all have coped, The LXX and 
 Pesh. may have arisen from a reminiscence of the exulta- 
 tion of the Philistines referred to in the well-known 
 passage, 2 Samuel i. 20, which was doubtless the original 
 of ours: this supposition would account either for 7730 
 or 1. Ryssel would strike out ‘29 9X M2, believing 
 them to have been a marginal note which called attention 
 to the fact that the ensuing paronomasiae are according to 
 the model of that familiar passage. He urges that they 
 have nothing to do either with the rest of the section or 
 with the circumstances of the time. But we know so 
 little of those circumstances that our arguments e silentio 
 
 σῷ 
 
20 The Massoretic Text 
 
 have not much force: there is no reason why Micah himself, 
 just as well as an annotator, should not commence his 
 dirge with a quotation from the one which all Israel knew ; 
 and if any thing so formal as an indication of the “ schema” 
 had been intended, we should have expected the words to 
 be arranged in the precise order of the original passage, 
 ΓῺΣ wn Sx—not, as here, 9 9X 2. Aq. and Symm. 
 have μὴ ἀναγγείλητε. 
 
 22Π δ 192. The, first point to be firmly grasped is 
 that this clause isin strict parallelism both with the pre- 
 ceding and the following :— } 
 
 TIN ON MI 
 122N ON 132 
 ΒΓ Tay may) mal 
 
 This juxtaposition of the clauses leaves little doubt that a 
 town name is involved in 132, for it is incredible that there 
 should be a play on the similarity between the town name 
 and the verb in each of the enclosing clauses and none in 
 the middle one. The common text of the LXX has οἱ 
 ᾿Ενακεὶμ, which can hardly be original in a parallel clause 
 to οἱ ἐν Γὲθ: A, followed by Ar., has “ οἱ ε- (versu exeunte) 
 axe.” Jerome and Codex Leidensis of Eusebius read ἐν 
 Bayeiw or EuBayeiw. Jerome’s note assists us in dis- 
 cussing this reading :—‘“ Bachim in nostra lingua planctum 
 et fletum sonat. Denique exceptis Septuaginta omnes 
 κλαυθμὸν; id est, fletum, transtulerunt.” On this it is to be 
 noted that the text of the LXX which was before Jerome- 
 evidently recognised the name of a town in 132; most 
 likely the town Bochim of Judges i, 1, 5, and further, 
 that in all probability the other Greek Verss. thought of 
 
of the Book of Micah. 51 
 
 the same passage, because the LXX there has κλαυθμῶν, 
 almost identical with the κλαυθμὸν here. But it does not 
 seem likely that Bayeiw belongs to the original LXX: 
 at Judges ii, 1, 5, as we have seen, βαχεὶμ is not used, but 
 κλαυθμῶν : if βαχεὶμ had stood in our text, the most care- 
 less transcriber would hardly have missed the reference to 
 the place mentioned in J udges. A reviser of the LXX 
 would be likely to remember that place, and to improve on 
 the meaningless ἐνακείμ by inserting the 8. This brings 
 us to the older évaxetu.* If the μ is a reduplication of 
 that in the next word μὴ we now have ἐν ᾿Ακεί, and the 
 town Accho, which the Greeks always reckoned to belong 
 to the Pheenicians, is in Strabo ’Ax«7): in MSS. 7 and e are 
 corstantly interchanged. I believe, therefore, that for the 
 full form 132, for the sake e of the “paronomasia, 132 was 
 employed, and that when the meaning had been _lost_this 
 was written 132. To the many examples which have been 
 adduced of the loss of » in the middle of a word, Ryssel 
 objects that the essential part of every one of these words 
 is retained in the contracted form. But he is obliged to 
 give up this point with respect to ‘2 for ‘YI, and it may 
 well be doubted whether such words as ΠΥ for NY, and 
 9, Cod. Sam, at Num. xxxi. 38, for Py, are not equally 
 against him. In any case he admits that there was a 
 process at work in the language which tended to the loss 
 of Y in such circumstances, and it is better to acknowledge 
 its operation here than to follow his counsel of despair and 
 
 
 
 
 
 * The Ar. here is a literal translation of ἐν ᾿Ακεὶμ, eS! (3; at 
 Judges i. 3, for JDy it has Ce. it therefore does nf recognise 
 Accho here, 
 
23 The Massoretic Text 
 
 reject this clause as well as the former one. He urges 
 that the other plays on words depend on the meaning, not 
 merely the sound, of the town-name. But the one pre- 
 ceding this does not, and we, at least, have not rejected 
 that. He points out that the other clauses are lengthy, 
 and this short: the first clause is of the same length as 
 this. He says that Micah had a definite geographical 
 situation in view to which the position of Accho does not 
 correspond : but there seems no good reason why in this 
 poetical utterance a Pheenician town on the north should 
 not be the contrast to the Philistine one on the south,-and, 
 as Cheyne says, “ the choice of the town would be dictated 
 by the love of paronomasia;” to which may be added 
 Hitzig’s remark that although Accho seems never to 
 have belonged to the Israelites their territory extended to 
 it, and the neigbouring Carmel was possessed by them. - 
 
 For 19230 5x, LXX read 122 5X: 3 was substituted 
 for 3; the paronomasia is thus lost and the sense that 
 results is very unsatisfactory. It will be desirable to set 
 down side by side the M. T. and the reading probably 
 adopted by LXX : — 
 
 M. T. p39 ay ΘΠ ἼΒν mAMDy> 733 2323 ON | 
 LXX-text *DINY? WINN wy *ny? MAD wan ON 
 
 This implies the preference of B, Ar. and Jer. to the text 
 of A; the latter having καταπάσασθαι instead of καταπά- 
 σασθε (at written in mistake for e), and ὑμῶν after the first 
 γέλωτα as well as after the second, an insertion made inten- 
 tionally to produce sameness of expression. Jer. translates 
 derisum and derisum vestrum, showing that he read 
 
 ad 01 ΠΣ and ΠΣ , on which see below. 
 
of the Book of Micah. ae 
 
 καταγέλωτα as one word: but this can hardly be correct ; 
 in the first clause a possible sense would thus be obtained, 
 but in the second καταγελ. and γῆν could not well stand 
 together as accusatives after καταπας. 
 
 With reference to the text given above as that translated 
 by the LXX, Roorda’s suggestion that may? may have 
 been the word thought of comes much nearer in form. 
 The objection to it is that AY is used in a considerable 
 number of passages, but that in none of them is there 
 anything approaching to a translation of it by καταγελ. 
 Yet [ think Roorda is right here ; wrath and derision are 
 not far removed from each other; the change of letters 15 
 very slight, and there is a real difficulty in thinking that 
 the greater change to δ), which is totally dissimilar in 
 sound, could be made twice within a few words. None of 
 the Verss. agree with the LXX in reading 27.* They 
 read thus because they were compelled to do it if any 
 tolerable sense were to be obtained: they were misled by 
 their reading 1J3/); the parallelism isdecidedly againstthem. 
 On the words M75Y? M22 Baer and Delitzsch’s note 
 is:—“F py E 3. adnotat: Py MAD INO, Β: NT PPD NI.” 
 The Massoretes therefore recognised the Pathach under Y 
 and the Raphe which shows that ΓΤ is not suffix. 
 The Pesh., seeing that the name of a town is re- 
 quired, and concluding rightly that Ophrah, on the 
 Philistine border, is meant, takes no account of the 5, and 
 vocalizes PY instead of ‘BY: the Targ. and Vulg. go to 
 
 the other extreme; perceiving the reference to 1DY, they 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * There cannot be much doubt that they are translating 7}: the Ar. 
 certainly understood it so. 
 
24 The Massoretic Text 
 
 let go the town-name entirely RIBYA 33, 2 domo pul- 
 veris. The M. T. is better: it keeps the reference both to 
 15yY and to the town. And here comes in the considera- 
 tion of the 9: it is in its place, indicating the genitive 
 relation, and it is required by the alteration of the cus- 
 tomary SY to ‘SY. The Na. of M. T. is supported by 
 LXX and Vulg. The Targ. has ‘YA NAIA PANT and 
 the Pesh. also has “houses.” This arose from their not 
 connecting ΠΣ with ‘y) as part of the name of the town. 
 Hitzig thinks it impossible to account for the Kethib 
 NWODNT arising out of the Qeri ‘WIDNMT: he also sup- 
 ports the Kethib on the ground that it contains a reference 
 to MWD. But the two forms are so much alike that 
 either of them might be a corruption of the other. And 
 the reference to MWD is far-fetched. Cheyne prefers the 
 Kethib, but does not state his reasons. Keil maintains 
 that the Qeri originated in a mistake as to the meaning. 
 To me it seems that the imperative in the midst of so 
 many other imperatives is more likely to be correct than 
 the indic. And the Verss. are strongly in favour of this: 
 LXX, Pesh. and Vulg. have 2nd pers. plu. imper., the plu. 
 in the LXX being occasioned by the parallel ἀνακοδομεῖτε. 
 It is also not improbable that the Targ. originally had the 
 imper. Its present representation of Dy ΓΞ. Δ 
 WOE is by PT INN NowPA PwODN NYA NN 
 For WwW", the reading of ὦ, we must with a and ¢ read 
 yaw: a and r also omit wan. If the original text 
 ran “YD ‘PI NWYT NMA pans, and PWISN? was 
 first written in the margin as explanatory of 15M and 
 subsequently was copied into the text, ΞΜ, which had 
 
of the Book of Micah. 25 
 
 previously belonged to ‘22 PIN, would be altered into 
 ‘y. to go with ‘51’, and 19M, which originally was sec. 
 pers. plu. imper. would be regarded as third pers. plu. 
 indic. Ryssel is of opinion that ‘DJ and M Dy. have 
 crept into the Targ. directly from the Heb. It is to the 
 influence of the Heb. that we owe the former, but spy 
 eannot have been untranslated in the first instance, and the 
 Lond. Polyg. has ΝΞ. not Mpy.. 
 
 V.11. No alteration. 
 
 aw navy D> ay. The LXX, as we have already 
 seen, affix the first words of this verse to the close of v. 
 10. They have no countenance from the other Verss., 
 and the change that would be needful in the form of the 
 words, as well as the unsatisfactoriness of the result ob- 
 tained, discredits their procedure. The Targ., which so 
 often turns these collective singulars into plurals, has 
 ΞΡ PANT D> VAY, which may be taken as evidence 
 in favour of the M.T. Jerome has “ Transite* vobis, 
 habitatio pulchra.” The plu. imper. has arisen from the 
 plu. pronoun, just as the Pesh. has turned the pron. into 
 the sing. to agree with its sing. imper. Neither change 
 is necessary; the sing. imper. is sufficiently explained by 
 the noun to which it refers, Wy, being sing., and -the plu. 
 pron. by the fact that ‘WY is a collective. As to the ὠμῶν 
 of the Pesh., it is evidently a mistake arising from a con- 
 fusion of » and 3, although Rich, Add. and Eg. support 
 ~* The common text of the Vulg., as well as Cod. Amiat., have 
 “ Ht transite,” &e. But neither the M. T. nor the other Verss. have 
 
 the conjunction, and in two places in the Comm. we have the simple 
 ** Transite.” ; 
 
26 The Massoretic Text 
 
 the text. All the Verss. read TDW NAwY: LXX κατοι- 
 κοῦσα καλῶς, and Vule. habitatio pulchra, regarding it as 
 an adjective or adverb; Targ:-and Pesh. correctly taking 
 it as a town-name. Both the latter are incorrectly ren- 
 dered in the Polyg.; the Targ. by “ qui habitatis in pul- 
 chritudine,” which is sufficiently condemned by the fact 
 that ΒΦ means pulcher, not pulchritudo, and the latter 
 by “ Fac tibi ipsi O habitatrix quod bonum est,” where 
 “0 hab. quod bonum est” is the translation of a precisely 
 similar construction to that which in this same verse 
 is rendered “ habitatrix Soanis.” It may be added that 
 Jerome himself looked on “ habitatio pulchra” as a name 
 given to Samaria because of its beauty and fruitfulness. 
 nwa my. The Targ. has a double translation— 
 pon. pro ay xv Δ, where ΝΡ» Δ is, as Geiger 
 says, assuredly a later addition, NY being a word which. 
 the Tare. avoids. The two remaining words 72 “W 
 allowance being made for the Targ. use of plu. for sing., 
 will thus exactly represent our M. T. The Vulg. has 
 confusa ignominiad (in Comm. confusa es ignominia), as 
 if from WY “to excite” The remaining two translations 
 diverge from these, and from each other. [XX end the 
 first clause where the M. T., Targ., and Vulg. do, κατοι- 
 κοῦσα καλῶς Tas πόλεις αὐτῆς (from MY in place of MY), 
 except that it omits ΠΩΣ. In this omission it stands 
 alone, and not improbably has been led to it by con- 
 fusion with one of the N2wy, either above or below. 
 The unsatisfactory sense it obtains and the error in its 
 treatment of DW are decisive against its rendering. The 
 Pesh. ends the first clause at "DW, and proceeds as though 
 
of the Book of Micah. 27 
 
 the next clause ran [YS Navy ἩΤΦῚΔ ROAR Ay. But 
 it would be a strange threat that the people should go 
 into captivity “stripped, yet not ashamed.’ Possibly a 
 reminiscence of the ‘naked and ashamed” of Gen. iii. 
 was in the mind of the translator, and, embarrassed by the 
 somewhat difficult ΠΣ ΤΠ», he brought out a contrast 
 to the narrative in Genesis. His division of the words 
 would rob the clause of the play on the name which is 
 found in the parallels and is supplied here by the juxta- 
 position of “ beauty ” on the one hand with “ nakedness ”’ 
 on the other. 
 
 The only Vers. which has preserved the ]]N3 of M. T. is 
 the Targ. JINS, thus spelled, does not occur elsewhere, and 
 it is probable that the δὶ was inserted for the purpose of 
 making the word liker to 88°: at Josh. xv. 37 it is J8- 
 The Vulg. is ἐπ exitu, but there can be no doubt that this 
 is a translation of the M. T.: inthe Comm, Jerome has :— 
 “ Non est egressa quae habitat in Sennan, quae interpre- 
 tatur exitus, sive ut Symmachus vertit ... . hadztatio 
 abundans.” Symmachus has εὐθηνοῦσα, from }INW. And 
 it is most likely that the LXX in like manner confused W 
 and ¥: Jerome and several cusives have Σεννὰν or Sawvav— 
 PS, Josh. xv. 37, in B is Σεννὰ, and in A Yervaw—but this 
 is a correction made under the influence of the Heb.; the 
 other MSS. have Σενναὰρ, from WW, and the Ar., El-‘Irak, 
 follows this. The Pesh. is «δι» and at Josh. xv. 37 it 
 almost certainly had the same word, for the <3 now 
 found there is the easiest of corruptions. 
 
 * This is better than Sebéks Ty », because his suggestion 
 leaves WWI out of sight. 
 
28 The Massoretic Text 
 
 ΤΩΝ 020 Mp Syxm ma ἼΞΟΩ. So far as the con- 
 struction is concerned the Pesh. is correct in making 
 5D the subject of the clause. ach of the other town- 
 names in this verse is preceded by a word in the construct, 
 and the sense obtained by adhering to this order in our 
 passage strongly recommends it. The Vulg. supports 
 the placing of 78D’ in this clause, although it makes it 
 the object of the verb, “ planctum Domus vicina * accipiet 
 ex vobis.” LXX agrees with M. T., κόψασθαι οἶκον 
 ἐχόμενον αὐτῆς, which belongs in sense to the preceding 
 clause. In saying this we assume that B κόψασθαι is to 
 be preferred to the κόψασθε of A, and that the latter either 
 arose from az being mistaken for ε or from an intentional 
 introduction of the imper. in conformity with those already 
 used. The Ar. agrees with B, although Jerome’s text 15 
 like that of A. The difficulty in believing κόψασθε 
 original is that it can hardly have been got from ἼΞΟΪ 
 whereas the infinitive easily might. The unsatisfactoriness 
 of the division adopted by the LX X appears best when we 
 consider that the new clause λήψεται x.7.r. 15 left im the 
 air without any proper subject: Mp’ can hardly have the 
 fem. “ NAW as subject, although that is what this 
 translation implies. 
 
 ὈΝΝΙ M2. The Pesh. is the only Vers. which explicitly 
 recognises the proper noun here, although the Vulg., as 
 we have seen, rests on that. The Targ. is uncertain: 
 the Polyg. gives NY Ma, but Levy says “ NDE m. pl. 
 
 
 
 * Cod. Amiat. vicinae is a transcriber’s error. In the Comm. the 
 translation is, “planctum domus Asel” ; and Jerome remarks, “domus 
 vicina et ex latere quod interpretatur Asel.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 29 
 
 (Gerber) ἡ. pr. einer Stadt, Micha i. 11, °858 Levita.” 
 The éyou. αὐτῆς of LXX is due to the fact that the town 
 “was an obscure one. It is nowhere else mentioned, unless 
 UMN, Zech. xiv. 5, be the same place. In that passage 
 ἫΝ the varieties of rendering are noticeable ; LXX, Ἰασόδ, 
 Targ. ὍΝ, Vulg. vicinum, Pesh. jay SoH It is worth 
 noticing that the 7 of ὈΧΝΠ is not ΠΛῊΝ either in 
 Targ. or Pesh. Yet the 7 is assuredly original. Similar 
 forms occur elsewhere, such as ΝΠ MI, MIDWA NI. 
 It may have originated here in the recollection of DAN7 
 and the mourning for Jacob which took place there, 
 2Y71) TDD Ov YTBD. 
 
 WII is a very difficult ἀπ. Aey. and has occasioned 
 great perplexity to the translators. The Vulz. has quae 
 stetit, sibimet, as though it had read ἊΝ, Ty which 
 however cannot have been the case, seeing that there is no 
 trace of such a reading. Jerome must therefore have 
 educed this sense out of our Wy. The Targ. has 
 ΣΝ WW. where the ) of the Heb. is turned into 1D to 
 make it accord with the signification ascribed by the Targ. to 
 the whole clause. The 15W probably arose from WN * 
 being read instead of ‘dy: it can hardly be considered ad- 
 verse to this explanation that 173 in the next verse is also 
 rendered NYIN AH. The LXX has πληγὴν ὀδύνης, and 
 the Pesh. mZauSo. The Y of ΩΝ was dropped, the 7 
 read as 3, and the suffix, which doubtless was written 7, 
 
 
 
 * Steiner would admit ἡ ΙΓ into the text: he says, “ Der Sinn: 
 nimmt von euch, nimmt euch weg seine Annehmlichkeit, Liehlichkeit 
 ist ein vollig angemessener.’’ But how could the wailing of Beth- 
 Ezel have Annehmlichkeit ? 
 
30 The Massoretic Text 
 
 was regarded as fem. (see below), in accordance with what 
 was believed to be the subject, κατοικοῦσα. Roorda is no 
 doubt right in conjecturing that the original was πληγὴν 
 αὐτῆς, ἀπ {π6 ὀδύνης came from the scribe’s eye having 
 fallen on this word in the next line. The Pesh., which 
 here depends on the LXX, favours this. In justification 
 of the order we have adopted, the sense thus obtained must 
 be given: “/The mourning of Beth-Ezel shall receive 
 from you its standing-ground”: Beth-Ezel, the house on 
 the slope, may appear to have an insecure standing-ground, 
 but there is secure standing-ground for the mourning and 
 misery thereof. The paronomasia is thus preserved. 
 
 The Tare. stands so entirely alone that some remarks 
 need making on those portions of it which have not yet 
 been referred to. The sense of ‘3 ‘WY TNX’ Ν is not 
 unaptly given by ‘8 AND. Paw pps’ ΝΟ [Ὁ has 3), 
 a and γ 32]. ΝΠ M1 ἼΒΌΩ is explained by an 
 imper., and the cause of the weeping TDD 55. ray 
 moo ma psa wp ὃν #02. For ‘oy 039 np? 
 there are two renderings, the shorter one at the end of the 
 verse, PIYIN WW PDI ADIN 23: being probably 
 original, and the longer one, ΣΝ PNY PINNN 2 
 oy Spe ΟἽ P27pD), being a later explanatory addition 
 from that book of Isaiah with which Micah has so much 
 in common. Cf. the Targ. on Isa. v. 8, DY NIV PSNI Ἢ 
 PI DD PINSpNA NOR OPT NVI. 
 
 V.12. m0 for TM. 
 After “Ὁ MWY and ’¥ ‘W it would be unaccountable 
 
 
 
 * In ὃ F793, a mistake of transcription; ὦ and 7 as above. . 
 
of the Book of Micah. 3} 
 
 1 ‘Wi were to be separated as Pesh. has separated 
 them, inserting o and treating “2 as 3rd pers. sing. of the 
 verb 5:30. The similarity of sound misled it ; and to this 
 must be added that’ nothing is now known, probably 
 nothing was known when Pesh. was translated, concerning 
 a town of this name. The other Verss., though supporting 
 the M. T., know nothing of this place: LXX, ὀδύνας ; 
 Symmachus, ἡ κατοικία ἡ παραπικραίνουσα; Vulg., in 
 amaritudinibus ; Targ. (see on v. 11), NVIN WW. 
 
 The force of the two contrasted halves of this verse is 
 destroyed by the τίς ἤρξατο of LXX, where % is read 
 instead of 3, and for APs : nn. The Vulg. and Pesh. 
 read our M. T., and fietiainfed “infirmata est; so also 
 Aquila, ὅτε ἠῤῥώστησεν. A much more picturesque ren- 
 dering is that of the Targ., ΝΖ, “She looked for good : 
 evil came!” To get this, however, we seem to need the 
 Hiph., not the Kal, of 917, the instances adduced, such as 
 Gen. vi. 10, Judges iii. 25, not justifying our ascribing 
 this sense to the Kal of the verb. If we assume that the 
 vowel letter » was not written, and that the Targ. had the 
 same consonants before it as the LXX, we shall have 
 ΓΤ, which will give the excellent sense mentioned 
 above, and will recommend itself also by its likeness to 
 the text translated by the LXX. Theod., too, has ava- 
 μένουσα, and it is worth noticing that he read MVD, es 
 ὕψος. 
 
 Jerome’s LXX has the nom. κατοικοῦσα, not the dat. 
 of A and Band the Ar. The dat. is probably original: 
 only from it can a tolerable sense be extracted. There is 
 
 a little uncertainty respecting Jerome’s own translation of 
 
32 The Massoretic Text 
 
 3905: the common text and Cod. Amiat. have in Jonum ; 
 the text of the Comm., in dono ; and the comment itself is 
 “infirmata bono suo.” Jn bonum is most likely original, 
 the quite fitting interpretation of this by the Dativus 
 Incommodi might lead a transcriber to write in dono in 
 the text. 
 
 Targ. and Pesh. have the plu. "yw; A and B of LXX 
 and Jerome’s LXX likewise; the Ar. has the sing.; the 
 Vulg. has portam. We must adhere to the M. T. It is, 
 of course, true that the > of YW would easily fall out 
 before the 5 which begins the next word. But it 15 equally 
 true that ’ might be read twice by reduplication. The 
 sing. is more likely to have been altered to plu. than the 
 plu. to sing., because it would seem strange that Jerusalem 
 should be spoken of as though it had only one gate. The 
 parallel passage, v. 9, where LXX, Pesh., and Vulg. all 
 have sing. is in its favour here.. LXX, κακὰ for ΜΝ); as 
 in other passages, to show that the evil is misfortune, 
 calamity, not moral evil. 
 
 In the Targ. the title ‘ID ‘W) is placed emphatically at 
 the beginning of the verse as a parallel tg 299 ‘DD: “For 
 she who dwelt on the pleasant place of the earth and looked 
 for good.” ‘To the simple “looked for good ᾽ is added 
 one of those paraphrases which the Targumists introduced 
 in the course of their reading, “and she looked to be 
 turned again to the Law.” ‘To connect the two clauses 
 the rhetorical question is now inserted, “ What will ye 
 do? for,” &e. This question would not have been felt 
 necessary if the explanatory ‘))) ΔΓ ‘DD had not been 
 interpolated. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 33 
 
 ~The connection of ἢ ‘w> with next verse in Pesh. is 
 treated of below. 
 
 V. 13. No alteration. 
 
 The abrupt opening of this verse by the word ὉΠ led 
 the Pesh. to begin with “VY ‘W9, and taking the 17 of “WT 
 as final letter of DN it obtained a 8rd pers. fem. indic. 
 agreeing with the verbs which have preceded. The 9 of 
 Ww it represents by “SS, just as 5 in this same verse 
 appears as by in the Tare. ‘The LXX for TAD ΘΠ ON 
 has ψόφος ἁρμάτων: the “Wit, like W35, which are col- 
 lectives, being treated as plu. They cannot have read 
 DN: Ryssel suggests YP, which at Ezek. vi. 11 is 
 rendered ψοφέω, but tliis is too unlike in sound and not 
 near enough in form; they are more likely to have 
 thought of Pmt. The Vulg. Tumultus is from the LXX. 
 The Targ., like the Pesh., supports the M. T.: it has the 
 plu. imper. in accordance with its general procedure in 
 this passage, and the plu. for the collective noun, IDV 
 NNN. | 
 
 In rendering YI) by ἱππευόντων the LXX have, in 
 substance, followed their usual course with this word. 
 In Gen. xiv. they read WD three times, and used ἡ ἵππος: 
 at Esth. viii. 14 they used of ἱππεῖς. For ti? here they 
 read WD): they were led to this by their knowledge that 
 WI elsewhere is an animal for riding, not for driving. The 
 Targ. got over the difficulty by making two distinct 
 clauses, NWD7 ὃν Πῶς. It, the Pesh., and the 
 Vulg. (stuporis, taking 9 as sign of genitive), all read ae 
 In using the word stwporis, Jerome must have been think- 
 
 D 
 
34. The Massoretic Text 
 
 ing of some other word, probably Wy: he seems to have 
 been uncertain how to treat it for in the Comm. he 
 contents himself with copying the LXX:—“ Veniet ... 
 et ad te quadriga et equites.’ The LXX and Pesh. 
 division of the verse, putting a full stop after ἱππευόντων, 
 is incorrect: WD? belongs to the same clause as W379. 
 The common Vulg. text has habitanti Lachis, Cod. Amiat. 
 habitant in, Comm. haditantis: the first is best, it 
 explains the others; none of the parallels have the plural 
 habitant, and where they have habitat, quae precedes ; it is 
 unlikely that four genitives would stand together. Cod. 
 Amiat. is also in error when it omits 2 fe: the scribe’s 
 eye fell on the following inve, and thus the in te were 
 lost. ᾿ 
 
 There is no disconformity to the Μ. T. of the rest of 
 the verse in the Verss. The Polyg. is wrong in rendering 
 the Ar. “ Origo peccati habitatricis Lachis tribuenda est 
 filiae Sionis”: it should have been identical with the 
 rendering of the Pesh. :—‘ Habitatrix Lachis origo peceati 
 est filiae Sionis.”? ἀλέξβϑίῳ is obviously the subject, and to it, 
 -» refer. 
 
 φΦ 
 Ar. follows A in the erroneous αὐτῆς instead of αὕτη, but — 
 
 not to the masc. (»\,, does the fem. pronoun 
 
 not in having the article before ἀσέβειαι. As usual, the 
 Tare. has the plu. instead of the sing. NNONM; for ywy 
 the persons who are guilty of these, TD; for ‘8 2, 
 ἊΝ ΝΠ). 
 
 ὟΝ. 14. No alteration. 
 The Targ. for DTW is ΤΣ Ρ, and the Syr. Jra>ea; 
 the latter being admirably rendered in the Polyg. mis- 
 
of the Book of Micah. 35 
 
 sam facies : LXX and Vulg. punctuated DTU, and took 
 it as meaning emzssariz: if this had been the correct 
 punctuation 12 is not the verb we should have expected ; 
 in fact, to express this idea we should have looked for one 
 of the customary phrases DS mow or D9 πῶ. Aa 
 Symm. and Theod. had δῶρα. The sense conveyed by the 
 M. T. is perfectly appropriate; “Ὁ °20. meaning, as 
 Gesenius puts it, “ Dimisit, alienavit, cessit possessione,” 
 and this being put in contrast with 4 ‘>. In this way 
 also the 9 (which LXX, ἕως, must have read “) is ex- 
 plained: in the ‘W ‘FT is involved the pronouncing, as it 
 were, of a sentence upon Moresheth-Gath. The More- 
 sheth must be retained as part of the proper name, not- 
 withstanding the agreement of the Verss. in turning it 
 otherwise: amongst them the Targ. stands alone in 
 regarding it as a collective ike NAW and rendering it by 
 the plu: ΤΩ ; it was led to this by its wrong interpre- 
 tation of ΤΊ. The δώσει of B, Jer. and Are is 
 clearly original: δώσεις of A is a correction to accord with 
 Heb. But the M. T.is right: the » of “NT was most 
 likely not written, but the second pers. is quite in place : 
 Targ. and Pesh. have it. 
 
 The LXX attaches ‘ON 2 to the first clause, its οἴκους 
 ματαίους (Aq. ψεύδους or ψεύσματος, Symm. ᾿Αχξζιβ, 
 Theod, ἐξ ἀνάγκης) being governed by δώσει which now 
 takes a somewhat different signification from that which it 
 has when governing ἐξαποστελλομένους :--- he will send 
 messengers ... . he will cause houses to be &c.” The 
 other Verss. keep ‘D8 2 in their proper clause: the Tare. 
 having PI wdp 7 pana Noy? PIDDN ΔῊΝ ὙΠ2 
 
 D2 
 
36 The Massoretic Text 
 
 wo 550 xm, where ‘W’ ‘525 ‘DN? seems to be repre- 
 sented first by the idea that the houses which they hoped 
 to hold are handed over to others, and, secondly, by the 
 word NYY, which signalises the idols as vain and mis- 
 leading: the Pesh. having the same word for ΔΊΩΝ as for 
 ANN. None of the others resemble the Pesh. in this par- 
 ticular, but they all, except the Targ., treat IYIN as if it 
 were pot a proper name. Β eis κενὸν ἐγένοντο, and A 
 εἰς κενὰ ἐγένετο, both come from εἰς κενὰ ἐγένοντο ; simi- 
 larities of sound led to this being written κενὰ ἐγένε. en 
 the one hand, and κενὸν éyévov. on the other. For ματαίους 
 the Ar. has ,.43.}, which the Polyg. renders potentes: it 
 may be doubted whether the Ar. wrote thus; if he did, it 
 can only have been because he thought a word was needed 
 which should contrast with κενὰ, and yet wanted to retain 
 
 a reference to \,-5, desertum. 
 
 V.15. Ne alteration. 
 
 The LXX connects this with the former clause of v. 14, 
 δώσει ἐξωαπ. ἕως Kr. Γέθ... .. ἕως τοὺς κληρονόμους 
 ἀγάγωσι. In this it stands alone, and against it is the 
 consideration that it takes WNT out of the clause which 
 has in it TWD. With this division falls also the TY: all 
 the rest read sy ;* we can easily understand how it came 
 to be wrongly pointed ; it is written defective, and a TY 
 immediately follows and by the LXX was also read for 
 DY, just before. In a passage where the LXX appear to 
 have been somewhat at a loss, we cannot forsake the "28 of 
 
 * Symm. has ἔτι. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 37 
 
 M. T. and the remaining Verss., Symm. and Theod. in- 
 eluded, in favour of the pl. ἀγάγωσι. The fact that the 
 word is written defective (as is the case also at 1 Kings 
 xxi. 29 in the immediate vicinity of the story of the other 
 Micah), is in its favour, and the LXX were misled by the 
 sense they ascribed to the passage as a whole. The pl. 
 κληρονόμους does not imply a Heb, plu.: WT was re- 
 garded as a collective; moreover, the plu. noun was needed 
 - after ἀγάγωσι, because the people would not bring a single 
 person as heir: IDM of the Targ. does not support the 
 LXX plu., for it comes from the previous verse: Aq. and 
 Symm. have κλρονόμον. Katotxodoa Aayeis κληρονομία 
 is evidently erroneous : instead of translating 32 , the LXX 
 has joined these letters to the beginning of the next word, 
 which was probably written ΤΠ Δ᾽, and has thus obtained 
 wD; the analogy of the other verses where town-names 
 are used has, however, compelled it to put in NAW. But 
 the proper name wanted is not Lachish, but Mareshah, to 
 correspond to WIT. Before the Lachish thus obtained the 
 customary κατοικοῦσα was now placed, and the 1, the re- 
 maining part of IW, was taken to belong to the line 
 next below where it is translated τῆς θυγατρὸς. 
 
 What has already been said will make it apparent that 
 the final clause cannot begin with TW, but must com- 
 mence at TY. It is almost certain that the M. T. of these 
 words is correct, although the Verss. are not agreed either 
 
 
 
 * Jerome’s translation of, and comments on, the LX X show that his 
 text had the sing. But this was a correction which may have been 
 introduced under the influence of Symm., who has ἔτι κληρονόμον ἄξω. 
 
38 The Massoretic Text 
 
 in the reading or the division of them. The Vulg. follows 
 M.T. ‘The Pesh. read pdyy for DOTY, unless, as Roorda 
 thinks, this is an error of transcription in the Syr. I do 
 not myself think it is such an error, because the choice of 
 the verb “Qsa as the réndering of N12” appears to be 
 the result of the presence of Dy, it being felt impossible 
 to make sense of N12 DY Ty unless a meaning some- 
 what different from the ordinary one were given to N12’. 
 It was so easy to mistake 7 for Ὁ that we need not hesitate 
 to ascribe this mistake to the translator here. The com- 
 mon text of the LXX has κληρονομία ἕως Οδολλὰμ ἥξει, 
 ἡ δόξα τῆς Ovy. "Io. “Ed. rom.” has ἕως ’O68. κ.τ.λ., 
 making ἡ δόξα the subject. Symm. ἕως Ὀδολλὰμ 
 ἥξει τῆς δόξης Ἴσ., where τῆς δόξης 15 In apposition with 
 Ὀδολλάμ. Theod. (in Field), κατοικοῦσα Λαχεὶς κλη- 
 ρονομία " ἕως Οδολλὰμ ἥξει ἡ δόξα--τῆς θυγάτρος ᾿]σ. 
 The Targ. makes two clauses, DIN POY) ppd? Ty Ty 
 ‘WT NYIN, where the second verb originated in the 
 having mistaken 7125 for Sian At Amn al DA) is 
 rendered PWDINN]. The Polyg. has mistranslated the 
 Ar.: instead of “ O habitatrix Lachis quae es haereditas, 
 ad Odollam veniet gloria filiae Israelis,’ it should be as 
 the Greek from which it comes, “Ὁ habitatrix Lachis. 
 Haereditas ad O.v.g.f.1.”’ Three times in the Comm. we 
 find wsque Odollam: this might easily be written wsque 
 Adollam, as in Cod. Amiat. ; then, to obtain the restoration 
 of the O, wsque ad Odollam, as in commom text. After 
 Doty Ryssel would add Dey Ty in order to obtain the 
 play on words which characterizes the passage as a whole. 
 But this is not necessary. There is a sufficiently striking 
 
of the Book of Muah. 39 
 
 contrast in the meaning of the words as they now stand :— 
 “The glory,” i.e. the nobles, (Isa. v. 13), “of Israel shall 
 be driven to the outlaw-state, taking refuge in the cave 
 which aforetime sheltered David and his men.” “ Vor- 
 trefflich erklart Movers (die Chronik u.s.w. S. 156) unsere 
 Stelle durch die 1 Chron. iv. 38-40 (vgl. v. 41) angefiihrte 
 Thatsache, dass zur Zeit Hiskia’s mehrere Stammbhaiipter 
 der Simeoniten in den Siiden Juda’s geflonen sind.” 
 Mitzig. 
 
 V. 16. No alteration. 
 
 Jerome’s LXX is represented by him to have begun 
 this verse with the words which our editions end the last 
 with :--- Hoe quod dictum est a Septuaginta, gloria filiae 
 Israel, addentibus filiaec, Hebraei in fine superioris capituli 
 lecunt.”” No doubt it seemed very suitable as subject to 
 the fem. verbs which follow. 
 
 For Δ the Targ. probably read ‘31: it uses ND1, in 
 the sense of “lift up thy voice,” as Prov. vii. 1, where it 
 has the full expression M9p ὙΠ; it expected an addi- 
 tional sign of mourning, not a continuation of one already 
 mentioned. It endeavours also to explain JTNpP ATT 
 wid by FWD OW IN TD MDI ΠΣ SW) NT 
 ΠΡΊΝ ὃν. 
 
 Χηρεία, B, or Χιρία, A, can hardly be original. 
 Jer. and the Ar. read a word which was either derived 
 from or connected with ξυρέω. Possibly the spoken 
 dialect may have had some such word as ξυρεία which was 
 used here in place of the ξύρησις found at Isa. xxi. 12: 
 not being an ordinary literary form this would be altered 
 
40 The Massoretic Text 
 
 by transcribers, and our present readings might easily 
 result. There can never have been any mistake as to the 
 meaning of the Heb. word here. Aq. and Symm. have 
 daraxpwow, and Field says that some MSS. of the LXX 
 have ξύρησίν. 
 
of the Bock of Micah. 41 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 V.1. No alteration. 
 
 Ἵ 1s not necessarily followed by a preposition (see 
 Isa. i. 14,1 Kings xii. 30): there is’ therefore no need to 
 read 7 with the LXX: Aq. and Symm. have οὐαί, The 
 Vulg. stands alone in rendering the partic. by the see. 
 pers., cogitatis ; immediately after it 1s compelled to use 
 the 3rd pers. faciunt. Kaxa is employed for the sing. 
 y), asati. 12. For PN °IWN the Targ. has two render- 
 ings which, no doubt, were once alternative but now 
 stand together—D)2) and wat sayn>. The asyndeton 
 pant WS is much more forcible than the construction 
 with the copulative conjunction adopted by the LXX, and 
 the conjunctions found in the Targ. and the Pesh. of this 
 verse arise simply from their general method of translating 
 it. The suffix pron. in MWY’ is omitted by the Targ., is 
 treated as a plu. in the LXX because of the plurals to 
 which it refers, and in the Pesh. is explained by “ that 
 which they devised.’’ 
 
 Ὁ Sxo-wy 5. The Verss. fall into two classes. To 
 the first belong the Targ., Aq., Symm. and Theod., which 
 have respectively JWVA NT ΠΝ MN, ὅτι ἰσχυρὸν χεὶρ 
 αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἴσχυεν ἡ χεὶρ αὐτῶν, διότι ἔχουσιν ἰσχὺν τῆν 
 χεῖρα αὐτῶν. The remaining Verss. form the second class. 
 The Vulg. has quoniam contra Deum est manus eorwm. 
 
42 The Massoretic Text 
 
 The Pesh. has δέ attollunt manus suas ad Deum, the et 
 (which ought not to have been omitted in the Polyg.) 
 being chosen as bringing out the sense of 3, not as 
 implying 1. The attollunt avose from the eye of the 
 translator having fallen on ἽΝ) below. The same 
 mistake accounts for ἦραν of the LXX, but in this 
 translation ov« was inserted, partly from ON, and partly 
 because the rendering διότι ἦραν x.7.r. was felt not to 
 furnish a reason for that which it seems to be adduced in 
 explanation of. The exact rendering of 3 has made the 
 difference between the LXX and Pesh. here. - There can 
 be no doubt of the correctness of the M. T.: the same 
 phrase occurs Gen. xxxi. 29, its equivalent T Sx ΓΤ, 
 Prov. 111, 27, its negative 7 Ord YN, Deut. xxvil. 32, 
 Neh. v. 5. And I think there can be no doubt as to the 
 correctness of the translation given by the Targ. Few 
 persons will be satisfied with Geiger’s attempt to show 
 that 7) ΟΝ means “ the god of my hand”: such a phrase 
 in Micah would be out of harmony with the whole tenor 
 of his thought. The same objection would not apply to 
 Kuenen’s, “because their might is their god.’ But the 
 negatives, Deut. xxviii. 32, Neh. v. 5, are strong evidence 
 against this. 
 
 V.2. For wx) read Wn. 
 
 Baer and Delitzsch’s note is: “WN sine Vav. copul. in 
 Soncin. Venet. 1518. 1521. Lombros. Pisana aliis. Ita 
 Β ἘΠ 2 3 et plerique codd.. (86 Kennicotiani, 24 Ber- 
 nardi de Rossi) neque aliter Jegerunt translatores veteres. 
 Etiam Kimchi testatur copulam abesse.” This is sub- 
 
of the Book of Micah. 43 
 
 stantially correct but needs a slight qualification with 
 regard to the trans. vett. The Vulg., A and other MSS * 
 of the LXX, with the Ar., a and ὁ of the Targ. omit: but 
 r of the Targ. and B of the LXX have the copula, and 
 the Pesh. leaves out WN entirely. ) found its way into 
 the text through the reduplication of the ) which ends the 
 preceding word. us 
 
 ww OD) 512) ar ytom. The Targ. exactly 
 reproduces this, except that it has the somewhat stronger 
 DIN for NWI. The Vulg. also differs only in omitting Ἷ 
 before INWI]. The Pesh. rests on the same text, its 
 lefia>.... eammio being its way of treating the 
 two verbs INWI) and 1512]. The LXX is καὶ ἐπεθύμουν 
 ἀγροὺς, καὶ διήρπαζον ὀρφανοὺς, καὶ οἴκους κατεδυνάστευον. 
 It is not easy to decide whether they had DDN in their 
 text or no. On the one hand it may have dropped out 
 before the not dissimilarly formed p xn): on the other 
 hand they may have thought that an object needed supply- 
 ing after the verb, or else may have misread O°F2) into 
 Dyn. Against the jirst supposition is the concurring 
 testimony of the other Verss., as well as the fact that if 
 the object had stood after 12) the order of the next 
 words would most probably have been reversed: we should 
 not have had three instances of verb followed by object 
 and one of object followed by verb: LXX itself, and best 
 text 1 of Vulg., testify to the order we actually have, 
 
 * ὦ Copula deest in III., XII., 22, 26, 36, aliis et Hieron.” —Pield. 
 t+ Field marks ὀρφ. as Ὦ be deleted: ““Ο΄ καὶ διήρπαζον---ὀρφανούς.᾽ 
 
 + Common text is: rapuerunt domos, but Cod. Amiat. and Comm. 
 have domos rapuerunt. 
 
44 The Massoretic Text 
 
 though the latter, under the influence probably of the 
 former,* omits the copulative conjunction before the verb. 
 On the other hand the LXX can scarcely have read DY3J1° 
 for OND) seeing that they translate the latter word 
 immediately. On the whole, therefore, we must conclude | 
 that they were not satisfied with the somewhat peculiar 
 collocation of words in the text, and, failing to see that 
 51) here is the carrying of the 79M into act and that the 
 word Ὁ is object to TWN also, leaving ἽΝ) in precisely 
 the same position as 19t)), they supplied what they deemed 
 the most likely object, that found in Job xxiv. 9. Treat- 
 ing the passage in this way they were compelled to leave 
 the ) of the verb untranslated. 
 
 73) Ipwy) Ww OWA). LXX, καὶ οἴκους κατεδυνά- 
 στευον καὶ διήρπαζον ἄνδρα. It is perfectly clear 
 that the verbs are out of place: καταδυναστεύω is the 
 translation of pwy, not of Nw]. Admitting the suggestion 
 that NW) might be connected with NWI, and thus come to 
 mean “to act as ruler over,’’ it remains true that this 
 does not seem ever to have been the case. But PWy is 
 not unfrequently so rendered, and that in the Prophets 
 (see Jer. vii. 6, 1. 33, Hosea v. 11, Amos iv. 1, Zech. 
 vii. 10). Elsewhere it is very variously given, ἀδικέω, 
 ἀποστερέω, ἐκπιέζω, παροξύνω, and once, Lev. xix. 13, 
 ἁρπάω. Moreover, iu three places where the verbs PWY 
 and 512 occur together, the latter is rendered διαρπάξω ; and 
 seeing that dvapzr. has just been used for 913 the conclusion 
 
 * The Comm. show that Jerome read the Heb. as we do:—* Et 
 domos subauditur, concupierunt ; et quas concupierant, diripuerunt.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 45 
 
 ‘is inevitable that they read 512) here again in place of 
 WNW), rendering it by καὶ διήρπ., and PWY by καταδυ. 
 When we further note that καταδ. goes better with ἄνδρα 
 and διήρπ. with οἴκους, we shall also conclude that the 
 derangement has been in the Greek rather than in the 
 Heb. 
 
 None of the Verss. distinguish between 72) and WN. 
 The Pesh., for ‘‘a man and his house, a man and his 
 heritage,” has “a man in his house and in his heritage ”’ 
 (7z is better here than the propter of Polyg.). The Vule. 
 calumniabantur would seem to be hardly a strong enough 
 rendering for PWY; yet it is quite common in this Vers. 
 In the Comm. at Jer. vil. 6, Jerome shows his sense of 
 its inexactness :— Non feceritis calumniam (sive non op- 
 presseritis) .”” 
 
 _V. 3. No alteration. 
 
 The LXX ὀρθοὶ ἐξαίφνης, or as in A, ὀρθροὶ ἐξ., is 
 a double translation of 7717. In some MS. ὀρθροὶ was 
 written by mistake: a transcriber corrected this, but put 
 ὀρθροὶ in the marg. For this marginal op@pol, ἐξαίφνης 
 was substituted, and subsequently the latter word found 
 its way into the text; the uncertainty of its position being 
 still evident, both in the Ar., which puts it in the very 
 last place in the verse, and in Jer., who would attach it to 
 the first clause: his words are, “ ἐξαίφνης, id est, subito, 
 in Hebraicis voluminibus non habetur, et tamen potest 
 cum praesenti loco ita congruere, ut dicamus: propterea 
 haec dicit Dominus: ecce ego cogito super tribum istam 
 mala subito.” As regards the spelling, which should be 
 
46 The Massoretic Text 
 
 ὄρθριοι, the blunder is not at all an uncommon one. A 
 curiously similar instance is noticed by Hatch, p. 26, 
 “ δροθετεῖν (many MSS. ὁριοθετεῖν)." The Targ. and 
 Pesh., TDP} MPI and διὰ. |Ascoa> are obviously 
 related to each other. The Pesh. alone has ‘‘ Lord God.” 
 In its rendering of TAMDW it exactly follows the Heb., 
 whereas the Targ. limits the extent of the curse,* Dy by 
 YTT NIT. The Polyg. should not have rendered the Pesh. 
 by generationem istam as though it were identical in 
 meaning with the Targ. At Zech. xu. 13, it renders the 
 same Syriac word familia. 
 
 V.4. For WON 32 772 ΠΣ read TON? 4) 77; 
 for 1D" read Tid’; for ” read 4). 
 
 The passives ληφθήσεται and sumetur of LXX and 
 Vulg. do not imply that they read a passive: this is 
 their perfectly legitimate way of treating the impersonal 
 active. 
 
 M7] V1 TT. If all these words were to be retained 
 in the text one of two accounts would have to be given of 
 them. First, with Gesenius, Fuerst, Hitzig, Cheyne and 
 others, ΓΤ might be regarded as Niph. of 7. In this 
 way a word-play with 77) is supposed to be obtained. 
 But the effect is rather that of an ambiguity than of a 
 word-play ; so much so that all the Verss. missed it. And 
 that ambiguity might so easily have been avoided by 
 M7] WN being used instead of WON M7. Besides 
 which, although such an arrangement as “ ‘It is done,’ 
 
 
 
 * Soaand7: ὦ has not the Dy. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 47 
 
 they shall say,” is not without example in Heb. writers, 
 it is not common: one would rather expect it in Latin or 
 English. Cheyne’s plu. has no support in the Verss. 
 except the Vulg. dicentiwm. The second account of the 
 matter makes 77 a noun from ‘73, like 7? from 9. 
 But Jamentatur lamentationem lamentationis does not re- 
 commend itself, and the reasons urged on its behalf are 
 inconclusive. Ryssel adduces DWT Δ as favouring it. 
 But this is no parallel: the plu. OWT makes all the 
 difference. Pusey says: “The fem. and masc. together 
 make up a whole, as in Isa. 111. 1; or it might stand as a 
 
 ? So far as Isa. 111. 1 
 
 superlative, as in the English margin.’ 
 is concerned, the presence of the copula in MIYWID) yw 
 removes this passage to another category, and against 
 Pusey’s alternative suggestion the objection to Ryssel’s 
 holds good. The Verss., no doubt, looked on M7) as 
 a noun. The LXX, θρηνήσεται θρῆνος ἐν μέλει, the 
 Vulg. cantabitur canticum cum suavitate, the Pesh. 
 }Aeso} Ula jAas.o> all hang together: the Targ. MeN 
 ΝΣ Δ is somewhat different but implies the same text. 
 Yet it can hardly be correct. We are led to the solution 
 of the difficulty by observing that with the exception of 
 the Targ., which smoothed away all roughness by the 
 rendering cited above, none of the Verss. were satisfied 
 with the WN of the M. T’.: the Pesh. prefixes o, the LXX 
 has λέγων, the Vule. dicentium, These phenomena are 
 best explained by the supposition that the original reading 
 was ἽΝ 72 TIN. By mistake the 1] was written 
 
 
 
 ® Sor: aand ὦ, 9) 2) NbN} is evidently an error. 
 
48 The Massoretic Text 
 
 twice, and the indistinct 5 of ἼΩΝ was read as 7 and 
 attached to the second ‘71.* 
 
 The only departure from the M. T. of the next words 
 is the Pesh. “ Praedo nos diripiet,” for JTW] NW. The 
 TITW has obviously been written defective, and the 3 has 
 been misread as’. The views taken of 7%” ‘DY PON fall 
 
 —jnto two classes. The Targ. and the Vulg. depend directly 
 on the M. T., except that for the impersonal active they 
 substitute the passive ΠΡ TWO MYT PAPIND. “pars 
 populi mei commutata est.” The LXX and Pesh. read 
 Td’, and it is interestiny to note that at Ezek. xlviui. 14, 
 where the M. T. has 1°, the LXX again read id’ 
 but the Pesh. supports the M. T. In our passage, 
 Steiner, after Ewald, argues forcibly in favour of Td° (or 
 the equivalent TJ’, parallel to p2m ), on the ground that 
 the thought to be expressed is the measuring out of the 
 land preparatory to its division among the enemies. ἂν 
 σχοινίῳ has been supplied after κατεμετρήθη from the next 
 verse. 
 
 The only Vers. which translates) is the Vule. The 
 Targ. has the plu. }171?, more suo, the LXX αὐτὸν, the 
 Pesh. omits entirely. The LXX and Targ. proceed from 
 the correct text: the third pers., referring to ‘DY, is 
 wanted, and when the first pers. is required, as it 15 im- 
 mediately after, it is in the plu. The Targ. and Vule. 
 read WD” JN, though they treat it diversely : IDM 
 n> ἡ Ὁ, and “ quomodo recedet a me”’? The LXX, 
 
 κε When this was written I was not aware that Stade, Zeitschrift 
 f. A. T. Wissenschaft, 1886, p. 122, had come to the same conclusion. 
 
of the Book of Micah. AQ 
 
 καὶ οὐκ ἣν ὁ κωλύων αὐτὸν τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι, is More pro- 
 bably to be referred to 19 Y29 PN) (see Ps. Ixxxiv. 11), 
 than, with Schnurrer and others, to a reading of our text 
 as a question expecting this negative answer: the 
 change in the form of the words is but slight, and such 
 an answer as is here given can hardly be referred to such 
 a question. The Pesh. partly corresponds to the LXX, 
 “‘ nec erit quis agros nostros mensorio fune restituat,”’ but 
 it substitutes, unsupported by any other Vers., Sami for 
 pom, and it runs the two clauses into one, a procedure 
 which is in some sort adopted also by the Vulg., “ quomodo 
 recedet a me, cum revertatur, qui regiones nostras dividat.” 
 On the words read otherwise than in the M. T. by these 
 two Verss. it may be safely said that they differ too much 
 from each other to inspire any confidence. Those omitted 
 by the Pesh. are too strongly testified to by the LXX 
 itself, as well as by the other Verss.; and the sense 
 obtained in the LXX is not nearly so good as that of the 
 M. T. So far as the division of the words goes the LXX 
 obtain a last clause which is but a feeble tautology, the 
 Vulg. cannot be obtained from any conceivable text, and 
 the Pesh. has already been characterized sufficiently. 
 
 pom ww ΔΊ." Both in ancient and modern times 
 the reference of the ἢ has occasioned perplexity. The 
 Targ. omits it; so also the Pesh. The Vulg. has δῆ) 
 revertatur,as if Dhad stood in place of 5; LXX, as we 
 have seen, attaches the word to the foregoing clause. For 
 διεμερίσθησαν A has διεμετρήθησαν ; the Ar. here follows 
 A. Cod, Amiat. has vestras, which probably was an 
 alteration made under the influence of the LXX, the 
 
 E 
 
50 The Massoretic Text 
 
 common text and most of the MSS. of which have ὑμῶν, 
 an obvious error, from which several Cursives, as well as 
 Jerome’s LXX, are free. 
 
 Stade’s view of this verse calls for special mention. 
 He holds that the order of the words in the M. T. is in- 
 correct and that the rhythm usual in a dirge is to be 
 expected here. His rearrangements and corrections are as 
 follows :— 
 
 7ana W3) wey PIN 
 
 Twi PR) 
 pam aw aw? 
 Ἴ) 1) Tw 
 
 The transposition of “2 ‘W would be a great improvement, 
 which we should be glad to find diplomatic corroboration 
 of. The arguments for some of the remaining changes are 
 not conclusive. “ Auch ware zu WD’, da der Acker bleibt, 
 doch anzugeben, womit er aufhort.” To that it might 
 fairly be returned that in a poetical dirge it is not neces- 
 sary to specify every detail. ‘Endlich ist 12109 ‘dem 
 Abtriinnigen, unmdglich: so kénnen wobl die Israeliten 
 heissen . . . . nicht aber die Assyrischen Sieger.” But it 
 is the representative of the Israelitish people who is speak- 
 ing, and he would not hesitate to designate the Assyrian 
 thus: besides which, as Hitzig has pointed out, 27 
 ΓΔ is used for the Ammonites, Jer. xlix. 4; if for 
 them, why not for the Assyrians? “ δ ist Dittogenenan 
 des Ὁ von ἡ), welches zu “2 ausgeschrieben wurde”. 
 This is not altogether without plausibility, but 1) (see 
 
of the Book of Micah. SI 
 
 above) is so strongly supported as to make us pause before 
 rejecting it. 
 
 V. 5. No alteration. 
 
 A and B of LXX, with Jerome’s text, divide otherwise 
 than M. T., Targ. and Vulg. :----διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔσται σοι 
 βάλλων σχοινίον ἐν κλήρῳ. ἐν ἐκκ. κυρίου μὴ KA. K.T.r. 
 This has probably arisen from the apparent impossibility 
 of regarding 717 D7) as a space within which a coré 
 might be cast, seeing that its regular meaning is that of 
 an assembly. But undue emphasis is thus given to the 
 words ἐν ἐκκ. x., and such passages as Josh. xvii. 8, 10, 
 mm 959 mwa Sy yur o> Jum are sufficiently 
 near in sense to that yielded by the M. T. division here 
 to justify its retention. Cod. Amat. of the Vulg. has con- 
 spectum instead of coetu, a later alteration to avoid the diffi- 
 culty which has been referred to: the remark in the Comm.,. 
 leaves no doubt as to what Jer. wrote :—“ Quod in fine 
 eapituli juxta Hebraicum posuimus: in coetu Domini &e.’’. 
 The Polyg. has translated the Pesh. as though its division 
 coincided with that of the LXX, but there is nothing in 
 the text to prove this, and it is to be noted that the Pesh. 
 in this verse pursues its own course quite independently of 
 the LXX, prefixing 2 to 92M as before, and rendering 
 290) by the plural. 
 
 V. 6. For PS) read 9101; prefix 5 to NO of last 
 clause: for JD’ read 20). 
 ya wun-ON. The LXX is always perplexed with 
 
 iT when it occurs in the sense of prophesying: at 
 E 2 
 
52 The Massoretic ‘Text 
 
 Ezek. xxi. 2, 7, they have ἐπίβλεψον, as if from O17; at 
 Amos vu.716, ὀχλαγωγήσης, as if from 450. It is only in 
 such places as Amos ix. 18, Prov. v. 3, where the literal 
 sense, or at all events one nearer the literal, is found that 
 they correctly give ἀποστάζω. Here they (and the Pesh. 
 substantially agrees with them) have μὴ κλαίετε δάκρυσι. 
 The Vulg. has “ne loquanini loquentes:” the Targ. 
 ON il) pan x. The four Versions agree in connecting 
 the second and third words closely together*, and in ‘not 
 
 i reading DO as third word. 103, the inf. abs. Καὶ, 
 ‘would be quite in place, and might well be“the-source of 
 the translations just mentioned. Cheyne would retain 
 DO’ :— Prattle ye not . . . . (thus) they pratile. The 
 prophet takes up their word and flings it back to them 
 sarcastically.’ Against this is the ambiguity which would 
 be occasioned by taking up their word thus. 
 
 ΝΌΟΝ 1D!’ NO. The variations in the phrases adopted 
 by the Verss. do not point to any other verb than ἘΣΤΊ - 
 The Vulg. has steddabit, but the remark made in the Comm. 
 shows that this is merely a more literal rendering of the 
 same word as has just been translated loquemini: the 
 LXX has δακρυέτωσαν; Aq. σταλάξατε; Symm. ἐπίτυ- 
 μῶντε, “fort. ἐπιτιμῶντες :Ὁ + the Targ. ἼΞ ΠΣ: the 
 Pesh, repeats the verb it has already used. But the 
 variations in num. and pers. are remarkable: the LXX, 
 like M. T., has third pers. plu.: the Vulg. third pers. 
 sing.: Aq., Symm., Targ., Pesh., second pers. plu., a 
 
 * So also Aq., μὴ σταλάξατε otaddgovres; but not Symm., μὴ 
 ἐπιτιμᾶτε᾽ ἐὰν επιτιμήσητε K.T.A. 
 
 + Field. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 53 
 
 correction to agree with the foregoing. M. Τ᾿ and LXX 
 are preferable to the Vulg., which arose from “non still. 
 super istos, non comprehendet confusio” being taken as 
 the speech of the lequentes, and stiddadit accordingly is put 
 in the sing., parallel to comprehendet: the text from which 
 this was taken must have been withcut the vowel letter ἢ - 
 A (not Ar.) for ἐπὶ τούτοις has ἐπὶ τούτῳ, a blunder in 
 transcription: Aq. has εἰς τούτους, Symm. τούτους. 
 
 nva?2 4D ND. The Targ. robs the clause of all suit- 
 able sense, WIDNN -PIAPO NI MN. The ‘pd arose from 
 an error of hearing, 3D’ and NW" being confounded with 
 each other (ΞΡ is used for NW’, e.g. Ps. xxiv. 5): ‘DTN 
 might be the rendering either of sing. or plu.: the plu. 
 verb is used, as in the rest of the verse. The Vulg. has 
 non comprehendet confusio, from ΓΟ δ ΝΟ. Ye is 
 rendered comprehendeé Jer. xlii. 6, Zech. 1. 6, Ps: leven. 
 25, and 92D is used Jer. xxix. 40 (rendered igno- 
 miniam there). LXX has οὐδὲ yap ἀπώσεται ὀνείδη from 
 ΓΟ 3D’ NP ὅς The Ar. here has-been influenced by 
 the Pesh.: it treats “22 as sing. The Pesh. has “ Ne 
 assequatur vos opprobrium quod dictum est de ἃ. &”’: 
 the vos is obviously an insertion in accordance with what 
 was believed to be the sense of -the passage; in other 
 respects the same words as the Vulg. had before it seem 
 to be read.* Both in respect _to the verb and the noun 
 the LXX is preferable. The noun has been looked on as 
 sing. by Pesh., Ar. and Vulg. because the verb is so: the 
 
 
 
 » 
 * Sebdk “sie etwa 3D lies:” but at Jer. xlii. 16, Ps, xl. 13, Ixviii. 
 25 they have the same verb for δ). 
 
54 The Massoretic Text 
 
 alteration of the Heb. from 3D’ to 3D’ is very slight, 
 and the Hiph. is supported by all the Verss. Three of the 
 Verss. seem to require that another word should stand 
 before ND; the LXX and Targ. suppose 3» the Pesh, has 
 tis: 7D would give~a-good-sense,-and being so strongly 
 supported should be accepted. It is, however, to be noted 
 that Aq. and Symm. have not yap: the former reads ov 
 καταλήψατε ἐντροπάς, the latter οὐ κωλύει καταισχυμμός. 
 
 V. 1. For ΝΠ read ONT: for On WAT read . 
 10 WaT. 
 
 The Pesh. implies WONT: the LXX, ὁ λέγων, VIRT: 
 the Vulg., dicit, VON; the omission of in the Vulg. 
 finds no support in any of the rest. And the mere 
 setting down of the words found in the LXX will 
 show that their method cannot be adopted: οὐδὲ yap 
 ἀπώσεται ὀνείδη ὁ λέγων Oikos ᾿Ιακὼβ παρώργισε κ.τ.λ. 
 Why should reproaches be put away by him whose de- 
 claration it is that they have been deserved? And would 
 787 have stood thus at the end of the clause? On the 
 other hand WONT cannot be correct. Hitzig adduces 
 Lev. xi. 47, and Ps. xxii. 32, as parallel, but in each of 
 these cases a noun, to which the partic. belongs, is found. 
 Steiner, in editing Hitzig, appears to have felt the force of 
 this objection and expresses his preference for the ex- 
 clamatory WONT, “ What a speech!” But this is 
 extremely abrupt. Nor can we take TDN to mean 
 “the one who is called: 7’ VON means to name or call, 
 Isa. vil. 12, but the context there removes all ambiguity, 
 
of the Book of Micah. 55 
 
 and Isa. xlviii. 1, which has also been referred to, is 
 not relevant, for there is no mistaking the meaning of 
 ΠΣ) OWA ONWPII: Micah, moreover, is not in the 
 ᾿ habit of insinuating that the people he is addressing are 
 not really, but only nominally, members of the house of 
 Jacob. The difficulty is best solved by the pointing 
 WANT, “Doth the house of Jacob say, ‘Is the spirit, 
 &e.?’” to which the latter part of the verse is a complete 
 answer, or else that which Driver offers (Hxposztor, 1887, 
 p- 263), WONT, “the infin. absol., ht. sha// one say ?— 
 used with a touch of passion, as Jer. wii 9, Ὁ} an 
 ‘Is there stealing, murdering, committing adultery,’ &e., 
 or Job xl. 2, iO’ IW OY ANA, ‘Shall a caviller 
 contend with the Almighty ?’” Driver’s method has the 
 advantage of preserving all the consonants of the M. T. 
 Otherwise it reaches much the same result as the one first 
 mentioned. And it is to be remembered that there need 
 be no special anxiety to vindicate an original place for the 
 vowel-letters and that the LXX does not appear to have 
 read the 1 before 1- The inf. absol. preceded by the 
 interrogative particle is also a rare construction. And, on 
 the whole, the more direct appeal, “ Doth the house of 
 Jacob say,” recommends itself by its greater forcefulness 
 as preferable to the less direct, ‘“ Shall it be said, O house 
 of Jacob?” 
 
 The arrangement found in the Pesh. yields a good sense, 
 though not that which we have seen reason to attribute to 
 the Heb. :—‘‘ Ne assequatur vos opprobrium quod dictum 
 est de domo Jacobi:” The Ar. follows the LXX in 
 
 connecting this first clause with the last words of v. 6, 
 
56 | The Massoretic Text 
 
 but in order to obtain what it deemed a suitable sense, or 
 | perhaps under the influence of the Pesh., it used ἀῶ; 
 which is too strong to render ἀπώσεται: it departed still 
 further from the LXX in transposing ὁ λέγων and making 
 a quite different sentence :—“ Nam qui dicit non perficit 
 opprobrium.” The Targ. is VAT PINT WI PII 
 “) NVI WPT APY’, wrongly rendered in Polyg. by 
 _© Numquid rectum istud est, dicit domus Jacob ἢ numquid 
 abbreviatum est verbum &c.?” and wrongly rendered in 
 Fuerst’s Lexicon by ‘*One may call with justice, &c.” 
 As, at Ps. lxxiii. 11, 98 YT) PIDT means “ How can God 
 know ?”’ so here, “ How can that be right which they of 
 the house of Jacob say ‘Is the word,’ &.?” The active 
 partic. } VSN is fatal to Fuerst’s view: it shows, too, that 
 the Targ., like the LXX, read WONT. Jerome’s LXX 
 would seem to have read ἡ λέγουσω, for he renders it gue 
 dicit, The παρώργισε of LXX and ed of Pesh. * imply 
 that Pit was taken as Hiph. The phrase is one which 
 they do not render aptly in other places; at Zech. xi. 8, 
 for example, they translate W5] TspN by βαρυνθήσεται ἡ 
 φυχή μου, and M7 3p, at Prov. xiv. 29, by ὀλυγόψυχος. 
 The Targ. and Vulg. are right in taking this as a question. 
 
 ov ταῦτα τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα αὐτοῦ ἐστίν : μὴ Would be 
 preferable to ov, for the question implies surprise. B has 
 μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, a reduplication of the final letters of ἐπιτη- 
 δεύματα. The Ar. seems to have thought of the collective 
 
 * There is no need to suppose that the Pesh. read some other verb : 
 Seb6k quite justly says that as 7} yp means “to be wrathful,” so 
 the Hiph. might be taken to mean “to make wrathful”: and the 
 Pesh. here felt the influence of the LXX. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 57 
 
 “house of Jacob,” and consequently has the plu. pron. 
 The Vulg. has cogitationes, as if from ΠΝ - 
 The Pesh., differs from all the rest in its arrangement :— 
 “quae ad iram concitavit Spiritum Domini hujusmodi 
 facinoribus suis,” reading ‘Yi ΓΙΡΝ for ‘Yd ΠΡΝ ΤΩΝ. 
 Hither through a mistaken reading or for the sake 
 of parallelism LXX have οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῦ. All the rest 
 have the pron. of the first pers. And this clause is 
 _ best read as a divine question which answers that asked 
 by the people: God is the speaker in the first clause 
 of the next verse, “my people’? The whole clause 
 runs thus in the LXX *:—ovy οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῦ εἰσὶ καλοὶ 
 μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὀρθοὶ πεπόρευνται : instead of our M. T. 
 JT Wwe Dy 12% NAT ΝΟ they must have read 
 50297 Ww Ay Wo MAT NOM. «This helps us to a 
 more satisfactory text than the Massoretic. “J ὝΦΥΤ Oy 
 is defended by Hitzig on the ground that Job xxxi. 26 
 and Ps. xv. 2 are parallels. But the former of these, 
 though it arranges its words in the same order, Pp’ [ΠῚ 
 757, has no preposition, and no article before 7", and the 
 latter, OWN JOT, does not put the words in the same 
 order and will hardly be thought a parallel if the manner 
 in which it is customary to use DYN be remembered. 
 But if we follow the LXX, and hold that ἡ has dropped 
 out. of the text, we shall get 1297 WT Dy, “with him 
 that is upright in his walk,” and the question, ‘ Do not 
 my words (my commands, the effect of which ye have 
 
 * i , > , , > 6 , ee “ He) , , A 
 q-, μήτι ov ρήματά μου ἀγαθύνουσι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐθέως πορευομένου; 
 Symm., μὴ οὐ λόγοι μου ἀγαθαποιοῦσι τῷ ὀρθῶς ἀναστρεφομένῳ. 
 
58 The Massoretic Text 
 
 been complaining of), do good to him that is upright in his 
 walk ?” is equivalent to a declaration that their misfor- 
 tunes are occasioned by their lack of uprightness, an idea 
 which is elaborated in v.8. We thus obtain a parallel 
 expression to the not unfrequent J77 Ἢ)", 35 Ὃν", and 
 we see a better reason than the Massoretes themselves 
 recognised for their carefulness to write JM defective. * 
 The LXX καὶ ὀρθ. πεπ., referring to of Noy. avt., would 
 give an extraordinary sense. The Vulg. shows no per- 
 ception of difficulty here, but its rendering can only be 
 defended if some such reading as has now been suggested 
 he adopted : Nonne verba mea bona sunt cum eo qui recte 
 graditur 9 The Pesh. stands alone: “ Hece verba mea pro- 
 Jutura sunt” (prosunt would be better), “rectis gui pro- 
 Jecerunt et perfectos se redderunt.” The plu. is to be ac- 
 counted for as in LXX: 710N) of ν. 8 is treated as Hithpa. 
 of Xn, just as at Job xvi. 10, the only passage where this 
 form of the verb occurs, PRIM is rendered eos so. 
 It was the striking position of ‘.8) at the head of its 
 clause which gave occasion to this. The Targ. also has the 
 plu., more swo, and it paraphrases the whole clause : ‘‘ Nonne 
 omnia verba mea recta erant que me adducturum dixeram ὃ 
 Adduxi equidem omnibus in veritate ambulantibus.” 
 
 V. 8. Write δ) ΓΝῚ as ΣΤΟΝ is commonly written: 
 for DID1p? read Dip?: for TIN read VIN: for ‘AW either 
 yay or WV. 
 
 * Baer and Delitzsch’s note is: “ ἽΠ defective in B. Εἰ. 1. 2. 
 
 Neque enim numeratur in undecim plene scribendis librorum pro- 
 pheticorum.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 59 
 
 The Targ. alone omits Ὁ at the opening of the verse, 
 possibly because D122, with which it commences the next 
 clause, has no copula. But it is correct in making ὯΝ 
 dependent on DYD"AN, though it does this by a para- 
 phrase: “ Because of the sins of my people they are 
 handed over to the enemy.” As in the beginning of the 
 next verse something is done against “the princes of my 
 people,” so here, “‘even against my people hath he risen 
 up as an enemy,” the “‘he” being indefinite. Hitzig 
 would alter to 992-9N, but this is not indispensable in 
 order to obtain the sense just given, and the testimony of 
 the Verss. is decidedly against it. Nothing in the con- 
 text would account for the stress that would have to be 
 laid on D27NN) if it were taken as an adverb of time. 
 The Vulg. has “et e contrario populus meus in adver- 
 sarium consurrexit.”* The LXX is καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ὁ λαός 
 μου εἰς ἔχθραν ἀντέστη: A has ἀντικατέστη, which per- 
 haps is original; being a non-classical form it might 
 easily be altered to ἀντέστη. Jerome’s testimony to the 
 text of the LXX is wavering: in the translation he has 
 enimecitiis restitit, but in the comments, iz adversarium 
 restitit, Here again the Pesh. stands alone: “ My people, 
 like a thief, rose up against its peace.” 23) and IN are 
 confounded together, and this is facilitated by spoliation 
 being described immediately after. 
 
 POWaN WN mow dwn. The Vulg. has “ desuper 
 
 
 
 * Jerome’s note is interesting : “quia verbum Mul, et contrarium 
 et diem hesternum sonat, Symmachus apertius transtulit ut diceret: 
 Ante unam diem populus meus quasi inimicus restitit.” 
 
60 The Massorettc Text 
 
 tunica* pallium sustulistis.” Tunica is by no means a 
 good rendering: padlium, 1 Kings xi. 29, is the correct 
 word; in other places vestimentum or vestis is employed. 
 The course adopted here arose from the difficulty of dis- 
 tinguishing between TN and maow. The Targ. is the 
 only other Vers. which in any way recognises maw, and 
 it would seem as though it did not clearly understand 
 either this word or the next; ‘‘e regione eorum popult 
 stantes possident eos, pecuniam eorum pretiosam ‘ab eis 
 tollunt.” Like the rest, excepting Vulg., it joins the 
 verb DIP’ (see below) to this second clause, or rather, 
 whilst they make the two clauses into one, it puts the verb 
 into its second clause. The LXX is ἀντέστη κατέναντι 
 Ths εἰρήνης αὐτοῦ τὴν δορὰν αὐτοῦ ἐξέδειραν. Pesh. is the 
 same, except that the verb is second pers. plu. For 718 
 they most likely read INNIN: Gen. xxv. 25, the only 
 passage where ΠΣ is rendered δορά, might seem to be 
 a weak support for this conjecture, seeing that the context 
 explains the use of δορά there; but γ}}, the alternative, 
 though more naturally to be thought of, involves more 
 alteration, besides which Vy is almost universally rendered 
 δέρμα. There can be little doubt that NTN should be 
 read instead of TIN: the latter form is nowhere used in the 
 sense of a garment, whereas the former is fairly frequent. 
 
 
 
 * In the Comm., desuper tunicam. 
 
 + Pusey’s note is not without force: “The sa/mah is the large 
 enveloping cloak, which was worn loosely over the other dress, and 
 served by night for a covering. der, translated robe, is probably 
 not any one garment, but the remaining dress, the comely, becoming 
 array of the person..... There is no ground to identify it with 
 the well-known NIN. Itis not likely that the common garment 
 
of the Book of Micah. ΘΙ 
 
 On the other hand the LXX* and Targ. are wrong 
 in reading the 3rd pers. plu., as the parallel in the next 
 verse shows: they were led into the mistake by the 
 D of ‘SF being dropped after the 1 of OT just as the 
 M. T. fell into the reverse error of losing the 1 of ΠῚ ΙΝ. 
 There are three important considerations to be adduced 
 against the reading ΓΙ) of the LXX and its division of 
 the clauses. First, rising up as an enemy against his 
 peace is a forced and unnatural mode of expression. 
 
 3 
 
 Secondly, ‘against his Ῥθᾶοθ᾽᾿᾿ would hardly have been 
 expressed by UW 7199. Thirdly, “IN is put in a position 
 of unnecessary emphasis at the head of its clause. With 
 regard to the word ὉΔῚ), it is very difficult to believe that 
 it and 519%) were. written together, the letter Ὁ occurring 
 four times in succession. The first 9 of 519% has been 
 written by reduplication at the end of the verb. To 
 Ryssel’s objection that there need be no doubt, considering 
 the analogy of other verbs, that DIP" could be used in- 
 transitively, it is enough to reply that the Kal is used 
 quite commonly in this sense, and the Pil. never. 
 
 Mom Yaw mal oayN. LXX has τοῦ ἀφελέσθαι 
 ἐλπίδα!, συντριμμὸν πολέμου, but fails to obtain a sense 
 
 should have been called, this once, by a different name; nor that the 
 KFIIIN, a wide, enfolding garment ...... should have been worn 
 together with the πο .’ But on the other hand no passage can be 
 adduced in which "JX has the meaning thus assigned to it, and if 
 FIN seems on other grounds the more probable word it might 
 almost, if not quite, as well be used in the required sense as XN. 
 
 * Symm. has ἀπὸ ἱματίων ἐνδυμάτων ἐξεδύσατε κ.τ.λ. 
 
 + So A, many cursives, Ar., Jer.: B has ἐὰλπ idas, through a 
 reduplication of the o of συντριμμὸν. 
 
62 The Massoretic Text 
 
 thus. They took the ‘yi for Hiph. partic. The Pesh. 
 agrees with the former part of this translation—ut amoveatis 
 spem ejus. The Vulg, (following Symm. ἀμερίμνως), and 
 Targ. take M1 in its customary adverbial signification ; 
 the former apparently replaces the of DAY by 1), HH 
 608 qui transibant simpficiter; the latter wm PAVINA PTY . 
 For Ὁ (aw Vulg. has convertistis in bellum. The Pesh. 
 has et redintigretis bellum ; neither of these requires any 
 radical change in the text, although both would come 
 more naturally out of the active than the passive partic. 
 The LXX συντριμμὸν πολ. supposes the reading IW, and 
 the existence of this as an alternative reading is testified 
 to by the Targ., which has blended it with the other, 
 Naw Mam pal pan. No doubt pm "Δ, meaning 
 “men who are averse from war,’ is a good parallel to 
 Δ '2y, and 52 NAW would be an unusual phrase. But 
 Δ in the sense of ‘ to turn away from” is almost in- 
 variably followed by 3 ; Isa. lix. 20 is perhaps the soli- 
 tary exception, and there it is the act. partic., YW) ‘lw. 
 The Targ. reads as though it had originally run “P INS 
 and the 2 ‘TN been inserted afterwards. So that, taken 
 altogether, the evidence is strongly in favour of "ΠΣ, and 
 if it be not adopted ‘AW must be read. If the latter, it 
 would explain the Vulg. and the Pesh. 
 
 V.9. For W) read "NW. 
 
 The Vulg. and Pesh. differ very slightly from the M. T. 
 The latter, as so often, inserts 9 at the beginning of the 
 second clause. They both use the plu. pron. referring to 
 ‘WI where the Heb. has the sing. referring to YY. The 
 
of the Book of Micah. 63 
 
 LXX (ἡγούμενοι) read NWI, not WI. The Targ., with 
 the rest, follows the Heb.; NWI being undoubtedly their 
 translation of ‘W) as it frequently is of M2- The sense 
 of the passage is in favour of the LXX; princes are more 
 likely to have luxurious houses than women in general 
 without any qualification; Micah’s denunciations are not 
 against the women but against the chiefs, διὰ τοῦτο of A 
 and Ar. at the beginning of the verse is an insertion to mark 
 the connexion of thought. The 3rd pers. passive azroppi- 
 φήσονται is one of those changes of pers. and voice in which 
 the translators readily allowed themselves and is the less 
 remarkable here as they have altered the 2nd into the 3rd 
 pers. in the preceding: verse. 
 
 m5>y Sy is represented in the LXX by διὰ τὰ πονηρὰ 
 ἐπιτηδεύματα αὐτῶν ἐξώσθησαν, where the ἐξώσθ. is pro- 
 bably supplied from the verb W730 * in the first clause, 
 the plu. pron., as in Pesh. and Vulg., refers to °8°WI, but 
 does not. necessarily imply that they read the plu., and 
 Ta Tov. ἔπιτ. is probably from mooyn dy. 
 
 DY? ITT NPN now becomes a separate sentence in 
 the LXX, ἐγγίσατε ὄρεσιν αἰωνίοις. For PN they read 
 Wit; for IIT, MIN; the Ὁ would seem to have been 
 
 * Jonah ii. 5, Δ) is rendered ἀπῶσμαι. In our passage 
 Jerome read ἐξηρέθησαν, electi sunt; this must have been due to an 
 error in transcription. 
 
 + This is preferable to the supposition that the verb was educed 
 from A: which has been supported by a reference to Hos, viii. 1, 
 
 Dw ἼΣΟΝ . ΤῸ say nothing of the difference between ὮΝ and 
 5 the LXX—and it is their method we are considering—did not get 
 a verb out of the IN there. εἰς κόλπον is their rendering. 
 
 t A similar mistake at Isa. xlv. 2, where )7/7 is rendered ὄρη. 
 
64 The Massorettc Text 
 
 transposed and put before “WT. The Ar. retains the 3rd 
 pers. plu. indice. which has hitherto prevailed. There is 
 nothing in the sense obtained by these two Verss. to 
 recommend it in preference to the M. T.: if such an 
 injunction were to be given it should come after the im- 
 peratives of the next verse. Ezek. xvi. 14, WN TTA, 
 oy QW, strongly supports our reading here, and it is 
 to be noted that it has the suffix of the first pers. which 
 the Pesh. in our passage, understanding how glory could 
 be taken away from them, but not how God’s glory could, 
 has dropped. The procedure of the Targ. on this point 
 deserves attention :—“ The congregation of my people ye 
 have cast forth from their luxurious habitation, taking 
 their sons away from them; their glory is removed which 
 they said should remain for ever.” The passage is inter- 
 preted under the influence of 1 Sam. iv. 22, and instead 
 of the harsh “ My glory is taken away from them for 
 ever,” we have the characteristic softening in favour of 
 Israel, ‘‘ Zheir glory which they said should endure for 
 
 ever.” 
 
 V. 10. For 23M 93ND read 93m 93m. 
 
 It is somewhat strange that the LXX, which has just 
 had ἐγγίσατε, should now have sing. imperatives, ἀνάστηθι * 
 καὶ πορεύου: the sing. cot which they have supplied led 
 them to read as sing. these words, which no doubt were 
 written minus the vowel letter ): it is, however, better to 
 retain the pl. of the M. T. in agreement with the remain- 
 
 * © Of λοιποι᾿ ἀνάστητε." —Field. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 65 
 
 ing Verss. and in harmony with the sense of the verse as 
 a whole. Pesh. omits the conjunc. before 132; missing by 
 accident one of the two concurring ἢ. A has αὕτη ἡ 
 ἀνάπαυσεις, the last word a common misspelling, the ἡ a 
 reduplication of the 7 in αὕτη: Ar. agrees with B. The 
 Targ. makes the holiness of the land the reason why it 
 will not bear such inhabitants :—‘“ This is not the land of 
 the house of rest for the wicked.” 
 
 The accentuation of TN has occasioned some doubt. 
 Baer and Delitzsch’s note is: “ N12 Teth cum Kamez 
 Methegato in E 1. 2. F Lombros. Norziana, quae est 
 Abenezrae quoque et Kimchii (in comm. et sub r. DAY) 
 lectio. Attamen E 3. seribit TNO. Ita seriptum Raschi 
 hane vocem ante se habuisse videtur. Tertiam lectionem 
 
 E 2. in margine adnotat TN 8’D. Sic Venet. 1518. 
 1621. Baer and Delitzsch accentuate thus, ΠΝ: Lond. 
 Polyg. and Athias MiNi. The only Vers. which reads 
 the word as a verb 1 is "the Tare. “AYA as a conjunction 
 seems always to be used with the imperf., and Ewald, 
 § 337, Ὁ, 2, says that when it means “ wegen” it can 
 never be used with the perf. On the whole it is best 
 to regard ‘20asanoun. The punctuation of the LXX in 
 the Lond. Polyg. and in Tischendorf’s edition is un- 
 doubtedly wrong, making this clause clumsy and the 
 next too short. Jerome’s is better: he renders the LXX, 
 propter immunditiam consumti estis corruptione; so also 
 the Ar. The Vulg. is similar, except that it inserts 
 ejus, propter immunditiam* ejus corrumpetur putredine 
 
 * Cod. Amiat. injustitiam: but Comm. agrees with ordinary text. 
 The jam also of Cod. Amiat., in place of guia, is a later correction. 
 F 
 
66 The Massoretic Text 
 
 pessima. The Pesh, treats WAV as conjunction, and 
 makes the noun N20 subject of the clause. The Targ. 
 also makes ‘Yl conjunction (see below). 
 
 yoo) Sam dann. The Pesh. reproduces this with the 
 solitary addition of the cognate accus. after dann. The 
 Vulg. read 2ann and omitted 1 of )4m. The LXX, 
 Dan ann. This would seem the right method: it 
 preserves all the letters of the text, it gives a very good 
 sense which is supported by the Vulg., and it entirely 
 does away with that necessity of supplying a noun after 
 the verb which the Pesh. felt. The Targ. confirms this,’ 
 so far at all events as to bear testimony to a plural, 
 poand yON* ΓΙ 52. Out of the final words 
 yoo? Sam the Targ. makes a fresh clause 2) 
 my YN PAN ANAND? (cand 45°92). In this para- 
 phrase ¥7/31 is thought of as equivalent to ISN: YYNDN 
 elsewhere renders TNINT (Jer. v. 7, Micah iv. 14) and 
 TID (Hos. iv. 14). In a long and highly elaborated Targ. 
 on ΥΩ (from YI), Eccles. ix. 11, the partie. PYNDIN 
 occurs. The LXX detach YD) entirely from this verse : 
 their rendering κατεδιώχθητε οὐδενὸς διώκοντος implies 
 Jo wh xd 3790 or TT YN IID for Ton wr x yon: 
 they are unsupported by the other Verss. ; they do violence 
 to T9713; καταδιωκέομαι, is very rarely, perhaps only Joel 
 11. 4, used for Y, and the changes needful in the text 
 are too great to allow of our following the LXX here. 
 
 V.i11. No alteration. 
 Δ 7pyy mn oT wr >. Notwithstanding the 
 
 
 
 * Soaand7; ὦ has PIN, evidently a mistake of transcription. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 67 
 
 great diversities amongst the Verss. this clause needs no 
 alteration. The Targ. attaches the 19 to the foregoing 
 verse, obtaining thus its My. The manner in which 
 LXX treat the first words has already been discussed : 
 for 233 Tpw) M7 they have πνεῦμα ἔστησε ψεῦδος, where 
 the ) of Pw is dropped in order to bring ‘W and 1 close 
 together, and ΔΙ Σ᾽ is loosely translated ἔστησε. The 
 Vulg., ‘‘ Utinam non essem vir habens spiritum, et men- 
 dacium potius loquerer,” stands alone: ΝΟ seems to 
 have been read, derived from 19 and the & of WN: NN ἼΣ 
 might fairly be rendered hadens spiritum, and At; the 3rd 
 pers., be taken to correspond to WN. The Pesh. does not 
 directly render , but may still have considered it in- 
 volved in the translation, “ A man who walks in the 
 spirit of lying and of falsehood ”; nothing calls for remark 
 here save that the } is transposed. The Targ., “ Because 
 they have gone astray after false prophets who prophesy 
 to them by the spirit of falsehood,” throws no light on its 
 reading of the more difficult words. The Heb. text, 
 meaning “If a man walking after wind and falsehood 
 hes, saying,” &c. is thoroughly satisfactory. 
 
 Ἵν᾽ 9 JD AWN. The sense of the passage compels 
 us to adhere to the first pers. here, although the Vulg. is 
 the only Vers. which agrees with the M. T. The LX& 
 and Pesh. have 3rd pers. sing.,a fact sufficiently accounted 
 for by their general view of the meaning, together with 
 the similarity of ΩΝ and OT. The Targ. has the 3rd 
 
 * It is a word which they are not uniform in their treatment οἵ : 
 Ezek. xiii. 19, they have ἀποφθέγγομαι; Hab, 11. 3, εἰς κένον. 
 F 2 
 
68 The Massoretic Text 
 
 _ pers. plu. The influence of the LXX on the other Verss. 
 is very marked in this passage; μέθυσμα, its rendering of 
 2W , is frequently found alternating with σίκερα for ν᾽: 
 but it might very properly be used in the sense of “ in- 
 toxication,” and, in fact, in one passage is so used, trans- 
 lating PIS, Jer. xiii. 13.* Feeling this the Vulg. has 
 ebrietas, and the Pesh. |Zaa03; the Targ. also has 1). 
 Curiously enough the Ar., having the same word as the 
 ~ Heb., uses it here, instead of translating the LXX. Cod. 
 Amiat. of the Vulg. has ὧν vino... . in ebrietate: the 
 Comm. agrees with the ordinary text, im vinum....i™m 
 ebrietatem: the ablatives are probably a correction for 
 the purpose of obtaining what might appear ἃ better 
 sense. The Pesh. found it difficult to understand the ? 
 and therefore in both cases neglected it. 
 
 mt OT 2 ΠΤ. The correspondence with the 
 foregoing vindicates the correctness of this, and the varia- 
 tions from it on the part of the translators arose, most 
 probably, from there being no preposition before DYN. 
 The LXX would require ΠΣ instead of ἢ, from the 
 rarely used noun *3: the Pesh. follows LXX, and makes 
 the fem. {Zaso3 subject of the clause. The Vu!lg. makes 
 mit OVI an apposition to the subject involved in 17; 
 its “ et erit super quem + stillatur populus iste” being ex- 
 plained by Jerome to mean “ populus iste meas suscipiet 
 pluvias, hoc est, vult, non vult, sustinere habet quae dico.” 
 The Targ., as given in the Lond. Polyg., is “ And it shall | 
 
 * Liddell and Scott have missed this: they only give “ μέθυσμα, 
 ατος τὸ, an intoxicating drink, LXX, 1 Regg. i. 15.” 
 + The Comm. has quae. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 69 
 
 come to pass that, as they have taught to wander after 
 prophets of falsehood, so shall they depart to a land of 
 falsehood, even the people of this generation.” This 
 would be a treatment of M7 DYN similar to that which 
 we have seen in Jer., and an elaborate development of the 
 meaning ascribed to 12. But for ΞΟ ΝΎ, r has PNT: 
 r, however, need not be implicitly followed; the Pael is 
 found in the former clause, and gives a good sense here.* 
 More is to be said for N’7PW of 7 in place of the last NUPUW ; 
 it would leave PTT NNT DY a parallel to PTT NIT ὃν of 
 v. 3, and the rendering would then be “so shall the lars 
 go forth to a land with this generation.” But the sense 
 thus obtained is harsh, and the position of NPW in the 
 clause peculiar, so that here also the text of ὦ and d.may 
 fairly be adhered to. 
 
 V.12. For [ΝΞ read 782: possibly WVAW should 
 stand before JN). 
 
 35D Apy FONN FON. Pesh. and Vulg. agree with 
 M.T. The Targ. has a double translation of the first 
 word, in the first’ instance rendering it NDID2, as if from 
 7D, and then, like M. T., NIWIDN NWID: r has PD; 
 a and & iD; it is difficult to say which was original ; 
 the 3rd pers. may have been used as in I, 2, and altered to the 
 2nd for the sake of closer conformity to the Heb., or the re- 
 verse alteration may have taken place under the infiuence 
 of the LXX. LXX has συναγόμενος συναχθσετήαι ᾿Ιακὼβ 
 σὺν πᾶσιν; the συναχθήσεται being probably used not as 
 
 * Ifit be adhered to, the Polyg. translation “ didicere”’ is wrong. 
 
70 The Massoretic Text 
 
 depending on a different text, but for the sake of variety. 
 The 79D also is represented by σὺν πᾶσιν, the preposition 
 σὺν being employed because it forms part of the compound 
 verb. The Ar. takes a somewhat independent course :— 
 “Congregem Jacobum et quidem congregetur cum omni- 
 bus.” In the next clause the Pesh. retains the direct 
 address :—“ #¢* omnino recipiam vost simul, reliquiae 
 Israelis.” The Targ. does the same, though with a slight 
 difference, NIMD ONIWT NNW pom AWD NID: 
 both of them attaching M1 to this clause (see below). 
 LXX and Vulg. render NNW by plu., τοὺς καταλοίπους, 
 reliquias. A (not Ar.) has τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου for τοῦ ‘Ic., 
 by acopyist’s mistake, his eye passing on from the A of ’Ic., 
 and λαοῦ τούτου being made of λεπιτοαυτο. The Ar., here 
 again, is influenced by Pesh. in joining 1M to this clause. 
 In other passages 3M is found either at the beginning 
 or the end of the clause to which it belongs; the former, 
 Ps. xlix. 3—the latter, Isa. xli. 14. In this place the 
 arrangement adopted by the Semitic Verss. seems best : 
 7 at the end of this clause corresponds to 352 at 
 the end of the first one, and each of the three principal 
 clauses begins with a verb. 
 
 MISA INS ΟΝ. The LXX, which begins this part 
 of the sentence with 7’, divides differently from the other 
 Verss. ; ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ θήσομαι τὴν ἀποστροφὴν αὐτοῦ (αὐτῶν 
 
 of A and Ar. a eorrection to agree with καταλοίπους), 
 
 * Kit, inserted, as frequently. 
 + The pronoun is sing., but can hardly be translated save by the 
 plu. here. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 71 
 
 @s w. ἐν 0., ws π- ἐν μ. κ. αὖτ. ἐξαλιλκιτλ. Ὁ No other 
 Vers. supports τὴν ἀπ. αὐτοῦ, which the LXX may have put 
 in place of the pronoun owing to their having begun this 
 clause erroneously with ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, and being then dis- 
 satisfied with the bare θήσομαι αὐτόν. It is a little 
 curious, however, that the Targ. has supplied a similar 
 expression ἸἸ2 22 in the foregoing clause, and this gives 
 rise to the suspicion that the text was uncertain in very 
 early times, and that there may have been a various read- 
 ing IAW or NAW +, which the Targ. has wrongly placed 
 in the former clause and the LXX rightly in this. Such 
 a word would correspond better with ‘W’ ‘W of the former 
 clause than the suffix pron. does. The Targ., as usual, has 
 the plu. suffix: the rest have the sing. ΓΝ, LXX ἐν 
 θλίψει, Pesh. la,sol> t, Vulg. ἐμ ovidd, Targ. NWI 122-- 
 122 for 2 to produce conformity with next clause. All 
 the Verss. found here the meaning “a confined place,” 
 whether they derived this from 1% or, as Driver thinks, 
 from 832. In the latter case they must have looked on 
 the word as adv. accus., and consequently have supplied 
 the preposition. But Driver admits that “the word does 
 not occur elsewhere in this sense (or, in fact, at all, except 
 as a prop. n.),” and since such a meaning would be quite 
 in accordance with the etymology of Ty, and if adopted 
 
 * So the ordinary text runs: but see below. 
 
 t Ezek. xvi. 53, ΠΣ Δ ON WWI, καὶ ἀποστρέψω τὰς ἀπο- 
 στροφὰς αὐτῶν. 
 
 Ἶ bso] {ZS is unfortunately rendered oves astipatas by the 
 Polyg.: ad angustum usque locum, the rendering of [2 Sof> at 
 Zch. xiv. 5, would much better have brought out the connection with 
 the other Verss. 
 
72 The Massoretic Text 
 
 would leave the 2 to correspond with the following JW, 
 it seems preferable to read ΣΝ. In any case, the proper 
 noun Bozrah is out of place even if that town were “the 
 centre of a pastoral district.” 
 
 DIND MIT Yaw PHA Wd. The Polyg. and 
 
 Athias have 27: it should be accented with Baer and 
 
 Delitzsch, naa : “Metheg. .. adjectum est etiam brevi 
 in penultima ante pausam.” Gesen. Baer and Delitasch 
 have a note TOT sine Jod ante Nun et id ipsum 
 raphatum optimorum codd. consensu, ita ut sit 3 pl. fem. 
 E 8. exhibet 739.7 cum nota MP AMIN.” E 8. 
 therefore regards the word as 3rd plu. fem. of DY, the ° 
 11, being a contraction of 721. The Polyg. agrees with 
 Β. and D.’s “opt. codd.” Athias has 2;  Gesenius 
 and Ewald refer this word to the Hiph: it would perhaps 
 be better to regard it as Kal, written defective for 
 ΓΤ, and partaking of the characteristics of verbs 
 Med. * in that “SW is written instead of “WN. For 
 ‘I AT Roorda and Ryssel would read “ΠῚ II; 
 but Ewald, ὃ 290, d,* gives several instances where both 
 article and suffix are used, and most of these seem to be 
 uncorrupt: at 2 Kings xv. 16, where a change should be 
 made, it is the article, not the suffix, which should be » 
 omitted: in our passage, also, asyndeta prevail, and none 
 of the Verss. has a trace of the copula before "7. The 
 Targ. and the LXX omit the article. In other respects 
 
 * Tc Ewald’s instances, add Josh. vii. 21, viii. 33, which Hitzig 
 me stivns. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 73 
 
 Targ. and Vulg. agree with M. T., the only point requiring 
 mention being the various readings of the Targ.: ὁ has 
 Yon, ὦ WON, r yor, the latter being the frequently 
 occurring contracted partic., and the others having 
 obviously arisen from: it.* The Pesh. stands alone; 
 faa] So wad? MSD} AD -t Misled by the ear, they 
 must have thought of 7212197 in place of ΠΤ. The 
 LXX ἐξαλοῦνται probably comes from the familiar D7, 
 “to drive or disturb,” the idea being that they were so dis- 
 turbed as to leap out : other verbs, meaning “ to leap forth,” 
 are too unlike ours in form to allow of our thinking that 
 there has been a confusion with any of them: noann, 
 . 197, TI, MDD are examples. 
 
 The Ar., the Polyg. and Jerome’s LXX begin a fresh 
 clause with ἐξαλοῦνται, but do not agree as to the point 
 at which it ends, the Polyg. and Ar. extending it to 
 προσώπου αὐτῶν, Jer. ending with this verse. No doubt 
 the former was the connection intended, but it labours 
 under the objection that it would necessitate the reading 
 Dy in place of ΓΝ), and that even then we do not geta 
 suitable preposition to use with Y75 or to turn by dia: at 
 Amos iv. 3, Y0) is employed in this sense, but without a 
 preposition. The division followed in the M. T. gives a 
 perfectly satisfactory meaning. The Ar. Are for δία is 
 is ear al , pro quo male in Venetis yan, rectius yo ut in Lex. suo 
 Chald. Buxtorf.” 
 
 + Sebék suggests that the pointing should τὸ wade Rich 
 
 favours this, having uot 2», and Eg. has wad? the vowels 
 
 apparently having been salad over by a later hand. 
 
74 The Massoretic Text 
 
 a mark of carelessness; it does not distinguish between 
 dia as followed by the genitive and the accusative re- 
 spectively. 
 
 V.13. No alteration. 
 
 Many codices of the LXX begin the verse with ἀνάβηθι, 
 in agreement with Jerome. There cannot be much doubt 
 that this is a correction in accordance with the Heb.; if it 
 had originally stood in the text it would not easily have 
 been lost. For O7°299 YB Ady the Tare. has a double 
 translation; the first part, ΝΡ TWD ἡ Ὁ Npd?, 
 giving the result of the fact more literally rendered in the 
 second part, JIA II WD por. 
 
 12 N88) Ww May) WD. It can hardly have been 
 from carelessness that the Ar. does not give any trans- 
 lation of this and the next clause; the words are too 
 numerous for us to suppose that. Probably the rejection 
 was deliberate, founded on the belief that the seeming 
 tautologies of the passage were mistaken repetitions ; 
 and this would appear even likelier to one whose original 
 was the Greek, where διῆλθον, ἐξῆλθον, ἐξῆλθεν (the last 
 “an error) pursue each other. Cod. Amiat. of the Vulg. 
 has egredientur, a correction to accord with Heb. and 
 LXX ; ingredientur of common text is from a different 
 point of view. The Pesh. alone has 3rd pers. sing. 32 
 for 1305, the verb thus agreeing with the subject of the 
 previous clause*: having employed this verb it cannot 
 
 * As Jerome in his exposition, not his text, makes it, “ dux itineris 
 eorum.... quo iter dividente et praecedente &c.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 75 
 
 now have its usual noun %3Z, cognate to IY; hence 
 the more general word jAs302Z. The Polyg. should not 
 have omitted to translate mp. For i0D Targ. has 
 ἩΠῸ" pOyDT NIIT MyA Tan: for We My it has 
 PD PN pIID was: for 12 ἸΝΝΝῚ, in accordance with its 
 treatment of the last clause, PTIDM ΝΘ NIP: the 
 final clauses of the verse are almost literally reproduced : 
 omad ὌΞΟΣ ayy by Wreesa 7270 PADI 7, and 
 DWNID MM) by ΠΣ “T NWI. The other Verss. 
 also call for little notice: the LXX has ἐξῆλθεν in place 
 of διῆλθεν, probably an early error of transcription 
 occasioned by ἐξῆλθον going before. 
 
 * So r: the Polyg. has Pyrat and renders “inimicum,” a pro- 
 cedure which could hardly have been defended even if the verb had 
 been sing. 
 
76 The Massoretic Text 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 V.1. No alteration. 
 
 LXX and Pesh. read 78). ‘ Cum superioribus haeret — 
 sententia”’ is Jerome’s remark. But the leader described 
 at 11. 18 could not be the speaker here. From v. 9 the 
 LXX and Pesh. get ταῦτα and insert οἴκου before ᾿Ιακώβ. 
 Neither the Vulg. nor the Ar. has a word corresponding to 
 the Heb. NJ and LXX δή. For 8p the LXX have οἱ 
 καταλοίποι, by which they have rendered NW just above. 
 Jer. says of the Greek Verss. : ‘‘ Pro reliquis d. Is., exceptis — 
 Septuaginta*, omnes duces d. Is. transtulerunt.” Neither 
 here nor at v. 9 can the LXX have had any other than 
 our present reading before them: they educed the meaning 
 καταλ. from "2 70, owing to the connection of the noun 
 with the verb Typ. The Pesh. and the Ar. have brought 
 out the force of the question in this verse by their verbs 
 “to be becoming or fitting.” ὦ and ὁ of the Targ. have 
 NT FN: ¢ omits the superfluous 1, which had, no doubt, 
 been added for the sake of greater definiteness. 
 
 V. 2. No alteration. 
 XIAN is rendered ξητοῦντες by the LXX; an example, 
 not of change of metaphors as Hatch + takes it, but of 
 
 * Field gives ἀρχὴ οἴκου as Aq. and Theodotion’s reading, ἡγούμενοι 
 as that οἵ Symm. 
 + Essays in Bib. Greek, p. 17. 
 
of the Book of Micah. ag 
 
 metonymy, the effect being put for the cause: the Ar. 
 translates the LXX, and the Polyg. translator has not 
 done well in rendering the Ar, by amatores ; he has been 
 influenced by the quite correct use of amatores to represent 
 the Pesh. word. The LXX, as usual, renders 110 and y 
 by plurals: the Targ. uses infinitives, NIN? and NWNIND 
 which are less correct than the nouns in the Greek trans- 
 lation ; τῇ Micah had wished to express the verbal meaning 
 Heb. infinitives were at hiscommand. A has the article 
 οἱ before μισοῦντες, an attempted correction, not followed 
 by Ar. The Vulg. and Pesh., on the other hand, take 
 pains to mark the sec. pers. The LXX has the plu. 
 δέρματα and capxas—the plu. suffix in DY is enough to 
 account for this; the Pesh., in both cases, has the sing.; 
 the Vulg. pelles...carnem. The Targ. explains the 
 figurative language by JT)" ΠῚ PWIND NOY DD) DIN * 
 ΤΌΣ ΠΣ. We should have expected the noun ‘Oy in 
 this verse, and the pronoun referring to it in the next; 
 but there is no authority for correcting thus: possibly it 
 was felt that in this verse the use of the pron. could 
 occasion no ambiguity, and in the next the fuller form of 
 expression might be adopted for the heightening of the 
 effect; possibly also the conjunction of sounds, ὯΝ Vy 
 omy was offensive. 
 
 V. 8. For ‘ay ἽΝ ΣΌΝ read ODN way TNA, for 
 WN read ἽΝ. 
 Only the Targ. follows the M. T. strictly in the first 
 
 * r has PDIN, but the DIN of a and ὦ is to be preferred. 
 
78 The Massoretic Text 
 
 clause. The Pesh. and Vulg. omit 1; the LXX, for TWN) 
 read WN. This is connected with their way of looking 
 on this verse as protasis to the next, ὃν τρόπον... - 
 οὕτως ; in order to get this connection they were com- 
 pelled to mistranslate ΤἈΝ, as appears from such a passage 
 as Prov. ii. 5, where '€ does introduce the apodosis, yet is 
 rendered τότε, and the protasis opens, not with WN) but 
 with ON; to correspond with ΝΘ, it would be more 
 natural to have 1. The M. T., however, is not satisfactory ; 
 it would harmonize perfectly with the next two clauses if 
 it ran WIN MY INV. The not very common IRD 
 would easily be corrupted into WS and this would lead to 
 the rearrangement of the whole and the reinsertion of 
 NW in what seemed a suitable place. 
 
 A has ἀπὸ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτῶν for ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν of B;: Ar. 
 follows it. It is probably an error of transcription, the 
 scribe having copied the last words of v. 2. For WWR5 
 LXX read ἽΝ; a much better parallelism is thus 
 obtained, 1"D2 ΝΣ corresponding to NMP PNA Wad. 
 The Targ. felt the difficulty of WD being left without a 
 noun as object, and supplied NAN. Hitzig and Ryssel 
 object that INW does not contain the comparison, and that 
 this must be expressed in the word which follows 3. But 
 this necessity is more apparent than real: the mind sup- 
 plies the full comparison from the verb which has just - 
 been used, and the assertion that ἽΝ on the LXX 
 method would be compared with itself can only be met 
 with a direct negative. 2 and Jl are both rendered 
 by 19 in Targ., both treated as simple 1 by LXX and 
 Pesh., distinguished from each other in Vulg.: it is very 
 
of the Book of Micah. 79 
 
 fitting that the second clause should have a heightened 
 force given it. For τὰ ὀστέα αὐ. συνέθλασαν of B, A has 
 τ. ὁ. αὐ. συνέκλεισαν. If the original was συνέκλασαν, which 
 is more suitable than συνέθ., this might easily be corrupted 
 into συνέθ. and συνέκλει. The translations made by the 
 Polyg. in this verse are open to much criticism. They 
 use substantiam for 9031, thus obscuring the connection 
 with v. 2, where they have fueultates for the same word ; 
 they omit eorum after ossa in rendering the Ar. ; they 
 turn all the third pers. plu. verbs of Pesh. by 2nd per. plu. 
 Except the Targ., the LXX is the only Vers. which dis- 
 tinguishes between NW and Wd, using respectively 
 σάρκας and κρέα. The Targ. varies very remarkably in 
 verses 2 and 3 :— 
 
 Vy NY NW Vy M. T, 
 aye Pio DIDI Typ? PDS 0323 Tare. 
 
 They seem to have wished to follow the same order in the 
 two verses. The former part of v.3 they render as in 
 v. 2, but become more literal in the latter half; after the 
 figurative P22 PTINW DO for ISD OANA they 
 have the enlarged but fairly literal NDI PIM pop pawn 
 NIP PIM NTI NAN ppt. For excoria- 
 verunt of common text and Comm., Cod. Amiat. has ez- 
 poliaverunt, a reading which must be the result of 
 correction. 
 
 V. 4. No alteration. 
 The Targ. modifies the anthropomorphic, “ he will even 
 hide his face,’ by its P22 WNIIW pro. The LXX 
 
80 The Massoretic Text 
 
 and Pesh. also have ἀποστρέψει for the same reason. 
 Symm. has ἀλλὰ ἀποκρύψει. It is not quite clear 
 whether Pesh. has been influenced by LXX in this, for 
 although in several passages they have respectively the 
 same words as they use here, yet at Job xiil. 24, xxxiv. 
 29,the Pesh. has the same word, where the Greek (Theod.) 
 has κρύπτω. 
 
 It is impossible to believe that the ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς at the 
 end of the verse is original: ὉΠ was translated as 
 adverb accus. by ἐν τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν. A corrector thought 
 of omy, and put ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς in the margin, whence it found 
 its way into the text. Jerome’s LXX had not the words. 
 Holmes and Parsons mention ‘‘ 87, 97 (228 adscript. marg.) 
 310, Compl. Ald. Arm. M.S., Arm. Ed.” as not containing 
 them. The Pesh., as Sebdk suggests, may have read 
 WRI; so also LXX, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ; the M. T. WR2 is better. 
 
 V.5. No alteration. 
 
 Targ., more suo, supplies NIPW after N21; in this case 
 unnecessarily, seeing that ἸΟῪ follows. It expresses 
 fully what it conceives to be the interpretation of the 
 obscure words DW INP) OMIWA DDWIT, “quod qui 
 offert * eis convivium carnis, pacem ei vaticinantur.” Like 
 the Targ., the LXX supplies “upon him.” The order of 
 the words varies slightly, B having εἰρήνην ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, A, 
 Ar., Jer., ἐπ᾿ avtov etpyvnv—the latter an alteration to give 
 greater emphasies to the ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. The LXX understood 
 
 
 
 * Db has by , a and 7 haye bn ; pata) seems on the whole 
 to go better with nw nD, but there is little to choose between 
 the readings. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 81 
 
 the sense of the passage to be that the false prophets by 
 proclaiming to their adherents a peace which they had not 
 been commissioned to proclaim really brought war upon 
 them ; hence it omits TWN, renders 11) as passive by ἐδόθη, 
 and the Ar., correctly giving its meaning, uses the Ist 
 pers. sing. active ;— Ht praedicant illi pacem quam non 
 indidz in os eorum.”’ Both here and at Jer. vi. 4, the 
 Vulg. alone * brings out the force of the word WT), “ sanc- 
 tificant” ; it is a crusade. The Pesh. contents itself with 
 repeating the verb it has used in the former clause, .41;a%, 
 one of the many borrowed from Greek. 
 
 V.6. For M31 read MIU. 
 
 1° in the first member seems to require a correspond- 
 ing noun in the second: the LXX and Vulg. regarded 
 MUM as being such: no doubt they were correct, and 
 DWN is used in preference to TWN for the sake of assonance 
 with 7"): the pointing should be MW which is found 
 in Gen. xv. 12, Isa. vii. 22 (Hitzig), whilst the form 
 MWM does not occur. Although, however, the noun is 
 correct, some of the arguments adduced in its favour are 
 not to be relied on. Ryssel, for example, objects to the 
 verb ΠΣ that impersonals designating natural pheno- 
 mena are in the masc. gender, an objection which will not 
 hold good in face of WON, Am. iv. 7 (see Ewald, § 295, a). 
 Fuerst, also, refers to M1tY, Jer. xlix. 11, and Mwy. 
 158. xxxvili. 14, as analogous formations to the noun ΓΖ. 
 But the word in Jeremiah is the imper. of the verb (see 
 
 * Several MSS. of the LXX have ἡγίασαν, and Jerome’s LXX also. 
 G 
 
82 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Ewald, § 228, ὁ, Olshausen, § 234, a), and although De- 
 litzsch looks on ‘Wy as a noun, Cheyne agrees with Kloster- 
 mann in treating it as imper. The Pesh. is the only 
 Vers. which clearly took TWN as a verb. ; 
 
 For the figures “night” and “darkness” the Targ. 
 substitutes PITAN and pyjaNN, for the latter of which 
 the Polyg. has the inexact erwbescetis, The next clause 
 also is interpreted rather than translated by Npy ‘SN 
 ΝΡ way mM NOAPD. The Polyg. omits θέ before sol 
 both in Pesh. and Ar. Ar. follows A in preserving the 
 same order, ὑμῖν ἔσται, in both clauses; B varies it. 
 
 V. 7. No alteration. 
 
 For the simple OWT LXX has οἱ ὁρῶντες τὰ ἐνύπνια : 
 at Zech. x. 2 τὰ ἐνύπ. is used in connection with delusive 
 predictions ; it is inserted here to convey an unfavourable 
 impression, just as in Targ. ΝΡ is added with the same 
 object. The Pesh. and Vulg. supply the cognate accusa- 
 tive, ‘‘ qui vident visiones.” The Vuig. renders 1W2 and 
 5M by the one word “ confundentur.” The Targ. makes 
 no distinction betwixt NI] and MN: it leaves DDT un- 
 translated, and employs again the words used in y. 6, 
 NDONDD PyIDN, which the translator again misrenders, 
 though now with a different word, “et pudefient, ita ut 
 non doceant.” 09D ODW dy wy is explained by the 
 Targ. PD praNd ow Sy pooyny. The Vulg. also 
 understood it correctly, ‘‘et operient omnes vultus suos.”* 
 The Pesh. confounds DSW with MDW. “et fascia obvol- 
 
 ᾿ * More correctly in Cod. Amiat. and Comm., “ vultus suos omnes.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 83 
 
 J 
 
 ventur omnes super labiis suis.’ The LXX varies in its 
 translation of this phrase in the various places where it 
 occurs :— 
 
 Lev. xii. 45, περὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ περιβαλέσθω : 
 Ezek. xxiv. 17, παρακληθῇς ἐν χείλεσιν αὐτῶν : 
 
 Ezek. xxiv. 22, ἀπὸ στόματος αὐτῶν παρακληθήσεσθε: 
 Micah iii. 7, καταλαλήσουσι κατ᾽ αὐτῶν. * 
 
 The comparison of these passages shows that the trans- 
 lators of the prophets did not understand the general sense 
 of the phrase, and that none of them distinguished O5W 
 from MDW, unlike in this to the translator of 2 Sam. xix. 
 24, who renders ‘W ‘Y by ἐποίησε τὸν μύστακα. And 
 the same comparison, bringing out the diverse ways in 
 which MOY was treated, frees us from the necessity of 
 thinking with Schnurrer and others that in our passage 
 καταλαλήσουσι K.T.r. is a rendering of DOWD) Jy IYI or 
 WOT: it is neither more nor less than an exposition of 
 what they deemed the meaning, put into a shape which 
 would harmonize well with the rest of the verse. 
 
 DON TWD TN 9. Targ. read as M. T., and ex- 
 panded the phrase slightly: ‘quandoquidem non sit in 
 eis spiritus propheticus a facie Domini: ” the Vulg. trans- 
 lates M. T. literally: LXX, διότι οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἐπακούων 
 (A ἐπακούσων) αὐτῶν, vocalized differently DIWON ΓΝ: 
 and the Pesh. has a construction which came from a mix- 
 ture of the M. T. and LXX, “ quia non respondebit illis 
 Deus.” Against the LXX it is to be observed that the 
 Hiph. does not appear to be used in the sense “to answer,” 
 
 * Symm., καὶ περιβαλοῦνται ἐπὶ τῶν χειλέων αὐτῶν πάντες. 
 
 g 2 
 
84 The Massoretic Text 
 
 whereas the noun ΓΙ is common: that the construction 
 of My with 5x is not common, it being used in this same 
 book of Micah with 2, vi.8,and.N, vi. 5, and in other 
 places most frequently with the accusative: and that in 
 the verse before us DIN MD is very suitable. 
 
 V. 8. Not improbably 7023) O5w1d) is an early gloss. 
 
 The Targ., Pesh. and Vulg. are renderings of the M. T. 
 Dn). The LXX ἐὰν μὴ is probably from 28 *, which 
 at Num. xxii. 33 they represent by εἰ μὴ: ἐὰν μὴ in our 
 passage, according to Jerome’s correct punctuation, intro- 
 duces the continuation of the thought expressed in the 
 foregoing verse, “non est qui exaudiat eos nisi ego im- 
 plevero &e.,” but the meaning thus gained is not nearly so 
 good as that supplied by the M. T., which brings out the 
 antithesis between the false prophets and the true one. 
 Field points out that Symm. treated the first word of the 
 verse as derived from DOR, Ligavit: “ ἐκωλύθη (s. συνεσ- 
 χέθη) ἐγώ εἶμι «.7.r.’ The LXX ἐμπλήσω supposes 
 ‘ND to be Pi., probably because no preposition precedes 
 ΓΞ. But the Kal, meaning “ to be full of,” is more often 
 without than with the preposition. 
 
 There are some grounds for suspecting the genuineness 
 of ΓΤ) Θ᾽: the fact that the Ar. has no translation 
 
 * In Chwolson’s paper on The Quiescents, translated in Hebraica, 
 1890, p. 94, attention is called to the fact that the form of the Arabic 
 Accusative in a, as well as that in am, has survived in many Heb. 
 adverbs. Have we a similar phenomenon here, a word in 4a, after- 
 wards differentiated into two forms, 1 — andD —, with diverse 
 
 meanings, and the distinction not recognised by the LX XP 
 
of the Book of Micah. 85 
 
 of καὶ κρίματος καὶ δυναστέιας seems to point to a recen- 
 sion of the Greek text from which these words were 
 absent; Chrysostom x. 16 (Montfaucon’s Edition), is 
 cited in Holmes and Parsons as omitting καὶ κρίματος, 
 and 23 as omitting the καὶ before δυναστείας : 7 of the 
 Targ. has not the words corresponding to ‘})'13): in the 
 Heb. text ‘3) 2) stand very awkwardly in their present 
 position, and may well have been a gloss which at an early 
 date crept into the text ; they add little to the sense, and 
 detract considerably from the vigour of the passage. The 
 Targ., Pesh. and Vulg. have rendered MINN by the geni- 
 tive or its equivalent: LXX ἐν πνεύματι is better: the 
 Targ. enlarges slightly: ‘‘virtute spiritus prophetiae a 
 facie Domini.” The LXX and Targ. treat the collectives 
 NNO and Iw as plurals. Is the Ar. here again affected 
 by the Pesh. in using a sing. for ἀσεβέιας ὃ 
 
 V.9. No alteration. 
 
 On καταλόνποι see v. 1. An example of the effort 
 after variety of expression is furnished by ἡγούμενοι for 
 ‘WNT here, compared with the ἀρχαί of v.1. Cod. Amiat. 
 and Comm. have /aec, which is more likely to be the 
 original form than the Sixtine foc. Both for the partic. 
 DAY and for the third pers. plu. WPy" the LXX, Targ. 
 ~ and Pesh. use participles, on purpose, as it seems, to’avoid 
 a transition from 2nd pers. to 3rd and a loss of concinnity 
 with v. 10. But the Vulg., and the Polyg. translators of 
 Targ. and Pesh. have used 2nd pers. plu. for both words. 
 And so strongly has the Polyg. translator of the Ar. been 
 affected by the work done by his collaborators, that he 
 
86 The Massoretic Text 
 
 has in both cases rendered the 8rd pers. plu. of the Ar. by 
 2nd pers. plu. 
 
 V.10. For 23 read 0°33. 
 
 This is not one of the frequently occurring instances 
 where the Verss. have a plu. whilst we may be sure that 
 they are translating a eollective sing. Such a transition 
 as (112 involves would be too sudden even for the book of 
 Micah, All the Verss. are against it. And if 12 was 
 written defective the mistake would easily be made. A, 
 by a seribe’s blunder, omits Σιὼν, the eye being misled 
 by the similarity of σεν. LXX and Targ., as is their 
 custom with such words, have the plu. for ΠῚ"). All the 
 Verss., except Pesh., have in one or other way reproduced 
 the plu. form ODT, the Targ. very neatly by TWN DT: 
 this Vers. also, perhaps because it shrank from any re- 
 flection on Zion as a city, transfers the blood-stains to the 
 houses of the individual sinners :—‘ Condentes domos suas 
 in Sion cum sanguine effuso.” 
 
 V.11. No alteration. 
 
 LXX μετὰ δώρων, and Vulg. “in muneribus,” for 
 WW: none of the other Verss., not even the Ar., has 
 plu. The Vulg. has been influenced by LXX, which is ren- 
 dering ad sensum, just as at Ex. xxiii. 8, TWiT is rendered 
 τὰ δῶρα. ᾿Απεκρίνοντο is almost certainly the rendering of 
 Ny, although it is not the word usually chosen for this 
 
 purpose, dvayyéikwow, for example being found in the 
 
 precisely parallel Deut. xxiv. 8. But the decisions of the 
 
 SS «πὸ... 
 
of the Book of Micah. 87 
 
 priests were in response to questions addressed to them, so 
 that “to answer” is a natural description of their pro- 
 cedure. Aq. and Symm. have ἐφωτίζον. IYW is rendered 
 by the same word ἐπανεπαύοντο, 2 Kings v. 18, vil. 2: 
 Pesh. substitutes the explanatory eed Zito : r of Targ. also 
 has PST, for which a and 4 have the synonym with our 
 Heb. word PID, a later attempt to come nearer the 
 Heb. For the negative question 12) 8197 the Pesh., as 
 elsewhere, has the equivalent affirmative declaration. τ 
 _ can only be through inexactness that LXX has ἐν ἡμῖν 
 for 1219p2: this weightier form is wanted at the end of 
 the clause, and the other Verss. reeognise it. The Lond. 
 Polyg. has the support of ὃ and 7 in reading "ΠῚ against 
 a which has yn: the latter may have arisen by mistake 
 from N29Y ΤΠ. We must also follow these authorities 
 in reading N13), not NIPW 1); the parallels NT 
 and NTI require it, and the change was made in order 
 to obtain the familiar phrase. The Targ. on this verse 
 softens the contemptuous VODp* into , PD, uses the 
 general VD for the specific VT, has its usual circum- 
 locutions, "T ΝΡ and "TF ΝΠ for M7, and puts 
 YON for the sake of clearness between the question 
 asked and the assertion which flows out of the implied 
 answer. 
 
 V. 12. No alteration. 
 
 The Ar. does not often so entirely forsake the LXX as to 
 substitute a literal for a figurative expression as in this verse, 
 where it has here put w for ἀροτριαθήσεται. The Targ. and 
 Pesh. have no particle of comparison before IW. The LXX 
 
88 The Massoretic Text 
 
 and Vulg. supply ὡς and quasi. On ὀπωρωφυλάκιον see 
 1.6: Hitzig and Steiner endeavour to account for the 
 plu. in ἢ, by the proximity of FV and yx. the latter 
 critic suggesting that this form of the word may be due 
 to a transcriber; it is, however, impossible to decide con- 
 clusively either as to the original form or as to the cause 
 of the difference betwixt this passage and Jer. xxvi. 18, 
 where we have OYY. B has ὡς before ὀπωρ. and εἰς before 
 ἄλσος. A reverses the order; the former, with which 
 Jer. agrees, is probably correct, and would exactly cor- 
 respond to the Heb. The Targ. and Vulg.: interpret 
 MAT W by NWI 2 NO and “ mons templi,”’ in much 
 the same way as in the first clause the Targ. enlarges 
 035722 into nan 2. The final words "yy" ΠῪΞ are 
 very variously dealt with. The Vulg. has “ excelsa syl- 
 varum,” a literal translation, save that the plu. sylv. is 
 used for the sing. in order the better to bring out the 
 sense. The Pesh. translates as though it read M2: this 
 may have arisen from a mistaken repetition of the word 
 which has just preceded, but it is more probably a cor- 
 rection due to the fact that the translator did not under- 
 stand WY’ ‘92 and made it accord with Wy’ 73, Isa. 
 xxll. 8, where the words stand at the end of the verse as 
 here, and are rendered by the same words in the Pesh., 
 and as diversely in the other Verss. as ‘02. are here. The 
 LXX and Targ. hang together, ἄλσος δρυμοῦ, RYDIN NWN : 
 these are renderings of the M. Τ᾿, and it is just possible 
 that the choice of the word ἄλσος is due to the presence of 
 Nv, ἄλσος being the ordinary word for TWN, and these 
 being set up on the “high places.” The recurrence of 
 
of the Book of Micah. 89 
 
 this phrase at Jer. xxvi. 18, a quotation of our passage, 
 is a sufficient testimony in its favour, and the fact that 
 the Pesh. there is the same as here shows that its N’2 
 was not accidental. Except for a slight variation in 
 the Ar. all the Verss. there repeat their renderings of 
 Micah iii. 12. 
 
90 The Massoretic Text 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 V.1. No alteration. 
 
 Here and Isa, 11. 2 the LXX departs somewhat from the 
 Heb., but the variations do not discredit the M. T. It 
 will be instructive to put together the Heb, and the 
 Greek of the two passages :— 
 
 Heat e. |. Micah iv. 1. 
 1D) ODT ANNI IM | ao oT nN AT 
 ep ee a ΤΠ a 33 rl dia oe 
 DTT WRI DTT UNI 
 
 Thus far they differ only in the position of 33. But it 
 is otherwise with the LXX :— 
 
 Tsa. 1. 2. Micah iv. 1. 
 cd » > La} > / Ὗς... 2.3 γ᾽ / ΄ 
 ὅτι ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις καὶ ἔσται ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν 
 c 4 > \ ‘\ 2 «ς ~ > ‘A be 
 ἡμέραις ἐμφανὲς TO ὄρος ἡμερῶν ἐμφανὲς τὸ ὄρος 
 ᾿κυρίου, καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ κυρίου, ἕτοιμον ἐπὶ τὰς 
 ον > a > be a 
 θεοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἄκρου τῶν ὀρέων. κορυφὰς τῶν ὀρέων. 
 
 Clearly the translation in Micah has been much affected 
 by that in Isaiah: the position of ἐμφανὲς shows this ; so 
 also does the omission of οἶκος from the first clause. After 
 the word κυρίου they took different paths: the Isaiah 
 passage, influenced by the structure of the next verse, 
 brings in the 2 which it had dropped before; the Micah 
 one, because in its Heb. text 1122 immediately follows M17’, 
 
of the Book of Micah. Ler 
 
 translates it afresh by ἕτοιμον. At Isa. 11. 2, A and Ar. 
 have ἄκρων, a correction to agree with ὀρέων. It can only 
 be by a transcriber’s error that the Ar. at Isa. 11. 2 has 
 Vealb purus, and here |plb, manifestus*; the diacritical 
 point should be restored in the former place, The Ar. in 
 Micah has missed the intention of the LX X, and instead 
 of keeping ἐμῴ. and ἕτ. separated from each other has 
 brought them together, “ manifestus dispositus.”’ 
 The next clause runs :— 
 
 Isa. 11. 2. Micah iv. 1. 
 POX TD MyIx ΝΥ 1 TD Myzw xT xwn 
 DTD Dyay Wy 
 καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ὑπεράνω καὶ μετεωρισθήσεται ὑπεράνω 
 τῶν βουνῶν, καὶ ἥξουσιν ἐπ᾽ τῶν βουνῶν, καὶ σπεύσουσι πρὸς 
 αὐτὸ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. αὐτὸ λαοί. 
 
 Even in these clauses, where the very words used prove 
 that two different hands have been at work, the com- 
 parison of another Vers., the Pesh., shows how the Isaiah 
 passage affected the treatment of Micah by the translators, 
 for the Pesh. here, as well as there, is cons. No special 
 feature is presented by the Targ.: for M17 2 it employs 
 the fuller *T NWP) 2, and it interprets “ peoples shall 
 flow unto it,” by “vultus vertent ut serviant super eo 
 regna.”’ 
 
 Justin Martyr’s citation of this passage, as quoted by 
 Field from Nobil., differs from the current text as well of 
 Micah as of Isaiah: “ἕτοιμον ἐπ᾽ ἄκρου τῶν ὀρέων, ἐπηρ- 
 
 * The Paris Polyg. prints as the Lond. in both places. 
 
92 The Massoretic Text 
 
 / 
 μένον αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ τοὺς βουνοὺς καὶ ποταμὸν θήσονται [fort., 
 ποταμωθήσονται (I7713)) . . .] ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ Naor,” 
 SST ἐ 
 
 W. 2. 
 
 V. No alteration. 
 
 A and Ar. repeat the πρὸς αὐτὸ of the foregoing clause, 
 copying it, in all probability, by mistake. Properabunt, 
 of the Vulg., intrinsically too strong a word, was chosen 
 because it did not need the expression of a terminus ad 
 quem. The omission of ) in the translations of My) is 
 idiomatic*, and does not imply that ) was absent from the 
 text: 192 was looked on as a kind of exclamation: the 
 Targ. retains the ἡ. This latter Vers. repeats the words of 
 v.1,}pn FT ΤΏ ΠΣ. Inthe second half of the verse 
 the parallel passages are again dissimilar :— 
 
 VIVA VW καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν τὴν ὁδὸν avtod.—Isa. 11. 3. 
 ὍΣ IW καὶ δέιξουσιν «.7.A.—Micah iv. 2. 
 
 As the Heb. now stands the difference betwixt 137° and 
 
 * Prof. H. P. Smith (Hebraica, 1886, p. 76), criticising Ryssel 
 asks, “ But is it not more simple to suppose that a } has been omitted 
 or inserted in one of the two Hebrew texts, especially in immediate 
 proximity to another } as here?” He thinks it “‘ more probable that 
 one of these chances has influenced the text, than that the translators 
 made more or less intentional changes in what they were trying to 
 render.” But this is too strong a statement of the case against those 
 who differ from him. A rendering of “δὴ =F, by δεῦτε ἀναβῶμεν 
 ought scarcely to be characterized as an “ intentional change : it is 
 the translators way of giving the sense. And some reference should 
 be made to the parallel passage before a decision is come to, There 
 we find the M. T. and the Targ. the same as here, and very probably 
 the LXX also. For although B has δεῦτε καὶ ἀναβ., A omits the καὶ, 
 and in this agrees with Pesh., Jer. and Ar.,so that we may fairly 
 conclude that the conjunc. was introduced later from the Heb. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 93 
 
 7 is simply that one is written plene and the other 
 defective, but the LXX plu. inclines one to think that 
 their reading must have been 1311’. In any case the sing. 
 must be retained, not only because of its presence in the 
 parallel passage, but also because’ in both places the Verss. 
 agree in so reading. In both passages the 19 of YIN is 
 left unnoticed in the LXX, and the word treated as sing. 
 The omission of the preposition is not surprising: at 
 1 Sam. xii. 23 JOTI DDAN WIM is rendered καὶ δείξω 
 vuivy τὴν odov, and at Prov. iv. 11 PAW ΠΟΣῚ FTW 
 ὁδοὺς yap σοφίας διδάσκω oe. Both the preposition and, 
 consequently, the plu. are vindicated by the Verss. here 
 and in Isa.: all have the plu., and all have the preposition, 
 except the Vulg., which itself keeps it here, de viis, but at 
 Isa, u. 3 has vias. There is nothing noteworthy in the 
 Targ.: its paraphrases are in its ordinary manner :— 
 MTN OYDW OD for ON “Δ; MII PPNI WUMND for 
 VII; ΠΡῚΝ DONA for PATINA; NOD Dw for 737. 
 
 As the result of his comparison of this verse with Isa. 
 ii. 3 Sebdk suggests that Zo there should be altered into 
 the Lua which we have here. I find that Eg. has ZoS 
 but that Rich, Add., and Add. 14,432 (described in the 
 Museum Catalogue as of the sixth cent.) agree in reading 
 
 Lins. 
 
 V. 8. No alteration. 
 
 Here again Micah and Isaiah diverge : 
 
 Ὁ Ὁ) MDM OT PI wD .—Isa. 11. 4. 
 
 PNY), Ww. ὩΣ Ὁ) mam) Ὁ Diy Pa 9.) .— 
 Micah iv. 3. 
 
94 The Massoretic Text 
 
 For ἕως εἰς μακράν of B, ἕως γῆν μακράν is found in A and 
 “ἕως εἰς γῆν μακρὰν 26, 36, 40, 42, 49, 106, 153, 198, 
 233, Alex. Slav.””?* These, no doubt, were an attempted 
 improvement on the translation of the harsh ‘MT TY, for 
 which the Targ. used NO2Y Ty: the Pesh. removed the 
 roughness by bringing these words into grammatical con- 
 nection with the words immediately preceding, “ gentes 
 potentes procul dissitas.”” It is an interesting illustration 
 of the reciprocal action of the parallel passages that the 
 Pesh. introduces this ΓΤ Ty into the corresponding verse 
 in Isaiah, and on the other hand omits here the adjective 
 Ὁ 3 because it is not found there. In one point the Pesh. 
 stands alone: it makes the word of v. 2 subject to ODW 
 and 317 and in this respect differs from its treatment of 
 Isaiah 11. 4. 
 
 A and B at Isa. i. 4 have ζιβύνας : A here has ζιβύνας, 
 but B has δόρατα ; the &®. of A has originated in the 
 wish to harmonize with the other passage: the Ar. word 
 here is not the same as in Isaiah, though synonymous, as 
 indeed are δόρατα and ζιβύνας. The only point which 
 raises a textual question in this second half of the verse is 
 the NW. in Isaiah compared with our INW’. Some 
 weight must be ascribed to the fact that all+ the Verss. 
 have the sing. here, for although, as we have seen, the 
 translations of the one prophet are much affected by those 
 of the other, yet this influence is net all-pervasive, and the 
 
 
 
 * Holmes and Parsons. 
 
 + Even the Targ., the common text of which, no, is almost 
 certainly a correction, occasioned by reference to the Heb., of the bry) 
 found in 7. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 95 
 
 sing. of this word s perhaps the solitary instance in which 
 all alike are in opposition to the M. T. On the other side 
 it must be allowed that even the XW’ of Isaiah may be 
 plu., and that in both passages either number is gram- 
 matically admissible: the LXX have no scruple in render- 
 ing 11’, v. 4, by the sing. ἀναπαύσεται because w*N 
 follows. If NW’ in Isaiah is sing. the variation implied 
 in our plu. Will be quite in accord with the other results 
 obtained by a comparison of the two versions of this 
 prophecy preserved by Isaiah and Micah respectively ; in 
 this verse PIN TY and ΟΝ are peculiar to Micah, he has 
 DR) as compared with 98 and DWNINN against ONAIN— 
 all in the direction of greater fulness and explicitness. We 
 must, therefore, although with some doubt, accept the 
 M.T. The Ar. supports the simpler form of the LXX 
 found in B, οὐκέτι μὴ. . «. οὐκέτι μὴ and not A’s οὐκέτι 
 οὐ μὴ". - «: οὗ μὴ pad, ἔτι. 
 
 In this verse, as compared with the corresponding one 
 in Isaiah, OY is always found in place of DJ, and wice 
 versa: the Pesh. does not distinguish between the words ; 
 it, however, and the Vulg. are more precise in the ren- 
 dering of O'NN than the ἄροτρα of LXX; they have 
 respectively {3,2 uso and vomeres, and probably the PID 
 of the Targ. should be taken as having the same force, 
 equivalent to the fuller ΝΞ ND of 1 Sam. xu. 21. 
 a and ὁ of Targ. read }) PDD: 7. has only }% as at Isa. 
 ii. 4: Ὁ) PDD reads very awkwardly in this place: 
 alone is probably original, and the }'5°D was added later, at 
 first as an alternative, and subsequently as an addition, by 
 some one who wished to bring in the same word as had 
 
96 | The Massoretic Text 
 
 been used in the former clause. The Pesh., like the Targ., 
 varies the word in the two clauses. 
 
 V. 4. No alteration. 
 
 LXX repeat ἕκαστος, and at end of verse have ταῦτα. 
 Neither had its counterpart in the Heb., where the second 
 UN can quite well be dispensed with, and 027 requires no 
 object. The same is to be said of the (Oo after santo, 
 and the plurals which the Pesh. has put for “vine” and 
 “ fio-tree.’ For these latter the Targ., “ sub fructu vitis 
 suae, subque fructu ficw/neae suae ’’ is singularly infelicitous. 
 ‘Its paraphrase of “the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath 
 spoken” by “by the Word of the Lord of Hosts it is 
 determined thus,” is no doubt an attempt to avoid a 
 seeming anthropomorphism. ὦ and 7 correctly read 
 AN), against PIN") of ὁ, and at the end of the verse 7 
 has 1% not Wi. For eitem Cod. Amiat. and the Comm. 
 have vineam: the Comm. do not agree with Cod. Amiat. 
 in omitting swam after ficwm, or in using guoniam instead of 
 quia. Vinea for vitis is not uncommon in Jerome and the 
 Vulg.: see Isaiah xvi. 8, Hosea xiv. 8: it is found in 
 Phaedrus in the same sense. 
 
 V.5. No alteration. 
 
 No one can hesitate to prefer the YON OWI WN of 
 M. T., Pesh. and Vulg. to the ἕκαστος τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ of 
 LXX.* The parallelism demands it: biblical writers were 
 σαν... ττὐν eS eee 
 
 * “?AXQos* ἐν ὀνόματι θεοῦ (αὐτοῦ). Justin M., ἐν ὀνόματι θεῶν 
 avrov.”—Lield. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 97 
 
 not so afraid of appearing to admit the existence of other 
 gods as the LXX were (see especially Deut. xxix. 26); 
 the motive of the change is obvious, whereas no motive 
 ean be assigned that would have operated in the reverse 
 direction: and the Targ., to which we naturally look for 
 a similar evasion, has one which betrays the M. T. behind 
 it, ΝΠ anda ot Oy pom ΘΝ 55.* In the next 
 words ΝΣ of ὦ and r is preferable to NVIDIA of ὁ: no 
 such reason as is given in v. 4 can be adduced to account 
 for “ here: YW) for 7) is expository. Ar. does not 
 agree with A in omitting κυρίου : so uncertain is the LXX 
 in its employment or omission of divine names that it is 
 impossible to assign reasons in each particular instance. 
 
 V.6and 7. No alteration. 
 
 ΓΝ WW NYT WR) ASAPNR ANTM myount ADDN 
 owsy 029 ANAM NNW mydsn. The Tare. and the. 
 Pesh. both have plurals and both are misled in their 
 translation of “ΝΣ by the parallel “13. The Polyg. trans- 
 lator divides the words of the Targ. wrongly: he has 
 “congregabo translatos et dispersos, colligam et illos 
 quibus malefeci, &c.;” whereas, colligam is the verb that 
 governs dispersos. Both for ΓΊΓΣ ΣΤ and ANTI A 
 has ἀπωσμένην, and B has ἐξωσ. and awe. respectively : 
 Jer. supports B in having two different words, but in this 
 
 
 
 * Notwithstanding the authority of a and 7, which have 177), 
 it is better to retain VIM of b: PAW as a rendering of 395» is not 
 easy to think of: it would be less likely to be corrupted into the 
 weaker ΣΤ than reversely ; indeed it is evident that 77) would 
 appear much more vigorous, and therefore the preferable word. 
 
 H 
 
98 The Massoretic Text 
 
 instance A has preserved the original text: Zeph. 11. 19 
 amwo.is used by both A and B; here “T37 and 7137 are 
 evidently regarded as corresponding to each other ; and the 
 ἐξωσ. of B is introduced partly for the sake of variety and 
 partly as answering better to the Heb. καὶ ods ἀπωσάμην 
 would at first sight lead us to think that some other verb 
 such as JIT had been read for ‘NY, but the evidence 
 of the other Verss.* is decidedly in favour of the M. T., and 
 it would be impossible for the Massoretes to ulter an 
 inoffensive word like SMT into one carrying an asso- 
 ciation of evil with it, whereas it is easy to conceive of the 
 LXX avoiding the unacceptable word. According to what 
 is probably the true reading found in 7 the Targ. escapes 
 attributing evil to God in another manner :—“ and those to 
 whom? evil has been done on account of the sins of my 
 people.” It is to be observed that the awkwardness of the 
 clause ΣΤ WR) standing alone is got rid of in the 
 Tare. by the addition, “on account το. The Pesh. turns 
 the corner of this same difficulty by omitting the conjunc- 
 tion and attaching “7 WN directly to the foregoing : 
 “dispersos recipiam, quibus malum intuleram.” ANTI 
 has given trouble to the translators. The LXX, as we 
 have seen, proceed as though “717 were repeated : so also 
 the Targ. This is to be explained by the facts that 7730 
 is a peculiar word, az. Aey., and that it stands in this 
 verse in the position corresponding to “T17 inv. 6. The 
 
 * Justin Martyr, quoted in full below, has καὶ ἣν ἐκάκωσα. 
 
 + WRIFYN or, as Ryssel says, ΝΙΝ, in place of ΠΌΝΩΝ 
 of a and ὁ. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 99 
 
 Pesh. retains in this verse its two words for 937 and 
 ‘J27 in v. 6, but transposes them. The Vulg. has “ quae 
 laboraverat,” from MN937, fem. Niph. partic. of x9, just 
 as at Isa. xv. 2 ΠΝ Σ 2 is represented by “ quod Jabo- 
 ravit.” All these phenomena are best accounted for by 
 the translators having been unfamiliar with the word 
 before them, and this is certainly one of the cases where 
 we are not entitled to abandon the more difficult for the 
 easier, Steiner's argument in favour of the Vulg. that it 
 obtains a better contrast to DISY “12, thought not destitute 
 of force, is not strong enough to justify an alteration. For 
 MINW) .... Dw the Pesh. |Z; pas} is a peculiar 
 rendering, needing such an adjec. as the Polyg. translator 
 has supplied; “ Finem faustum faciam.” The Pesh. is also 
 peculiar in adding “and in Jerusalem,” which came, no 
 doubt, from the two, Jerus. and Mount Zion, being so often 
 named together, as in ill, 12 and iv. ὦ. The Targ. avoids 
 the idea that God’s reign is a something that lies in the 
 future; it is the manifestation thereof that has not yet 
 been accomplished :—“ Atque revelabitur regnum Dei super 
 eos &e.”” By ascribe’s error, Cod. Amiat. has 2m montem 
 for 2m monte. B has ἕως εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ; A and Jer., pro- 
 bably a correction according to Heb., καὶ ἕως κ.τ.λ. 
 
 Justin’s quotation of v. 6, given by Field, differs con- 
 siderably from our current text: “συνάξω τὴν ἐκτεθλιμ- 
 μένην, καὶ THY ἐξωσμένην ἀθροίσω, καὶ ἣν éxaxwoa:’ this 
 is nearer the Heb. and supplies evidence of the existence 
 of a recension of the LXX unlike in many respects to the 
 one preserved in our chief MSS. 
 
 H 2 
 
100 The Massoretic Text 
 
 V.8. Omit MOND 2 
 
 In this, as in other passages, the Verss. have confused 
 Say and DDN together: even Aq. has σκοτώδης and Symm. 
 ἀπόκρυφος. At 2 Kings v. 24, where the M. T. has 
 Spy the LXX has τὸ σκοτεινόν, the Targ. °DD ANN, 
 the Pesh. Jdatibulum montis, the Vulg. nebulosa. And 
 Geiger (p. 472) remarks on Num. xiv. 44: “leitet J. 
 Th. 1 159") von SDN, Dunkel, ab, so auch Vulg.: con- 
 tenebrati:”? to which may be added that the Vulg. in 
 that passage’is all the more remarkable seeing that the 
 LXX bears no trace of this interpretation but renders 
 διαβιασάμενοι ; and, further, that Jon. ben Uziel agrees 
 with the Jer. Targ., the latter having OTP WN Dy 
 PID? NOVA and Jon. “2) WIN Dy. There 
 can be no doubt as to the correctness of the M. T. in our 
 passage. The parallelism with 7729 is in its favour: if 
 a second determinative, in addition to TY, had been 
 required it would have had the article (Ges. § 111, 2) 
 SDNiT: the sense also is against DDN, for the prediction is 
 a joyful one in which a sad epithet would be out of place: 
 certainly the sense obtained by the LXX is an unsatis- 
 factory one, making the “tower of the flock ” one and the 
 same with “the daughter of Zion,” identifying thus the 
 place and the people :-- Et haec turris iilia est’ Sion: 
 sive ut Symmachus vertit in Graecum: Ipsa est jilia 
 Sion,’ Jer. The Pesh. read my * for TTY, one of the 
 
 instances in which the Targ. affected it indirectly but 
 
 ee vy ἘΠῚ 
 * Ryssel is fully justified in vocalizing {4X5 > not laS3 2° the 
 idea of the tower being pastured on is absurd. 
 
of the Book of Micah. IOL 
 
 none the less powerfully, The Targ. brings out the well- 
 known Jewish belief that the revelation of the Messiah 
 awaits the purging of Israel from its sins :—‘‘ And Thou, 
 O Messiah of Israel, who art hidden because of the sins 
 of the congregation of Zion:” the 7°20 comes from IDX, 
 and the NW from 9722 owing to the idea of proven 
 and safety which is implied in the latter. 
 
 "Ex βαβυλῶνος ts obviously out. of place :—“ Quod autem 
 in guibusdam libris legitur: Hé engredietur principatus 
 primus regrum filiae Sion, de Babylone. Sciamus additum 
 esse : quia nec in Hebraeo, nec apud alios habetur Inter- 
 pretes.” Jer. It was a marginal gloss partly suggested 
 by ἥξεις ἕως βαβυλῶνος below and partly by a reminis- 
 cence of Gen. x. 10.* Ryssel is no doubt correct in 
 holding that HANI is another marginal gloss which has 
 crept into the text and brought with it the ἡ before ANI: 
 if repetition had been wanted for emphasis the stress 
 would have been laid, not on the verb, as it now is, but 
 on the noun; the important point is, “ What is it that is 
 coming?” The LXX ἐπὶ σὲ ἥξει, καὶ εἰσελεύσεται ἡ 
 ᾿ ἀρχὴ «.T.. shows that the TNF found its present position 
 at an early date, but is so awkward, leaving the subject 
 unmentioned with the first verb,+ and when it brings in 
 the subject having a verb with no essential difference of 
 meaning, that it cannot be regarded as a strong con- 
 
 firmation of the M.T. For PUY the Pesh. read Jy, 
 
 * Note the similarity of language: here, ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ πρώτη βασιλεία 
 ἐκ βαβ. : there, ἀρχὴ τῆς Bac. αὐτοῦ βαβυλὼν. 
 
 { The Targ. would not leave the verb thus: it therefore interpolated 
 the subject, ΝΣ " 
 
102 The Massoretic Text 
 
 perhaps, as Sebék thinks, from the 7 and the » running 
 together: Ryssel thinks we need not believe that they 
 read otherwise than our M. T.: “indem man es wahr- 
 scheinlich fiir nachstverwandt mit Ty Hwighkeit oder gar 
 mit ΠΡ Zeit hielt,” and he supports this by the not very 
 weighty consideration that the Targ. on Ps. ci. 5 turns 
 “TW by ‘DINID W- But the Pesh. there does not follow 
 the Targ. and a blunder of the latter at that place should 
 not have much effeet on our judgment of the Pesh. here. 
 It is better to take So intransitively as the Polyg. has 
 done (appropinquavit), than to think of the Pesh. as 
 reading the Hiph. here.* The L4\. of this Vers. seems 
 to have been occasioned by the now of the ordinary 
 text of the Targ., and this would make one slow to adopt 
 the ΝΘ οὗ γ: besides which the latter is more like a 
 correction according to Heb. The ΝΣ of 7 is also to 
 be rejected ; it is a mistake for Dow. 
 
 V.9. No alteration. 
 
 νὴ ὙΠ mo? any. LXX καὶ viv ἵνα τί ἔγνως κακά; 
 they alone read Ἵ for Ἢ, "Ὁ *YTN mo? may. The Ar. 
 mistook κακά here as meaning moral evils. The Tare. 
 took the verb as equivalent to MY7N, and may have treated 
 the yD as infin, NOOYD NINN ON WD? woz. At 
 Prov. xxii. 11 they render Ἴ WY VND IN by NDAD 
 ΝΟ Tan MnNDWI. The Pesh. read Y) YW, and 
 
 
 
 * See Ryssel. 
 + So rv: @ and δ have yD), but this may be owing to the 
 LXX καὶ. 
 
of the Book of Micah, 103 
 
 the Vulg. probably y1 ἡ. The M. T. is better than 
 any of these. Zion’s cry is quite in place, seeing that at 
 the end of this verse she is compared to a travailing 
 woman. It is not certain that the LXX read NY); they 
 
 might prefer to introduce the question with «ai, and in any 
 ease they stand alone, with the doubtful exception of the 
 Tare. The μὴ βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἦν σοι does not imply any 
 other reading than J2: at Jer. vii. 19 we have the pre- 
 cisely similar 71 PN ΠΣ ὍΝ, and this passage confirms 
 the M. T. of the preceding words because although it does 
 not use YT it distinctly mentions the cry of the 
 people :—“ Behold, the voice of the cry of the daughter of 
 my people ... . Is not her king in her?” The Vulg. 
 has been influenced by the LXX: “ numquid rex non est 
 tibi &e?” YY is usually rendered σύμβουλος, and βουλή, 
 as at Isa. xix. 11,15 the rendering of ΠΝ"). But such a 
 passage as Prov. xi. 14, YYY ANA, ἐν πολλῇ βουλῇ, to 
 say nothing of the more difficult ON yy NOD, Μεγάλης 
 βουλῆς ἄγγελος, Isa. ix. 5, shows that the LXX need not 
 have read any differently from the M. T. in our passage. 
 They probably chose the abstract βουλή with the idea that 
 a new idea, not parallel to the former one, is being brought 
 in. Targ. and Pesh. have plurais, the former in a very 
 emphatic manner, J’D9% 132. The LXX treats this 
 second question as extending to the end of the verse, and 
 the Ar. goes further still and regards the whole as equiva- 
 lent to an affirmation* :—“Consilium tuum periit, quod 
 occuparint se dolores similes doloribus parturientis.” For 
 the simple SI the Tare. has Y) Npy. 
 
 * One of the errors incident to a translation of a translation. 
 
104 The Massoretic Text 
 
 V.10. No alteration. 
 
 MJ is not often used, and this may account for the 
 variety of translations. For the words 1) "ΤΠ the Targ. 
 has “Ὁ ΜΠ.» where the verb Y¥ corresponds to the noun 
 yin v. 9, and is used because the Targumist thought a 
 word allied in meaning to 517 was wanted. This is the 
 explanation also of the Vulg. “satage.” Cod. B has 
 ὦδινε καὶ ἀνδρίζου Kai ἔγγιζε; A, 87*, 91, alu, and Jer. 
 ὥδινε καὶ ἀνδρίζου; Ar. omits ὥδινε and for the rest 
 agrees with B. Ryssel thinks ὧδ. καὶ avd. a double trans- 
 lation of ‘71; the ἀνδ. being from a denominative assumed 
 to belong to ΟΥ̓́Τ, or else from 2M, “to be strong ”’ ; 
 ἔγγιζε from %W) or YI (mistakenly read in place of 72) 
 would afterwards be dropped out of the text owing to its 
 being noticed that two imperatives, corresponding to the 
 two Hebrew imperatives, were already there. This ex- 
 ‘ planation is not unreasonable if it mean that the καὶ avd. 
 was a marginal reading intended as an alternative to a@duve, 
 and afterwards finding its way into the text. But the 
 two renderings are so unlike in meaning that they certainly 
 cannot have been originally intended to stand together. 
 Is it possible that ἀνδρίζομαι was used in this provincial 
 dialect in the sense, not very far removed from its common 
 one, of “ to bring forth aman”? If it were, ὥδινε x. avo. 
 would be the rendering of 7) oT, and καὶ éyy. ἃν mar- 
 ‘ginal reading, a translation of °Y).- 
 
 72) OW ΝΠ OW. Both times LXX has ἐκεῖθεν, in 
 accordance with the interpretation which it deems correct: 
 before the second one it has καὶ; Pesh. has this before 
 euch ; so have ὦ and ὁ of Targ., but 7, ike M. T., neither 
 
of the Book of Micah. 105 
 
 time: the middle ρύσεται is for the sake of conformity to 
 λυτρώσεται. LXX adds ὁ θεός cov. 
 
 V.11. No alteration. 
 
 Pesh. omits the ) before TAY in conformity with v. 9: 
 none of the rest doso. ἐπισυνήχθη .. . of λέγοντες of A, Ar. 
 and Jer. (the latter two, at all events so far as the οὗ goes) 
 looks like a correction of B’s text ἐπισυνήχθησαν. . .. 
 λέγοντες ; the first correction unnecessary, because the plu. 
 could well be used by a constructio ad sensum, the second 
 being an improvement, because the 1 of M. 'T. and remain- 
 ing Verss. makes a real difference in the meaning. 
 
 wy Ws. wn HNN. Pesh. differs from M. T. only 
 in putting Zion into immediate connection with the first 
 verb, so as to show at once what the subject of the sen- 
 tence is, and in having the sing. “eye” to agree with the 
 verb. The Targ. turns the phrase, so as to get a powerful 
 testimony to Zion’s purity:* “Quando impie aget, et 
 'videbit ruinam Sion oculus noster?” It also, as well as 
 the Vule., has the sing. “eye.” The Vulg. has: “ Lapi- 
 detur, et aspiciat in Sion oculus noster.” It is impossible 
 to suggest another verb as likely to have been before the - 
 translator. Jerome’s note, “Gentes multae, quae quasi 
 
 ) 
 
 de adultera loquuntur, et dicunt: Lapidetur &e.,” goes a 
 considerable distance towards proving that Lapidetur is a 
 free rendering of 37, the stoning being the consequence 
 of the pollution. It is possible, Ryssel thinks it likely, 
 
 that a similar explanation must be given of the LXX 
 
 * a omits "ΝΣ, possibly because it was observed that there is 
 no query in the Heb. 
 
106 The Massoretic Text 
 
 ᾿ἜἘπιχαρουμεθα, which he regards as a free translation, 
 adopted because of the meaning of the next clause: I 
 am not satisfied with this but cannot suggest a word 
 which the LXX may have read instead of 27. Field 
 represents Symm. as using’ κατακριθήσεται or καταδικασ- 
 θήσεται. In καὶ ἐπόψονται ἐπὶ Σιὼν οἱ οφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν, 
 they put the verb in the plu. Neither this nor the change 
 to “eye,” sing., is needful in Heb. (Ewald, § 317, 1; 
 Ges. § 146, 3.). 
 
 V. 12. No alteration. 
 
 LXX and Pesh. translate ΣΤ by the sing. In 
 other passages they render, now by the plu. now by the 
 sing., the latter, for example, Jer. xi. 19, xxix. 11. Targ. 
 has NT), a rendering the genesis of which is well brought 
 out in Dr. Hatch’s note on wvornpior* :—“ It is frequently 
 used in the Apocryphal books . . . . in a majority of pas- 
 sages of secrets of state, or the plans which a king kept in 
 his own mind. This was a strictly Oriental conception. 
 A king’s ‘ counsel’ was his ‘secret,’ which was known only 
 to himself and his trusted friends. It was natural to extend 
 "the conception to the secret plans of God.” It is not with- 
 out interest to note this similarity in mode of thought 
 between the Targumist and the Jews who wrote Greek. 
 
 Ryssel’s remark, “ Das Nennwort ay wird von Vulg. 
 sonderbarer Weise durch Heu wiedergeben,” loses some of 
 its force when it is remembered that foenum is the ordi- 
 nary rendering of ay: see Jer. ix. 22, Amos u. 13, 
 Zech, xii. 6. Ag. and Symm. have ἄχνη; Theod. καλάμη. 
 
 * Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 58. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 107 
 
 V. 13. For INT) read HII) - 
 
 For the fiurative WIT the Tare. has the literal Op : 
 it and the Vulg. abstain from adding the object which 
 LXX and Pesh. give. LXX has τὰ κέρατα... σιδηρᾶ, 
 thinking both horns needed mention, which is not the 
 case in the O. T. The Pesh. has the plu. “horns,” but 
 for iron and brass retains the sing. nouns: “ das Semi- 
 tische von Stoffw6rtern nicht gern Adjectiva bildet ”’. 
 Ewald. The Vulg. has cornu. The Targ paraphrases : 
 *“ populum enim qui in te est, ponam fortem sicut ferrum.”’ 
 Here again the Pesh. affects Ar., occasioning the omission 
 of the second OWN. The Targ. interprets this clause :— 
 “Et reliquias eorum robustas sicut 865.) Pesh. alone 
 omits the }of API): Targ. renders this word, like WT, 
 by PrP) : B has κατατήξεις, and A and Jer. λεπτύνεις, 
 the latter probably an improvement suggested by the Heb. 
 The Ar. here has come from λεπτύνω, but it is remarkable 
 as being the cognate word (pls) to the WIT at the be- 
 ginning of the verse. There can be no doubt that the 
 second pers., T2777), must be adopted. It is Jahweh who 
 is strengthening his people; it is to him that the spoils 
 are to be devoted; the assertien that He will devote them 
 to himself would be out of place. Cod. Amiat. of Vulg. 
 is the only place in the Verss. where the first pers., zudéer- 
 ficiam is used: and this can hardly be original: the 
 ordinary text has znferficies; so also the Comm.,, both in 
 its text and, as far as can be judged, in its notes: when 
 it is said that interficiam was probably altered to znterficies 
 because of the meaning, there seems just as much force in 
 the reply that the reverse change may have been made in 
 
108 The Massoretic Text 
 
 deference to the Heb. text, in the same manner as the 
 12 7Ὃ of ὁ and r has been changed in a to WIN). For 
 there is no reason to doubt that the ° was written, 
 although the 2nd pers. was intended. Ewald says: “ Die 
 gelehrtere (etymologische), Schreibart ὙΠ (aus dem ur- 
 springlichen ¢i) im Aramaischen treuer erhalten, findet 
 sich in H. L., ferner Micah iv. 13 (wo die Mass6ra ‘7 
 liest, und wohl anders erklart) sodann vorziiglich bei Sp* 
 teren.” See also Chwolson, Hebraica, 1890, p. 108. 
 
 OVI is variously, and, on the whole, not very appro- 
 priately rendered. We are not surprised that this should 
 be the case in the LXX with its τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν, seeing 
 that it has elsewhere such a variety of translations, yp7- 
 σίμον, ὑπερηφανία, δῶρον, πλεονεξία, ὠφέλεια, The Targ. 
 has }1D33, with which the Pesh. corresponds. The Vule. 
 plu. rapinas is probably to mark the concrete sense in 
 which it is used, as well as because of the plu. suffix. 
 The Targ. seems to shrink from the thought that de- 
 struction could be directly for Jahweh: it therefore runs 
 “consumes autem coram Domino.” The LXX τὴν ἰσχὺν 
 αὐτῶν and Vulg, “ fortitudinem eorum” miss the sense 
 of DIM which Targ. and Pesh. have seized: the Targ. 
 amplifies slightly :—“ Ht pretiosam eorum pecuniam coram 
 dominatore universi mundi.” In this paraphrase we see 
 NOY losing its strict original signification, and becoming 
 a mere equivalent of YIN: much the same kind of change 
 
 as αἰών underwent. 
 
 V. 14, Probably 2’ should be read for DW 
 Two considerations are decisive against the LXX de- 
 
of the Book of Micah. 109 
 
 parture from the M. T.in the first clause of this verse ; 
 first, the unanimity of the other Verss., which differ indeed 
 in their interpretation but agree in proceeding from the 
 M. T., and, secondly, the position of the word M2 which 
 the LXX itself bears witness to, TIT] NA TIAN; it 
 could not have stood thus unsupported midway between 
 the verb and the noun cognate thereto. No doubt the 
 radering Νῦν ἐμφραχθήσεται θυγάτηρ ἐμφραγμῷ has 
 
 sen partly from the feeling that something intimately 
 ccanected with a siege is being spoken of, as well as from 
 the similarity of the letters in the two words 17) and 17}. 
 The Kal of this latter is rendered φράσσω at Hosea ii. ὃ. 
 A, followed by Ar., has ἐφραὶμ ἐνφραγμῷ, a copyist’s re- 
 duplication. The Vulg., ‘‘ Nunc vastaberis, filia latronis,” 
 is a rendering of the M. T.:—“ Hoc juxta Hebraicum: 
 cui interpretationi Aquila et Symmachus et Theodotio, et 
 editio Quinta consentiunt;” the /. datronis being a literal 
 rendering of “2 NI as at Hosea vi. 9 DTI WN is 
 wrrorum latronum, and the vastaberis reminding us of the 
 wmeido which is used for TWAT, 1 Kings xvii.28. The 
 Targ. and Pesh. resemble each other in showing their sense 
 of the looseness of structure which makes this verse a 
 difficult one, but differ in their detailed treatment of it ; 
 the former, reading the M. T., ran two clauses into one :— 
 *«Nune per turmas sociaberis, civitas, quam obsidione 
 obsidebant 1111. The Pesh., “Nunc prodibis cum turma, 
 O filia turmarum potentium,” attaches to this clause the 
 ΠΧ of the next, and by reduplication of the 1 of this 
 
 * aq, like the Ar., begins the verse with }, in conformity with v. 11. 
 
I1O The Massoretic Text 
 
 word makes the preceding one into OT). It is not 
 absolutely necessary to suppose that Pesh. thought of V3.3 
 instead of W819, because although “Δ is the word thus ren- 
 dered, e.g. Jer. iv. 5. xxxiv. 7, yet ‘YI is treated as almost 
 equivalent to ‘27 in such passages as Zech, 1x. 3. 
 
 There is a closer connection between the Targ. and 
 Pesh. in their treatment of 1)» DY 8 than the 
 Polyg. “quam obsidione obsidebant illi” and “quia 
 insurrexerunt in nos ” exhibits: the relative pron. in the 
 Syr. is, in this case, not well represented by quia; it 
 refers to the ¢urmae potentes just mentioned. The verb 
 used in the Pesh. a&co does not imply that anything 
 different from DW was read: the more forcible word had 
 become necessary because ΝΣ had been lost from this 
 clause. Both these Verss. and the Vulg. read 3W: the 
 LXX has the sing. Jerome’s words, above quoted, appear 
 to claim for this as well as for the rest of the Vulg. 
 rendering the authority of the Heb. and of the other 
 Greek translators. On the whole the evidence preponde- 
 rates in its favour. It may, of course, be urged that the 
 change to the plu. would be an obvious one for a corrector 
 to make, because 15° foliows, but on the other hand the 
 plu. seems to be required for this word as much as for 
 that, the same subject being intended, and the LXX sing. 
 can be accounted for by the well-warranted assumption 
 that DW only was written, leaving the vowel-letter ) to be 
 supplied. 
 
 For Dw WDW the LXX read ‘W’ ‘MAW or, taking the 
 governing noun as a collective, ‘YW’ DAW. They were 
 misled by the ΣΦ in the line abeve: a representative 
 
of the Book of Micah. III 
 
 person, “the judge of Israel,” could be smitten on the 
 cheek ; not so “the tribes of Israel:” the Verss. support 
 the M. T., the Targ. having, indeed, the plu. "27, accord- 
 ing to its wont, and the Pesh. translating O5W not literally 
 but by 5.5. Aq., Symm. and Theod. have τὸν κριτὴν. 
 The sing. σιαγόνα is found in B, Jer., Ar.: the σιαγόνας 
 of A is due to φυλὰς. 
 
 The Ar. rendering of συνοχὴν ἔταξεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς (ὑμᾶς of 
 A must be a transcriber’s error) is another good example 
 of the distance to which a translation of a translation may 
 travel from the original: a slightly different turn is given 
 to the meaning of τάσσω ; consequently συνοχή is wrongly 
 
 rendered and we get ey 3} Lule ἘΠ )» praescript nobis decreta. 
 
——~" 
 
 ita The Massoretic Text 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 V. 1. For WYS TSN read ὙΠ OTN: omit 
 ni. iG 
 
 Seeing that NDN is the proper form of the word and 
 that TDN, even if it were retained, could only be ex- 
 plained as a corruption which has arisen from this town- 
 name having been used several times with the 7 of motion 
 towards, there is good reason for Hitzig’s conjecture that, 
 the 77 is the article belonging to the next word: an ex- 
 cellent connection is thus obtained : “ And thou, Bethlehem 
 Ephrath, the little one in &c.,” or, ‘who art little 
 in &e.” 
 
 No satisfactory explanation has been given of the LXX 
 βηθλεὲμ οἶκος Ἐφραθά. The best suggestion would be 
 that two readings of the Heb. text at one time were 
 current and have here found a place side by side, were it 
 not that Ephrath, not Beth-Ephrath, is the shape in which 
 the word elsewhere appears. This objection applies“also to 
 the idea that Beth-Eph. is original and lechem a gloss 
 which found its way into the text and led to the repetition 
 (in translation) of the Beth. On the other hand it is next 
 to incredible that the LXX should have arbitrarily inserted 
 οἶκος. Perhaps the simplest way of treating the matter is 
 to accept the M.T, as original, and to hold that in the Heb. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 1132 
 
 text which the LXX used a MA stood before ‘DN, having 
 been interpolated either accidentally or in the belief that 
 the Eph. was parallel to the /echem and equally needed a 
 Beth before it. There is nothing in the usage of other 
 passages to render the appositional Bethlehem Eph. sus- 
 picious, and the remaining Verss. agree with the M. T. 
 The Polyg. translator gives oppidum for |2;2]: there is a 
 various reading in the MSS of the Pesh., Rich and Add. | 
 having |2;2}, Eg. 2,9. 
 
 For ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι x.t.X. of A and B many MSS. 
 have μὴ or. εἶ K.T.A.; a question which expects a negative 
 answer and thus corresponds to the quotation in St. Matt. 
 iil. 6, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ: the Ar. and Jer. translate the 
 same text as we find represented in St. Matt., except that 
 they did not omit the τοῦ εἶναι and that they adhered to 
 χιλιάσιν against ἡγεμόσιν. The concessive oduy. εἶ was 
 replaced in the first instance by a question, and this in 
 turn gave place to a negative declaration of precisely the 
 same import as itself, but of exactly opposite meaning to 
 the Heb. and the original Greek. Like St. Matt. the 
 Vulg. omits AV?, and although the Targ. and Pesh. 
 support it there can be little doubt that Cheyne is right 
 in thinking that it came in by mistake from the line 
 below: nya ΣΝ, too small to be, “is not strictly in 
 accordance with grammar,” JT) ἡ being much more 
 idiomatic. 
 
 The next clause in B and Jer. runs: ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύ- 
 σεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ: A has ἐκ σοῦ 
 μ. εξ. ἡγούμενος τ. ε. εἰς ἄρχ. ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ, a confluent 
 reading, Tod ef. jy. ἐν τῷ Io. having been put into the 
 
 I 
 
[4 The Massoretic Text 
 
 marg. of a codex which read like B and afterwards passing 
 into the text. The Ar. is a mixed text, in parts re- 
 sembling A and in parts B, seeming also to bear at least 
 one trace of St. Matthew’s influence, y¥ corresponding to 
 the yap. St. Matt. has ἐκ σοῦ yap ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, 
 ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Io. The influence which 
 the N. Τ', had on the Verss. of the O. T., and the LXX on 
 the MSS. of the N. T. might well be illustrated by this 
 quotation: the yap, for example, has nothing correspond- 
 
 ing to it in either the Heb. or the principal codices of the 
 ee Pied ; it is, therefore, omitted here in N', although there 
 can be no doubt of its genuineness, the sense ascribed to 
 the passage as a whole requiring it, and its presence 
 having affected the Ar. translator of Micah: again the 
 of Micah is quite naturally left out in St. Matt. ; this 
 has led to the same omission by the Pesh. at Micah v. 1, 
 but on the other hand its presence in the LXX of that 
 passage has led to the insertion of po: in St. Matt. by 
 “CK[T'] arm Protev-2-mss Thdrt:’* not improbably, 
 also, the ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν 2. μ. K.T.A. is a reminiscence of 
 the καὶ ποιμ. TO πόιμνιον αὐτοῦ of Micah v. 8. 
 
 It is not easy to account for the departure of the Ar. 
 from its model in the last clause: in place of ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς it 
 has in Israele: possibly the Ar. text is corrupt, and these 
 words, which have been used just before, have got into 
 their present position by mistake. The sing. maa was 
 occasioned by the verb from which this comes having 
 been used just before and the clause in which the noun 
 
 
 
 * Alford’s Greek Test., 1. 13. 
 
of the Book of Micah. ΤῈ 
 
 occurs being taken as the exposition of the one in which 
 the verb has been employed. The Targ. on the latter half 
 of this verse is a highly characteristic one: “ Ex te coram 
 me prodibit Christus, ut sit dominium exercens in Israel, 
 cujus nomen dictum est ab aeternitate a diebus secull ;’’ 
 the goings forth from Bethlehem of the destined ruler is 
 an eternal counsel of God; there is no need to refer * to 
 such passages as Num. xxx. 13, where ΝΙΝ (but always, 
 be it observed, in conjunction with D.VDW) means “ that 
 which goeth out of the lips.” 7 is to be followed in its 
 readings in this verse: it, with ὃ, has VID against WIT 
 of a; it alone has "7 against "7 of ὦ and ὁ. 
 
 V. 2. No alteration. 
 
 Only the LXX and the Vulg. agree with the Heb. 
 DIN in having the sing. verb and also with its 1295. The 
 Targ. has JD: the Pesh. has indeed the third pers. 
 sing., but to emphasize the idea that the giving up is only 
 temporary has substituted NAY for Bp, : even the Ar. has 
 a variation, using the sec. pers. sing. fem. so as to make 
 Bethlehem the subject: all alike were unwilling to ascribe 
 desertion of the people to him who has just been desig- 
 nated the ruler of the people. ‘“Tradentur tempore quo 
 parturiens pariet,” in the Polyg., is not a good translation 
 of Ἴ NNTP yyD WINN, which means “ They shall 
 be given up as in the time when the travailing woman is 
 about to bring forth.” B and Jer. punctuate τικτούσης, 
 τέξηλαι: A and Ar., correctly, and in accordance with 
 
 
 
 * Ryssel’s alternative explanation. 
 
 I 2 
 
116 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Targ., Pesh. and Vulg., as well as M. T., τικτούσης reEeTa : 
 it is the conciseness of the Heb. which has led to mis- 
 apprehension. 
 
 Τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν : Jer. omits αὐτῶν, leaving it an 
 open question whose brethren they were: Ar. has αὐτῶν: 
 Targ. plu. pron.: Pesh. and Vulg. agree with M. T., as do 
 also Aq., Symm. and Theod. ‘There can be no doubt that 
 these latter are correct. The change to. the plu. has been 
 made to prevent even apparent depreciation of those who 
 are connected with the Messiah. And the Targ. could not 
 understand a distinction being drawn between “his” or 
 “their brethren” and “ the children of Israel”’: hence its 
 NM >y, and its making ‘w’ 23 an apposition to ΠΝ INW. 
 
 V. 3. For 32") read 11W* and attach it to the middle 
 clause of the verse. 
 
 LXX καὶ στήσεται καὶ ὄψεται, καὶ ποιμανεῖ TO ποίμνιον 
 αὐτοῦ ἐν ἴσχυϊ κύριος. τὸ π. αὐτοῦ has been supplied as 
 the suitable object to ποιμανεῖ, after the analogy of 
 Isa. xl. 11, and it is quite possible that the recollection of 
 that passage, where κύριος is the subject to ποιμανεῖ, and 
 μετὰ ἰσχύος also appears, has had something to do with 
 the mistaken arrangement adopted here. For it certainly 
 is mistaken: M7 as subject at the very end of the 
 clause would be in a position of inexplicable emphasis : 
 moreover the parallelism of 711 t¥1 with ‘XN * OW PNI2 
 would be spoiled. As to the καὶ ὄψεται the obvious 
 account of its origin is that it is the translation of an 
 erroneous variant ΠΝ which was first placed in the mar- 
 gin and afterwards in the text. There is very little to be 
 
of the Book of Micah. 11 
 
 said for Ryssel’s opinion that dy. is a second translation 
 of MY in accordance with the etymology of the Heb. 
 word, ποιμ. being according to the wsus loquendi. 
 
 In its treatment of the remainder of the verse the LXX 
 has preserved one original reading which the M. T. had 
 lost. It has ‘12v* in place of 12W"), and gives this verb to 
 the second claiuse-as a parallel to those in the first and 
 third clauses respectively, καὶ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ ὀνόματος κυρίου 
 θεοῦ αὐτῶν ὑπάρξουσι. Unquestionably Prof. Smith is 
 right in maintaining that the conjunction is due to re- 
 duplication from YOON. 2v" is altogether too abrupt to 
 stand alone: if it belonged to a separate clause it would 
 need some such modification as ΓΦ. The Targ. felt \ 
 this roughness and endeavoured to avoid it: “‘atque 
 convertentur de medio captivitatis suae,”’ where the word 
 is_vocalized 12); the Pesh. pointed like the Targ., but 
 had no supplement: the Vulg. did the same, but Jerome’s 
 note shows that he was not satisfied: “Et convertentur, 
 sive ut melius interpretatus est Symmachus, aditabunt. 
 JasuBu* enim verbum Hebraicum utrumque significat.”’ 
 So far, however, as the suffix pronoun is concerned it is 
 more advisable to adhere to the M. T. 178 than to adopt 
 the LXX DMADN: the former explains the origin of 
 \2W"), and it is supported by the remaining Verss.: the 
 latter is easily accounted for as originating in the desire 
 
 * The closing remark on Jasubu is inexact: it ignores the dif- 
 ference between ἡ} and Jv) or, at all events, vocalizes the Sheva 
 of the latter word in accordance with the final }, and does not take 
 account of the fact that what in this case is derived in the other is 
 original, 
 
118 The Massoretic Text 
 
 for conformity with the plu. verbs in this and the next 
 clause. And in the next clause the sing. 5)’ of the 
 M. T. and other Verss. is preferable to the plu. μεγαλυν- 
 θήσονται of the LXX: it does not yield a good sense to 
 say that their dwelling in the glory of the name of his 
 God depends on ¢heir being magnified to the ends of the 
 earth, whereas the magnifying of their prince may well 
 tell on their fortunes: the Targ. is in the right when it 
 interprets the saying of Messiah’s fame: ‘nam magnifi- 
 cabitur nomen ejus usque ad fines terrae.’ Symm. also 
 has μεγαλυνθήσεται. 
 
 Υ͂. 4. For i272 WN read WW NID 2. 
 
 Dow πὶ mM. The Vulg., “et erit iste pax,’ makes 
 the Messiah the subject of the clause: the Pesh. omit i} 
 and appears to connect “et erit pax” with the foregoing : 
 the Targ., like the Pesh., does not directly refer the pre- 
 diction to the Messiah, 829* 7 ΝΟ DID πὸ: B 
 has the impossible καὶ ἔσται αὐτῇ εἰρήνη: Ar. and Jer. 
 αὑτὴ ἡ εἰρήνη; and no doubt St. Paul was referring to 
 this prophecy in his αὐτὸς γάρ ἑστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, where 
 he may have had in mind a traditional rendering αὐτὸς, 
 nearer to the Heb. than the αὑτὴ of the LXX, and a 
 traditional ἡμῶν corresponding to the NI of the Tare. 
 
 JIN] ΝΣ VW. 2] is almost certainly a 
 transcriber’s mistake for 3]: Sebok cites “Cer. und 
 Syr-Hex”’ in favour of the correction, but the three MSS. 
 which 1 have examined, Rich., Add. and Eg., agree with 
 the text. Targ., Pesh., B and Jer. begin the clause with 
 
 * Sor: a and b have not ‘sy’. 
 
of the Book of Micah. [10 
 
 WN: the Vulg. in all probability agreed with them, for 
 although the Sixtine has cum _ venerit-Assyrius, Cod: 
 Amiat. and the Comm. begin with Assyrius: A and Ar. 
 have ὅταν ᾿Ασσύριος, which is certainly an emendation : 
 in spite of the practical unanimity of the Verss. it is im- 
 possible to believe that even a crisis as great as the 
 Assyrian one could produce this remarkable arrangement 
 of the words, and the fact that we have Ν Δ ΣΝ 
 just below, where the order is quite correct, shows the 
 origin of our text; ‘WN NIA’ 9. was originally written ; 
 the alteration was due to a mistaken copying of or inten- 
 tional conforming to the phrase below. 
 
 ΓΝ FIT 3). With this all the Verss. coin- 
 cide, except the LXX which read ΓΝ in place of ΙΝ 
 and, as in the previous clause, ὑμῶν for ἡμῶν: so far as 
 the latter point is concerned, it need only be said that the 
 change is in harmony with the manner in which the LXX 
 avoid the first pers. in the verb (on which see below) and 
 that the Ar. here, feeling the impropriety of the 2nd pers., 
 has used the Ist, following, no doubt, the Pesh. In 
 favour of ΓΝ it has been urged, but not proved, that the 
 idea to be expressed is the rout of the Assyrian as soon as 
 he sets foot in the land and before he has gained a footing 
 in the palaces. And it has been attempted to support this 
 by comparing the next verse, and so forming the parallels 
 VIEAN [| SIN, ΠΝ || 2772): but if an argument be 
 based on this it must be conceded that it 15 not very 
 powerful seeing that the parallels are not exact. It 
 would need much strong reasoning to induce us to set 
 aside the rarer ΝΣ in favour of TDN. 
 
120 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Επεγερθήσονται for 1p 1s for the purpose of avoiding 
 the idea that the deliverance originated with the people 
 themselves: an alteration with this object is far more 
 likely than one in the opposite sense. δήγματα ἀνθρώπων 
 is an interesting example of a mistake originating in 
 similarity of sound, ‘3°W3 being read for "3.2. Jerome’s 
 note shows that the other Greek Verss. were more care- 
 ful: “Ubi nos posuimus primates homines : et in Hebraico 
 scriptum est ΝΈΒΙΟΗΒ Apam, Symmachus interpretatus est 
 Christos hominum ; Theodotio et Quinta Editio principes 
 homimum. Aquila graves, vel constitutos homines, id est, 
 κατεσταμένους." And it is even more interesting to note 
 that the Ar. has given the rendering «eke, primates. The 
 Targ. and the Pesh. have the same word, 2720. The 
 PDIND of r in place of P91 of a and J as translation of 
 Ὁ looks ike an emendation made by a later Targumist, 
 to whom the setting up of seven kings seemed an unfor- 
 tunate expression and an unsatisfactory translation. 
 
 V.5. For MND read NMND.- 
 
 The Verss. correctly take 1 to be 3rd pers. plu. perf. 
 of MY: there is, of course, a reference to YY, but TY 
 is bitterly ironical. The Pesh. yoSs{a is merely an error of 
 transcription for eaSza: there is nothing to recommend 5], 
 It is impossible to decide whether YTN7NON has been 
 accidentally omitted by the LXX through its similarity 
 to NWR or, on the contrary, inserted in the Heb. for the 
 sake of parallelism with the next words: the other Verss. 
 haveit. ‘MTD has occasioned much perplexity and can 
 hardly be uncorrupt. The Targ. has “in fortitudine 
 
of the Book of Micah. 121 
 
 turrium ejus,” a rendering which fails altogether to throw 
 light on the text: the utmost that can be said is that 
 they may have had the M. T. before them, and have 
 looked on the entrances to the land as meaning the strong 
 fortresses by which it was defended. A similar remark 
 applies to A OFD of Pesh., a despairing attempt to find 
 something harmonizing with the verse as ἃ whole. 
 Jerome’s note is: “In eo ubi ego et Aquila transtulimus, 
 im lanceis ejus, ut subaudiatur terrae Nemrod ; Symmachus 
 vertit ἐντὸς πυλῶν αὐτῆς, id est, intra portas ejus ; Theo- 
 dotio, i portis eorum; Quinta Editio, ἐν παραξίφεσιν 
 αὐτῶν, quod nos possumus dicere, 7m sicis eorum: In 
 Hebraeo autem positum est ΒΑΡΗΈΤΗΒΕ." All these would 
 seem to have read alike, for the plu. pron. of Theod. and 
 Quinta in all probability does not imply a plu. in their 
 Heb. text. And the LXX ἐν τῇ τάφρῳ αὐτῆς seems to 
 differ from their reading only in having the sing. of the 
 noun. The questions remain, “ What was their reading, 
 and was it the original one?” I think M5 explains the 
 LXX quite as well as the AMS which has been suggested, 
 and the latter neither gives a good sense in this con- 
 nection nor is elsewhere translated τάφρος. But the true 
 explanation of the whole is that furnished by the 
 parallelism : a word corresponding to ‘‘ sword” is wanted : 
 Jerome and the other Greek Verss. felt this and only 
 erred in thinking a suffix pron. was here: at Ps. lv. 22* 
 MTN is interpreted as a weapon by all the Verss.: the 
 reading M75. here explains the variation between LXX 
 
 * “=P F5) ist das ausgezogene geziickte Schwert :” Del. in loc, 
 
122 The Massoretic Text 
 
 and the other Greek Verss. as to the num. of the noun, 
 and when once the change from MND to MNS had been 
 made it would be inevitable that the latter part of the 
 word should be looked on as suffix pron. The Ar. departs 
 from its model in inserting “them” after “he shall 
 deliver ;’ in following the other Verss. rather than the 
 LXX with respect to the pronoun, owr not your; and in 
 omitting Asshur, this latter probably being a mere error. 
 It will be noted that the LXX your, in both places of this 
 verse, is to harmonize with the your of v. 4. The Targ. 
 and Pesh. hang together in their treatment of the latter 
 half of the verse: they boldly altered the ΝΣ because 
 they could not see the propriety of the repeated mention 
 of the Assyrian coming into the land:—* Ut non in- 
 erediatur in terram nostram, nec calcet terminos nostros ;”” 
 ‘ne veniat in patriam * nostram, neque gradiatur, &c.” 
 Baer and Delitzsch’s notes on this verse show that Ὑ22 
 should be written defective and 19123 plene. 
 
 V. 6. No alteration. 
 
 There is a great difference between the aspect of Israel 
 towards other nations as portrayed in this and the next 
 verse respectively, quite great enough to account for the 
 omission here of the 032, which is found there. M.T., 
 Targ. and Vulg. are therefore probably correct, and the 
 Pesh. departure from them is due to the influence of the 
 1 ΧΧ. In both verses the Pesh. has the sing., owing no 
 
 doubt to the fact that it renders ΟΝ by the same word 
 
 
 
 2 Da Z| see v. 4. 
 
of the Book of Micah. © 123 
 
 and wants the plu. for it because it is accompanied by 
 Ὁ. It is not likely that the LXX ἄρνες is founded on 
 a reading D'W*AD in place of D219, but it is quite possible 
 that they did not understand the not very common poetic 
 word, and were of opinion that Ὁ 22 » which brings out 
 a strong contrast to the lion of the next verse, should be 
 read instead. This is a less forced explanation than that 
 which makes them fail to understand the word and con- 
 sequently resolve to render it by another which, like it, 
 signifies a multitude: for ἄρνες, in itself, has not that 
 signification. Aq. has ὡς ψεκάδες ἐπὶ πόαν : Symm. ὡσεὶ 
 νιφετός ἐπὶ χόρτον. All the Verss. insert the copula 
 before ‘293: in Micah’s Heb. such a copula is frequently 
 omitted. The variation of the LXX ὅπως μὴ συναχθῇ 
 μηδεὶς μηδὲ ὑποστῇ ἐν υἱοῖς ἀνθρώπων from the Heb. is 
 explained partly by the mistranslation just touched on and 
 partly by the different vocalization of Mp’: taken as 
 MP. συναχθῇ translates it: vocalizing and rendering thus 
 they were compelled to read WN for werd. In this clause 
 also the Targ. and Pesh. show their relationship: the 
 plu. DINWI29 is in both represented by the indefinite 
 singular. 
 
 V.7. No alteration. 
 
 The Pesh. is only to be accounted for by supposing with 
 Sebék that jas should be read for jaS.* It is the only 
 Vers. which has sing. for the plu. 7Y: this may be 
 
 * Rich, Hg. and Add. all read as the text: the last of them ha 
 suffered from water at this place, and the text was afterwards inked 
 over. 
 
124 The Massoretic Text 
 
 designed, seeing that it uses the plu. for |N¥. @ and r 
 have 27 against 7 of ὁ, rightly, no doubt, as in v. 6. 
 
 The LXX, Targ. and Vulg. make the apodosis of the 
 second half of the verse begin at }X): the Pesh. at 10); 
 Vulg. and Pesh. mark this by omitting in each case the). 
 Cenerit is a weak rendering of ΠΩ, but it is found 
 in other passages, such as Hosea v. 14, vi. 1. The LXX 
 ὃν τρόπον is a mistaken resolution of the meaning of WN 
 but does not oblige us to conjecture WRI: διαστέλλω 
 also is a poor rendering of Ὁ), if it be indeed a rendering 
 thereof, and not rather of some other verb substituted 
 for it. The Polyg. rendering of the Pesh., “qui cum 
 decreverit ac deliberaverit praedatur,” is very misleading ; 
 the true sense of the word is, “who when he departs 
 and mutilates, devours the prey.” 
 
 V.8. No alteration. 
 
 Ryssel thinks ΠῚ of r against *pN of a and 2 is 
 imper., introduced later for the sake of conformity with 
 M. T. But 7’ is usually fem. and would, therefore, re- 
 quire "ERD - It is more likely that the reading in 7 is a 
 mere error of transcription. The Targ. has represented 
 the figurative “be lifted up” by the literal “be strong,” 
 and has inserted “Ὁ Israel,” to make the reference clear. 
 All the Verss. have treated the apocopated OW as indice. 
 See Gesen. § 72, Rem. 4. 
 
 V.9. No alteration. 
 B has τοὺς ἵππους ἐκ μέσου cov: A, Ar. and Jer. 
 τοὺς ἵππους σου ἐκ μι. a. The σου dropped out of B 
 
of the Book of Micah. 125 
 
 owing to the presence of so many ovs and gov in the 
 immediate context. For Τ᾽ ΟῚ and JI) the Targ. has 
 NyYDIY NII and WPI. Jerome, giving an account 
 of the Jewish explanation current in his day says :— 
 “Non quod equos et quadrigas tune habuerit Israel, sed 
 Assyriorum equos et quadrigas, quae in medio urbium 
 tuarum versantur.’” They could not understand how 
 what looked like a threatening against the people should 
 immediately follow a promise. 
 
 V.10. No alteration. 
 
 r omitting ‘P; which undoubtedly is original, shows 
 the difficulty to which the Targumists were reduced by 
 tae procedure mentioned above. They had been unable 
 to get rid of the 2nd pers. suff. pron. in JEON and conse- 
 quently had the absurd idea that there were cities of the 
 peoples in the land of Israel; if “ cities” were omitted 
 all would be smooth, and consequently 7 drops 7p. It 
 isa pity that aces, used in the Polyg. as the rendering 
 of TINT, has not also been employed instead of wrbes 
 for the cognate word in the Pesh. Not only is it more 
 suitable in itself, but also it would mark the connection . 
 between the Verss. 
 
 V.11. No alteration. 
 
 Ta φάρμακά σου tor O'DWI does not necessarily imply 
 the reading 7,}W3; the pron. may be supplied; the Ar. 
 has no pron. Nor can we adopt the plu. JV of the 
 LXX, ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν cov, which the Pesh. followed: at 
 Num. xxii. 7 we have OVIO%DDP, and there also LXX 
 
* 
 
 126 The Massoretic Text 
 
 has ev ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν, and Vule. read Oo WA: the Heb. 
 writers felt no difficulty in using a sing. in such cases. 
 Targ. and Pesh. have taken the two words ‘WD and 0°33 
 as meaning persons: Vulg. has rendered both as meaning 
 practices, maleficia, divinationes; each influenced by the 
 wish to secure perfect parallelism: the Targ. consequently 
 found J71'%3 unsuitable and substituted J273. It is to be 
 observed, too, that the Vulg. has thus been led to depart 
 from its usual manner of treating D'INYS, which in most 
 other passages it renders by words which signify persons 
 rather than actions. Jerome’s “qui loquuntur” for ἀπο- 
 φθεγγόμενοι is a somewhat colourless translation. But the 
 variety in the LXX renderings of ‘32 shows that they 
 themselves were not sure of its precise equivalent : we find, 
 for example, κληδονίζεσθαι, οἰώνισμα, ὀρνιθοσκοπέω. For 
 the first word of the pair the Pesh. has the cognate form 
 with the Targ, PW, for the second 7365 3? from the Greek 
 ζάκορος : it inserts .DoZ in the second half of the verse to 
 bring out the sense and because TIp is actually found in 
 
 the corresponding clause of the next verse. 
 
 Vv. 12, 18. These shouid be read as one verse as 
 follows:— JWR NWN PHD PPD AM 
 SPT neyo? Wy mMnAwAN yap 
 
 
 
 V.12. As in v. 9, the Targ. for Ὑ ῸΞ and PNA 
 has ΝΣ ὍΝ and WWNMP: it avoids the idea of idol- 
 worship, or at all events only allows it to be faintly 
 indicated, by using TAYNWN for TIINWH: here, as else- 
 where, (ὩΡ in it represents M28; but the Pesh., which 
 
of the Book of Micah. 127 
 
 agrees with it in other places, in this has yZods: to explain 
 the Pesh. it is not enough to say that they translated the 
 Heb. word in accordance with the context; they must 
 have mistaken it for M21, and for this have given the 
 inexact rendering which we here find, “ burnt-offering,”’ 
 in place of the altar on which the burnt-offering was 
 presented. Passages like Deut. iv. 28 and Ps, exv. 4, 
 where idols are termed DIN 7 Mwy, and the LXX uses 
 the plu., show that we need not think of a Heb. plu. 
 corresponding to its ἔργοις here: of the other Verss, only 
 the Pesh. has sing. It is curious that the Targ. has the 
 
 sing. ΤῊ: 
 
 V. 13. The Vulg. evellam is a better representative of 
 ‘NWN than the LXX ἐκκόψω. B, Ar. and Jer. have ta 
 ἄλση: A adds σου; this illustrates what was said on 
 v.11. The Ar. repetition of lal from v. 12 must be a 
 biunder: at Micah 111. 12 Ws! is the rendering of τὸ ἄλσος. 
 The Tare. again brings in the other nations, δ OW : 
 here and at Deut. xvi. 21 the Pesh. employs the cognate 
 word to the Targ., but at Isa. xvi. 8, xxvii. 9, where the 
 LXX has δένδρον, it uses |;>)a. The final words of the 
 verse are not easy to deal with. We have had 003M 
 JSON NY in a perfectly natural connection in v. 10 and 
 do not now look for JOY WWM in this unsuitable 
 position. Yet all the Verss., with the possible exception 
 of the Targ., which either read ‘S$ for ‘Y or tock ‘Y in the 
 sense of ‘8, support the M. T. It has been suggested 
 that we must either change to ’S or translate ‘Y, accord- 
 ing to the Aramaic, by “foes.”” As to the former of these 
 
128 The Massoretic Text 
 
 alternatives it would seem that we do not want the transi- 
 tion to v. 14 which would thus be effected, but if anything 
 is required it is a parallel to the first clause of the present 
 verse. As to the latter it is hardly hkely that \Y would 
 be found in its Aramaic sense in this verse after being 
 employed in its customary Heb. sense in v. 10. More- 
 over the passages where VY has been supposed to mean 
 “enemy ” are all doubtful either in meaning or in text. 
 For FWY, 1 Sam. xxvii. 16, the LXX is μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον 
 σου, as though they read JYV OY, which, as Driver says, 
 “is accepted by most moderns,” though Wellhausen is 
 inclined to think the M. T. right. At Ps. exxxix. 20, 
 another of the passages adduced, Ewald, with some MS. 
 authority, reads JY (or PTY). But even if Jy should 
 stand and be rendered “ thy enemies” it would not be a 
 parallel case to ours. Delitzsch and von Lengerke hold 
 that it has this meaning, but they support it on the 
 ground that the Psalm contains other Aramaic forms, and 
 Driver says that the verse is probably corrupt. Delitasch 
 rightly rejects the various proposed alterations of DY at 
 Isa. xiv. 21, ΟΝ, OVI, OY, as well as the idea of its 
 identity in meaning with OS: to “fill the face of the 
 world with cities’ is quite satisfactory. Dan. iv. 16 needs 
 no discussion ; the Aram. form is to be expected there. If 
 we are compelled to retain this clause we cannot adopt 
 TI or PI IW in place of JY: either of these would 
 suppose ἄλση to be a correct rendering of DWN. The 
 choice would 116 between J113Y, which does not appear 
 elsewhere in place of D°22T but might fairly serve in its 
 place, and JASY, which Steiner points out is parallel to 
 
of the Book of Micah. 129 
 
 TWN at 2 Chron. xxiv. 18. But I believe that the text 
 is altogether corrupt and that verses 12 and 18 originally 
 formed one longer verse consisting of three clauses: ‘ And 
 I will cut off thy graven images and thy standing images, 
 and I will pluck up thy Asherim out of the midst of thee, 
 and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.” 
 Steiner has formed the same conjecture, but I was unaware 
 of this when it occurred to me: his words are, “JY 
 scheint durch blésses Versehen aus v. 10 hier eingedrungen 
 zu sein.” 
 
 V.14. No alteration. 
 
 To avoid ascribing unqualified vengeance to God the 
 Targ. rendered OP) by PT 12) ἸΒ : the 12), not found in 
 r, looks like a later strengthening. The Vulg., “in 
 omnibus gentibus”, or “in cunctis g.”, as the Comm. has 
 it, is merely to make plain the fact that it is foreign 
 nations which are meant. The Pesh. and Vulg. treat 
 WR as plu., referring to 8 and 9M, an impossible refe- 
 rence, the object of the verb being the sing. O71: the LXX 
 renders WWN by ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, but A, not followed by Ar., felt 
 that this left the clause deficient and therefore added μου 
 as object to εἰσήκουσαν : from a like feeling comes the 
 Targ.: “ Eo quod haud doctrinam Legis susceperint.” 
 
 The vocabulary of the Pesh. in the last verses of this 
 chapter is singularly poor: it uses ,>] not only for TAX 
 but twice for MDT and once for WN}, the latter word 
 in particular being thus most inadequately rendered. 
 
130 The Massoretic Text 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 V.1. No alteration. 
 
 Two Greek renderings of the first clause were current, 
 "Ax, δὴ λόγον κυρίου, and ’Ax. δὴ ἃ ὁ κ. eiev.* These 
 have coalesced, but not so completely as to hide the marks 
 of their juncture, the "Ax. δὴ λόγον κύριος κύριος εἶπεν of 
 B betraying it in the repetition of κύριος, and the Ak. δὴ 
 A. κυρίου ἃ ὁ κ. εἶπεν of A showing it in the plu. relative 
 a, referring to the sing. noun λόγον. The Ar. has simply 
 “ Audite nune quid dixerit Dominus,” and in this follows 
 the Pesh. The Vulg. “ Audite quae D. loquitur”’ agrees 
 with Jerome’s LXX in taking no note of 83. From 
 Jerome’s having distinguished the LXX by using “ loqu- 
 utus est” it would appear that the Vulg., like the M. T. 
 and the Targ., vocalized ΝΣ, whereas the LXX, with 
 which the Pesh. agrees, read VN - If we are justified, as 
 we certainly seem to be, in thinking that the Pesh. has 
 influenced the Ar. of this verse more powerfully than the 
 LXX has, this will be in favour of the Polyg. |sag oe 
 as against the “As of Barhebraeus, for the Ar. is δ: 
 
 
 
 *® “ O', ἀκ. δὴ λ. κι κι εἶπεν. Alia exempl. ἀκ. δὴ ἃ ὁ κ. εἶπεν. Sic 
 23, 42, 49, alii, Hieron., Syro-hex. Parsons e marg. Cod. 86 exscripsit: 
 "A 6 k. εἶπεν, ἀκ. δὴ λικ. Sed revera hic codex in textu legit: ἀκ. δὴ ἃ 
 ὁ x. εἶπεν ; in marg. autem: ἀκ. δὴ A.K.”—Field. 
 
of the Book of Mich. 13% 
 
 place of the ON which is thus translated Hitzig and 
 Steiner would put 98, the former because a better sense is 
 so obtained, the latter adding that πρὸς of the LXX and 
 adversum of Jer. support this; their arguments are not 
 without force, but the change is not absolutely necessary, 
 so far as the Heb. is concerned, and the Verss. allow them- 
 selves so much freedom in handling the particles as to 
 make great caution necessary in arguing from them. A 
 inserts καὶ before κρίθητι, and the same codex puts οἱ 
 before βουνοὶ in order to approach the Heb. more nearly. 
 There are several various readings to the Targ.: ὁ ἢ, 
 r YT,aMNDNN; the last of these is from the next verse, 
 and between ὃ and 7 it is neither possible nor needful to 
 decide; either would be correct, although this is not one of 
 the verbs usually treated as Med. ἡ : for NNW of ὁ and 7, 
 a has STN, and in this is supported by Kimchi: very 
 likely this is old and was later supplanted by the literal 
 rendering: the same remark would, of course, apply to 
 NIVTWAN of ain place of NN, unless it were held that 
 the similarity of form in the last named words led to the 
 reading NJVWIN by mistake, and the consequent substitu- 
 tion of ‘AN for “Ἰ in the parallel clause; it is, however, 
 most probable that ‘AX and ‘ON are original. 
 
 V.2. No alteration. 
 
 pn. “Der Cod. Vaticanus hat (wie auch Hab. i. 
 10 λαοί fir OT in allen LXX-Handschriften steht), 
 λαοὶ statt ὄρη. So Ryssel. But the Polyg. and Tisch- 
 endorf’s. editions represent B as having ὄρη and A βουνοὶ, 
 and although the text of Jerome’s translation of the LXX 
 
 ne 
 K 2 
 
132 The Massoretic Text 
 
 has “ montes,’’ the Comments * show that he read βουνοὶ. 
 The Ar. clearly had Aaoi. This can hardly have been 
 other than an intentional resolving of the figurative into 
 the literal, similar, in effect at least, to those various 
 readings of the Targ. on the previous verse discussed 
 above, and originating partly in the λαός μου of v. 8: a 
 people is in question; peoples, therefore, shall listen and 
 judge. 
 
 JN, being so often employed in connection with water- 
 courses, and evidently signifying here something that lies 
 comparatively low, the LXX have rendered φάραγγες and 
 the Ar. has “ wadis.”” “Symmachus et Theodotio trans- 
 tulerunt, οὐ antigua fundamenta terrae. Quinta autem 
 Editio ipsum Hebraicum pbdsuit, Ernanim, fundamenta 
 terrae.” Jer. in loc. The Quinta hereis like the LXX at 
 Ps, Ixxiv. 15, which gives 7@au. The Pesh. makes 1% a 
 verb, parallel to MIN. a@ of Targ. has 83°F TD where 
 the VD is probably a later addition. For ‘ND ΝῊΡ 
 NYIN Kimchi (in Levy) has “ΝΣ ‘TD’ ‘py. 
 
 V.3. No alteration. 
 
 pono. The LXX have two renderings of this word, 
 τί ἐλύπησά σε, ἢ TL παρηνώχλησά σοι. It is easy to 
 understand how a correction of the original τί éX. σε 
 would be put in the marg. and afterwards find its way 
 
 
 
 * « Pyo montibus ad quos propheta loquitur ; et pro fortibus funda- 
 mentis terrae, colles et valles LXX transtulerunt, id, ut mihi videtur, 
 intelligentes, quod populus nihil dignum montium auditione fecerit, 
 sed vel collibus qui inferiores sunt a sublimitate montium vel valle 
 in ima demersis.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 133 
 
 into the text, when we remember the variety of renderings 
 which the Hiph. and Niph. forms of FIND occasioned : 
 sometimes paraphrase is resorted to as though the word 
 were not clearly understood. Jer. is wrong in obelizing 
 τί ἐλ. σε (after Origen) and saying that it is not in the 
 Heb. It would be strange if the attempt were made to 
 replace the more exact παρηνώχ. by the 1655. The para- 
 phrase of the first question in the Targ. is a mistaken one: 
 “What good thing have I promised to do to thee, and 
 have not done it?”’ The Pesh. 1.2000] is wrongly trans- 
 lated in the Polyg., “produc mihi testes”: it should be 
 like the precisely equivalent Tare. "ἃ TDN, “ testimonium 
 perhibe in me.’’: Neither of these Verss. read otherwise 
 than our MY, for although in other passages the Hiph. of 
 iy is thus rendered by the Pesh., 733 at Job. xvi. 8 is, in 
 the Targ., ΝΌΟΝ OPN: in this passage of Micah also 
 they both are giving what they deemed the sense of ΓῺ). 
 
 V.4. No alteration. 
 
 ~The LXX elosely follows M. T. So the Vulg., except 
 that it makes this an ironical question in continuation of — 
 the foregoing, something like the irony of St. Paul’s, 
 “Forgive me this wrong.” Pesh. makes it a question, 
 but not ironical, “Did I not bring thee up &e.” Targ. 
 expounds: “‘ misique ante te tres prophetas, Moysen ut do- 
 eeret judiciorum traditionem, Aharon ut expiaret populum, 
 et. Mariam ut instruet mulieres.” 2) of 7 can hardly be 
 
 * Jerome improves on the “quid molestus fui tibi?” by “ vel ut 
 significantius in Hebraico scriptum est: quo labore te pressiP”’ Cr. 
 guae laboraverat, iv. 7. ᾿ 
 
134 The Massoretic Text 
 
 correct ; }%23 of a and ὦ 15 wanted. Hither “servitutis”’ 
 of Cod. Amiat., or ‘‘ servientium ” of Sixtine and Comm. 
 is correct, and it is impossible to decide which is original. 
 
 V.5. Probably Δ ΩΤ DWI 1D ΠΝ ΤΩ, 
 
 The Pesh. follows LXX in adding κατὰ σοῦ, and this 
 has made its way into the Vule. text as given in the 
 Comm. but not into the Sixtine or Cod. Amiat. 
 
 DIT Iy OWWT Ὁ. In one or other form all the 
 Verss. reproduce these words. The Pesh. differs only from 
 M. T. in having o before δος. The Vulg. is precisely 
 the same as the Heb. The LXX has ἀπὸ τῶν σχοίνων 
 ἕως tov Γαλγάλ. Jerome’s note on the LXX and the 
 other Greek Verss. runs:—“ubi LXX Scheenis: omnes 
 ipsum Hebraicum Szrrm transtulerunt. . . Unde arbitror 
 et LXX σχῖνον interpretatos esse, hoc est, /entiscwm: sed 
 paulatim librariorum errore factum esse ut σχοῖνοι, id est, 
 funes, pro σχίνοις, id est, dentiscis legerentur.” ΤῸ this 
 may be added that at Joel 11. 18, Targ., Pesh. and LXX 
 render as here, and Jerome, who has ¢orrentem spinarum in 
 the Vulg., explains as here; Symmachus, he says, has 
 vallem spinarum. 'The expansion which is found in the 
 Targ.: “ Nonne egregia facinora edita sunt in vestri 
 ératiam a convalle Sittim usque ad domum Galgale?” 
 introdnees us to the consideration of the difficulty which 
 has always been felt to inhere in this fragmentary clause. 
 Jerome shows us that the Jews of his day felt it :—“Ita 
 exponunt: ab eo tempore quo fornicatis estis in Madian 
 usque ad tempus quo Saul apud Galgal est unctus in 
 regem, repetite memoria quae mala operati estis, et quanta 
 
of the Book of Micah. 135 
 
 bona vobis fecerim &c.” His own explanation is as little 
 fitted to meet the requirements either of this verse or of 
 the history :—‘‘ De Settim usque ad Galgal, totum exer- 
 citum Israel oculis lustrans, et mutans loca.”” Ewald held 
 that these words were a marginal note intended to mark 
 the portion of the Pentateuch to which the Balaam 
 episode belongs, but there is force in the objection against 
 this that if we omit them from the text we lack a clause 
 corresponding to 10) }y79, and it is also to be observed 
 that the name of this Parashah is ‘‘ Balak,” or (according 
 to the B. bathra, 14 4., quoted in Levy, Chaldiisches 
 Worterbuch, II. 304), “Balaam,” besides which the 
 Balaam episode did not occur between Shittim and Gilgal. 
 Yet it seems to me incredible that these words should de- 
 pend on the so far distant I-73}, and Maurer’s suggestion 
 that JYWY TTS) or INWY ΟΝ TON) has fallen out before 
 0) ‘Wit WD is the best yet made. Of the alternatives 
 ‘y i719) is to be preferred, to correspond with YY. 
 Steiner’s view is essentially the same: he points out that 
 Shittim was the last station of the Israelites in the land 
 of Moab, and Gilgal the first in Canaan ; he would, there- 
 fore, insert ἼΩΝ, depending on NII, and indicating 
 God’s graciousness displayed all through the passage into 
 the promised land. A moment’s attention is due to the 
 Ar. of this verse compared with that of Joel 11. 18: in the 
 Polgy. text of Micah Jue! is found, and it is properly trans- 
 lated montium; at Joel 11. 18 Jue, which is as properly 
 rendered funium; there can be no question that the dia- 
 critical point has been wrongly affixed in our passage and 
 that in it, as in Joel, we should have Jus! 
 
136 The Massoretic Text 
 
 The indefinite NYT jy? has been variously rendered : 
 the LXX ὅπως γνωσθῇ; the Targ. y92; the Pesh. “be- 
 cause he (i.e. Balaam) knew;” the Vale. ‘ut cogno- 
 sceres,”’ which is mistakenly altered into “ cognosceret ” in 
 Cod. Amiat., the Comm. agreeing with the Sixtine. It 
 is very surprising to find Ryssel asserting that the reason 
 why the LXX (followed by the Pesh.) have δικαιοσύνη for 
 MP is that the plu. of Sux. is not Greek: “ vielmehr 
 ist der Grund einfach der, dass der plural von δικαιοσύνη 
 ungriechish ware.” To say nothing of the frequently 
 occurring plurals of abstract nouns in Greek writers 
 generally we have the plu. of this noun frequently in the 
 
 Old Testament (see Judges v. 11, Ezek. πὶ. 20, xxxii, 13, 
 1 Sam. xu. 7 A). The simple explanation is that they 
 chose to mention the quality instead of naming the 
 actions in which that quality is manifested. Jer. remarks 
 that Symm: uses ἐλεημοσύνας : on the interchange of the 
 two words there is an excellent note in Hatch, p. 49. 
 
 V.6. No alteration. 
 
 The Targ. paraphrases the somewhat uncommon TON 
 ὉΠ by “The God whose glory (Shechinah) is in the 
 nigh heavens.” The LXX, very strangely and unsuitably, 
 pointed TDR, Θεοῦ pov ὑψίστου. The Pi. of DT), here 
 rendered καταλαμβάνω, is more often represented by 
 προφθάνω, but in Ps. ]xxix. 8, 1015 προκαταλαβέτωσαν. All 
 the other Verss. clearly have the same reading though 
 they treat it diversely, the Pesh. having the same word 
 as the Heb., the Targ. 7D, and the Vulg. offeram. The 
 next verb ΣΝ takes a shade of meaning somewhat 
 
of the Book of Micah. 137 
 
 removed from its usual one: in the Psalms it commonly 
 signifies to be bowed down or humiliated. It is probably 
 this which has caused the LXX, not quite sure how to 
 turn it here, to use ἀντιλήψομαι, which brings it into 
 connection with the foregoing; they may also, as Ryssel 
 is inclined to think, have wrongly derived the word from 
 ὭΣ, and had in mind the suppliant’s outstretched hand. 
 The Vulg. “curvabo genu,” and the Targ. TAYNWR come 
 nearest the true sense of the word: the Pesh. ,;a] is a 
 rendering ad sensum. Jerome’s LXX read εἰ avtin., be- 
 ginning this clause like the following ones. The Pesh. and 
 the Ar. bring out the second clause into greater indepen- 
 dence by translating as though it opened with). Simi- 
 larly the Pesh. marks the final clause more distinctly as an 
 alternative one by prefixing οἱ : to ],4. it adds {scSa, pro- 
 bably to balance the descriptive Mw 3 added to ‘2Y. 
 
 V.7. No alteration. 
 
 It is not easy to decide what the LXX, closely followed 
 by the Vulg., read for ww. B has χιμάρων πιόνων, 
 and A, possibly through a copyist’s mistake, ἀρνῶν. If 
 yo. is original it must be a translation of Sy. But it 
 has been suggested that the genuine word is χειμάρρων, 
 from 912. ΤῸ this it is objected that πίονος must in that 
 case have followed and afterwards been altered into the 
 plu. Yet it is more likely that the adjec. has undergone 
 this change than that the LXX found or imagined any 
 other word than 9773. A stronger argument in favour of 
 the present text of the LXX is that neither Jer. nor the 
 Ar. show any trace of yew. But Ag. has χειμ. and, 
 
138 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Symm. ρεῖθρα. On the whole it is fairly certain that the 
 LXX text is corrupt; yom. is an error of spelling and 
 veut. should be restored; κριῶν, in the first clause, con- 
 tributed to the mistake. The Targ. agrees with M.T. The. 
 Polyg. text of the Pesh., Lacso» faa» |Z0>,5, wrongly 
 rendered ‘‘ myriadibus armenti juvencarum,” means “ten 
 thousands of the strength of cows,’ “ten thousands of 
 strong cows.” But it is a corruption, and Roorda restores 
 faa? flaa. The LXX pointed 32, making this clause 
 convey a slightly different idea from that in the next one 
 rather than another expression of it: they also have no 
 μου after ἀσεβείας, but it does not follow that the * in 
 ‘YwD was not read; μου is used three times in the verse 
 and might be left to be supplied here. Ryssel says that 
 the Vat. and Alex. LXX omit ὑπὲρ before ἀσεβ.: 
 Tischendorf’s edition and the Polyg. represent B as con- 
 taining and A as omitting it. Jerome’s LXX has ὑπὲρ: 
 the omission in A accounts for the Ar., “ Facere (i. e. 
 sacrificare) primogenitos meos et fructum ventris mei pro 
 peccato animae meae, impium esset.” The Pesh. differs 
 from the Ar. in having two precisely parallel clauses, “ Si 
 offeram primogenitum meum, crimini mihi est; si fructus 
 ventris mei, peccato sunt animae meae.” 
 
 V. 8. No alteration. 
 
 Neither Jer. nor the Ar. render the LXX as a question, 
 but our principal texts begin with εἰ: “ εἰ ἀνηγγέλη σοι. 
 Alia Exempl. ἀνηγγέλη oo.” Field; 7 of the Targ. has 
 MON, which agrees with the LXX in being passive, 
 but is without εἰ, whereas a and ὦ have the question, and 
 
of the Book of Micah. 139 
 
 the active verb M77. In both cases the forms without 
 the interrogative particle are probably original: the asser- 
 tions have been turned -into questions for the sake of 
 conformity with v.7. The Pesh. is followed by the Ar. 
 and the Vulg. in reading TAX, but the M. T. 15 better. 
 After the questions which have been put a direct answer 
 by the prophet would have been more fitly introduced by 
 ‘IN, like the “ Zyo respondebo tibi” of Jerome’s note. 
 LXX ἀνηγγέλη and Targ. ANN do not oblige us to | 
 read 737: it is common enough for the indefinite 3rd 
 pers. active to bear the sense of on dit: LXX and Targ. 
 may have taken it thus, and in so elevated a passage the 
 passive, ‘it was declared,” is too jejune to allow of our 
 believing it to be original. Aq. and Theod. have ἐρρέθη, 
 but Symm. has εἶπε. The Pesh. runs the two first clauses 
 into one, “ Indicabo tibi homo quid prosit, quid requirat a 
 te Dominus,” feeling that a question concerning Jahweh’s 
 requirements would come in awkwardly after the declara- 
 tion “ Indicabo tibi.” This has necessitated the omission 
 of } before 7D and of ΝΣ immediately after. The Vulg. 
 agrees with it in part, “Indicabo.... quid sit bonum, 
 et quid D. quaerat * ate: utique &c.’’ These changes are 
 additional arguments against the Ist pers. of the verb, the 
 use of which has occasioned them. It is to be observed, 
 also, that the Pesh. gives to 210 here the sense “ helpful, 
 profitable,” influenced by v. 7. 
 
 JON NINN) ΞΘ Mwy is paraphrased by the Targ. 
 xton mdm ὉΠ ΟῚ owpt yt Jay? and it seems 
 
 
 
 ςς 
 
 * So Cod. Amiat. and Comm.: probably original, the “‘requirat ” 
 of the Sixtine text was adopted because it seemed less anthropopathic. 
 
[40 The Massoretic Text 
 
 to regard the next words as the consequence of these, 
 sabx ΝΙΟΙΤῚΣ xadnd ys om, where, like the Pesh. 
 “ad sequendum Deum tuum,” it avoids the bolder 
 expression “walk with thy God.” The Hif. y387 occurs 
 only here and the Kal only at Prov. xi. 2: this will partly 
 account for the varieties in the treatment of it. The 
 Targ., as has just been shown, uses the passive partic. 
 Peal °38, or, as Raschi and .-Kimchi (in Levy), iS. 
 The Pesh. follows the LXX ἕτοιμον εἶναι. “ Verbum 
 Esnz, quod LXX transtulerunt paratum esse, et nos dixi- 
 mus, solicitum ambulare ; Theodotio significantius expres- 
 sit, καὶ ἀσφαλίζου Tod πορεύεσθαι μετὰ ’EXwaiy .... sive 
 ut Quinta Editio transtulit: καὶ φροντίζειν. Jer. in loc. 
 Vollers, defending the ἕτ. εἶναι of LXX, finds fault with 
 their rendering ταπεινός at Prov. xi. 2, and Schnurrer 
 would make “ Arrogantiam sequitur ignominia, sapientes 
 vero sunt qui probe se exercent” the rendering of 
 MDI DWI-AN) pop NIN γπῚ NI. But the LXX, 
 though somewhat paraphrastic, is better, οὗ ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃ 
 ὕβρις, ἐκεῖ καὶ ἀτιμία: στόμα δὲ ταπεινῶν μελετᾷ σοφίαν. 
 
 A and Ar. have “ The Lord thy God.” See on iv. 5. 
 
 V.9. For Jw FN ΤΡ) read How oN? TWAN). 
 
 The LXX, after the model of such passages as Isa. 
 xliil. 7, πάντας ὅσοι ἐπικέκληνται TO ὀνόματί μου has φωνὴ 
 Kk. τῇ π. ἐπικληθήσεται. None of the other Verss. take 
 the same view: these passages where the Niph. is used 
 are not real analogies to ours, and φωνή cannot be treated 
 like ὄνομα. The Targ. avoids anthropomorphic expres- 
 sions: “ Voce Prophetae D. ad civitatem clamant.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 141 
 
 Tf τῶ ΠΝ MW) is to stand it can only be by our 
 agreeing with Ewald in taking TN as the inf., τ being 
 weaked into .: he admits (ὁ 173) that such a weakening 
 is rare, and to me it seems that the ambiguity and the 
 certainty of misunderstanding the sentence so formed 
 makes the acceptance of it impossible. Ryssel says that 
 the parallel Ἰ is a guarantee of the correctness of IN. 
 But ‘WN would require ANVN! To turn to the Verss. 
 The LXX has καὶ σώσει φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 
 where φωνή is the subject to the verb, as it is in the Pesh., 
 although the latter takes ‘Win a different sense, ‘ vox 
 D. super urbem doctrinam praedicat reverentibus nomen 
 ejus.” The Trg. again varies from both these, but has 
 the “fear”? idea in common with them and uses the word 
 ads which is το βέιο to that in the Pesh., “ Εὖ doctores 
 timent nomen.” ‘The Vulg. agrees with the LXX in its 
 
 interpretation of ‘DM but differs from it, as well as from 
 
 Tare. and Pesh., in having the suffix pron. of the sec. 
 pers., ae the M. T., “ Et salus erit fimentibns nomen 
 tuum.”” The simplest account of the whole is that the 
 text originally ran Vw Ny? mw and that the con- 
 fusion originated in the loss of the 2. The suffix of the 
 third pers. is supported by all except the Vulg.: 
 Now of the Targ. could only mean God’s name, and refers 
 to the third pers. 7 mentioned just before. As the 
 text is thus not unnaturally accounted for, so also is a 
 more Scriptural idea obtained than that of the M. T.: 
 “to see God’s name”? is searcely Biblical; “ to fear God’s 
 name” is fully so; MT ΝῊ ΤΣ 38, Mal. i. 16. 
 Nothing need be said respecting Keil’s attempt to retain 
 
142 The Massoretic Text 
 the M. T. by taking “Thy Name” as subject, “ Thy 
 
 Name sees wisdom” ! 
 
 For My" Ὁ] NOD Wav the Tare. has NDI Yow 
 NVINT NOY WNW NNO, where ΝΘ and ‘Ww are a 
 double rendering of 073 , the rod being regarded as mean- 
 ing the ruling powers, of whose sovereignty it is the 
 symbol: “INT ‘Y ‘W) is from a corruption of FTTY’ 9D), 
 possibly ΤΊ). The Pesh. has “Audi O Tribus eum 
 qui contestatur,” as if from TY’ Ὁ. The Vulg. has 
 * Audite tribus, et quis approbabit illud” : it is peculiar in 
 having the plurals and in taking the 7 as suffix. The 
 verb implied in approbabit is probably the same as the 
 Pesh. thought of: in the Comm. we have “ Audite 
 
 decem tribus Samariae, quae vobis Dom. contestatur: adhue 
 
 2 2 
 
 ignis &c.,” where “‘ quae v. D. contestatur ” seems to be 
 another way of putting the idea “ Et quis approb. illud ?” 
 The LXX takes TW, which in the M. T. and the remain- 
 ing Verss. stands at the head of the next verse, as belong- 
 ing to this, but it reads VY, ἄκουε φυλή, Kai τίς (A τί, 
 a copyist’s blunder) κοσμήσει πόλιν *; The sense thus 
 obtained and that conveyed by the following sentences in 
 the LXX do not justify us in forsaking the M. T. and the 
 remaining Verss., either as to the division of the verses or 
 as to the change to VY. On the other hand we cannot 
 follow the Pesh. or Vulg. The former, with Targ. and 
 LXX, has made IY sing. to agree with NM: the Vulg., 
 unable to see the propriety of one tribe being thus 
 
 addressed, especially when its Heb. text had 1Mw, has 
 
 * The Ar., by mistake, read πολύ.--- Ryssel. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 143 
 
 made ΓΘ plu. They were al] misled by their initial 
 error, the taking Wi as a vocative; it is the object to 
 the verb, and the explanation of the fem. suffix—itu 
 being a mase. noun—is that the noun is used in the 
 figurative sense of punishment or calamity and that 
 the reference to it in the suffix is quite general and in- 
 definite : in such cases the fem. is common. 
 
 V.10. No alteration. 
 
 WN cannot be taken otherwise than as the Aramaic 
 form equivalent to Ww’, found also at 2 Sam. xiv. 19. 
 The translation by “fire” in LXX, Pesh and Vulg., 
 in no case produces a satisfactory meaning. The LXX 
 makes the verse an ironical question in continuation 
 of τίς Kos. κιτιλ.; μὴ πῦρ Kal οἶκος ἀνόμου Ἔ θησα- 
 υρίζων θησαυροὺς ἀνόμους 1 καὶ μετὰ ὕβρεως ἀδικίας 1. 
 After its μὴ π., the LXX was compelled to insert καὶ : 
 the θησαυρίζων is also put in to make sense. Roorda’s 
 conjecture that μέτρα should be read for μετὰ is borne 
 out by Amos viii. 5, where DX is rendered μέτρον : 
 for 717 they thought of 1, which is rendered ὕβρις, 
 Prov. xi. 2: ΓΙΊΨΙ is translated ἀδικίας because the ao. is 
 the cause of the curse. The Ar. translates the Greek 
 almost literally, and it is quite misleading on the part of 
 
 
 
 * A and Ar. ἀνόμων, either a transcriber’s error or an alteration to 
 suit the other plurals: Jer. agrees with B. 
 
 + A and Ar. ἀνομίας, a correction to accord with Heb.: Jer. sup- 
 ports B. 
 
 ΤΑ ἀδικία, a correction to produce a better sense: Jer. and Ar. 
 agree with B, 
 
144 The Massoretic Text 
 
 the Polyg. to punctuate: “non ignis. At domus, &e.” 
 The Pesh. takes the entire verse to be the testimony 
 mentioned in the foregoing one: “ Adhue ignem esse in 
 domo scelerati, horrea iniquitatis, et mensuram parvam 
 dolosam.” The incongruousness of the “ fire ”’ idea comes 
 out more glaringly here than in the LXX: before “ house ” 
 it, with Vulg., supplies “ in:’’ it feels the awkwardness of 
 the asyndeton and therefore interpolates ‘‘and” before 
 ἐς treasures :”” 105 ‘‘dolosam” is partly due to the influence 
 of the LXX, the word ΓΙ not being a very common 
 one: in v. 12, where LXX have ἀσεβείας, it uses the same 
 word as here. The Targ. ingeniously escapes all diffi- 
 culties by ending the question at YW and making the 
 rest a predicate: “ Numquid adhuc extat domus impii? 
 thesauri impietatis et mensurae iniquitatis adducunt male- 
 dictionem.”” The Vulg., ‘“‘mensura minor irae plena,” 
 answers very well to 7/21) seeing that Dt is several times 
 rendered zrascor. 
 
 V. 11. No alteration; but MIN is another form of 
 
 rIDINST , as was to be expected, has been a source of per- 
 plexity. The LXX,* e¢ δικαιωθήσεται, regarded it as 3rd 
 pers. sing. Kal and gave it a passive turn, as it does 
 with so many active verbs. The Targ., according to its 
 manner, uses the 3rd pers. plu. Peal. The Pesh. unites 
 the characteristics of these two and has the third pers. 
 
 * A and Ar. καὶ εἰ x.7.A., a correction to put more force into the 
 question. 
 
of the Book of Micah. | 145 
 
 plu. passive, employing {aa.] instead of the simple in- 
 terrogative. The Vulg. has the Ist pers. sing., “ justifi- 
 cabo.” Ewald regards ‘IN as similar to the UN of v. 10, a 
 Sharpening of the yz sound, NX for’, introduced because 
 of the tendency of y and ὁ to flow into each other. Roorda 
 
 Jerusalem, which is represented by this suffix in the next 
 verse. And Cheyne, also referring to Jerusalem, thinks 
 MINT possible. The choice really seems to lie between 
 
 Jerome’s Hiph., which represents the Divine Being as 
 speaking in the first person*, and Ewald’s suggestion. 
 The former of these does nothing to explain the other 
 renderings, and ‘tN would readily, whether correctly or not, 
 be pointed in the manner which this implies: the Hiph. of 
 Mt is not used elsewhere, to which may be added, with 
 reference to Roorda, that where the Pi. occurs it is in 
 a different sense from the one required here: for this 
 meaning we should rather expect p/TSN: and, as Roorda 
 perceived, we should look for the object after the Hiph. 
 The Vule. itself felt the force of this last consideration, as 
 is plain from its leaving 1 untranslated both times: 
 “ Numquid justificabo stateram impiam, et sacelli pondera 
 dolosa?’? On the whole Ewald’s explanation best recom- 
 
 mends itself. 
 
 * Jennings and Lowe, Harpositor, Dec. 1885, p. 436, refer with 
 approval to the R. V., “Shall I be pure with wicked balances, &e. ?” 
 which would imply the same questioner as in verses 6 and 7. After 
 this questioner has been answered in the eighth verse, and the fresh 
 subject-matter been introduced in vy. 9, the recurrence of the same 
 enquirer would seem out of place. 
 
 L 
 
146 The Massoretic Text 
 
 For ἐν ζυγῷ ἄνομος, καὶ ἐν μαρσίππῳ στάθμια δόλου 
 Ryssel is inclined to believe that the LXX originally had 
 ἐν ζ. ἀνομίας, x. ἐν μ. σταθμίων 6., the ἀνομίας being after- 
 wards altered into ἄνομος to get a definite subject, and 
 the genitive στ. being consequently turned into a nomina- 
 tive. This would admirably restore the balance of the 
 clauses which is lost in our present text. The corruption, 
 however, is of old standing: Jer. and Ar. show no trace 
 of the better reading. The Targ. explains ΓΙ ΝΣ by 
 PPI paras ΤΡ. The Pesh. has one of its many 
 Greek words, {20m;. 
 
 V.12. No alteration. 
 
 Don wd wy WR. LXX ἐξ ὧν τὸν πλοῦτον αὐτῶν 
 ἀσεβείας ἔπλησαν. Jer. and Ar. read ἐξ ὧν τ.π. (τῆς P) 
 ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ἐπ. ‘Tischendorf’s note is, “ed. rom. 
 ἔπλησαν; et in fine αὐτῶν." These were attempts to 
 improve the text; the plu. suffix cannot have been read 
 with DIT. Taking the LXX then as given above we 
 see that TWN was referred to the weights ἄο., of v. 11: 
 the 17, referring to a subject not yet named, seemed out of 
 place, and so led the translators to think of OW instead of 
 mywy: the verb was pointed as Piel. The Targ., with 
 the other Verss., read the verb as Kal: ‘ The treasures 
 of whose rich men are filled with violence.”* For DION 
 the Pesh. has jAs, its word for ΓΙ in v. 10: else- | 
 where its treatment of DIM is by no means uniform ; we 
 have [r2egiea, Δ... and fio, but after the use of {AS 
 
 * So Ryssel correctly as against the Polyg.: “ Cujus divites replent 
 thesauros suos rapina.”’ 
 
of the Book of Micah. 147 
 
 for ‘Yi in v. 10 it is only the influence of the LXX, 
 -CoeBelas, which can account for the unduly mild word 
 here. For M77 LXX read ΓΙ the other Verss. rightly 
 follow M.T., as sense and parallelism demand. 
 
 V.13. No alteration. 
 
 Baer and Delitzsch’s note runs:—“‘9N7 sine Lod 
 tertiae radicalis in Soncin. sicut in E ὃ. In E 9. ΤΠ 
 scriptum erat, sed Iod expunctum.”? The Targ. regards 
 the word as the first pers. sing. Hiph. of mon. We find 
 in Jerome’s translation of the LXX proof: that some MSS. 
 of this Vers. also took it thus, ‘‘ Et ego cruciavi te perdi- 
 tione propter peceata tua,” though curiously enough he 
 comments on this in a manner which implies our present 
 LXX text, and does not appear to note the difference : 
 “Kt ego incipiam te percutere perditione p.p. tua.’ It 
 will be noticed that the former of these renderings leaves 
 out JNDT. The Pesh. and Vulg. agree with the LXX 
 of our common text, καὶ ἐγὼ ἄρξομαι Tod πατάξαι ce, a 
 rendering which is partly due to the fact that the suffix 
 pronoun seems wanted with ΓΤ, and partly to the in- 
 fluence of such passages as Deut. 11. 25, J. OTN ; 91, 
 Dn orient. But the suffix with the first verb is ποῦ 
 absolutely necessary: at Hosea vii. 5 we have 199 Dy 
 yo Nan ow Yn which is almost exactly similar, 
 where, too, the Verss. (including Targ.) wrongly translate 
 with the LXX ἤρξαντοος And notwithstanding such 
 passages as Deut. ii. 25, it seems much more in accord- 
 ance with the vigour of this prophecy to find here “1 
 have made thee sick” rather than “I have begun ”’ or “ I 
 
 L 2 
 
148 The Massoretic Text 
 
 will begin.” The LXX, Targ. and Pesh. make DDWT 
 equivalent to a finite verb parallel to “ΠΤ: the Vulg. en- 
 deavours to approach nearer to the M. T. by making it 
 subordinate to ‘TT: “et ego ergo coepi percutere te per- 
 ditione propter peccata tua.” B commences the second 
 half of the verse with ἀφανιῶ: A and Ar. (which Pesh. 
 agrees with) καὶ ἀφ. The καὶ is probably an insertion 
 made for the purpose of bringing out the grammatical inde- 
 pendence of the second declaration. Ar. agrees with B’s 
 ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις as against the ἐπὶ of A. 
 
 Baer and Delitzsch’s note on the last word of the verse 
 is, NNO sine Vav et Jod plurali in Soncin. Complut. 
 et plerisque codd. F adnotat TDN nm). Masora parva ms. 
 77 an ΠΡ JNNon: B, DN Fon.” 
 
 V. 14. No alteration. 
 
 The Pesh. did not see the force of TN: the Ar. also 
 neglects the σὺ of the LXX, but does not copy the o with 
 which the Pesh., as in so many other places, begins the 
 clause. 
 
 uw has given much trouble. In the leading uncials 
 of the LXX we find συσκοτάσει or σκοτάσει, as also in 
 Theod. Jer. appears to have been unacquainted with this, 
 for he gives, without remark, “et ejiciam te,’’ and many 
 codices of the LXX* have καὶ ἐξώσω σε, as if from 
 NON}. Aq. has καταφυτεύσω and Symm. διαφθερεῖ. 
 The Targ. renders J27P2 JNw by JyoA+ yr? po: 
 
 * “(xil, marg. kat oxoracet) 23, 40, 68, 87, 97, 133, (228 marg. ut 
 
 Ed.) 298, 240, 310, 311.”— Holmes and Parsons. 
 tT rv adds NID), ἃ mistaken repetition from v. 13. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 149 
 
 the Pesh., with the same meaning, has “ dysentery :” 
 both these may come from MW*. The Vulg. “ humiliatio 
 tua’ is evidently a translation of a noun derived from 
 mw. There can be no hesitation in rejecting the LXX 
 *it shall be dark,” which implies a transposition of the 
 letters UW and M: the parallelism demands a word which 
 in some way shall refer to.emptiness. WM, Cheyne’s 
 suggestion, would explain all the Verss. save the Vulg. 
 and would satisfy the requirements of the context. Yet 
 one hesitates to accept it, because it involves the rejection 
 of a difficult word, ὧπ. Xey., which accounts for the Verss. 
 and might well bear the meaning required. And there is 
 reason for Hitzig’s belief that Simonis is right in deriving 
 Mw from ¥t>,: the transposition required is exemplified 
 in many other cases, and the sense which (,», bears, 
 especially in Conj. IV., is quite satisfactory. This is one 
 of the passages where the LXX, ἐν σοὶ, neglect the force 
 of J29p2: Aq. and Symm. are more careful, the former 
 having ἐν ἐγκάτῳ σου, the latter εἰς τὰ ἐντός gov. Those 
 MSS. of the LXX which read καὶ ἐκνεύσει Ἐ imply the 
 Heb. ID) or 3D) in place of ION). Jer. t read 
 xatari vn, which he rendered apprehendes, the word used 
 in the Vulg.: these, with the Targ. and Aq. (καταλήψῃ), 
 are renderings either of °F) or of the M. T. taken in the 
 sense common to WN. Symm. has ἕξεις, Theod. ava- 
 
 
 
 * At Judges iv. 18 A has ἔκνευσον for FIO, which might almost 
 lead us to suspect a confusion of ἢ and Ἢ here. 
 
 + So also 23, 40, 68, 87, 97, 130, (228 marg. ut. Ed.) 233, 240, 310, 
 311, Cyrill. Alex. 
 
150 The Massoretic Text 
 
 ψύξεις. The M. T. accords well with the context and 
 should not be altered. Though the words used in Targ. 
 and Pesh. are not identical the Polyg. translators have 
 assequeris for both: dona also is wrongly added after the 
 verb in the rendering of the Pesh. None of the other 
 Verss. agree with the distinction which the LXX makes 
 by its διασωθῆς and διασωθῶσιν : from these Verss. it is 
 also impossible to gather that there was any difference in 
 their texts corresponding to the pen and ypan of the 
 M. T.: but this difference should be maintained; Hitzig 
 points out that the Hiph. means “to bring into a position 
 of safety,” and the Pi. “to save alive,” and a better sense 
 is thus made of the passage than that which results if 
 hoth words are read alike. The Pesh. yo,So is preferable to 
 the Vulg. guos, which came in under the influence of the 
 LXX. The LXX alone has avoided ascribing the calamity 
 to God, εἰς ρομφαίαν παραδοθήσονται. 
 
 V.15. No alteration. 
 
 ὙΠ is here rendered πιέσεις. The verbs more fre- 
 ‘quently used for this process are πατέω and τρυγάω, 
 specially the former. Our translation may be due to a 
 man who was familiar with the pressing rather than the 
 treading of olives. The Targ. has interpolated its usual 
 word for treading before WIN, and before ON has em- 
 ployed ὙΠ, excuties. For VIN it has PAI, thinking 
 it more suitable that the grapes should be trodden than 
 that the must should be. Jerome’s LXX is a literal 
 rendering of the M. T., “ Et uvam (wvas in the comments) 
 et non bibes vinum.” But this is certainly an alteration 
 
of the Book of Micah. : ISI 
 occasioned by the Heb. The mass of MSS. have καὶ 
 
 οἶνον καὶ ov μὴ πίητε : the Pesh., somewhat closely follow- 
 ing this, has ‘‘ et vinum exprimes et non bibes:” the Ar., 
 more briefly still, ‘nee bibetis vinum.” The origin of 
 this variation is to be found in the LXX having read 
 WNW for PIN. 
 
 V.16. For "ay read DYDY: possibly for WAAL read 
 nae, 
 
 “oy pM WNW. Of this there are two renderings 
 in the LXX; the first, καὶ: ἀφανισθήσεται "νόμιμα * λαοῦ 
 μου, attached to v. 15; the second, καὶ ἐφύλαξας τὰ 
 δικαιώματα Ζαμβρὶ. Jerome’s note implies that the latter 
 is an alternative and improved rendering introduced by 
 himself or others whom he knew, for the express purpose 
 of coming nearer to the Heb.: “Zt dissipabuntur legitima 
 populi mei: pro quo nos posuimus propter sermonis con- 
 sequentiam et custodisti praecepta Amri licet et in Hebraeo 
 scriptum sit δέ custodita sunt praecepta Amri.... Sl 
 enim scriptum esset in Hebraeo Amat, recte LXX trans- 
 tulissent, populi met: nune vero quum scriptum sit AMRI 
 et Rzs litera addita, non populi nomem, sed patrem Achab 
 sonat.” ‘To this it is only necessary to add that 2) may 
 have been read through the influence of the Yay at the 
 end of this verse, where YY DWT is not very unlike in 
 form to ὮΝ MIPN. and that as a verb they most likely 
 
 * 3, by which the Ar. renders this, would be more exactly repre- 
 sented by “cogitatio”” than by the “ judicium ” of the Polyg., which 
 is too ambiguous. 
 
152 The Massoretic Text 
 
 thought of WON, DOT in v. 13 being rendered 
 ἀφανιῶ. Turning now to the alternative LXX we find, 
 according to Jer., that the 2nd pers. sing. active ἐφύλαξας 
 has been deliberately used for the sake of conformity with 
 the verbs in the 2nd pers. which have preceded and are to 
 follow, whereas the Heb. text had the 38rd pers. plu. 
 passive. This would imply that we must read the Niph. 
 ὙΦ or else that we must regard the ὙΠ, the 
 indef. 3rd pers. sing. which so frequently is used where 
 we employ a passive, as the original, for which ὙΦ) had 
 been substituted in Jerome’s day to make the meaning 
 indisputable. On the whole the latter is perhaps the 
 better explanation, because it is difficult to see how the 
 Massoretes could have been led to introduce so much 
 harder a reading into the text: their reading must have 
 been well supported by tradition. Ewald, § 124, 2, points 
 out that although rarely, and chiefly in late writings, the 
 Hithp. is used passively. The other Verss. do not help 
 us here: Pesh. agrees with LXX ἐφύλ., and Targ. has © 
 2nd pers. plu. active, which may be occasioned by the 
 ΠΣ which comes immediately after. The ‘7 Dy) of 
 Targ. compared with » ‘\s of Pesh. again indicates the 
 close connection between these Verss. Jer.,* with the Ar., 
 had ’Aypé instead of our Ζαμβρί: there is no consistency 
 in the LXX treatment of “VY; as the following list 
 shows :— 
 
 * The above cited note shows this and is decisive against the 
 Ombri of Cod. Amiat., which no doubt was a later correction. , 
 
of the Book of Micah. 153 
 
 1 Kings xvi. 16, 21, 25, 30 B has ᾿Αμβρί, A has 
 Ζαμβρί, and the latter in v. 16 has the same for} - 
 2 Kings viii. 26 B and A have ᾿Αμβρί. 
 1 Chron. vu. 8 τ » ᾿Δμαρία. 
 δ ia ede. As Γι 3 Apes 
 »  x&xvili. 18 B has Appi, A ’Apapi. 
 »» vill. 836 ΠῚΒ᾽ in B is Zap Bpé and in A Zaupi. 
 
 On the whole it may perhaps be said that the Z is more 
 favoured by A than by B, the example last given being 
 exceptional in that the Heb. word is not the same. To 
 correspond with INON 2 the Targ. have put 2 before 
 DY : in place of “ αὐ the works” it has put the verb, 
 “ye have done the works”: its translator has rightly 
 rendered *T2)Y by “ opera,’’ whereas the cognate word in 
 the Pesh. is too strongly given by “ facinora.” Jerome’s 
 note quoted above entitles us to believe that his departure 
 from M. T. and all the other Verss. in “ ambulasti” is 
 only “ propter sermonis consequentiam.”’ 
 
 Ἔν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν of B for DNA is probably a free 
 rendering in harmony with the verb “ to walk” ; ἐν ταῖς 
 βουλαῖς av. of A and Jer. is a correction according to the 
 Heb. The Targ. “laws” and Pesh. “ὁ views’? come 
 directly from the Heb., and the latter has had some in- 
 fluence on the Ar. .b,,. Having used » \\s in place of 
 the simple Ὁ at the beginning of the verse, the Pesh. is now 
 compelled to translate WO? as if it were 109: this Vers. 
 has also altered the suffix of JN into the 3rd pers. for 
 the sake of conformity with the 7 in maw; quite un- 
 necessarily, the people being directly addressed in the first 
 
154 The Massoretic ‘Text 
 
 instance and the city thought of in the second. For | 
 παραδώ σε, A, by reduplication, has παραδώσω σε, and for 
 darem te Cod. Amiat., by a similar mistake, has darent. 
 The Targ. here avoids ascribing the calamity to God, 
 precisely as the LXX did in v. 15, using for SW the 
 perfectly general and impersonal qpnn>. The ἸΌΝ 
 by which this version in several passages renders πρ 
 is singularly inexact; nowhere does this inexactness come 
 out so strikingly as at Jer. xix. 8, where TW and ΠΡ ὦ 
 are respectively rendered as here by ΝΣ and VIINWR , but 
 when the verbs pUW") OW? follow, fresh words, TI") >, 
 have to be found. It is next to impossible that the Ar. 
 third pers. plu. for λήψεσθε can be correct ; the diacritical 
 point is wrongly placed. For M577 the LXX and the 
 Tare. use plurals to bring into view the various items of 
 reproach. Whether we believe, with several critics, that 
 the mark of abbreviation has been lost sight of, or hold 
 that the Ὁ of Day has been omitted through confusion 
 with the M* that follows, there cannot be much doubt 
 that the plu. is here intended. It has indeed been said 
 that the thought required by the context is, “the reproach 
 which my people brings on me.” But if this were so how 
 could ¢iey be said to bear it? It would be He who bore 
 it. And the threatening, ‘‘ Ye shall bear the reproach of 
 peoples,” is quite in harmony with the tenor of the verse. 
 
 Ἢ Ts it by accident that at 2 Sam. xxii. 44, and Ps. exliv. 2, two 
 of the three passages where the Massora misses 0, the next word 
 begins with MP? At all events we know that these letters were very 
 liable to be mistaken for each other. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 155 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 V. 1. No alteration. 
 
 The noun ἼῸΝ occurs at Isa. xxxii. 10, xxxili. 4, in 
 both instances in the sing. number. The deviation of the 
 LXX from our M. T., συνάγων for DDN, does not carry 
 much weight seeing that the Greek translators have failed 
 to understand the word in both the verses of Isaiah, for 
 NID A DN having οὐκέτι μὴ ἔλθῃ, as though this 
 were an example of the well-known idiomatie use of ἢ) 
 with another verb, and for DDI FDR , ἐάν τις συναγάγῃ 
 ἀκρίδας, turning the noun into the infin. of the verb. But 
 the Pesh., which proceeds independently of the LXX, as 
 well as the Vulg. which is not independent, read the 
 sing. The combined testimony of the LXX and the Pesh. 
 is not lightly to be set aside, yet one can hardly doubt 
 that the plu. is original and was chosen for the sake of 
 parallelism with n>>y, such a use of the plu. being justi- 
 fied either on Hitzig’s ground that a number of days 
 would be occupied in the fruit- gathering, or, as Keil prefers, 
 because the saying applies to all such gatherings. The 
 entire clause W¥2 ND PPTPOND NT 1D Ὁ ΟΝ is 
 rendered Οἴμοι ὅτι ἐγενήθην (A ἐγενόμην) ὡς συνάγων καλά- 
 μην ἐν ἀμητῷ καὶ ὡς ἐπιφυλλίδα ἐν τρυγητῷ; this turn 
 being given to the expression because the LXX understood 
 
156 The Massoretic Text 
 
 it as the personal plaint of the prophet, an idea which the 
 Tare. brings out with still greater clearness by its rubric, 
 NA] WON. Ryssel’s explanation of καλάμην is founded 
 on the fact that at Isa. xvii. 6 ΠῸΣΨ is rendered καλάμη: 
 he thinks that it was so rendered here, the 3 being passed 
 over as in the Vulg.*, and that the better translation 
 ἐπιφυλλ. being afterwards substituted the «. found its 
 present place as though it were for Υ. There is much 
 to commend this view; the alternative would be that the 
 LXX wished to bring into prominence the thought of 
 fruitless endeavour under the figure of a man gathering 
 straw instead of grain, and accordingly read Wp for y°p- 
 The LXX and the Pesh. make the second member of the 
 comparison more distinct by prefixing “ and.” 
 
 WI TN mI. ND ΟΣΩΝ PR. The majority of 
 our MSS. of the LXX, with which the Ar. agrees, read 
 οὐχ ὑπάρχοντος βότρυος τοῦ φαγεῖν τὰ πρωτόγονα. οἴμοι 
 ψυχη, κιτιλ. A few, however, have οὐχ ὑπ. 8. τ. φ. τὰ π. 
 ἐπεποθήσεν ἡ ψυχή μου, and Jer., who renders “ primitiva, 
 quae passa est anima mea. Vae mihi anima &c,” must 
 have had a codex containing this text before him, the 
 ἐπεπονθήσεν in it being a misspelling of ἐπεποθ. and ἃ, 
 which in the other codices of this class may have been lost 
 after πρωτόγονα, being possibly, though not necessarily, 
 found. No doubt these codices have here a correction after 
 the Heb., which was first placed in the margin and after- 
 wards in the text,in Jerome’s exemplar without displacing 
 
 * “Sicut qui colligit in autumno racemos vindemiae:” the two 
 clauses are run together, and γ᾽ regarded as an adverb of time. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 157 
 
 the older rendering. With reference to that older ren- 
 dering it need only be said that even in the Greek τὰ 
 TpwrT., as object to day. does not come in well after βότρυος : 
 that the other Verss. all support the M.T.; and that 
 MN has been confounded with MN (Ps. exx. 5) or 
 with NX. 
 
 The Targ. contains two renderings of the first half of 
 this verse, the one being an interpretation derived from 
 v. 2 and the other what was deemed a literal translation. 
 The first runs 1TAN7T Τὴ NAY ADDI ANT RN Dy 
 NVIN JO NWOT. The second PrYD NYP DYDD NA 
 OP Wa, where V2 makes the idea of unsatisfactoriness 
 more emphatic, and "51D is derived from ἢ]. The second 
 half of the verse is interpreted rather than translated : 
 “Non est vir qui habeat opera bona, bonos (¢amen) appetit 
 anima mea,” 
 
 V.2. No alteration, 
 
 The MSS. vary between εὐσεβὴς of B and εὐλαβὴς of 
 A and Ar. as the rendering of TDM. But there are also 
 traces of a totally different word, possibly ἀναστρέψας, 
 having been used. Holmes and Parsons end their note 
 with the words, “revertens a terra.—Origen ii. 357.” 
 Origen 11. p. 857 (De La Rue’s Edition), in the 28rd 
 Homily on Numbers, runs as follows; “Sed et illa 
 humanum genus lamentantis Dei vox est qua dicitur per 
 prophetam. Heu me, quoniam factus sum sicut qui congregat 
 stipulam in messe et sicut racemus in vindemia, quia non est 
 spica nec botrus ad edenda primogenita. Hei mihi anima 
 quoniam perit revertens a terra, et qui corrigat in honimibus 
 
158 The Massoretic Text 
 
 non est. Domini sunt istae voces, genus humanum 
 lugentis.”” In the fifth chapter of the first Homily on 
 Ezekiel Origen quotes the same verse: “ Hew mihi, 
 anima mea, quia peritt revertens a terra, et qui corrigat 
 inter homines non est.’* It is further to be noted that 
 Jer. followed Origen. Martinianay’s Edition of the Comm. 
 gives revertens both in the text and in the comments: 
 Migne and Vallarsius both give reverens in the text and 
 revertens in the comments: the Rev. G. M. Youngman 
 informs me that in the only MS. of Jerome’s Commen- 
 taries which he finds in the British Museum revertexs 
 appears twice.* For DM there must have been a variant 
 DiI: the very fact that it is not easy to understand how 
 this could be rendered by such a word as ἀναστρέψας will 
 help to account for the almost total disappearance of the 
 latter. Οἴμοι x. of v. 1 compelled the LXX to begin this 
 verse with ὅτι. 
 
 The Targ. ΝΥ ΌΤΙ VIAN is an instructive illustration of 
 the readiness with which they turned the indefinite sing: 
 into the plu. Κατορθῶν is the rendering of WW” as at 
 Prove 12>) xiv, ~The p75 is a sufficient token of 
 the mistakenness of the LXX in reading 12°) for ΔΝ ; 
 
 
 
 * JT owe both these references to Origen’s Homilies to my friend, 
 the Rev. Ronald Bayne, who most kindly looked up the first of them 
 αὖ my request, and himself discovered the second. 
 
 ἡ Mr. Youngman’s note runs thus: “Brit. Mus. Reg. 4 C xi. 
 Comm. S. Hier. in Dan. et Proph. Min. Saec. xii.,— 
 
 Tristis est anima usque ad mortem periit vevertens de terra vel 
 antiypo interficiente scos 
 
 Et iterum. Ve mihi anima perlit revertens a terra et qui corrigat 
 inter homines non est.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. ' 159 
 
 the other Verss. read as M. T. ‘‘ In sanguine ” of the Vule. 
 is so peculiar that we should alter it were there any 
 authority for doing so: in other passages the dative or 
 a preposition and accusative go with zusédior., The Pesh. 
 neglects to mention the blood: ‘omnes struent insi- 
 dias.” It is somewhat remarkable that the Pesh. fails to 
 reproduce the plu. ΟῚ in many passages; see Isa. 
 eee Ezek, xxii. %, Micah iii, 10, Zech. ix. .7, Ps, v, 7, 
 Prov. 1. 18. 
 
 DIT NS WON ΠΝ WR. LXX ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον 
 αὐτοῦ ἐκθλίβουσιν ἐκθλιβῇ. For ὙΤῚΝ they read 8", 
 which is a better parallel to their 12°", but not so good a 
 one to the true reading JA0N’: the other Verss. correctly 
 agree with M.T. In common with the other Verss. the 
 LXX has understood O17 in the same way as at Mal. 11. 24, 
 where DTT YONATAN 1D) is rendered καὶ πατάξω τὴν 
 γῆν ἄρδην. Thus taken, it corresponds well with DT, 
 and if it had been intended in the sense found at Ezek. 
 XXvl. 5 (caynv@v), Xxxll. 3 (ἀγκίστρῳ) we should have 
 looked for the 3 instrument, of Hab. 1. 15, WOIND ἹΠΠ". 
 Aq. and Symm. have θηρεύουσιν ἀναθέματι. τὸν πλησίον 
 is a softening of the very severe “they hunt every man 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 his brother,’ and the Targ., which has slightly enlarged 
 the foregoing clause, ‘‘omnes parant insidias sanguinis 
 justi effendendi causa,” softens this clause, though not in 
 the same way as LXX, “ unusquisque fratrem suum ad 
 exterminium produnt.”? For P05, the reading of dand 7, 
 a has PT3', which cannot be anything but an alteration 
 
 occasioned by the Heb. 
 
160 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Υ. 8. For 217) read 12. 
 
 δῦ ops yparby. Few expressions in the book are 
 treated more diversely than this. The LXX regarded 
 YI as noun and article, ἐπὶ τὸ κακὸν Tas χεῖρας αὐτῶν 
 ἑτοιμάξζουσιν. Probably its verb was J2°OiT: it is true 
 that éroww. is most frequently a translation of 112 or one of 
 its conjugations, but it might well stand for ΔΤ here, 
 and the latter verb is so strongly witnessed to by the re- 
 maining Verss. that we cannot set it aside. There is no 
 need to suppose that the suffix pron. was read, although 
 all the Verss. agree in employing it. The Vulg. “ Malum 
 
 manuum suarum dicunt bonum ”’ 
 
 implies the same verb, 
 JVI. but seems to rest on the grammatical solecism of 
 treating Y7 as in the construct state governing ‘DD: if it 
 had been in that relation the article would have stood 
 before the latter word. The Targ. δ᾽ PTI ΤΟΝ 
 PIO is as though their text had been Ν᾽ ΟῚ D'DD » τὺ» 
 ΛΔ ΥΤ, and the Pesh. betrays the influence both of the 
 LXX and the Targ.: “Their hands are good at doing 
 evil, and they do not good.” Our choice of text is thus 
 threefold. "We may adhere to the M. T. and understand 
 it according to the rule in Gesen. § 132, 3, Rem. 1, “ For 
 doing evil,” or, “ For evil, both hands are ready to do it 
 eagerly.” In this case YV7 might be either the Hiph. 
 infin. of YY1, or the noun YD with the article. Against 
 this it is to be noted that the other Verss. show no trace 
 of the 9 which is thus retained, and further, that the 
 saying is so elliptical as to arouse strong suspicion of its 
 genuineness. We may follow Targ. and Pesh., which 
 have δ or N9) in place of > and the finite verb like the 
 
of the Book of Micah. 161 
 
 LXX. A very good sense is thus obtained, but one doubts 
 whether the contrast would not have been so put as to 
 have the same form, omy, in the second member as in 
 the first; 12.7 N9 as the contrast to ‘DI YIM is not 
 satisfactory. We may follow the LXX, which produces 
 a quite acceptable sense and involves very slight alteration 
 of the text. Moreover, although the Vulg. cxterprets the 
 verb differently, taking it declaratively, it agrees with the 
 LXX in the verb and in the omission of 9. When we re- 
 member that the vowel letter ) need not have been written it 
 seems quite possible that the word might be mistaken for 
 inf. const. and ? inserted to win a better sense. Without 
 insisting on the binding necessity of this particular cor- 
 rection it may be looked upon as the likeliest, and it is at 
 all events most probable that the M. T. is corrupt. 
 
 ΟΣ πὶ *oxw aw. The brachyology has 
 proved troublesome, A literal translation is found in the 
 Vulg.: ‘ princeps postulat, et judex in reddendo est,” 
 and Jer. explains the last words: “sic alium judicans, 
 quomodo ipse ab alio judicatur, ut praestent sceleribus 
 suis mutuum favorem, et in alterius crimine se defendant.” 
 The Targ. read and understood the words in the same 
 way: “ princeps postulat, et judex dicit. Fac pro mef, ut 
 retribuam tibi.” The Pesh. agrees with the Targ. in 
 
 * Baer and Delitzsch’s note is: “ oN defective in codd. et edd. 
 veteribus sicut omnibus omnino locis.” 
 + Either the ὭΡΙΣΕΝ, of ὁ or the Downy of @ is more likely to be 
 
 original than the Dp duPN NIT of 7. 
 M 
 
162 The Massoretic Text 
 
 supplyng “WON in the second half: “ praefectus postulat 
 dicens* ; Affer: et judex dicit, Da munus.”’ The three 
 Verss. just referred to are equally unanimous in supporting 
 the M. T. of the next clause, the only variations being 
 that Pesh. and Vulg. rightly keep the sing., ‘‘ desiderium,” 
 whereas the Targ., more suo, prefers the plu., and that the 
 Tare. (see below) detaches NIJ from this clause. But the 
 brevity of the clause which we have considered above 
 was a stumbling-block to the LXX and it has there- 
 fore altered both language and arrangement. For 
 NUT WPI MT IIT DTM ‘Wa wawM 'W WT it has 
 6 ἄρχων αἰτεῖ, καὶ ὁ κριτὴς εἰρηνικοὺς λόγους ἐλάλησε, 
 καταθύμιον ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ ἐστίν. For pw. DPW or 
 Ὁ} (as at Gen. xxxvii. 4 7) has been read, and ΟΥ̓Δ 
 being omitted 227 has been taken as 3rd pers. sing, Pi. 
 The crux has clearly been Ὁ, and the LXX has been 
 unable to see that “the prince asks (for gifts) and the 
 judge (judges) for a recompense ” may fairly be got from 
 the words as they stand. Their own rendering cannot 
 harmonize with the context, seeing that ‘* peaceful words,” 
 unless a crafty purpose were in some way indicated, are 
 no part of the evil conduct here ascribed to the authori- 
 ties. And if it were replied that the allusion is contained in 
 καταθ. x.T.r. it is indisputable that such an allusion does 
 not lie on the surface. Jer, felt the difficulty of the words 
 
 * So the Polyg. and Ryssel, regarding the » as introducing the 
 word quoted. But no such » precedes 2Qa, and the better sense 
 would be: ‘ the prince asks for gold, &c.” 
 
 yt LXX, λαλεῖν αὐτῷ οὐδὲν εἰρηνικόν. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 163 
 
 καταθ. x.7.r. and hardly succeeded in surmounting it when 
 he explained: “ Accipit enim munera, desiderium animae 
 suae.”’” Another objection to the LXX is that the partic. 
 “At corresponds better to the ONW at the opening. NV, 
 according to Ewald, ὃ 311, 1, ὁ, is the separate pron. 
 employed to give emphasis to the suffix in WD]. But 
 Driver’s view of it as the pronoun which implies the 
 copula is better, § 198. There is absolutely nothing to 
 recommend the procedure in the Targ. where ‘7 is read 
 for it, and a sentence made out of this and the next words, 
 smopoot Dy pmy 7. 
 
 Both as to the word itself and as to ie connection the 
 Verss. vary widely in their treatment of MINI. The 
 Vulg., “et conturbaverunt eam’’, follows M. Τ᾿. both in 
 words * and in division. Jerome’s explanation of “‘ Kam ”’, 
 “vel urbem, vel veritatem, sive terram de qua supra 
 dicitur, pertit sanctus de terra”’, sufficiently shows that eum 
 of Cod. Amiat. is a scribe’s error. The Targ., in the 
 reading quoted above, divides as the M. T. does, but is a 
 translation of AYN. The LXX καὶ ἐξελοῦμαι τὰ ἀγαθὰ 
 αὐτῶν would require as its original DW NiyRit, taking 
 DAN from the next verse and treating the sing. as a plu. 
 in the same way as it often does with YD and 110. The 
 first pers. sing., however, can only be looked on as a 
 conscious correction made in order to harmonize with the 
 following part of the translation. The Pesh. here again 
 agrees with the Targ. in part and the LXX for the rest, 
 
 * Conturbo does not appear to be used for FY, and it is therefore 
 
 permissible to assume that it is the rendering of Ny. 
 f Or possibly, as Schleusner thinks, ἼΔΟΝ. 
 
 M 2 
 
164 The Massoretic Text 
 
 reading Jy and the 3rd pers. plu. of the verb with the 
 former but making D2 the object of the verb with the 
 latter. The Ar. here forsakes the LXX for the Pesh., at 
 all events so far as the meaning of the verb is concerned, 
 although it keeps the first pers. sing. Its word is Js): 
 at Micah iii, 9, Ps. exix. 163, the Heb. is 19.0, the LXX 
 βδελύσσω, the Pesh. and Ar. as here; at Ps. evi. 40, 
 Heb., LXX and Pesh. as in the two places just quoted, 
 but the Ar. forsakes them. So far as the word NAY is 
 concerned there can be but little hesitation in adhering to 
 it. It is av. λεγ. and would be more likely to be altered 
 into a familiar word than vice versi; the Verss. vary so 
 from each other as to excite the suspicion that they had 
 something unfamiliar before them: the sense it yields falls 
 in with the sentiment of the passage as a whole; “The 
 great man utters his own wish and they ”, the judges and 
 other officials, ‘twist it’ i.e. the cause that is in hand.* 
 And as to the division of the words some discredit is 
 thrown on the LXX and Pesh. by the violent procedure to 
 which it has driven the former, compelling it to alter the. 
 pers. and num. of the verb, as well as by the compulsory 
 omission in both these Verss. of the 7 in NAY, which 
 wants accounting for in some way and, grammatically, 
 would be out of place before Ὁ). Other reasons will 
 appear for rejecting this arrangement when we turn to 
 v. 4. The rendering of the last part of the verse by 
 Symm. deserves to be mentioned if only for its singularity: 
 
 * This is preferable to Hitzig’s interpretation, according to which 
 the three classes mentioned in this verse “bind together” their 
 diverse interests into one common interest and follow it. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 165 
 
 \ e \ a \ > 7 an an Ψ a \ 
 καὶ ὁ μέγας λαλεῖ THY ἐπιθυμίαν τῆς ψυχῆς αὑτοῦ, καὶ 
 
 \ \ an is , > “ 
 Kata τὰς δασεῖς ἡ δασύτης αὐτοῦ. 
 
 V. 4. Probably 31012 for MIDI and PDX for 
 7389. "ΠΣ 
 
 NID W* PIAD DAW. Connecting this, as has 
 already been mentioned, with the final word of v. 3, the 
 LXX runs καὶ ἐξ. ta ay. αὐτ. ὡς σὴς ἐκτρώγων καὶ 
 βαδίζων ἐπὶ κανόνος. For PIT no doubt they read pan 
 (Ryssel), rendering it by σὴς and adding éxtp.; they then 
 supplied καὶ, rendered Wi as a verb and possibly read 
 ὩΣ : to this must be added that the next two words 
 of the Heb. text were joined to this clause and treated as 
 adv. accus., ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σκοπιᾶς σου." The Pesh. partially 
 agrees with this: “ Denique abominati sunt probitatem 
 suam tanquam pannum tinea corrosum.” ‘This is from 
 MDD WN PTD or perhaps "232 W* ‘MD. Both these 
 translations are so foreed and unnatural that we are com- 
 pelled to decide against them: whether it is the speaker 
 or the moth, what meaning, at all suitable to the context, 
 can be assigned to . ἐπὶ «.? And how, in any such 
 sense as is here wanted, can they abhor their own good, 
 “‘tanquam pannum &e. ” ὃ 
 
 The Targ. has: “The good man amongst them, it is 
 as hard to get out of his hands as from a thorn, and he 
 who is upright amongst them is more hurtful than the 
 
 * The Ar. closely renders the LXX, except that it mistook the last 
 word for σκοτίας. The Polyg. ought to have rendered the Ar. as it has 
 done the LXX, not “‘ tineam devorantem,” but ‘tinea devorans.” On 
 the σου see below. 
 
166 The Massoretic Text 
 
 enclosure of a destructive hedge.””?* This is plainly 
 founded on the M. T. The Vulg. does not greatly differ 
 from it: ‘“‘ Qui optimus in eis est, quasi paliurus, et qui 
 rectus, quasi spina de sepe.” On the e¢ no remark need 
 be made. For the rest it is almost certain that the was 
 taken partitively and the quasi supplied as demanded by 
 the sense. But this gwas? indicates a true perception of 
 the requirements of the passage: % would be very harsh 
 in this place seeing that no adjective such as NWP has 
 occurred in the first comparison: and out of 3, if it was 
 original, the ὦ of M.T. and the Δ of LXX and Pesh. 
 would readily come. Symm. has 6 ἀγαθὸς αὐτῶν ws 
 ἄκανθα, ὁ ὀρθὸς ὡς ἐξ ἐμφραγμοῦ. It is far from unlikely 
 that the 3 is original. 
 
 INI JOIPH TD OV. The text of the LXX must 
 be considered before we can discuss its rendering. As 
 it now stands we have ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σκοπιᾶς. Οὐαὶ αἱ 
 ἐκδικήσεις σου ἥκασιν in B, but A, Ar. and Jer. repeat the 
 οὐαὶ. Comparison of this with the M. T. and the other 
 Verss. throws no light on the ovai, and there can be no 
 doubt that Roorda is right when he restores as the original 
 LXX σκοπιᾶς σου αἱ ἐκ. κιτλ. The o of cov has been 
 confounded with the final letter of the preceding word, 
 οὐαὶ has thus been formed and the ai before ἐκ. restored : 
 in A, Ar. and Jer. the process has been carried a step 
 further and οὐαὶ repeated. In joiming ἐν 7. ox. cov to 
 the foregoing clause the LXX were probably influenced 
 
 * The Polyg. translates the Targ. very badly here, and is especially 
 in error in joining wa to the DY of the next clause, 
 
of the Book of Micah. ὦ ΤΟ 
 
 by the difficulty of making both ‘Tp and "ΒΝ dependent 
 on 01: the Pesh. and Targ. did not feel this to be in- 
 superable and the Vulg. (see below) did not think it 
 needful to construe thus. The resulting ai é«6. cou ie. of 
 LXX is too disconnected to recommend the arrangement : 
 and the τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου of St. Luke xix. 44, 
 which must be a reminiscence of our passage, supplies 
 evidence of a traditional Jewish rendering, similar to that 
 of the Targ., which connected DY with ‘PD as well as with 
 '3. In view of the sing. in the other Verss. we need 
 not think that ἐκ. implies a plu. in the Heb. text from 
 which it was rendered: it only brings out the several acts 
 in which the ἐκδίκησις will be accomplished. The Targ. 
 has ‘dies in qua bonum expectabas, tempus visitationis 
 malitiae tuae pervenit”: WMD, the verb, is construed, 
 ad sensum, with the governed noun JD, corresponding 
 to "ΡΞ" and not with Ὁ": like the Vulg. and LXX it 
 took 7D’) as sing. noun with suff.; see Gesen. § 93, 9, 
 Rem. : it supplied JT) (the καιρόν of the quotation in St. 
 Luke) from DY. The Vulg. has “ Dies speculationis tuae, 
 visitatio tua venit,’ which again reminds us of Symm.: 
 ἐμφραγμοῦ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῶν προσκοπευόντων σοι. ἡ ETLTKOT?) 
 σου ἦλθε. The sing. fem. noun "TP is thus made the 
 subj. to NA, and this procedure, together with that of the 
 Targ., is a strong testimony to the form of the verb here. 
 Only the Pesh. renders J’D8% as meaning “ watchmen ”’; 
 Sebdk refers to Jer. vi. 17 and Ezek. i. 17, and says 
 that the Pesh., more correctly than M. T., read ΤΞΝ 01. the 
 of "ΝῺ being due to dittography. ‘There is no need to 
 follow this opinion : if 728 is used in this sense, so also 
 
168 The Massoretic 7) oe 
 
 is DX, and the abstract noun corresponds better to the 
 following 'PD-. This latter fact, combined with the con- 
 sideration that 58’) would be more readily pointed 
 TDS than TPS, and yet was pointed JPY by LXX 
 
 g., makes it almost certain that we should adopt 
 the abstract noun here. As to the gender of the suffix, 
 which Sebék rightly feels might be expected to be fem., 
 it must be noted that he does not propose to alter the 
 gender again in the next word. He proposes, however, to 
 
 and Tare 
 
 change that word. For 4a.10309 he substitutes uoeissoo, 
 and adduces for comparison Hosea ix. 7. The change 
 is unnecessary, and finds no support in Rich., Add. 
 or Eg., and the passage to be compared does not sustain 
 the cause for which it is advanced: [aSsam does indeed 
 occur in it, but itis as a translation of Dov, and MMI) 
 is used in the Heb. of that verse but is rendered by 
 jAs>2Z. Just as little is to be said for the suggestion 
 which has been made that the Pesh. is merely trans- 
 literating a PS which it found or imagined to be in its 
 text. This has originated in the quite obvious fact that 
 the Pesh. here differs from the others in taking the word 
 unambiguously in a good sense: no doubt it was wrong 
 in this, but the word MP5 itself might as well be used 
 in a good as in a bad sense. 
 
 ONDA TT ΠΡ. LXX viv ἔσονται κλαυθμοὶ 
 αὐτῶν, Symm. νῦν ἔσται κλαυθμὸς αὐτῶν, and Pesh., 
 “mox erunt funera eorum”’, derive ΠΣ from 32. 
 The Targ. derives it from 2 and renders it by ΔΨ. 
 
 The Vulg. has “ nune erit vastitas eorum,” and Jerome’s 
 
of the Book of Micah. 169 
 
 note on this runs “sive obsidio: MaBccHa enim magis 
 πολιορκίαν et φρούρησιν, id est obsidionem et custodiam, 
 quam vastationem in Hebraeo sonat.’’ Ryssel gives a far- 
 fetched and unnatural account of Jerome’s procedure here : 
 “ darnach verwechselte er 1212/3 mit Mp2’ das Nah. 2, 
 11 in der Bedeutung Leere, Oede vorkommt, dieses letztere 
 aber wiederum mit ΓΙΡῚΝ 3. Bedrangniss.” -A reference to 
 Exod. xiv. 3, where O23 is rendered “ coarctati sunt,’ 
 shows that his method was much simpler: he believed 
 that this root really meant “to shut in.” πλανῶνται, by 
 which the LXX render 0°33) in Exodus, shows that they 
 were not unaware of the true meaning of the word: else- 
 where they have κλαίω and tapacow. It must be added 
 that none of the other Verss. is able uniformly to resist 
 the natural tendency to connect the forms of this word 
 with 732: at Esth. m1. 15 and Joel i. 18 this is not to 
 be wondered δῇ : in both these places, as well as in Exodus, 
 the Targ. uses one or other form of 232» a very apt 
 rendering: at Isa. xxii. 5 the Targ. has SOP, which 
 leaves us in doubt as to whether they thought of ΤῺ 
 or 22. 
 
 V.5. No alteration. 
 
 The asyndeton in the M. T. is preferable to the “and” 
 which ail the Verss, use before the second clause. The 
 same remark applies to the “and” with which the Pesh. 
 alone begins the second half of the verse. The plurals 
 φίλοις and ἡγουμένοις do not imply corresponding Heb. 
 plurals: they bring out the sense of the indefinite sing. 
 
 which is found in M. T., Targ. and Vulg. The Pesh. has 
 
170 The Massoretic Text . 
 
 been unnecessarily explicit in adding the suffix pronoun 
 qa to each word. ἡγουμένοις of LXX and duce of Vulg. are 
 unsuitable to the context, which requires “ one near and 
 dear to us,” the 2°) of Targ.and Pesh. The Vulg. is the 
 only Vers. which has literally translated the next words: 
 “ab ea, quae dormit in sinu tuo.” The LXX, ἀπὸ τῆς 
 συγκοίτου cov, the Pesh., “ Et ab uxore tua,’ and the 
 Tare., “ab uxore foederis tui,” are all euphemisms. The 
 Vulg. also compares favourably with the rest in its 
 treatment of the final words: “ custodi claustra oris tui” 
 preserves the natural image of keeping guard over the 
 doors of the mouth, i.e. the lips. °3% of Targ. and Pesh. 
 is a feeble substitution of the literal for the figurative, not 
 to be accounted for as the result of an endeavour to obtain 
 a noun corresponding better to the verb. And φύλαξαι 
 τοῦ ἀναθέσθαι τι αὐτῇ of the LXX comes from the mis- 
 taken view that in Y75 the infin. occurs. 
 
 V.6. No alteration. 
 
 Aiming at symmetry the Pesh. put the suffix pronoun 
 after “father ”’: none of the other Verss. did so. The 
 Lond. Polgy., following ὦ, begins this verse with the 
 simple IN: another recension is represented by a and r 
 which add NIT NIVYVI. The Targ. specializes the mean- 
 ing of MP by using NMI, “ wrangles with,”’ and in the 
 next clause adds a verb, NPD in J, Mp in 7, ΝΡ Nopnn 
 in a: of these Mp9 is a Hebraizing of NPD, a is a con- 
 fluence of two alternative renderings, and 4, the fem. part. ᾿ 
 Aph. of 5°), is probably original. The LXX text of the 
 final clause is somewhat uncertain: B has ἐχθροὶ πάντες 
 
of the Book of Micah. {71 
 
 > \ Lie | lal yy > a 3 ΄ ς» ers 25 y 
 ἀνδρὸς οἱ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ avTod; A ex. πάν, οἱ ἀν. οἱ ἐν τῷ οἴκ. 
 αὖτ. : Ar. agrees with A; Jer. has the simpler “inimici 
 hominis viri domestici ejus,’ and this is like the quota- 
 tion, St. Matt. x. 36, καὶ ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ οἰκιακοὶ 
 ὑτοῦ : th iginal probably was éy. ἀνδρὸς οἱ ἐν τῷ οἵκ 
 αὐτοῦ : the original probably was ἐχ. ἀνδρὸς ὦ οἴκ. 
 αὖτ. : this was strengthened by the addition to ἐχ. of 
 πάντες, which did not interfere with ἀνδρὸς in B, but in 
 A’s exemplar ἄνδρες, having been written by mistake, has - 
 naturally been put after οἱ and the second οἱ added. 
 
 V.7. No alteration. 
 
 6 and 7 begin the verse in precise accordance with the 
 Heb. a has the Ν᾽) WN with which v. 1 also opens. 
 For ΓΤ the usual %T VDD is found here. Whilst 
 the other Verss. correctly render MDSX and MTR, the 
 Targ. has YIAN and YITN. The explanation is to be found 
 in two facts. On the one hand a comparison of such 
 passages as Isa. xliv. 23, xlix. 13, lu. 9, Ixi. 10, shows 
 that YI and YT were used as synonyms for translating 
 such verbs of rejoicing as D7, &e. On the other hand 
 the Targumist was unfamiliar with the precise idea ex- 
 pressed in our verse, an idea quite suitable to the context, 
 and was misled by his familiarity with the passages where 
 rejoicing in Ged is the theme; the Targ. on Hab. i. 18 
 contains the very words employed here %T N32 NIN} 
 MPVS Day NTN yIN yIN. 
  LXX, Pesh. and Vulg. treat ‘yu? ὙΠΟΝ as though the 
 first word were OVX and the second in apposition to 
 it: so also at Ps. xxv. 5: at Hab. iii. 18 the LXX and 
 Pesh. do so, but the Vulg. has “ in Deo Jesu meo,” and in 
 
172 The Massoretic Text 
 
 the note on our passage Jerome puts “ sive Jesum meum.” 
 At Ps. xxv. 5 the Ar. forsakes its model and renders 
 according to the Heb. The Pesh., characteristically, puts 
 “and” before the final clause. 
 
 V.8. No alteration. 
 
 6 has PINN, ὦ PIAN, r 9 ἹΠΠΠ : the original no 
 doubt is found ina; ὦ is a scribe’s error; 7 15 defective 
 and its 73) , which it has in common with the first Vene- 
 tian Edition and Levita, is clearly a late addition. ΔΝ 
 here and at v. 10 is cited by Chwolson* as one of the 
 examples of the ancient participial fem. ending -. 
 None of the Verss. treat it as such, and the suffix furnishes 
 a much more suitable meaning both here and at v. 10 
 than the bare “O enemy” would supply. And it is 
 to be observed that the other examples which he gives 
 differ from ΣΝ not only in that some or all of the 
 Verss. rightly understood them as participles, but also in 
 that they are all followed by an infin. or a direct object or 
 a preposition, whereas this word has no such accompani- 
 ment, and if it were meant for the participle would neces- 
 sarily cause ambiguity: at 2 Kings iv. 23 the Verss. re- 
 garded ‘D971 as partic. and it is followed by YON; at Isa, 
 1,21] LXX and Vulg., not Targ. and Pesh., took it as 
 partic. and it is followed by ODWi; at Hosea x. 11 Pesh. 
 and Targ., not LXX and Vulg., took ‘AMX as partic. 
 and it is followed by WIT9; at Jer. xxii. 23 all the Verss. 
 took Δ)", which is followed by 1293, and ΣΡ, which 
 
 * Hebraica, 1890, p. 108. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 173 
 
 is followed by OYN, as participles; and at Jer. li. 13, 
 where the Verss. recognise the partic. in ΣΦ, it has 
 DAT DvD OY after it. 
 
 The LXX, Vulg. and Targ. have failed to perceive 
 the parallelism and force of the two °D: ὅτι πέπτωκα is 
 made the cause of the rejoicing, and the second ὃ is ren- 
 dered doubly by διότι ἐὰν ; similarly the Vulg.: “Ne 
 laeteris, inimica mea, super me, quia cecidi: consurgam, cum 
 sedero &c.” ; and the Targ. has 7 in the first place and 
 IN in the second. The Pesh. perceived the parallelism but 
 did not succeed in expressing the force, using » and 30. 
 Before ἀναστήσομαι the LXX put καὶ and, for a like reason, 
 to bring the verb into its necessary prominence, the Pesh. 
 has .50Z. ‘The tigurative “ when I sit in darkness”’ is 
 baldly turned into prose in the Targ. NOApAITD HLT ἽΝ: 
 The noun V8, in the Vulg. dua, in the other Verss. is 
 represented by a verb: they can scarcely have thought. 
 they had a verb before them, seeing that the Hiph. would 
 have been required, but they have given the sense. The 
 rendering by φωτισμός at Ps. xxvii. 1, where Vulg. has 
 illuminatio, shows that the noun was known. 
 
 V.9. No alteration. 
 
 Corresponding to 8°23 ἼΩΝ of v. 1 and in a of νυ. 7, the 
 Tare. begins this verse Dow AVN, to which a, by a 
 copyist’s error, adds DD. Its perfect map perverts the 
 meaning: its OV yD and OT are familiar methods of 
 avoiding expressions that might seem to bring God unduly 
 near to man’s level: like mZoaSo of the Pesh. its 019 is 
 used by metonymy of effect for cause, and is chosen, as are 
 
174 The Massoretic Text 
 
 the expressions just named, from a sense of reverence. 
 These two Verss. recognise the force of the preposition in 
 ἹΣΡΊΝΔ : in the next verse the LXX and Vulg. also bring 
 out its meaning. A and B of LXX have καὶ before 
 ἐξάξει: Jerome has it before ὄψομαι also: in the Sixtine 
 text of tle Vulg. the Heb. asyndeta are followed, but in 
 the Comm. δέ is found (probably under the influence of 
 the accompanying translation of the LXX) both with 
 educat and with widebo: Pesh. has it before both verbs: 
 Targ. follows M. T.: Baer and Delitzsch have a note 
 which shows that the Heb. text came under the same kind 
 of influence :—* ΠΝ ΝΣ E 1. 3. habent NN) repugnante 
 Masora, quae hane vocem quinque a Vau copul, incipien- 
 tibus non adnumerat.” ἀποίσει of A, not followed by Ar., 
 
 is a transcriber’s error. 
 
 V.10. No alteration. 
 
 LXX and Vulg. have read DDN and taken Wl as 
 accus. The Targ. and Pesh. agree with M.T. Usage, 
 and the sense of the passage, are rather in favour of the 
 latter. The order of the words, predicate, object, and subject, 
 which has been adhered to in the Targ. and Pesh., may 
 have contributed to mislead the LXX. ‘7) of ὁ, as 
 against JT of a, is no doubt correct: YI WW in r 
 exhibits the added 197. A, Ar. and Jer. have πρός pe, 
 which is not found in B. It may have been omitted 
 from the original LXX, YN being so like the next word 
 YN, and afterwards inserted under the influence of the 
 Heb. For JON 77) YN the Targ. has “ Where art 
 thou that art redeemed by the Word of Jahweh thy God 7?” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 175 
 
 Judging from this, compared with Jer. 11. 6, 8 and Joel 
 ii, 17, it would seem that the Targumist on the Prophets 
 avoids a question which would imply the possibility of 
 Jahweh’s absence. This is not the case in the Poetical 
 Books, e.g. Ps. xlii, 3, 10, Ryssel, unnecessarily, gives 
 IN a pregnant sense, “ Wo ist, dass du erlost wirst &e.” 
 The usage in the other passages shows that we need not 
 adopt this. For ΠΣ AYNW the LXX has ἐπόψονται 
 avinv, Vulg. “videbunt in eam,’ and the Targ. 
 *anbpD2 wm. The Pesh. has 5, like the Heb., and the 
 Polyg. translator of 1t introduces “ laeti ”’, which ve might 
 with equal propriety have used in v. 9. 
 
 V. 11. No alteration. 
 
 There can be no hesitation in following M. T., Tare., 
 Pesh. and Vulg. in their treatment of the first half of this 
 verse: they only differ in unimportant particulars, and the 
 sense they give recommends itself, whereas the LXX is 
 an impossible statement. But it is by no means easy to 
 see how the LXX translation arose. For ἼΥ2 ma? ov 
 it has ἡμέρα + ἀλοιφῆς πλίνθου ἐξαλειψίς σου, and it takes 
 the next words into this clause, +7 ἡμέρα ἐκείνη. For 
 nya? they must have read 229 and looked on this as 
 the plu. of m2, although p25 is the regular form ; 
 “the day of bricks”’ has then been interpreted as “ the 
 day when the bricks are used for building by having 
 mortar spread upon them,” and this particular word for 
 
 * δ PANDA, α and v (NANDA. 
 t+ ἡμέρας ot A can only bea copyist’s error, and the omission of ἡ 
 np. ex. by Jerome’s LXX is in all probability an emendation. 
 
L7@ The Massoretic [ext 
 
 expressing it, adoupy, has been chosen because of the 
 ἐξαλειψίς which follows; for J’) it is possible that 
 some other word, 77), YT) or YI] may have been read, 
 but there is no binding necessity co assume this. The 
 Vulg. is “ Dies, ut aedificentur maceriae tuae” : the Targ. 
 ΣῪ NOWID PIM NRW NII: the Pesh. “ Dies 
 est reficiendi macerias tuas’”?: Symm. ἡμέρα τοῦ οἰκοδο- 
 μῆσαι TOUS φραγμούς σου. 
 
 ΓΓΤΡΙΤ xw7 Ὁ). It is much more in accordance 
 with the genius of the Heb. language to make this 
 a separate clause than to treat it as the LXX, which 
 begins with the first DY of the verse and makes the 
 clause end with this NIT DY. And the words as 
 they stand give a tolerable sense: “On the day of the 
 building of thy walls the boundary shall be ex- 
 tended.” The Pesh. omits pm and renders as though 
 pm were the verbal form: ‘it is the day when thou 
 shalt be carried away.” But we can scarcely delete the 
 word on its authority or because of the possibility that it 
 may be a mere reduplication of the final letters of pm: 
 the other Verss. all bear witness in its favour, and 
 Jerome’s testimony to it as a fully-established reading 
 amongst the Jews is very clear: “αὖ Symmachus et 
 Theodotio interpretati sunt, dicentes, ἐπιταγὴν καὶ πρόσ- 
 ταγμα. . . . Hoe 5101 Judaei usque hodie pollicentur, et, in 
 eo loco, in quo nos exposuimus: 7 die illa longe fiet lex, 
 sicut nobis visum est et sicut prudentiores eorum disserunt 
 ἄς. The words of Symm., thus referred to, are: ἐν τῇ 
 ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ μακρὰν ἔσται ἡ ἐπιταγή. The Targ. has: 
 “in tempore illo irrita fient decreta gentium.” This 
 
| 
 
 of the Book of Micah. 177 
 
 may be from pp, but it is not absolutely necessary to 
 suppose that they had not pM before them. The LXX 
 καὶ ἀποτρίψεται νόμιμά σου ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη takes in the 
 first words of the next verse in place of the words properly 
 belonging to this clause and standing at the head of it. 
 The plu. νόμ. and the pron. gov are obviously renderings 
 according to what was deemed the sense, like the ἐξαλειψίς 
 which precedes and the decreta gentium of the Targ.: if 
 ἀποτρίψεται of B is genuine it must have originated, in 
 ppt being mistakenly’ read. But there is considerable 
 difference between the form of PM and that of pT; A 
 
 -has ἀπώσεται which in any case is a correction occasioned 
 
 by reference to the Heb. and apparently is found in Jerome’s 
 ΤΙΧΧ which he renders “repellet ”’; but the Ar. read its 
 LXX as ἀποτρέψεται, and if this be the original reading 
 there is no need to assume any other verb than pM). Aq. 
 and Theod. agree with the LXX in joining NT DV to 
 Ppa: the former has μακρυνθήσεται ἡ ἀκρισία τῆς 
 nuepas ἐκείνης and the latter μακρυνεῖ πρόσταγμα ἡ ἡμέρα 
 ἐκείνη. 
 
 V. 12. For ΝΒ. ‘yi read Wd Ti, and for Wt 
 read 77D. : 
 
 Wwe D> ND Py NXwov. The LXX, as we 
 have just seen, is in error in attaching the first two words 
 tov. 11. The rest it renders καὶ ai πόλεις σου ἥξουσιν εἰς 
 ὁμαλισμὸν καὶ εἰς διαμερισμὸν ᾿Ασσυρίων. For TY they 
 read JY, and Ryssel is unquestionably right in saying 
 that they vocalized "010? and supplied the ? before TWX, 
 treating this letter as infin. Pi., and rendering it by εἰς 
 
 N 
 
178 The Massoretic Text 
 
 ὁμαλισμὸν. He is also correct in his account of the εἰς 
 συγκλεισμὸν, in conclusionem, which Jerome had, and 
 several MSS, have retained: it is a translation of "22 
 Ws), and has found its way into the wrong place. The 
 Syro-Hexaplar Vers. would seem to indicate* that “Acov- 
 piwy was not in the original LXX text, but came in later 
 from the other Greek translators. The Vulg. literally 
 renders the M. T., “In die ila et usque ad te veniet de 
 Assur.” The Targ. is also a free rendering of the M. Τ᾿ 
 TNR JOT ND WWII NAT NITY. the verb being 
 put in the plu., as so often in the Targ., and as the LXX 
 and a various reading of the Heb. preserved in the Massora, 
 “WWI PVA”, The Pesh. is in substantial agreement 
 with the Heb., except that it read JAY for TTY as at iv. 8. | 
 
 WS MPI. LXX καὶ ai πόλεις cov ai ὀχυραὶ. Vulg., 
 as if ‘12 Y Ti, “et usque ad civitates munitas,” The 
 Pesh., “et ab urbibus munitis,” inserts the very oppo- 
 site preposition, but resembles the Vulg. in feeling that 
 a preposition is wanted. The Targ. differs from the LXX 
 only in not inserting cov, which in the LXX is due to the 
 influence of the first clause. There can be no doubt that 
 Ges., Fuerst, Delitzsch and others are right in holding 
 “WS! to mean Lower Egypt. A specification of place is 
 wanted to correspond with “ Assyria,’ and our word should 
 be rendered ‘“‘ Egypt ” here and in the next clause, as well 
 as at 2 Kings xix. 24, Isa. xix. 6. In the next clause 
 “1819 9299) has been very variously handled. The Targ. 
 has treated “23 in the same way as at Jer. 11. 27, taking it 
 
 
 
 
 
 * When Ryssel says it proves this he is exaggerating. 
 
of the Book of Mwah. 179 
 
 to mean Armenia, “δ yD), and has added the 
 epithet 827: before W879 it, like the Vulg., “et a civi- 
 tatibus munitis,” has supplied the y of the foregoing 
 clause, and has varied its rendering so as to get almost the 
 very letters of the text, NVS °P). The LXX has eis 
 διαμερισμὸν ἀπὸ Tvpov. The Pesh. follows this so far as 
 the proper name is concerned, “et a Tyro:” the best 
 commentary on these is supplied by Jerome’s note: 
 “Sciamus in Hebraeo.scriptum esse Masor: quod verbum 
 si in praepositionem ma, et nomen sor, dividatur, de 
 Tyro intelligitur; sin autem unus sermo sit, munitionem 
 sonat. Denique omnes περιοχὴν, καὶ περίφραγμα, Kat 
 πολιορκίαν, non de Tyro ut LXX sed munitionem et 
 ambitum muratae urbis transtulerunt.” 
 
 B and Jer., Pesh. and Vulg. follow the M.T. WaT))- 
 The Targ., familiar with the view* that the Euphrates is 
 “the river,’ has N75 Ty). In some MSS. of the LXX 
 a like explanation was given by Συρίας being put into the 
 margin, and this has found its way into the text of A, 
 ποταμοῦ Συρίας. No clearer evidence of the origin of 
 this reading could be afforded than that supplied by the 
 fact that in the text which the Ar. translated the word 
 has got into the wrong place at the very end of the verse. 
 
 377 ΠῚ OY DY. Not finding ")22 here the Targ. 
 has treated all these words as under the government of 
 the foregoing Ty): OD it has explained in the very com- 
 mon acceptation of one of the points of the compass, 
 
 * e.g. 1 Kings iv. 24: at 2 Sam. viii. 3, the Kethib has 97J), but 
 the Qeri adds JV), like the Targ. here. 
 
 x 2 
 
180 The Massoretic Text 
 
 NII NOY, and the last words it varies from only in 
 using the plu. constr., N12 0). B and Jer. render 
 καὶ ἀπὸ ban. ἕως θαλ., καὶ ἀπὸ ὄρους ἕως τ. o., as though 
 the phrases were formed with the same regularity as those 
 earlier in the verse. The Vulg. is equally regular, but 
 takes the prepositions in reverse order, and renders as 
 though for W777 it had ὙΠ: “Et ad mare de mari, et ad 
 montem de monte.’? In A and the Ar. there is a double 
 rendering of the last words: after ἀπὸ τ. ὁ. ἕως τ. 0. comes 
 ἡμέρα ὕδατος καὶ θορύβου : some one perceived the un- 
 satisfactoriness of the ordinary rendering as compared with 
 the Heb. and wrote the above words in the marg. as an 
 alternative, believing, apparently, that the Heb. should be 
 yam Ov Di: this, as usual, found its way into the text. 
 The Pesh. has “Et a mari usque ad mare,” like the 
 LXX, but it vocalized the next words in accordance with 
 Num. xxxiv. 7, “et usque ad montem Hor.” 
 
 It is impossible to read this verse without coming to the 
 conclusion that the text is corrupt. Unfortunately the 
 Verss. help us very little, and lend scarcely any counte- 
 nance to the conjectural emendations which one is tempted 
 to make. The following arrangement involves perhaps 
 the minimum of change with the maximum of improve- 
 ment: D>) Ws TY) WN OS NID Py Nw oO, 
 (ha wm Ὁ OY ΠΣ ἸΡῚ Wy. We cannot adhere to 
 TY because it is impossible to make this noun the subject 
 to the verb “to come,” even if the plu. of the verb were 
 read, and it is impossible to treat it, in its present well- 
 authenticated position, as a terminus ad quem: we need not 
 read the plu. of the verb, the indefinite sing. being quite satis- 
 
of the Book of Micah. [81 
 
 factory: we can understand the perplexity caused to the 
 Verss. by ‘299 because of its rareness : we obtain an excellent 
 sense by altering Y to TY, “from Assyria even to Egypt,” 
 and the Vulg. shows its feeling that TY or TY is needed 
 here. We cannot, with Roorda, adopt the “ Mount Hor” 
 of the Pesh., seeing that the parallelism with DY OD’ has 
 some claim on us: and, although the preposition of motion 
 from precedes that of motion to in the other clauses, and 
 occupies the same place here in LXX and Pesh., this may 
 well have been a conformity intentionally brought about, 
 whereas a slight variation of this kind is quite natural and 
 here is testified to by Targ., Vulg. and the ἡμ. vd. «. θ. of 
 LXX. #7 and 25 are two letters which are frequently con- 
 founded with each other, and it is more natural to believe 
 that there has been such a confusion here than to 
 accept Hitzig’s view that the of Ὁ is felt, though not 
 expressed, in V7. 
 
 V.13. No alteration. 
 
 For σὺν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν αὐτήν of B and Ar. μετὰ τῶν 
 κατοικούντων αὐτῶν is found in A, the αὐτῶν being no 
 doubt a copyist’s error occasioned by the two previous 
 endings being των. The difference in the prepositions 15 
 due to 22) not being clearly understood, and we can see 
 in the other Verss. that some little difficulty was ex- 
 perienced on this account. The Pesh. has NS, making a 
 Dativus Incommodi. The Vulg. makes no distinction be- 
 tween it and the following yD, rendering both by propter. 
 LXX and Pesh. render 5 by the plu.; Vulg. and Targ. 
 by sing. But the Polyg. translator gives οὐ /ructus for 
 
182 The Massoretic Text 
 
 the latter. The translator of the Pesh. is also in error in 
 rendering this verse as a circumstantial clause, and in in- 
 serting 7//a : “ cum versa fuerit terra illa.”” There is no need 
 for either of these departures from the simple assertion 
 contained in the text. On ἐπιτηδεύματα, see 11. 7, 11. 4. 
 
 V.14. No alteration. 
 
 As inv. 7 @ again begins the verse with its rubric, 
 N21] VON. ἐν ράβδῳ σου is the original LXX, found 
 in Band Jer. Not satisfied with this rendering of ΠΣ 
 some one who knew Heb. wrote in the marg. φυλήν σου: 
 this came into the text of A, which Ar. follows, and its 
 cov led to the omission of the σου after ράβ. The nom. 
 ai ἡμέραι is somewhat surprising; we should have ex- 
 pected a recognition of the adv. accus. contained in 
 Dy %°D, especially when the next %°D is rendered κατὰ 
 τὰς ἡμέρας. Accordingly Field’s note is: “ Alia exempl. 
 κατὰ Tas ἡμέρας. Sic xii. (in marg.), 22, 23, 36, alii, 
 Hieron, Syro-hex.”’ The Pesh. is not content to let “2 J8¥ 
 stand in apposition to Jy, but inserts “and.” If our 
 present reading is correct, it substituted |N¥ for TY’, and 
 read 2. before it. Seboks remark is, “ Ich kann hier nur 
 wie auch 5, 7 {is in {SS verwandeln.” But the MSS. to 
 which reference has been made do not countenance this 
 change. Like the Targ. the Pesh. takes ‘33¥ predicatively, 
 rendering it by 3rd_plu. impf. ΑἹΙ the Verss. treat the 
 word as plu., but it is better to take it as sing. partie. 
 with the archaic .—see Ewald, ὃ 211, 4; Gesen. § 90, 
 3,a. A mase. partic., referring to the fem. JN¥, does not” 
 ‘surprise us: such constructions ad sensum are common. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 183 
 
 The Targ. and Pesh. agree in rendering }WA by 113; in 
 other passages of the Targ. this is the prevalent form, 
 but at Ps. Ixviii. 22 J2 occurs, and the Pesh., which 
 in several other places has the Heb. form .as>, there has 
 4ud Dus. We are reminded by these forms of the modern 
 El-Buttein. For JOIWA the Targ. substitutes ΤΠ 2, 
 and for the figurative JN¥ the literal NOY: after “ the 
 people of thine inheritance ” it adds as an adverbial quali- 
 fication of DIND the words “in the world which is about 
 to be renewed’’: the rest of the verse it renders, ‘‘ They 
 shall dwell alone who were scattered* in the wood, they 
 shall live in Carmel,* they shall pasture in the land of 
 Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old.” 
 
 The least satisfactory feature about the M. T. and also 
 the Verss. is the division of the clauses in this verse. ‘The 
 Targ. evades some of the difficulties by freely supplying 
 the verbs which it deems necessary : the Ar. and, it would 
 seem, Jerome’s LXX also, reduces the latter part of the 
 verse to an absurdity : “in medio Carmeli pascentur Ba- 
 sanitin et Galaaditin.” Cheyne’s arrangement of the 
 verse commends itself not only by the excellent sense 
 obtained in the latter half, but also because it avoids the 
 unwelcome order according to which 33 governs VY" yet 
 has 172? between itself and its object: the second half of 
 the verse begins at 1p’: “in the wood in the midst of 
 Carmel let them feed, in Bashan and Gilead as in the days 
 
 of old.” 
 
 
 
 * band r read NWN, a ‘ND: rv has DID, ὁ anda “DN 
 
184 The Massoretic Text 
 
 V.15. For 03898 read 93877. 
 
 To connect this more obviously with the last words of 
 v. 14the LXX and Pesh. begin with “and.” A, Band Ar. 
 do not render YN, and probably this omission is original : 
 before OSD the similar YIN would easily be dropped : 
 in Jerome’s LXX it had been inserted, probably through 
 reference to the Heb. The Pesh. had the plu. “days” 
 in v. 14 but has “day” here, to mark the one great 
 historic event. The Polyg. translator has rendered the 
 plu. of the Targ. by “ Juxta diem.” 
 
 In the second clause the imper. is required: it is the 
 continuation of the prayer begun in the former verse, the 
 results of the answer coming in the next. The two 3 are 
 thus coordinated, and the harshness of a sudden change to 
 an address of the people by God is avoided. In this con- 
 nection it is much more likely that Hs coming out of 
 Egypt should be mentioned than that ¢hkevrs should be 
 ‘ brought in, and there are many parallels to that thought. 
 The Targ. and Pesh. avoid it, using *}P5: they feared 
 to.seem anthropomorphic: for JININ they have PIN. 
 The LXX forsakes the Hiph. and employs the 2nd pers. 
 sing. plu. ὄψεσθε. Ewald, ὃ 122, a, and § 141, is of opinion 
 that 138% is original, and was a weakened form of )3N77 : 
 in a writer of Micah’s date this is doubtful, and JAN 
 should be restored. 
 
 * So band: in @ }\TPDID; the latter is less likely seeing that 
 Pesh. is @Q23. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 185 
 
 V. 16. For DIN read DIN). 
 
 This verse also begins with “‘and ” in the Pesh. for the 
 same reason as the preceding one. B has καταισχυνθήσον- 
 ται καὶ: A, Ar, and Jer. agree with M. T. in not having 
 καὶ, and it is doubtless a mistaken reading caused by the 
 rat of the verb. B has χεῖρας ἐπὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν ; so also 
 Ar. and Jer. ; A corrects according to the Heb. into χεῖρα 
 ἐπὶ o. avt. Targ. and Pesh. have “ their hands. . . their 
 mouth.” The Sixtine Vulg. has “ manum super os,” but 
 Cod. Amiat. has “ manus,” and the Comm. “ manus suas.” 
 None of these imply any other reading than our ΠΡ» TW: 
 they are fuller expressions of the sense. It is not easy to 
 understand how the Polyg. could have felt justified in 
 translating δ of the Pesh. by cum, “cum tota fortitudine 
 sua.” They seem to have wrongly interpreted the “might ”’ 
 as that of the heathen and therefore have done violence 
 to the word in question.* It is also a distinct fault in the 
 rendering of the Targ. that no note is taken of the ) before 
 NAINN: the Pesh. agrees with the Targ.in having the 
 conjunction, and A of the LXX has it. Baer and De- 
 litzsch’s note on the Heb. text runs: “ Lectionem Orien- 
 talium, qui} addunt, sequitur, ut solet, Chaldeus.”” And 
 there is some MS. authority for it: E 8 reads it and KE 2 
 likewise, “ sed adjiciens in margine, NPD (i.e. controver- 
 swum). Etiam in B prima manu scriptum erat “Νὴ attamen 
 Vav obliteratum.” It ought to be admitted into the text, 
 
 
 
 * In Jerome’s Comm. the same interpretation occurs: 7 omnt 
 fortitudine sua, qua vastaverant quondam et praevaluerunt adversus 
 populum Dei.” 
 
186 The Massoretic Text 
 
 for this is not one of the cases where asyndeton adds force ; 
 rather does it create obscureness. 
 
 V.17. No alteration. 
 
 For ὄφεις, which must be original, ὅφις was mistakenly 
 or through reference to the Heb. written in some MSS. 
 A and Ar. have the sing.; Jer. has the plu. The Ar. 
 escapes from the difficulty in which its sing. would other- 
 wise have placed it by employing for σύροντες a finite 
 verb parallel to λείξουσι. DM is not a common word, 
 and it did not appear probable to the LXX translator that 
 a second comparison would be likely to follow in which a 
 less specific word describing the same kind of creature 
 would be used. He therefore took '8 ‘SMD as being in 
 apposition to ΤΙΣ and did not think it needful to render 
 the 3. But the second clause begins much better with 
 2, which thus gets its own verb; the other Verss. support 
 this, and the Pesh., after its manner, marks off the new 
 clause by “‘and.” For ὉΠ ΠΟ the ordinary MSS. of 
 the LXX followed by Ar. have ἐν συγκλεισμῷ αὐτῶν; 
 Jer. ἐν συγκλεισμοῖς av’t. The Vulg. has “in aedibus 
 suis.” ‘Targ. and Pesh. retain the 9. which certainly is 
 original: ἸΏ 117 means “to flee trembling from,” and 
 this is a much more picturesque image than “to tremble 
 in.’ With reference to the plu. ovyx. found in Jer., 
 there can be no doubt that it isan emendation made for 
 the sake of conformity to the Heb.: at the same time it 
 is not probable that the LXX read the Heb. as sing.: 
 it is using a collective in place of a plu. The Pesh. word, 
 (ON dade , “paths,” is used also by the Pesh. as a 
 
of the Book of Micah. 187 
 
 rendering of the same word at 2 Sam. xxi. 46, Ps. xvin. 
 46: at the latter place it is noteworthy that the LXX 
 has ἀπὸ τῶν τρίβων and the Vulg. “a semitis”: at 
 2 Sam. xxii. 46, on the other hand LXX is ἐκ τῶν 
 συγκλεισμῶν and Vulg. “in angustiis.” There is a 
 singular rendering of the first clause of this verse in the 
 Tare., ΝΠ. NYIN Sy WSN Dy pmonw. Were they 
 ashamed to reproduce the inexact statement that serpents 
 lick the dust? Ifso they have substituted for the figure 
 the fact which corresponds to it. In such passages as Isa. 
 xlix. 23, Ps. lxii. 9, where there is no reference to the 
 serpent, they reproduce the Heb. ἼΠΡ. 
 
 In the second half of the verse the Pesh. is peculiar in 
 commencing with “and ” as well as in omitting the closing 
 3212: with the former procedure we are very familiar ; 
 the latter is no doubt due to their unwillingness to use 
 the second pers. of the Being who in the same clause has 
 been spoken of in the third pers. Like the Pesh. the 
 Tare. here avoids the use of ON with the verb of fearing, 
 in fact it renders both the 9X and the J by DIP 12: it 
 is observable that at Hosea iii. 5 they do not seem quite 
 at home with this construction, MIN YIN) being 
 ren lered by them "7 ΝΎΞ) PTI and L,scds πιο. 
 The inexact WON) PIDN for INV IND reminds 
 us of ] Sam. xvii. 11, where 387 1 is rendered 
 NT MANN. 
 
 V.18. No alteration. 
 The Targ., as well as the Pesh., turns the question with 
 which the verse opens by a negative assertion, though 
 
188 The Massoretic Text 
 
 not in quite the same way, the former having, “ There is 
 none beside Thee, Thou art the God who forgivest &c. ;” 
 the latter, “There is none, O God, like Thee, who 
 forgivest ἄς," On this method of procedure, see note to 
 v. 10. ἀνομίας (or as A has it ἀδικίας), ἀσεβειας. τοῖς 
 καταλοίποις, are the plurals for collective singulars of 
 which we have met so many; the Targ., too, has P2IN 
 and ἢ). The Pesh. alone renders as though for 72Y the 
 Hiph. were to be read: ‘‘ He removeth the transgression.” 
 The Vulg. alone has tuae, keeping to the second pers. 
 because of the “ Quis Deus similis ¢wz Κ᾽ LXX and Pesh., 
 as so frequently, begin the second half of the verse with 
 “and.” The LXX_ vocalizes Ty? εἰς μαρτύριον : the 
 sense of the expression might have been expected to 
 prevent this. Jerome’s note is: ‘ Ubi nos interpretati 
 sumus, zon immittet ultra furorem suum; pro ultra, Sym- 
 machus transtulit, 7 sempiternum; Theodotio, om finem: 
 Septuaginta et Quinta Editio, iz testimonium: pro quo 
 positum est in Hebraeo Lazp.”” This shows that his own 
 somewhat peculiar “ultra” is not from any other word 
 than that in the M. T., and the explanation of its employ- 
 ment is to be found in the verb “ immittet’?? which it 
 modifies: “‘ non immittet ultra” is another way of putting 
 “ He will not retain forever.” There is no need to render 
 the Tare. NWT rand 4, as Ryssel does: he takes “O'R 
 as meaning “das gottgewollte Thun der Menschen”: 
 “ς placet ei beneficia conferre” is much better. And there 
 ean be little doubt that in harmony with this the Pesh. 
 here is, as in Lond. Polyg., |Zomsg, not {Zoms2; 
 “ beneficence” is much more in place than “ penitence.” 
 
of the Book of Micah. 189 
 
 Sebok says: “Die P. Ausgabe von Lee. 1823, liest. 
 Ler; Ἰ2Ζοξι :δϑ,» δι δο: es ist wohl [Zonal zu lesen. 
 Die Verderbniss ist entweder in Folge einer phonetischen 
 Tauschung entstanden, oder dadurch, dass der untere Theil 
 des 4 ‘verwischt war (vgl. P. zu TOM im letzter Verse 
 &e.).” In the last verse we have J. 
 
 V.19. No alteration. 
 
 A begins this verse with αὐτός, a rendering of the NIT 
 at the end of v. 18, and the Ar. which ends that 
 verse with sx, commences this with 9.9. Roorda holds 
 that αὐτός belongs to the original text of the LXX: it is 
 more likely that it was a later addition due to some one 
 who did not see that NT had already been translated by 
 ἐστίν. Almost of necessity the LXX, which is followed 
 by Pesh. and Vulg., inserts καὶ before οἰκτειρήσε:, but the 
 καὶ before καταδύσει which is found in A, the Pesh. and 
 the Targ., not in Ar. or Jer., is not required. These 
 first words 1) 72}" WlAd iT AW are enlarged by the 
 Targ. into NID Sy was Νοῦν xomd ADD AM 
 mv. For ‘sy ‘Dd the Pesh. is ses MOD 1201210, 
 This, if correct, must have originated in a deliberate adoption 
 of W3D, the Aramean form of the ordinary Heb. DJ5 , in pre- 
 ference to 22 for the sake of suitableness to the next 
 clause: the sins are first gathered together, and then cast 
 into the sea. Ryssel and Sebdk accept this. It is, how- 
 ever, to be noted that at Jer. xxxiv. 16 and Zech. ix. 15, 
 the Pesh. has δῷ. 
 
 B has the grammatically impossible καὶ ἀποῤῥιφήσονται 
 els TA βάθη τῆς θαλάσσης πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, and 
 
190 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Jer. supports this. A, several other MSS., the Syro-hex. 
 in textu, and the Ar. have ὠποῤῥίψεει, which no doubt is 
 original, ἀποῤῥιφήσονται having arisen from ἀποῤῥιψει 
 εἰς Ta, or else having been a marginal reading, written 
 first by some one who perceived that the 8rd per. sing. 
 did not accord with his Heb. text, and afterwards finding 
 its way into B withcut effecting the needful alteration to 
 πάσαι αἱ ἂμ. The latter is the more probable explanation. 
 The remaining Verss. agree with the LXX, both as to the 
 person of the verb and as to that of the suffix pron., except 
 that the Targ. has ONT NOT. This exception suffices 
 to show that the Targ. read with the Μ. 1. DONON, and 
 I think we are bound to adhere to this as well as to 
 JOwM: it is much more likely that the Verss. have 
 departed from the Heb. text for the sake of conformity 
 with the foregoing words, than that the reverse change has 
 been made in the Heb. And, on the other hand, the 
 whole of the passage from v.17 to v. 20 is so full of alterna- 
 tions from predications concerning God to direct addresses 
 to Him that we can feel no surprise at the second person 
 here. The suffix of the 3rd pers. in DANOM may also be a 
 preparation for the 3rd perss., Jacob and Abraham, which 
 immediately follow. With regard to the form of the 
 verb, E 3 writes wm), and the Massora Parva confirms 
 this, noting ours as the only place where the word is 
 written defectively. The Vulg. “ profundum” has no 
 doubt come from Mx having been written without 
 vowel letters: at Zech. x. 11, where 1993) is found in 
 the M. T. as compared with ΓΝ here, the Vulg. is pro- 
 funda: but it is to be observed that Jerome’s LXX is 
 
of the Book of Micah. IgI 
 
 here rendered by him profwadum, and there profunda. 
 Curiously the Targ. Py is translated profundum in the 
 Polyg. of our passage. 
 
 V. 20. No alteration. 
 
 If our present LXX text, which is supported by Jer. 
 and Ar., is correct, the verb which opens this verse was 
 altered like ὙΠ from the second to the third pers., and 
 for the same reason. But this alteration is not followed 
 by the other Verss. It is, however, not at all unlikely 
 that the δώσεις which is found in some codices* is original: 
 δώσει εἰς ἀλήθειαν is a curious expression and may easily 
 have come by mistaken transcription from δώσεις ἀλ.: 
 there is no preposition before ἔλεον corresponding to the 
 eis: and the sec. pers. @uwooas follows at once. The 
 καθότι of LXX and ΝῺ of Targ. is a very natural way of 
 treating TWN, and does not imply a reading ΝΘ. The 
 2" of M. T. and the other Verss. is more suitable than 
 the 2°) which the LXX seem to have read. 
 
 The Targumist takes the opportunity of rounding off 
 the work by bringing in as fully as possible the history 
 of the fathers, the oath at Beth-El, the Covenant made 
 when Abraham divided (12 Gen. xv. 10) the animals of 
 the sacrifice into pieces, the binding (JPY Gen. xxi. 9) of 
 Isaac preparatory to his being offered. All these go to 
 form the treasury of merits which Israel may plead before 
 God: “Thou wilt give the truth of Jacob to his sons as 
 
 * 92, 23, 36, alii.”,—Fiedd. Ag. Symm. and Theod. also have 
 2nd pers. . 
 
192 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Thou didst swear unto him in Beth-El, the kindness* of 
 Abraham to his seed after him, as Thou didst swear to 
 him between the pieces. Thou wilt remember on our 
 behalf the binding of Isaac who was bound upon the © 
 altar* before Thee. Thou wilt perform with us tbe 
 kindnesses* which Thou didst swear to our fathers from 
 the days of old.” 
 
 * qahas FD) but ὁ and “tq: ὦ hax NOD Δ) a andr omit 
 Δ): ὦ adds NOD wp) . In all three cases the shorter reading is 
 
 to be preferred. 
 
of the Book of Micah. 193 
 
 LIST OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS. 
 
 Chap.i. 5. For M22 read ND NON 
 7. For M¥ap read 483) 
 9. For pl] read AYI2 
 10. For 132 read 123 
 Chap. 1. 2. For WN) read WR 
 4. For ὝΝ 72 ὙΠ 772 read WN? ὙΠ) ΠΤ: 
 for 2° read 2’; for Ὁ read 19 
 6. For ἩΞ Θ᾽ read 2: prefix 5 to the ND 
 of the last clause: for 10° read 3D° 
 7. For WoNid read ONT: for pn WAT read 
 190 Ww 
 8. Write 2 ΓΝ: for Ὁ Ρ) read Dip: for TIN 
 read IN: for Ww either AW or ‘AV 
 9. For W) read °N'W3 
 10. For 5am) 2aNM read 920 Yan 
 12. For ΓῚΣΞ read T7382 
 Chap. iii, 8. For ‘Oy INU DN read DN WY INV: 
 for WWND read ἽΝ 
 6. For NDWA read TIWN 
 10. For 723 read 0'2 
 
194 The Massoretic Text 
 
 Chap. iv. 8. Omit TAND 
 18. For ‘WOU read MIN 
 
 Chap. v. 1. For YS ISN read VYST TBR: omit 
 ni 
 3. For ἯΙ) read 11" and attach it to the 
 middle clause of the verse. 
 4, For ΝΣ TWN read WWN ΝΥ 
 ὅ. For NDA read MNP 
 12. & 18. These should be read as one verse, as 
 follows :— 
 
 TWH AYA PMD PPD AIM 
 Ty Mey) Ty MAAN?) TIP? 
 
 Chap. vi. 9. For JW ANY Mwan) read NP TWAIN 
 Wow 
 11. ADIN need not be altered, but it is another 
 form of 2? 
 
 16. For ὯΝ read DVY 
 
 Chap. vii. 8, For 29? read 12%) 
 12. For isd Wi read WD Wi: for WN 
 read Wid | 
 15. For 13898 read 3807 
 16. For DPIN read DIN 
 
of the Book of Micah. 195 
 
 LIST OF ALTERATIONS FOR WHICH A FAIR DEGREE 
 OF PROBABILITY MAY BE CLAIMED. 
 
 Chap. 1. 5. DN for MxXxon 
 i. 8. ΠΣ) OW is probably an early gloss. 
 iv. 14. 1 for OY 3 
 vi. 5. Before ὈΘΨΦΙΤ insert ΔΨ ΠῚ 
 16. 7798) for WAU 
 vil. 4. IDIDDD for MDD and PPX for TDs 
 

 
a 
 
 we amily 
 
 
 
us wis \ 
 
 
 

 

 
 RR rt se 
 
 PRINTED | IN U.S.A. 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 BS1615.8 .T24 
 The Massoretic text and the ancient 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-S 
 
 peer Library 
 
 1 1012 00055 0303 
 
 er 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bete T AC eee