Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2002 by Cuffey, Kenneth H

I also commend the agnostic stance adopted regarding the development of the book. The authors remain skeptical of claims that seem to go too far beyond the evidence and analyze the limits of what can be claimed based on the data (e.g. in their treatment of the work of Shaw: C. Shaw, The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis [JSOTSup 145; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993], on pp. 24-27, 104). They struggle to reconstruct the historical background (e.g. pp. 7-14). Yet they still outline a modest reconstruction of the development of the book. They suggest that 2:12-13 and 4:10, "which anticipate exile to Babylon and subsequent return," might have been incorporated into the book after or during the exile. However, the authors balance this by being "open to the possibility that Babylon was part of the prophets' world map even in the eighth century" (p. 11). Andersen and Freedman hold a view of prophecy that admits the possibility that Micah was in error. Regarding 5:4-5, they assert that Micah expected an Assyrian invasion, which, of course, did occur. Thereupon a new Davidic ruler would defeat the forces of occupation, and then conquer Assyria and beyond. If "5:1-5 is an eighth-century prophecy that the outcome of menacing Assyrian imperialism would be the fresh creation of David's empire, then it was not fulfilled. Israel never conquered Assyria" and the prophecy would be reinterpreted as a reference to the end time (p. 481; cf. p. 11).

Plausible explanations are offered for why certain features of the text are as they are, such as the treatment of the lack of situation-stories in the text of Micah, which would provide evidence for the early recording of Micah's oracles. Evidently the audience did not need these historical specifications to make sense of the oracle, because they shared the circumstances that the oracle addressed. In subsequent years, the oracles of Micah were evidently written down soon, since no situation-stories that explain the background were reserved. Only if the oracles had been put into written form much later would those stories have been added to explain the setting to a generation that would not have known (cf. pp. 105-6). The authors are critical in their evaluation of much traditional historical-critical scholarship on the prophets (e.g. pp. 106-7). It is excellent that Andersen and Freedman make use of much of the recent work done on Micah using synthetic, holistic approaches to the text. I only would wish that they had provided even more comprehensive interaction with the new and creative work being done from these perspectives. Their caution in drawing applications for today is recommendable (p. 107).

The book reflects years of labor and thought. It is an indication of the magnitude of the shifts taking place in the study of the prophets as well. We can be grateful for Andersen and Freedman's investment of significant time to engage and elucidate the text of Micah.

Kenneth H. Cuffey

The Christian Studies Center, Urbana, IL